Thursday, October 29, 2009
SASUKE vs. Wipeout
In this recession, it will be one of big profits to be paid copyright fee espacially from outside of country. TBS expressed their indignation among publics. This is rare case that Japanese media station has sued American media coporation.
This was an interesting article for me, that Japanese media corporation has sued one of major American media company. I agree with TBS's points, but not sure that this arguement will be taken as a copyright infringment. This issue has claimed in beginning of this October, so we must keep an eye on this issue during this class session, and see what is going to happen.
What do you think?
Sasuke http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YngvJENBfBI
Wipeout http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLLYiz_80-4
"Court Dismisses Rather Suit Against CBS"
"his contract had been breached by CBS management and his reputation had been
unfairly tarnished by the network's handling of an investigation into his report
on President George W. Bush's National Guard Record."
The appeals court chose to dismiss the suit against CBS saying,
"the motion court erred in denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the
claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and therefore we find
the complaint must be dismissed in its entitety."http://http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/court-dismisses-rather-suit-against-cbs/
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
E-SMOKING COMMERCIALS BANNED
In most parts of Europe, it is illegal to broadcast commercials for cigarette products. It looks like the European Union is trying to make anyone quit smoking by putting discouraging texts on the packages, aweful pictures of patients suffering from long cancer, and promoting tons of products that will help you quit smoking such as the nicotine gum.
However, it is illegal to broadcast commercials for the electronic cigarette. The court in Den Hague in the Netherlands dismissed the proposal of the company E-Smoking to liquidate the commercial prohibition in early 2008. Until the European Commission or the European Court of Justice decided whether the electric cigarette is a medicin or not, the judge thinks that a prohibition of commercials is fair.
Considering that smoking electric cigarettes are indeed more healthy than smoking regular cigarettes, the judges 'easy' dismissal actually seems ridiculous! Electric cigarettes only contain water vapor and are not damaging any vital organs in a persons' body. It is understandable that it has to be considered if it would be a medicin or not, but more important it is clear that it is a healthy replacement for the regular cigarette.
The spokesman of E-smoking comments that it is strange that it is okay for them to sell their products in thousands of stores, but that it is illegal for them to promote their product, "It is not even been mentioned that the E-cigarette is a medicin, so why is my product put in this category?"
E-Smoking is now coorperating with 'De Slimme Sigaret' (The Smart Cigarette) and other related companies to fight against the prohibiton of commercials of electric cigarette products.
NORTH FACE.....SOUTH BUTT
Mccurry vs mcdonald
McCurry defended by saying that the “Mc” prefix is an abbreviation of : “Malaysian Chicken Curry” and is not a copy of, or reference to, the well known McDonald’s “Mc” prefix. Also, McCurry argued that “Mc” as a prefix is used around the world in surnames (last names) especially by Scottish people (e.g. McGregor, McDoogle, etc…). On September 7, 2006 Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled in favour of McDonald’s and against McCurry. The court said that the “Mc” prefix is a household name among children and that McDonald’s had the exclusive right to the “Mc” prefix. The court ordered McCurry to pay damages to McDonald’s corporation. McCurry appealed the decision to a higher Court.On April 29, 2007 the Appeals Court of the Kuala Lumpur Court ruled it was wrong to assume that McDonald’s had a monopoly on the use of the “Mc” prefix and that McCurry could use the prefix. The Court ordered that McCurry could use the name. McDonald’s appealed the decision to Malaysia’s Federal Court.On September 7, 2009 the Federal Court asked the lawyers for McDonald’s to rewrite or rephrase the questions they had raised in their appeal because the Court said the questions were unclear. However, before the lawyers could re-write the questions, the next day on September 8, 2009, the Federal Court ruled that McDonald’s lawyers wrote the questions for appeal incorrectly and dismissed the case. This means that they allowed the ruling of April 29, 2007 to remain in effect. Now, in Malaysia, other restaurants can use the “Mc” prefix, as long as they serve different foods than McDonald’s because in Malaysia the “Mc” prefix is no longer protected.
This is the link
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/SE%2BAsia/Story/STIStory_426885.html
facebook accusing me of copyright infringement
The video in question is a demo reel of the user performing martial arts and acrobatics; and the audio is one (1) minute sample of Disco Connection by Isaac Hayes.
Facebook wants the user to either remove the video or get permission by the copyright holders to use the audio.
Will facebook, a private company in this case is only providing a vessel for the user to upload the video be in trouble for copyright infringement?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Twitter and Patent Infringement
TechRadium believes that Twitter's business model is founded on their patented communication model. There are similarities in the messaging system, but it appears that the argument will be that TechRadium's patent isn't "unique" enough. At the time filed, it was somewhat novel, but now it's considered obvious technology (Kravets).
I'll be interested to see how this falls out. Will Twitter win it's case by proving a lack of uniqueness of TechRadium's patent? Or, will TechRadium win it's suit that Twitter basically stole it's business model, but didn't pay licensing fees?
For more, read the following article: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/twitter-defends-tweetingmethod/
Trademarks, okay and not okay
A couple of examples of trademarks that did and didn't run into trouble. Several years ago a community theatre group, in a church basement, decided to call itself "The Other Fox". The management of the real Fox Theatre came down hard on them -- said the possibility of confusion with the Fabulous Fox was enough to infringe their trademark. At the very least, said the Fox people, someone might think The Other Fox was somehow affiliated with the Fabulous Fox. The Other Fox changed its name. (I wanted them to change it to "The Other Wolf", which I thought would leave them safe, but they didn't.)
The other example: "Wash U". It's a laundromat on Hampton Ave., and they not only use the name of that large university, but they use the same font found on the university's sweatshirts. But they've gotten away with it for at least ten years, probably because they successfully argued that no one was likely to mistake a laundromat for a university.