Recent Case Dealing with Copyright Infringement

Actually this dates back to October of 2009 but it's interesting and appropriate being that Chapter 6 is what we would be going over tomorrow if class was in session which focuses on copyright laws.

This case is interesting though because it deals with a a company, Excel Research, giving students the go ahead to copy a program only if it was for educational use but it's sounds like they failed to get permission from the publishers. The passage I found with this case is found on the link below.

http://counsel.cua.edu/Copyright/cases/cases.cfm

On page 257 in the text it talks about safe harbors of copyright infringement where it talks of the Internet and gives the impression that if the reproduction of copyrighted material is not for monetary gain that it is not an infringement, if I read that correctly but this case kind of adds a different thought into that statement.

The courts in the case talked about in the link I posted, Blackwell Publishing v. Excel Research, make it sound like that the defense given by Excel Research was thrown out because they didn't get permission from Blackwell to let students copy the software because the rights belonged to them and not Excel. I thought that was an interesting factor to the dispute that even though Excel was making no profit for okaying the copying of the software they were still committing some violations against some copyright infringement laws.

Kirby copyright case and free speech

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/01/kirby-family-attorneys-respond-to-marvel-lawsuit/ Presents a new legal battle regarding copyright law and the media. While copyright law has not yet been discussed in the graduate class, I feel that this will be a big case. While not completely similar to Superman's Siegel family vs DC/Time Warner case, both the Kirby heirs and the Siegel family have the same lawyer. The Kirby case may simply end with a settlement deal due to Disney (the new owners of Marvel) wanting to keep the full rights to the Kirby characters mentioned in the heirs claims. On the other hand like the Superman case it could stay in the courts for years, with neither side giving, up with or without settlements. No matter what happens this is a case that most likely will affect creator rights and copyright law.

Now regarding free speech, which is the recent topic covered in class, I feel that more free speech should be allowed in public schools such as minor curse words like crap. Crap which is a pretty harmless word when compared to other words should not be considered outside the rights of free speech. I do think racial slurs should be banned. Racial slurs are not political speech and too often they are presented in books, jokes, and other media sources that have no educational value of teaching it is wrong to hate someone for looking different. Major curse words like the f-word should be banned from the radio and public high schools on down to pre-school, but never college.

South Butt Parody Case

Last week on 1/6 I was reading the St. Louis Post and found an interesting story about a small T-shit company created by a local St. Louis High School student called "The South Butt". I had never heard of it and as I read the issue is regarding issues of free speech and making a parody.

Apparently there is another company called "North Face" that makes apparel as well and this high school students clothing line is a parody of it, to mock it or poke fun. This has actually went to court and there is a link I found on STLToday.com which is listed below if anyone wants to check it out.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/20e8a5cf90d0af188625769d008353a4?opendocument

Parody is actually mentioned in Chapter 6 where it sounds like the Supreme Court ruled that parody can be used fairly even though it can hold commercial purpose and copies the core of the original piece (The Law of Public Communications 261). So in my opinion it sounds like North Face may not have much of a case against South Butt.

Google is backing out of Chinese market

I just saw this article on the BBC entitled "Google May Pull out of China after Gmail Cyber Attack." Here's the link to read the full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8455712.stm. It's about how Google, who agreed to enter the Chinese market by conceding to China's censorship stipulations in 2006, (China is really bad about censoring it's people, at least in my humble opinion. All of the papers and media are completely state-run and controlled, and dissenters are not tolerated) is considering pulling out of the Chinese market because many of its gmail users, particularly those involved in human rights, have been "routinely accessed by third parties." Represenatives at Baidu, the top Chinese search engine, say it's just because Google is losing its market share and is not as successful in China as they are.

I found this article interesting because it really demonstrates the juxtaposition of the Chinese view on the rights of the media and the people's access to media compared to ours. The U.S. is probably one of the most interested in protecting speech and press rights, whereas the Chinese come from a very different perspective. To them, it's about protecting the state from the people, not the people from the state. The collective comes before the individual for them, wheras we arguably value indivualism more than anyone else in the world. This shows through in our takes on what the media is supposed to be and do.

New word of the day - orthogonal

Yes, I am a word person, so discovering a new word uttered by a law professor speaking before the Supreme Court piqued my interest.

The professor - Richard Friedman of the University of Michigan - used the term "orthogonal" when defining the scope of the confrontation clause, according to a posting on the ABA Journal online. It seems the mathematical term was being used to mean two propositions were at right angles or unrelated or irrelevant.

Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the new word should be used in the opinion on the case they were hearing. I say, why not use it in a research paper, especially a media law class like this!

Carolyn Olson

Update on mold comment made on Twitter

There isn't much new in the case involving Chicagoan Amanda Bonnen who used her Twitter account to tell 20 followers that there was mold in her apartment owned by Horizon Group Management. She tweeted this in May, and on July 27, Horizon filed a $50,000 defamation lawsuit against her. I haven't found anything else on multiple sites about the case.

The issue is if tweeting is considered publishing or is it just a conversation between friends in a public forum. Those 140 characters could cost Amanda Bonnen $50,000. Tweeting is publishing, to me, but the company has made a PR blunder in pursing it.

Carolyn Olson

Welcome

Welcome to the Spring 1 class of MEDC 5350 Media Organizations and Regulations at Webster University. Invitations to this semester's students have been sent out and you should be able to post once you follow the links within your invite.