Sorry, friends in Europe and Asia. This sucks.
Dear Pandora Visitor,
We are deeply, deeply sorry to say that due to licensing constraints, we can no longer allow access to Pandora for listeners located outside of the U.S., Australia and New Zealand. We will continue to work diligently to realize the vision of a truly global Pandora, but for…
“The Obama administration opposes Cispa,” he told the Guardian. “The president has called for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. There is absolutely a need for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. [But] part of what has been communicated to congressional committees is that we want legislation to come with necessary protections for individuals.”
As reported by The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/24/cispa-cybersecurity-bill-opposed-obama
In the IP world, LVMH is becoming notorious for having ZERO sense of humor. This super-brand, known for its brown and tan “LV” monogrammed luggage and accessories has been parodied on numerous occasions. Most famously, in 2007 LVMH sued a dog toy company doing business as “Chewy Vuitton” for their parody products of the high end label. LVMH lost, by the way.
Louis’ new target? University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Intellectual Property Student Group, who created a parody of LVMH’s famous pattern using the “TM” instead of “LV” and replacing the stylized flower symbol with the copyright bug. (See link below.)
Of course LVMH has every right to exercise their exclusive rights, but this is a perfect example of a multi-billion dollar corporation with way too much expendable income going after students, reminiscent of the RIAA suits. This time, however, Big Business is creating a vicious cycle of wasteful and frivolous lawsuits, based on the same trademark dilution claim they lost in the Chewy Vuitton, by chasing after a student group for making an example of those very same failed suits.
Prediction? LVMH fails again. But what do they care anyway, right? With a nearly $40 billion profit margin there’s likely no end in sight to the LVMH trademark suits.
http://boingboing.net/2012/03/07/louis-vuitton-threatens-law-sc.html
Last night I attended the Copyright Society of the USA’s networking event held at Prince, Lobel, Tye, LLP. When it comes to networking, generally, the whole practice of it tends to feel trite and ingenuous to me. I push through because I know it’s something that all attorney have to do throughout their careers.
However, last night was the exception. I had a fantastic conversation with an attorney who defends companies accused of counterfeiting jewelry. He called it “open source,” which is a copyright term I’m very familiar with, but only in the context of software licensing. I picked his brain about what it was like being on the Copy-left, and if it was possible to even be a member of the CSUSA as someone on the defense. He said, “Well, I’m here,” assuring me that it is in fact possible to be a supportive member of the group, while still standing your ground.
He also advised me that if I “crash” as many events as possible in the industry, I’ll be bound to get a job out of it eventually.
Mark Helperin, author of Digital Barbarism: A Writer’s Manifesto, believes the “monopoly” concept of copyright to be erroneous.1 He describes it as an argument made by those who push for a more free and open public domain, and insists that it is a misinterpretation of the meaning of a monopoly. Helperin likens copyright ownership to the ownership of any other type of personal property, and dismisses copyright as no more of a monopoly than that of a man being entitled to control the sale of a watermelon that was gown in his own garden, or a man having a monopoly over the exploitation of his own labor.
There are several false analogies made in Helperin’s argument. First, copyright protects only the expression of an idea, not the idea itself, but in Helprin’s comparison of copyright to personal property he assumes that all personal property owned by an individual was created by that same individual. Usually, in a capitalist society like the United States, people purchase items off of the market place, which are typically mass produced by a manufacturer or corporation. The individual then owns that property until he or she transfers, abandons, or otherwise destroys their ownership rights by their own volition. By this analogy, under current copyright laws one might purchase an item off of the marketplace for personal use, and maintain ownership for a limited period of time before having to place the item back on the market. This makes very little sense because the policy behind the two types of ownership control are completely different, making this an impossible comparison. Since most personal property is not created by the owner but by a company, no public good would be made of forcing an owner of a chattel to place it back on the market place after a period of time for another person to purchase. This example made by Helperin might have worked better in feudal times when most people farmed and produced their own goods. In copyright ownership, it is in the public interest to allow for open access to ideas and information in order to build upon and improve science, technology, and art. It would not be very helpful to to public good for me to put my MP3 player back on the market for another to purchase, but it would be helpful to the public and society as a whole for the manufacturer of an MP3 player to have limited ownership over their design patent, so that over time another developer may build upon and improve the idea – perhaps even better than the original creator – in order to promote the progress of that particular type of technology.
My last Copyright LRW class was this morning. Our professor had some interesting words of wisdom for us on the real world of lawyering.
1. Remember the magic words: “Yes, Your Honor,” “Thank you, Your Honor,” “I’ll make note of that, Your Honor,” and “I’ll remember to do that in the future, Your Honor.”
2. LexisNexis and Westlaw are not free outside of law school, but there are plenty of other free legal research tools available to you. However, contrary to popular belief, GOOGLE is not the best legal research tool.
3. Youtube is full of great study resources involving Legos and School House Rock: Hearsay Exception
4. Quote of the day: with regard to sexual harassment, “Get your hands off my ass and give me my alcohol.”
and finally …
5. The law is one of the top 5 professions resulting in alcoholism. That said, NEVER go in front of the judge hung over.
