All of us have guiltily snuck in a quick visit to sites like Perez Hilton, a pleasure that some of us freely admit to.
Why do we indulge ourselves? We may have different motives. For some, it makes us feel better about ourselves, while others get satisfaction seeing the rich and famous go out without makeup or shop in sweats. And still, some of us just need mindless distraction. Whatever the reason, our culture’s insatiable appetite to know how the rich and famous are living has created some serious privacy issues.
Read More »
If a patent holder has the right to stop someone who “[m]akes, uses, offers to sell, or sells”1 her product, what happens when her product runs away and starts making itself?
In 1980, the Supreme Court of the United States contemplated in Diamond v. Chakrabarty2 whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) constitute patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C.A. § 101. Plaintiff’s developed microorganism was able to decompose crude oil (good for oil spills); plaintiff filed patents for method, inoculum and bacteria. The patent examiner approved the first two claims, but denied the third on the rationale that micro-organisms are products of nature which, as living things, are not patentable under §101. In a landmark decision, the Chakrabarty Court ruled that products of human ingenuity “having a distinctive name, character [and] use” were deemed patentable subject matter and proper subjects of utility patents. Previously, only natural substances purified from non-plant life were patentable, like insulin.3
Chakrabarty inherently demonstrates that the controversy around the patentability of living organisms. Many people find it immoral to own life-forms. More recently, some worry that in the future a patentee will own other people’s genetic code.4 But, the real wonder is about the feasibility of patenting self-reproductive life. What happens when, for example, Chakrabarty’s organisms get loose in the environment and start eating up oil spills all over the world? Does his right to exclusion stay intact after he loses control of his patented product? Now that patents on living organisms are commonplace in the U.S., what is the scope of ownership and how do we deal with infringement? Specifically, does it make sense to, under strict liability, punish people who accidentally infringe when the patented subject matter is itself self-reproducing and does not have the mental capacity to refrain from reproduction?
Read More »
by Ming Yan Paul Cheng
The Chinese media plays an integral part of the Chinese judicial system. Some have argued that the media does not increase the transparency of the Chinese Judicial system and may actually undermine court autonomy. Others have argued that the media promotes public interest and plays a positive role in the process of democratization. However, the media is a necessary component for the Chinese judicial system to exert itself and become a more independent branch of the government.
Read More »
In 2007, Joel Tenenbaum was served with a complaint, accusing him with copyright infringement stemming from the alleged download of seven musical works from a peer-to-peer network. This marked the start of his battle against the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and, more broadly, the imposition of excessive statutory damages in cases of copyright infringement.
Read More »
by Kate DiGeronimo
The 2008 Presidential Election utilized the breadth of the Internet in ways previously unseen. As a new public commons, the Internet was the medium through which many Americans gathered information in making decisions about who to vote for on Election Day. Politicians realized that the Internet was to have a significant role in persuading voters early in the cycle.
CNN teamed up with Youtube.com to host a debate among the candidates for the Republican and Democratic nominations where all the questions came from videos submitted by Youtube users.1 After the debate, all the candidate’s answers were made available on Youtube’s website without restriction. A flurry of user generated content was posted on the Youtube website, including the memorable “Obama Girl” videos. Campaigns soon began posting television ads on the website, as well as creating ads specifically for their websites and the Youtube website.
Read More »
By: Laura Nastase1
President Barack Obama’s April 2009 trip to Europe has been exhaustively chronicled from political, fashion, and protocol perspectives. But commentators have skipped almost entirely over the fact that President Obama may have breached both copyright law and the iTunes licensing agreements by giving Queen Elizabeth II an iPod. True, these are not matters of national security, but surely they deserve at least as much news coverage as the First Lady’s hemline.
Creators and users of content protected by intellectual property laws are currently grappling with the question of how to apply United States copyright law, specifically the First Sale Doctrine, to digital media. Complicating matters in this case is the iTunes licensing agreement, which restricts what a user can do with lawfully purchased digital products.
So was President Obama’s gift to the Queen of an iPod filled with photographs and video of her 2007 trip to the United States, as well as songs and accessories protected by the First Sale Doctrine?2
Read More »
by Julia Zousmer
In the past few years, reality television has become increasingly popular. What began as only a few well-known shows, like “American Idol” and “Survivor” has now become a trend that inundates our television screens every night of the week. This reality television craze has opened us up to a whole new sphere of legal issues.
Read More »
– Not a verbatim transcription —
[Moderator: Tilman Luder]
[Speakers: Sarah Faulder, Scott M. Martin, Prof. Willem Grosheide, Trevor Callaghan, Timo Ruikka, Ted Shapiro]
[Panelists: David Carson, Sebastien J. Evrard]
[5:50]
[Luder] The overarching question: How to best remunerate, how best to incentivize creation on the internet?
[5:53]
[Faulder] Question for us is: Can IP be traded on the Internet? What is the market for content online?
Assumption that copyright will underpin anything, any model.
The music industry has tended to move away from DRMs.
Change from a world where IP regulated on a national basis, to one where it is global. Also, issue of “competing with free” — the only models that maybe will work is those that “feel like free”
Research suggests in the UK consumers still willing to pay. Showed that 80% would be willing to pay, and some will continue to buy CDs.
Need a way to satisfy users’ expectations — business models that give people what they want, in an easy way. Easier than illegal services…
Plus, creators need to be paid.
Consumers want to use music in a different way — in a community — be able to copy it to multiple formats.
Read More »
– Not a verbatim transcription —
[2:30]
[Ceceilio Madero Villarejo]
In 2008, the commission adopted a directive that prohibited the collecting societies from restricting cross-border licensing. So it hindered the marketplace.
CISAC decision.
The commission issued first decision in Denmark case in 1971.
(1) The CISAC decision prohibits membership crosses both offline and online. The crosses have to be removed immediately; (2) Prohibits the perpetuation of local monopolies, the domestic territorialization. This also covers the online, cable, satellite markets.
Given 120 days to cease.
It doesn’t call into question the network of reciprocal agreements.
It doesn’t effect the small collecting societies’ ability to collect.
What do we expect to be the future? As a result of the removal of the membership clause, it is easier for an author to select which society will manage his public performance royalties. The uncontested removal of the clause allows collecting societies to license the catalogue in other society’s territory.
Read More »
– Not a verbatim transcription —
[Daniel Gervais]
Overview of the WTO action.
[Prof. Wang Qian]
Three major issues in case, but only focused on one.
Who is the beneficiary if Art. 4 abolished?
Correct reading of Art. 4 — concerns only the content, not the procedure of entry to China.
ex. Shrek 2, the content was lawful, so it could get protection in China.
Argument that the only beneficiary is the authors of the illegal content. If abolished, then the authors of illegal content can get protection! But, China still has a right to content review. Can still prohibit.
In any way, the authors of illegal content will not choose to enforce their rights in China.
Ex. sex photos. In reality, the author will not confess his identity and sue on his rights even if photos infringed. Since sex photos prohibited by law, the author cannot commercially exploit. Cannot make a lawful profit, so impossible to suffer any economic injury! Even if author wins, cannot get damages, only injunction.
Read More »
