Posts Tagged: intellectual property

Video

A great piece on the commodification of the Russian protest act Pussy Riot.

Photo

Comic artist receives letter demanding $20,000 from lawyer for libel; draws comic, raises nearly $100,000 and gives money to charity instead.

Above: the comic by Inman that resulted in a $20,000 letter from a lawyer representing FunnyJunk.

FunnyJunk made its decision—to target Inman with a lawyer and perhaps a lawsuit should he fail to comply—and Inman made his. His plan was to raise the money requested by FunnyJunk, take a photo of it, and mail the photo of the cash along with the pic of Carreon’s (purported) mother seducing a rather complacent-looking bear. The actual cash would be split evenly and sent to the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society. (“Think of the sexy bears!” said the donation button. “Think of the shitty cancer!”)

Though Inman gave himself two weeks to raise the money, Operation BearLove Good, Cancer Badblew through its goal. “Holy shit $20,000 in 64 minutes!” wrote Inman as people funded him in an hour. “YOU PEOPLE ARE AMAZING.”

(via Lawyer demands $20,000, so webcomic raises $100,000 from the Internet | Ars Technica)

Source: Ars Technica
Quote

"Defenders of Google’s position have argued that since humans programmed the computers that are “speaking,” the computers have speech rights as if by digital inheritance. But the fact that a programmer has the First Amendment right to program pretty much anything he likes doesn’t mean his creation is thereby endowed with his constitutional rights. Doctor Frankenstein’s monster could walk and talk, but that didn’t qualify him to vote in the doctor’s place."

-

Tim Wu, on granting free expression rights to automated programs

Free Speech for Computers? - NYTimes.com

Source: The New York Times
Quote

"The American media industry tries to stifle user freedom. Every time. Every single time… We should delight in the stand we’ve taken in favor of things like, say, notifications, and trials, and proof before censoring someone, but we should get ready to do it again next year, and the year after that. The risk now is not that SOPA will pass. The risk is that we’ll think we’ve won. We haven’t; they’ll be back. Get ready to have this fight again."

Source: shirky.com
Link

U.S. Department of State Renews Charter of Cultural Property Advisory Committee

"The U.S. Department of State has renewed the Charter of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee for a two-year period, effective May 1, 2012. The Committee advises the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs on the protection of cultural heritage… Established by the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (Public Law 97-446), the Committee reviews requests from other countries seeking U.S. import restrictions on archaeological or ethnological material, the pillage of which places a country’s cultural heritage in jeopardy. The Committee submits its findings and recommendations to the Department which carries out the President’s delegated decision-making responsibilities as set forth under the Act.”

Photo

"This Saturday is Culture Freedom Day, a worldwide celebration of free and open culture through education efforts, on- and offline events, and promoting artists who work in free culture. Culture Freedom Day is organized by Digital Freedom International, a nonprofit that also promotes software freedom.”

(via Commons News - Creative Commons)

Source: creativecommons.org
Link

Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

infoneer-pulse:

A landmark ruling in one of the many mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the US has delivered a severe blow to a thus far lucrative business. Among other things, New York Judge Gary Brown explains in great detail why an IP-address is not sufficient evidence to identify copyright infringers. According to the Judge this lack of specific evidence means that many alleged BitTorrent pirates have been wrongfully accused by copyright holders.

» via TorrentFreak

(via pieceinthepuzzlehumanity-deacti)

Source: infoneer-pulse
Quote

"

For most users, Pinterest’s platform will provide a forum for fair uses. Posting pictures with captions and commentary, designed to spur further commentary and collaboration, are paradigmatic fair uses. Most users seek no commercial benefit, and only use as much of the underlying image as is necessary for the commentary. Thus, a typical Pinterest user, to the extent she draws from copyrighted works, will be making acceptable fair uses of those works.

To be clear: Pinterest has built its business on fair use. Trying to impose terms requiring users to say they have formal licenses they generally will not have makes no sense, and does not reflect the way those users use the site. Moreover, this does not appear to be the way even Pinterest expects its users to use the site. Appropriately, they have removed that provision.

"

Source: eff.org
Photo
Photo