Usually when you see copyright infringement claims, it’s for copying something that someone else held a copyright on, but THREsq points us to a case where Canadian songwriter, Gordon Peterson, is suing singer Eddie Vedder for supposedly changing lyrics in a version Vedder did of Peterson’s song “Hard Sun.” Assuming that the song was properly licensed (which is also in dispute, but that seems to be a separate issue), it’s difficult to see what sort of copyright infringement claim there would then be for modifying the song. After all, the modifications wouldn’t be covered by Peterson’s copyright at all. But, alas, this is what you get with today’s “ownership culture,” where people just assume more ownership rights over something than they actually have under the law.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

A few years back, someone sued Apple, claiming that the iPod caused hearing loss, saying that the devices have an “inherently defective design” and that they need more warnings that you can acquire hearing loss if high volumes are used. The lawsuit eventually turned into a class action, which a district court dismissed. Now an appeals court has agreed, saying that the plaintiffs showed no evidence that an iPod “poses an unreasonable risk of noise-induced hearing loss.” Basically, the argument amounted to “you know, Apple could make iPods that are less likely to lead to hearing loss.” But that’s not legally actionable, and it’s good that the courts were quick to point that out.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

theodp writes “The USPTO has granted IBM a patent covering the Resolution of Abbreviated Text in an Electronic Communications System, lawyer-speak for translating “IMHO” to “In My Humble Opinion” and vice versa. From the patent: “One particularly useful application of the invention is to interpret the meaning of shorthand terms…For example, one database may define the shorthand term ‘LOL’ to mean ‘laughing out loud.'” So much for Big Blue’s professed aim of stopping “bad behavior” by companies who seek patents for unoriginal work!”

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

I’m always amazed at the claims by some of our usual band of critics in the comments that “remixing isn’t creative.” They never seem to explain how something like what Kutiman has done could ever be considered not creative. Nor do they explain how taking a clip of a note and using it to make a new song is really different from using a keyboard (which plays “pre-recorded” notes) and playing a song. And we’ve certainly seem plenty of content creators encourage remixing of their work, and now more and more musicians have been purposely releasing stems and asking fans to make their own mixes. But how about with a book?

A few months back, we wrote about how author Robin Sloan was offering a tiered support model, similar to what many musicians have done, so he could write a novella. He used Kickstarter, and it turned out to be a huge success, with him earning much more than he originally targeted as his goal. The novella has been published, and apparently it’s getting quite a response. But Sloan has realized that you don’t stop there.

He’s taking things a step further, and has reserved $1,000 as a “remix fund,” to encourage people to take the book that he just wrote (which is available for download in a variety of formats under a Creative Commons license) and do some sort of remix project on it. He’s asking his supporters to pitch remix ideas (including how much it would cost to do), and then those who helped pay for the creation of the original story will vote on the ideas — and the top ones will get funded (until the $1,000 runs out):

I wrote and published Annabel Scheme with the help of about 600 patrons. It’s got­ten a warm reception from read­ers, but I’m greedy! I want more: I want other people to trans­form it and make it their own. If you’re a writer, an artist, a musician, a mathematician, a pastry chef–or a fan of one of the above–where could you or they take this story? I want to find out.

It’s yet another cool way of connecting with fans, and going explicitly against what copyright allows. It’s explicitly encouraging people to copy his work and even offering money to them if they do a good job. I imagine this will confuse those who will say “but… wait, he should be getting paid any time anyone wants to do something with his characters.” But what Sloan appears to recognize is that building up a larger audience for his works will certainly pay off a lot more in the long run than trying to squeeze people in the short run.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Reader BakaYaro points us to this article about OPTi, the company that recently won a $21.7 million patent ruling against Apple, where the company’s CEO insists it’s not a patent troll because it’s only suing over patents that it got itself. It seems that Bernie Marren is trying to redefine what a “patent troll” is to mean just someone who buys patents and sues. But the real story shows that OPTi is yet another example of patents harming, not helping, innovation. The company used to produce products, but other companies eventually caught up, and OPTi couldn’t compete. Now, in a true capitalistic society, the companies that can’t compete, go out of business. And that’s a good thing. Failure is important for free markets to work. But, thanks to the very un-capitalistic concept of government granted monopolies, known as patents, tech companies never need to fail and go out of business. They can just sue over patent infringement. So, OPTi went from a 235-person company producing products and adding value to the market, to a 3-person company that just sues and extracts money from the companies who actually provide value on the market. So OPTi went from providing value to sucking value out of the market. It might not be a troll, but it’s difficult to see how it’s good for the economy or for innovation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →

Honestly, at what point do entertainment execs finally figure out that by purposely not making content available in the format people want it in, they’re only encouraging them to get that content through unauthorized means? We already knew that the big movie studios were annoyed with Netflix and trying to get Netflix to delay movie rentals until at least a month after the DVD comes out. Now we have an explanation why. As JJ was the first (of a few) to send in, the studios apparently are quite annoyed that, in order to jumpstart its movie streaming offering, Netflix routed around the movie studios, and signed a deal with Starz that allowed it to stream the same movies without a direct deal with the studios. It’s not clear how or why Starz had the right to also stream movies through Netflix, but I’m guessing it was a loophole in Starz’ deals with the studios — a loophole that’s now closed. So, Netflix is saying it needs to convince Hollywood it’s not the enemy, but Hollywood isn’t quite buying it yet.

This really shouldn’t be a huge surprise. After all, this is Hollywood, where reports that actually show that the movie industry will grow quite a bit in the next decade are also used to claim that rental services like Redbox and Netflix are killing off jobs. It’s also the world where Hollywood execs still think that the answer to their problems (problems like its best box office year ever) is to just add more release windows. It’s as if they still think that keeping content away from people makes them more likely to buy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Continue reading →