The Delaware Curmudgeon

 The Delaware Curmudgeon

"Not really sure if it belogs here but freedom of information and privacy are isues I love to debate -- so ....."  HSM

Enzyte May Not Make Your Penis Bigger, But the Promoter is Shaking His Dick at the Government

Remember Smiling Bob and the Enzyte commercials? I really miss them, and am disappointed that the claims were apparently not true. Ah, well. The commercials really cracked me up.
But the promoter of this impotent product, Stephen Warshak, is in the middle of fighting against a violation of his Fourth Amendment right in Washak v. United States. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed an amicus brief.
From EFF:

During its criminal investigation, the Department of Justice illegally ordered defendant Stephen Warshak's email provider to prospectively "preserve" copies of his future emails, which the government later obtained using a subpoena and a non-probable cause court order. The government accomplished this "back door wiretap" by misusing the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which is only supposed to be used for obtaining emails already in storage with a provider.
In Wednesday's filing, EFF argues that the government's seizure violated federal privacy laws and Warshak's Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in his email. As a result, the illegally seized emails should have been suppressed by the district court where Warshak was tried. All told, the government acquired over 27,000 emails spanning over six months from Warshak's email provider, all without probable cause.
"The Justice Department not only violated the Fourth Amendment and federal privacy statutes but its own surveillance manual when it conducted this 'back door wiretap' to intercept six months worth of emails without a warrant," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "Thankfully, this abuse has given the appeals court yet another opportunity to clarify that the Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of email against secret government snooping, even when it's in the hands of an email provider."

The EFF article cited also has a link to the brief (PDF) which is worth reading. It is also a bit scary. It states that not only did the government not obtain probable cause before seizing Mr. Warshak’s e-mails, it also violated the very provisions of the Stored Communications Act (known as the “wiretap act”).
You may or may not think that Mr. Warshak is a reputable fellow (unless you tried Enzyte and it worked), but this case is important in defending our expectations or privacy when sending or receiving e-mail, as well as demanding that the government adhere to its own regulations.

The Delaware Curmudgeon

Op-Ed Columnist - Paul Krugman - Bits, Bands and Books, Paying for Creativity in a Digital World - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

 Op-Ed Columnist - Paul Krugman - Bits, Bands and Books, Paying for Creativity in a Digital World - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: June 6, 2008

Do you remember what it was like back in the old days when we had a New Economy? In the 1990s, jobs were abundant, oil was cheap and information technology was about to change everything.

Then the technology bubble popped. Many highly touted New Economy companies, it turned out, were better at promoting their images than at making money — although some of them did pioneer new forms of accounting fraud. After that came the oil shock and the food shock, grim reminders that we’re still living in a material world.

So much, then, for the digital revolution? Not so fast. The predictions of ’90s technology gurus are coming true more slowly than enthusiasts expected — but the future they envisioned is still on the march.

In 1994, one of those gurus, Esther Dyson, made a striking prediction: that the ease with which digital content can be copied and disseminated would eventually force businesses to sell the results of creative activity cheaply, or even give it away. Whatever the product — software, books, music, movies — the cost of creation would have to be recouped indirectly: businesses would have to “distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships.”

For example, she described how some software companies gave their product away but earned fees for installation and servicing. But her most compelling illustration of how you can make money by giving stuff away was that of the Grateful Dead, who encouraged people to tape live performances because “enough of the people who copy and listen to Grateful Dead tapes end up paying for hats, T-shirts and performance tickets. In the new era, the ancillary market is the market.”

Indeed, it turns out that the Dead were business pioneers. Rolling Stone recently published an article titled “Rock’s New Economy: Making Money When CDs Don’t Sell.” Downloads are steadily undermining record sales — but today’s rock bands, the magazine reports, are finding other sources of income. Even if record sales are modest, bands can convert airplay and YouTube views into financial success indirectly, making money through “publishing, touring, merchandising and licensing.”

What other creative activities will become mainly ways to promote side businesses? How about writing books?

According to a report in The Times, the buzz at this year’s BookExpo America was all about electronic books. Now, e-books have been the coming, but somehow not yet arrived, thing for a very long time. (There’s an old Brazilian joke: “Brazil is the country of the future — and always will be.” E-books have been like that.) But we may finally have reached the point at which e-books are about to become a widely used alternative to paper and ink.

That’s certainly my impression after a couple of months’ experience with the device feeding the buzz, the Amazon Kindle. Basically, the Kindle’s lightness and reflective display mean that it offers a reading experience almost comparable to that of reading a traditional book. This leaves the user free to appreciate the convenience factor: the Kindle can store the text of many books, and when you order a new book, it’s literally in your hands within a couple of minutes.

It’s a good enough package that my guess is that digital readers will soon become common, perhaps even the usual way we read books.

How will this affect the publishing business? Right now, publishers make as much from a Kindle download as they do from the sale of a physical book. But the experience of the music industry suggests that this won’t last: once digital downloads of books become standard, it will be hard for publishers to keep charging traditional prices.

Indeed, if e-books become the norm, the publishing industry as we know it may wither away. Books may end up serving mainly as promotional material for authors’ other activities, such as live readings with paid admission. Well, if it was good enough for Charles Dickens, I guess it’s good enough for me.

Now, the strategy of giving intellectual property away so that people will buy your paraphernalia won’t work equally well for everything. To take the obvious, painful example: news organizations, very much including this one, have spent years trying to turn large online readership into an adequately paying proposition, with limited success.

But they’ll have to find a way. Bit by bit, everything that can be digitized will be digitized, making intellectual property ever easier to copy and ever harder to sell for more than a nominal price. And we’ll have to find business and economic models that take this reality into account.

It won’t all happen immediately. But in the long run, we are all the Grateful Dead.

Op-Ed Columnist - Paul Krugman - Bits, Bands and Books, Paying for Creativity in a Digital World - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

RIAA sues the dead | The Register

 

RIAA sues the dead

83 year old deceased woman in copyright violation

By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco → More by this author

Published Saturday 5th February 2005 02:30 GMT

---

Nail down your security priorities. Ask the experts and your peers at The Register Security Debate, September 24, 2008

Death is no obstacle to feeling the long arm of the Recording Industry Ass. of America.

Lawyers representing several record companies have filed suit against an 83 year-old woman who died in December, claiming that she made more than 700 songs available on the internet.

"I believe that if music companies are going to set examples they need to do it to appropriate people and not dead people," Robin Chianumba told AP. "I am pretty sure she is not going to leave Greenwood Memorial Park to attend the hearing."

Gertrude Walton, who lived in Beckley, West Virginia hated computers, too, her daughter adds. An RIAA spokesperson said that it would try and dismiss the case.

However the RIAA's embarrassment doesn't end there. Chianumba said that she had sent a copy of her mother's death certificate to record company lawyers in response to an initial warning letter, over a week before the suit was filed. In 2003 the RIAA sued a twelve year-old girl for copyright infringement. She'd harbored an MP3 file of her favorite TV show on her hard drive. Her working class parents in a housing project in New York were forced to pay two thousand dollars in a settlement.

You can't be too young to face the consequences of being social, it seems. Only the unborn, it seems, have yet to receive an infringement suit.

But here's another interpretation of this distasteful litigation. Wouldn't the RIAA members be better off if a traditional compensation scheme, such as the one used by radio, was extended to digital music?

Yes, of course they would. And so would we.

Perhaps the cack-handed lawsuits are an indication that even the RIAA doesn't believe it can maintain the charade for much longer.®

RIAA sues the dead | The Register

Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily » Ruling Against Warner’s On Superman: How Legally Greedy Can Big Media Get?

"had to include the commentary from Nikiki -- she kept me sane during the writers strike and may need to do the same thing if SAG goes out.... Some additional thoughts on Copyright as well as "truth, justice, and the American....." -- HSM

 

Ruling Against Warner's On Superman: How Legally Greedy Can Big Media Get?

I don't understand why the Warner Bros lot wasn't draped in black starting the middle of this week. Because the studio should be mourning the imminent loss of a shitload of Superman dollars. I've finally got my hands on the entire 72-page ruling Wednesday of U.S. District Court Judge Stephen G. Larson who concluded: "After 70 years, Jerome Siegel’s heirs regain what he granted so long ago — the copyright in the Superman material that was published in Action Comics, Vol. 1. What remains is an apportionment of profits, guided in some measure by the rulings contained in this Order, and a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics’ corporate sibling’s exploitation of the Superman."

Think about it: Siegel sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130, and his heirs got back ownership of the character in 1999 and can possibly lay claim to $50+ million of Warner Bros' and/or its DC Comics' cash. The Shusters look to clean up before too long, too. If you want all the Superman lawsuit's juicy background, Portfolio's Amy Wallace did a detailed article here.

For instance, Joanne Siegel (who'd been the sketch model for Lois Lane) wrote a 3-page letter back in 2002 to then Time Warner CEO Dick Parsons calling the company  “greedy” and “heartless” and acting “just like the Gestapo ... your company wants to strip us naked of our legal rights… Is that the reputation you want?” The answer is a resounding yes. Because for years Warner tied with Disney for its aggressive unwillingness to settle these kinds of legal disputes and its absurd eagerness to risk going to court. Its corporate counsel would hire litigation piranhas hungry for billable hours who pledge to make each case go away by exhausting the patience and resources of the creators or rightsholders. It's a thoroughly effective but completely disgusting way of doing business.

Yet it's interesting that, especially lately, Warner has lost or settled some very pricey lawsuits, especially those pursued by that Malibu Robin Hood of a litigator, Marc Toberoff, who has taken on Big Media on behalf of creators and their heirs for Superman and Superboy, The Dukes of Hazzard (read about it here), The Wild Wild West, It's Alive, and so on. The majors both fear him and hate him, with good reason: he's a relentless opportunist, which is exactly what's needed.

Finally, lest any rabid Superman fans blame the Siegels or Shusters for fucking up a Superman Returns sequel, or a Justice League of America movie featuring Superman (or not), know this: Warner execs fucked up both all by themselves. There's been enough backstory surrounding these pics to fill a book. I say there wouldn't have been if only Superman Returns had been any good...

Nikki Finke’s Deadline Hollywood Daily » Ruling Against Warner’s On Superman: How Legally Greedy Can Big Media Get?

Hollywood Today | Newsmagazine, with Attitude.

 

Billion at Stake? Judge returns “Superman” Copyright to Creator’s Heirs

Saturday, March 29th, 2008

“Superman” rights originally sold in 1939 for $130

By Matthew B. Zeidman

 

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Today) 3/29/08 – Time Warner Inc. and its subsidiary, Warner Bros. Entertainment, were dealt a blow worthy of Superman Wednesday, when a federal judge restored partial copyright ownership of the comic-book hero to the heirs of one of his creators, Jerome Siegel.

The late cartoonist’s estate will be entitled to a yet-undetermined amount of domestic profits from Superman endeavors since 1999, but a later trial will determine if that includes the recently resurrected Warner Bros. movie franchise and other on-screen appearances or only the series of comic books.

Siegel created Superman with his partner, Joe Shuster, in 1932, and sold the rights to Detective Comics (later renamed DC Comics) in 1938 for $130 and a contract to provide the company with future material. Siegel, Shuster and their heirs have been fighting with DC and its subsequent parent company, Warner Bros., since 1947 to reclaim the rights to Superman and similar character Superboy. Several changes to copyright law enacted by Congress over the past several decades have fueled the creators’ long legal fight.

Hollywood Today | Newsmagazine, with Attitude.

Dawn of the Dead copyright owner drags Capcom to court

 

Dawn of the Dead copyright owner drags Capcom to court

Posted February 29, 2008 at 11:59 PM by Pulkit Chandna

 

The MKR Group, which holds the rights to the horror flick Dawn of the Dead (1978) and its 2004 remake, has finally decided to drag Japanese publisher Capcom to court claiming that the latter’s game Dead Rising (2006) encroaches upon the copyright and trademark of the movie. It has filed an official complaint against Capcom at the US District Court in New York.

According to a report by Reuters, MKR group has claimed that both Dead Rising and Dawn of the Dead provide “thoughtful social commentary on the ‘mall culture’ zeitgeist,” while drawing parallels between the flagrant violence featured in them.

Dead Rising, an Xbox 360 exclusive, was released in August 2006, and sold more than 1 million copies within first five months of its release. The game takes place in an expansive, zombie-infested shopping mall just like the movie. This similarity in the central themes has rubbed the MKR Group the wrong way. The company had previously sent letters to Microsoft and Best Buy notifying them of its claims. However, Capcom was quick to rebuff those claims, as it believes that the zombie-vs-humans-in-a-mall theme can not be protected by copyrights.

Read [Reuters] Also Read [BBC] Also Read [Wired]

http://www.gamertell.com/gaming/print/dawn-of-the-dead-copyright-owner-drags-capcom-to-court/

Scots want to copyright the kilt | NEWS.com.au

 

Scots want to copyright the kilt

From correspondents in London

February 29, 2008 07:59pm

Article from: AAP

 

THE same special copyright protections given to champagne from France and parmesan cheese from Italy could soon apply to the traditional Scottish kilt.

Scotland is calling on the European Commission to give its national dress protections which would mean that only kilts made in Scotland could be called kilts.

The Commission has previously granted similar protections – known as protected designation of origin status – to those given sparking wine from the Champagne region in France, feta cheese from Greece and Italy's famous parmesan cheese.

Edinburgh-based kilt-maker Howie Nicholsby said Scotland's campaign was designed to stop the makers of cheap, imported garments calling them Scottish kilts.

"This campaign has come about through years of frustration," The Independent newspaper in Britain quoted him as saying.

"I grew tired of seeing poor quality kilts selling in shops on the high street for STG20 ($42) and calling themselves Scottish kilts.

"They look terrible – it's like someone wearing a dishcloth. People should feel pride in wearing a real Scottish kilt, but people are being put off kilts completely because the cheap ones look so bad."

European Commissioner for Consumer Protection Meglena Kuneva is considering the case for the kilt.

Scots want to copyright the kilt | NEWS.com.au

Is Copyright Protection only for those who can afford the legal fees? - Duke City Fix

 Is Copyright Protection only for those who can afford the legal fees? - Duke City Fix

"Now I want the recipe.... Similar to Duke in a way... what to do when your copyright is violated.???... I hope that she doesn't come after me as I reprinted the entire article.... "HSM

Is Copyright Protection only for those who can afford the legal fees?

 

Last month, I picked up a copy of New Mexico WOMAN magazine, and discovered my recipe for Cheeseburger Soup on page 32. They printed it without my permission, and credited it to their columnist, Beth Donahue.

I found it under this headline, "Recipes- New Mexico WOMAN’s staff and writers are spilling their secrets—their holiday secrets that is, and if you’re looking for a dish to impress your friends or family, maybe one of these recipes will make you the prized host."

In case you’ve never seen it before, New Mexico WOMAN one of those "free" magazines you can pick up in the racks outside of Wal-Mart.

Fortunately, I still had a copy of the email I sent to Donahue when she requested the recipe. It never occurred to me that she would try to claim it as her own creation.

The Cheeseburger Soup recipe printed in New Mexico WOMAN is virtually identical to my email.

To make matters worse, I planned to submit my Cheeseburger Soup in a series of recipe contests. Now I can’t do that because once a recipe is published, it’s ineligible as a contest entry.

Since recipes, like other forms of intellectual property, are protected by copyright, I write a letter to New Mexico WOMAN Publisher Jill Duval explaining what has happened. I ask her to contact me ASAP so we can resolve the situation (you can see the actual letter in my last blog entry).

I wait 10 days, and there’s no response from Duval. I start calling the New Mexico WOMAN business office leaving messages, and after a couple of days, she returns my call.

I’m a former advertising and publishing executive, so I have a good idea what’s going to happen. Since I can prove the recipe is my original creation, she probably will apologize about the error, offer to reprint it crediting me as the actual author, and suggest a token sum in the form of compensation.

Except that’s not what she offers to do.

She offers to do nothing. She’s dismissive about the whole thing since "it’s just a recipe".

Duval says she will not apologize in writing for printing my recipe, because they did nothing wrong since they believed it was Donahue’s recipe when it appeared in the December issue.

Duval maintains they will not print a correction naming me as the actual author, because New Mexico WOMAN magazine doesn’t reprint material they have already published.

Naturally, she also refuses to discuss compensating me for my loss.

Obviously, this is all about money. Duval doesn’t want to issue a correction because she’ll have to pay me for my creative work.

I think she believes there’s nothing I can do about it, unless I get an attorney. She also figures that no lawyer will want to take the case because "it’s just a recipe".

What do you think about Duval’s response? Are we all equal under the law, or is copyright protection only for those who can afford the legal fees?

Is Copyright Protection only for those who can afford the legal fees? - Duke City Fix

Slashdot | Egypt to Copyright Pyramids and Sphynx

Slashdot | Egypt to Copyright Pyramids and Sphynx 

Egypt to Copyright Pyramids and Sphynx

Couldn't resist the humor on this one.....HSM

 

empaler writes "We all know the usual pro-copyright arguments. Most of them hinge on the fact that the individual or company that has a copyright needs an incentive to make something that is copyrightable, and therefore ensure a revenue stream in a period after the copyright has been granted. In a never-surpassed move, Egypt is working on legislation to extend copyright well above 3000 years — they are going to start claiming royalties for using likenesses of the Sphynx and the Pyramids. It is still unclear whether the original intent of the Pyramids included 'making sure them bastards pay for a plastic copy in 3000 years' alongside 'securing a pathway to the heavens for the God King.' Speaking as a Greenlandic national, I want dibs on ice cubes." It sounds straight out of The Onion, but instead you can read another story on the BBC.

[+] humor, money, merrychristmas, goodluckwiththat, roflcopter (tagging beta)

Related Stories

Firehose:Egypt to Copyright Pyramids and Sphynx by empaler (130732)

Slashdot | Egypt to Copyright Pyramids and Sphynx

It was a magical 70 years, but Peter Pan’s hospital needs a new saviour now - Times Online

It was a magical 70 years, but Peter Pan’s hospital needs a new saviour now - Times Online 

It was a magical 70 years, but Peter Pan’s hospital needs a new saviour now

Adam Sherwin, Media Correspondent

The children of Great Ormond Street Hospital are seeking a new literary benefactor after a large portion of Peter Pan’s legacy flies away for good on New Year’s Eve.

Since 1937, seriously ill children have benefited from J. M. Barrie’s generous decision to bequeath the copyright and other intellectual property rights of Peter Pan to the famous London hospital.

Income from the children’s classic, and its Disney spin-offs, has bought vital equipment, furnished wards and helped the hospital towards an annual £50 million fundraising target.

But under EU law, which restricts the rights of authors to 70 years after their death, European copyrights for Peter Pan will expire on December 31. However, thanks to special legislation drawn up in 1987, small sums from British royalties will continue to accrue.

The hospital hopes that a film of Peter Pan in Scarlet, an official sequel written by Geraldine McCaughrean, will provide one final royalties windfall. But several other income streams will dry up in 2008, leaving the hospital in need of another charitable soul.

Christine DePoortere, director of the Peter Pan project at the hospital, said: “We’ve had a tremendous run with Barrie, we really couldn’t have asked for any more.”

As for a new patron? “J. K. Rowling would be wonderful — we never turn down any money,” she said. We just hope someone suitable comes forward.” People who could be approached include Madonna, who is now a top-selling children’s author.

Ms DePoortere said that the hospital had great expectations for the £10 million film version of Peter Pan in Scarlet, produced by Headline Pictures, the UK Film Council and BBC Films. It is due out in 2009 and the hospital will benefit from the box-office takings and then DVD sales.

Barrie made his bequest in 1929, eight years before his death. He had been asked to give a series of fundraising lectures in support of the hospital, which was founded in 1852. But, being too shy to speak, he donated the royalties from Peter Pan instead.

As early as 1907, three years after the play’s premiere, the royalties stood at £500,000.

Great Ormond Street will be organising the first Peter Pan Week in March, which aims to “bring Neverland to life for young people nationwide”. It hopes to raise £300,000 for a new, state-of-the-art renal unit.

Everyone who participates will become part of the newly resurrected Peter Pan League, which was the first fundraising campaign after Barrie made his gift. It was supported by A. A. Milne, who wrote an appeal asking children all over the country to join the league and help seriously ill children to get better.

The trustees averted the last threat to the legacy 20 years ago, when the original copyright expired after 50 years. On that occasion Lord Callaghan introduced a special amendment to the Copyright Act allowing the hospital to receive British royalties from Peter Pan in perpetuity, and these will continue. However, copyright law was harmonised by the EU in 1995 and copyright now normally expires 70 years after an author’s death, meaning that there will be no future European royalties.

A spokeswoman for J. K. Rowling said that the author was a great admirer of Great Ormond Street Hospital but was already a supporter of several children’s charities.

In the US, the copyright to the Peter Pan novel has expired, although the play will continue to produce royalties for the hospital until 2023.

J. M. Barrie

— Born in 1860 to a family of Scottish weavers, Barrie embarked on a career in journalism, before becoming a novelist and playwright

— The inspiration for Peter Pan is thought to have come from a walk in Kensington Gardens, London, in 1897, when Barrie bumped into George Llewelyn-Davies, 5, and his brothers Jack, 4, and Peter, in a pram

— Arthur Conan Doyle, G. K. Chesterton and A. A. Milne all played with Barrie in his casual cricket team, the Allahakbarries

— Johnny Depp played Barrie in the 2004 film Finding Neverland

Source: Times database

It was a magical 70 years, but Peter Pan’s hospital needs a new saviour now - Times Online