http://www.pcworld.com/article/182333/china_rules_microsoft_violated_intellectual_property_rights.html
This article details a recent case that took place in a Chinese court. The plantiff, Zhongyi, claimed to have rights over the Chinese character fonts that are used by Microsoft, which are in their operating systems. The claim is that Microsoft sought permission for licensing these fonts in Windows 95, which Zhongyi agreed to. However, after this was over, Microsoft went on to use this same font set in Windows 98 and Windows XP, and the plantiff is aiming to stop production of these products which contain his illegally used font. It is agreed that this is more of an issue over the scope of the licensing agreement than anything.
The Chinese courts ruled that Microsoft was guilty of copyright infringement, and ordered them to stop producing versions of the operating systems with these specific fonts.
Friday, November 20, 2009
ACTA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111300852_2.html?hpid=news-col-blog&sid=ST2009111300859
This article entitled "Copyright Overreach Goes on World Tour" is about a recent trade agreement, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which will potentially help globalize the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which has been in play for over 10 years, but is proving to be more controversial every day, as certain restrictions that are a part of it seem to downplay common sense. One example is that you cannot put a DVD purchase on your ipod because of this act, even though you are the owner of it. The countries involved in ACTA are the United States, South Korea, Japan, Canada, and parts of the European Union.
This article points out that this agreement would help to cement the user-hostile DMCA in place in the US, and give a possibility for a rather frightening future of intellectual property ownership and the laws surrounding it.
This article entitled "Copyright Overreach Goes on World Tour" is about a recent trade agreement, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which will potentially help globalize the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which has been in play for over 10 years, but is proving to be more controversial every day, as certain restrictions that are a part of it seem to downplay common sense. One example is that you cannot put a DVD purchase on your ipod because of this act, even though you are the owner of it. The countries involved in ACTA are the United States, South Korea, Japan, Canada, and parts of the European Union.
This article points out that this agreement would help to cement the user-hostile DMCA in place in the US, and give a possibility for a rather frightening future of intellectual property ownership and the laws surrounding it.
Friday, November 6, 2009
The law school blues
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2009/10/23/law-graduates-settle-suit/
This case is between two law school students, Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani, studying at Yale, and a group of posters who defamed them on the internet. A bunch of photos of these two law students leaked on the internet and were eventually posted on a law school forum, which their lawyers claim to be the most prostigious law school forum on the internet that is frequented by both law students and law firms looking to hire students. Both girls claim to have lost job and internship opportunities because of the things posted, and fear that it will affect their future career.
I think that it depends on how these pictures found their way to the forum that would determine whether it is defamation. If the girls had posted them in a public place, such as facebook or myspace, then it would have been reposting, and if anything, they had defamed themselves. Despite this, the judge sided with the two girls, even though it was noted that this case was subject to the "Streisand Effect", where a relatively minor instance on the internet tries to get covered up by the embarrassed party through legal means, and as a result, it erupts into the news and on all sorts of websites, making it more public and embarrassing in the end.
This case is between two law school students, Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani, studying at Yale, and a group of posters who defamed them on the internet. A bunch of photos of these two law students leaked on the internet and were eventually posted on a law school forum, which their lawyers claim to be the most prostigious law school forum on the internet that is frequented by both law students and law firms looking to hire students. Both girls claim to have lost job and internship opportunities because of the things posted, and fear that it will affect their future career.
I think that it depends on how these pictures found their way to the forum that would determine whether it is defamation. If the girls had posted them in a public place, such as facebook or myspace, then it would have been reposting, and if anything, they had defamed themselves. Despite this, the judge sided with the two girls, even though it was noted that this case was subject to the "Streisand Effect", where a relatively minor instance on the internet tries to get covered up by the embarrassed party through legal means, and as a result, it erupts into the news and on all sorts of websites, making it more public and embarrassing in the end.
Swartz v. Doe
http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/swartz_v_doe_tennessee_ruling.html
This article is actually an evaluation of the case of Swartz v. Doe, taking it apart and evaluating how the judge got to his conclusion, so it is particularly helpful for me, a poor interactive media student trying to work her way through various case laws. The case was between Donald and Terry Swartz, who are business owners that make their living through purchasing real estate and converting them into drug rehabilitation centers. The defendent, who wished to remain anonymous and went by the name "John Doe" in the court records, hosted a blog (on blogspot, nevertheless), which made negative claim about the Swartz's business dealings and personal lives, claiming them to be arsons, and a bunch of other negative things. The Swartz's ordered google to reveal who this anonymous blogger was, but he refused to give up his identity.
There are two things at play here, defamation and privacy. John Doe caused defamation that could hurt the Swartz's business, but on the other hand, he might be entitled to remain anonymous because of his right to privacy. In the end, the judge decided that the proper way of going about things would have been to notify John Doe that his identity was wanted because of his post, give him reasonable time to respond, and if he wanted to deny it to give them a reason. Since google contacted him and gave him several months to respond, the judge ruled that his privacy rights had not been violated.
This article is actually an evaluation of the case of Swartz v. Doe, taking it apart and evaluating how the judge got to his conclusion, so it is particularly helpful for me, a poor interactive media student trying to work her way through various case laws. The case was between Donald and Terry Swartz, who are business owners that make their living through purchasing real estate and converting them into drug rehabilitation centers. The defendent, who wished to remain anonymous and went by the name "John Doe" in the court records, hosted a blog (on blogspot, nevertheless), which made negative claim about the Swartz's business dealings and personal lives, claiming them to be arsons, and a bunch of other negative things. The Swartz's ordered google to reveal who this anonymous blogger was, but he refused to give up his identity.
There are two things at play here, defamation and privacy. John Doe caused defamation that could hurt the Swartz's business, but on the other hand, he might be entitled to remain anonymous because of his right to privacy. In the end, the judge decided that the proper way of going about things would have been to notify John Doe that his identity was wanted because of his post, give him reasonable time to respond, and if he wanted to deny it to give them a reason. Since google contacted him and gave him several months to respond, the judge ruled that his privacy rights had not been violated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
