Comments on: The Top 10 Copyright Stories of the 2000s

By: tir876

tir876 — Mon, 09 May 2011 17:34:21 +0000

I agree with Jonathan that the web is a powerful medium that can benefit everyone on both sides as common ground is established. My only concern is that there is an imbalance where monster companies like Google dominate law suits and push-the-line to the most extreme level. They have molded the web into a place where the middle man is "using" other people's content to make all the money while those who "create" quality content are only left with expensive and time consuming legal ramifications. Don't get me wrong, I feel the web is amazing and has great benefits. All I'm saying is I think the web will be absolutely phenomenal when the balance is realized. Maybe the evolution of the copyright laws are the path to that balance.

By: Top Copyright Stories of the Decade - Scholarly Communication at Texas A&M

Top Copyright Stories of the Decade - Scholarly Communication at Texas A&M — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:38:25 +0000

[...] interesting (and unexpected) turns-of-events, as described by writer Jonathan Bailey in his piece The Top 10 Copyright Stories of the 2000s. Browse on over to this amazing and entertaining chronicle of recent copyright history if [...]

By: SitePoint Podcast #43: Passive Over-sharing

SitePoint Podcast #43: Passive Over-sharing — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:11:57 +0000

[...] The Top 10 Copyright Stories of the 2000s (Plagiarism [...]

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 03:46:46 +0000

There's a lot of debate about how bad the damage actually was. There was a lot of saber-rattling about leaving the band but all of their subsequent albums have gone multiple platinum and their tours have all been hits. In short, it didn't hurt their bottom line much if at all.Still, they have changed their tune a lot and were more open to downloaders of "Death Magnetic".Then again, after "Saint Anger" they were lucky anyone wanted to listen to them still.

By: Justin f.h

Justin f.h — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:13:43 +0000

I remember the Napster story as clear as day. Didn't Metalitica lose a lot of fans because of this shit?

By: dan bailey, esq

dan bailey, esq — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:44:44 +0000

Marilyn Monroe Publicity -The Marilyn Monroe estate, MMLLC, sued 4 photographers in 2005 for alleged violations based on the Rights of Publicity for Monroe. MMLLC through the licensing agency, CMG, has collected the fees and royalties for Monroe's RoP averaging many millions each year, for the last 20 years.The legal cases ended up in federal courts in New York and California (where the Marilyn estate presumed the state laws have post-mortem publicity laws and Monroe had a legal residence).The New York court's 32-page decision on September 2, 2008, involving The Shaw Family Archives, rejected the right of publicity claim for MMLLC. And like the New York court, the US District Court for the Central District of California also rejected arguments by MMLLC and CMG that rights for Monroe were conferred posthumously to her estate.The legal point in the decision(s) is very simple. Both Federal courts ruled that there can be no publicity rights for Monroe in New York or California because the Rights of Publicity Act was introduced after her death in 1962, so she could not have passed publicity rights on to her heirs through her will.MMLLC and CMG took a big risk and lost. MMLLC and CMG now are at a huge risk of liability for asserting rights that they did not own, and they are scrambling to try to amend the laws retroactively.

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:03:01 +0000

It's been a Hell of a decade to say the least. It'll be interesting to see what comes from a lot of this looking down the road. Fortunately though, the Lexmark case did end favorably and really was more about competition than copyright (one of the reasons it was tossed). Still, there's a lot of ugliness out there. Here's to hoping for a better decade ahead!

By: dpak

dpak — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:51:08 +0000

Excellent article as always Jonathan.Hard to believe another decade has passed, all the things that change and all those which remain the same. Ah, the dcma. An excellent example of how something that seems like a good idea (i.e. to protect intellectual property) can get way out of hand (the famous lexmark toner and ink case). Following in the footsteps of the RIAA, now we are beginning to see the "three strikes rule"…where based upon accusation someone can lose internet access? Couple that with drm, where I can't use my content because someone COULD be in violation…so microsoft is the instrument of dcma due process? Who speaks for consumers and fair use?Again, excellent list.Dpak

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:04:35 +0000

Good point there about Kelly. I had it in my original notes but ended up leaving it out.It's strange that case. While much the same ruling as P10 was reached, an element about the deep linking to images was sent back to the lower court where a default judgement was entered against Arriba due to the fact they had gone out of business and no one was left to take the case up.The P10 case, however, really tied up the loose ends and its amazing how often its cited today. I'm hard pressed to find a fair use analysis that doesn't include at least a mention of it. The lasting impact of Kelly seems to be less dramatic.Still, good point, I missed the forefather in this one. Weill go back and add a mention in a second.

By: Åsk Dabitch

Åsk Dabitch — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:33:01 +0000

Great list. Napster, wow what a flashback. Was expecting a wee mention of Kelly vs Arriba Soft Corp. when you talk about the thumbnails though - since Gawker (and pals) used to hide being that ruling when they used thumbnails in the posts [the silly part was, they hid behind the wrong ruling as the first one was overturned]. (I have a short chat with Leslie A. Kelly about copyright here http://adland.tv/content/short-chat-leslie-kell..... by the way)