IPTAblog

Mayor of Batman sues Batman filmmakers

2008-11-13T23:00:07Z

Variety reports, Mayor of Batman sues WB, Nolan: "The mayor of an oil-producing city in southeastern Turkey, which has the same name as the Caped Crusader, is suing helmer Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros. for royalties from mega-grosser 'The Dark Knight.' Huseyin Kalkan, the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party mayor of Batman, has accused 'The Dark Knight' producers of using the city's name without permission. 'There is only one Batman in the world,' Kalkan said. 'The American producers used the name of our city without informing us.'"

Fake New York Times

2008-11-12T17:36:32Z

In a large scale operation, a 14 page "July 4, 2009" edition of "The New York Times" was distributed around New York this morning. Is this parodic?

There's also an Online version (which is not loading for me).

The Times reports on the spoof, Liberal Pranksters Hand Out Times Spoof: "In an elaborate hoax, pranksters distributed thousands of free copies of a spoof edition of The New York Times on Wednesday morning at busy subway stations around the city, including Grand Central Terminal, Washington and Union Squares, the 14th and 23rd Street stations along Eighth Avenue, and Pacific Street in Brooklyn, among others.

Romanesko posted a press release from the people behind the distribution, "In an elaborate operation six months in the planning, 1.2 million papers were printed at six different presses and driven to prearranged pickup locations, where thousands of volunteers stood ready to pass them out on the street."

Gawker links this to the Yes Men, "The email address that sent out this message was linked to the site of The Yes Men, longtime liberal prank group that has been doing things just as complex and finely tuned as this for years. The Yes Men run the Because We Want It site, through which they set up this prank. They wanted to be anonymous for a while allegedly, but too late." (The Yes Men site is not loading now.)

In addition to articles like "Bush Resumes Golf Game" and "High Speed Internet Hits Fast Track to Appalachia," this edition of "All the News We Hope to Print" includes "ads" for Monsanto, KBR, ExxonMobil, DeBeers, GM, McDonalds, and New York subway advertising icon Dr. Zizmor.

Daniel Radosh, Obama's first unforgivable act, "After eight years of the Onion and the Daily Show and Colbert and too many books and blogs to name, the old saw that liberals had no sense of humor had finally been banished. And then today, in the first big humor statement of the Obama era, the Yes Men produce a New York Times parody that actually parodies nothing but — quite unintentionally — dreary socialist agitprop."

FCC v. Fox Oral Arguments Today

2008-11-04T22:37:25Z

It's hard to think about things non-electoral today, but today also happens to be the oral arguments in the Supreme Court for FCC v. Fox. The Court will be reviewing the FCC "fleeting expletive" standard for broadcast indecency.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled "the FCC’s new policy sanctioning 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy." Fox v. FCC

Transcript of the Oral Arguments for Fox v. FCC in the Supreme Court.

ScotusWiki has links to all of the briefs filed along with a preview of the case

Dahlia Lithwick reported on the oral arguments for Slate.com, The Supreme Court's 100 percent dirt-free exploration of potty words, "Well, shit. There was supposed to be swearing. They swore like sailors when this case was argued in the 2nd Circuit. Judges and lawyers both! Those same judges swore themselves silly in the appellate opinion. Advocates swore (a lot) in the merits briefs. Promises were made. But today, in a case about how and when the FCC can regulate so-called 'fleeting utterances' of words like fuck and shit, the saltiest language comes when Solicitor General Gregory Garre, arguing for the FCC, warns that the agency had an obligation to guard against the possibility of 'Big Bird dropping the F-bomb on Sesame Street.'"

The Progress and Freedom Foundation's Adam Thierer attended the oral arguments and posted some thoughts, Supreme Court oral arguments in FCC v. Fox (General Thoughts): "Overall, however, I am concerned for the First Amendment after this morning's arguments in the Supreme Court. We could get a close decision in favor of the FCC and the agency's ongoing effort to expand content controls."

Some more previews in the press:
David Savage, Los Angeles Times, On the Supreme Court docket: bleeeeeep, "At issue is the future indecency standard for television and radio. Will these broadcasts remain under strict federal regulation because a mass audience that includes children may be watching? Or will a looser standard prevail, giving broadcasters and audiences more choice in what they see and hear?"

William Triplett, Variety, Fox v. FCC heads to Supreme Court: "A decision in the so-called fleeting expletives case of Fox v. FCC, skedded for oral arguments Tuesday morning, could sharply cut back -- maybe even eliminate -- the Federal Communications Commission's authority to police the airwaves for indecent content, experts say."

Adak Liptak, The New York Times, Ideas and Trends - Must It Always Be About Sex?: "The Oxford English Dictionary's three core entries on the word -- noun, verb and interjection -- are about six times as long as this article. That doesn't count about 30 derivations and compounds, all colorful and many recent. The nimble word, the dictionary tells us, can help express that a person is incompetent; that another is not be meddled with; that a situation has been botched; that one does not have the slightest clue; and, in a recent addition, that someone has enough money to be able to quit an unpleasant job."

Voting Machines

2008-11-04T21:22:20Z

Here are a couple of video links vaguely related to the mechanics of voting, without getting into the question of how well our elections are enabling democracy.

Mr. Rogers uses a mechanical lever voting machine:

In New York, we still use the lever machines. There is something especially satisfying about casting a vote by pulling the lever to record a vote using a system of gears. It's a more tactile experience than using some touchscreen or optical scan systems.

And one from The Onion:

Voting Machines Elect One Of Their Own As President

This is very Weird

2008-11-03T21:40:33Z

MTV requested that Weird Al censor the name of P2P file sharing sites Morpheus, Grokster, Limewire and Kazaa from his 2006 video. The New York Times reports, Censorship, or What Really Weirds Out Weird Al - NYTimes.com: "In an e-mail message on Sunday, Mr. Yankovic wrote that he had bleeped out the names to the file-sharing sites in his song two years ago, after MTV 'told me that they would refuse to air my video' otherwise. 'Instead of subtly removing or obscuring the words in the track,' he wrote, 'I made the creative decision to bleep them out as obnoxiously as possible, so that there would be no mistake I was being censored.'"

Weird Al Yankovic |MTV Music

Google Settles with Publishers

2008-10-29T21:55:20Z

Google announces that it settled with the Association of American Publishers, who sued the search engine company in 2005 over its plan to scan and index books that are still protected by copyright. Official Google Blog: New chapter for Google Book Search: "This agreement is truly groundbreaking in three ways. First, it will give readers digital access to millions of in-copyright books; second, it will create a new market for authors and publishers to sell their works; and third, it will further the efforts of our library partners to preserve and maintain their collections while making books more accessible to students, readers and academic researchers.

Here's the text of the Settlement Agreement

Joe Gratz has more details about the settlement, Settlement Reached in Authors Guild v. Google

And here are some collected reactions from around the web.

Professors and Practitioners:
Larry Lessig, On the Google Book Search agreement: "This is a good deal that could be the basis for something really fantastic. The Authors Guild and the American Association of Publishers have settled for terms that will assure greater access to these materials than would have been the case had Google prevailed."

James Grimmelmann, The Laboratorium: Author's Guild Settlement Insta-Blogging: "The result of the settlement will be to give Google a license to keep on doing what it’s doing, while allowing the authors to use their now-sharpened knives to sue anyone else who tries to do the same. At that point, of course, Google would be delighted for the authors to succeed, since it keeps the competition at bay."

Neil Netanel, Balkinization , Google Book Search Settlement: "So in many ways the proposed settlement is a win-win-win-win (for Google, the copyright holders, the libraries, and the public). But there are some causes for concern as well. Perhaps most importantly, the settlement leaves undecided the issue of whether Google's scanning of the entire books and display of snippets is a fair use. Many observers, including me, believed that the courts would ultimately hold that it is a fair use, and thus set important precedent establishing that such 'transformative uses' of copyrighted works -- uses that serve the shared goals of copyright and the First Amendment -- do not infringe copyright."

Mike Madison, On Google Book Search: " The proposal offers a new and larger set of questions, questions that have surrounded Google generally for some time but that the proposal puts into more concrete focus: Are we seeing the early stages of the beginning of the end of copyright law as we know it?"

Susan Crawford, Google settlement: Changing Defaults: "Yesterday’s settlement agreement is remarkable in many ways. It’s a proposed settlement of a civil, private lawsuit, but the agreement feels public. It affects an entire industry, not just the parties concerned. It sets up a new kind of special-purpose collective rights association (h.t. James Grimmelmann), like ASCAP or BMI. Instead of Google acting to create access to a great library of books, it seems to point to the creation of a tremendous bookstore. Perhaps that’s the same thing, but it’s worth thinking about the changed default settings that this arrangement creates."

Siva Vaidhyanathan, The Googlization of Everything, My initial take on the Google-publishers settlement: "this settlement, if it goes through, dodges that great copyright meltdown that I had feared. I did not want to see Google lose this suit in court. And I was confident it would. Google lawyers assured me that they were even more confident they would prevail. And they are smarter than I am. But clearly both sides saw real risk in continuing toward a courtroom showdown."

C.E. Petit, Scrivener's Error: "On balance, I think this settlement is not in anybody's best interests... but, as usual, the actual creators of content will be screwed most thoroughly."

Lobbying Groups:
Arts+Labs (Current members include AT&T, Viacom, NBC Universal, Cisco, Microsoft and the Songwriters Guild of America), Arts+Labs Statement on the Google Settlement with American Association of Publishers, "This settlement shows that creators' rights and consumer benefit can go hand-in-hand in the Internet age. It is a victory for consumers and creators alike. The agreement demonstrates that collaboration between the technology community and the creative community can give consumers access to a wealth of resources while also preserving copyright owners' right to control how their work is distributed online and to earn fair compensation for their creativity."

Patrick Ross, The Copyright Alliance, A Good Day for Authors: "It is refreshing to see we are finally where we should have been several years ago, developing a marketplace solution that allows copyright owners to grant access in return for compensation and allows those seeking access to written works to obtain it. I should also note that the libraries above participated in the talks and thus are presumably satisfied at the access this agreement gives to their patrons and others interested in access to works both copyrighted and public domain."

Reporters:
New York Times, Google Settles Suit Over Book-Scanning: "Google plans to take 37 percent of the revenue, leaving 63 percent for publishers and authors. If Google sells ads on pages where previews of scanned books appear, it will split the revenue on the same basis."

Chris Snyder, Wired, Google Settles Book-Scan Lawsuit, Everybody Wins: "Google's settlement of a three-year old lawsuit challenging its Book Search program, which scans books and make portions available online, creates a new revenue stream for authors and publishers (and itself) — but the financial benefits are dwarfed by the clear field the company now has to complete an ambitious program to create a global digital library."

Jessica Guynn, LA Times, Google settles copyright dispute with publishers and authors: "If approved by a Manhattan federal court judge next summer, the settlement has the potential to revolutionize the publishing industry by creating a giant online marketplace that would dramatically increase the volume of literature available to readers and researchers -- while compensating authors and publishers."

Rob Hof, Business Week, Google Settles Book Search Lawsuits with Authors, Publishers: "As a book lover, what I find the coolest thing about the deal is that eventually, I’ll be able to visit most any library and, using at least one terminal that will be set up at each library, view digital versions of these books for free (though I’ll have to pay to print out pages). It’s nice that all the sides managed to agree on something that is demonstrably a good thing for all of us."

Previously:

Another Google Book Search Commentary Roundup (Dec. 2)
HarperCollins Plans to Scan (Dec. 12)
Google Print and Fair Use (Nov. 9)
Google Print at the Public Library (Nov. 18)
Publishers Sue Google, Too (Oct. 19)
Google, Publishers, Copies and "Being Evil" (Sept. 21)

Old Advertising Characters Revived...

2008-10-29T21:40:54Z

... for political satire.

NewTeeVee reports: Super Bowl Ads of Yore Revamped for '08 Election: "Now, with the election just a week away, we've come full circle with two more ads from Super Bowls past revamped for online political purposes. Office Linebacker 'Terrible' Terry Tate has returned to put the hurt on fools who don’t vote, while the 'Wassup' guys guys have suffered every great malady our nation has gone through over the last eight years."

Wall Street Journal, 'Whassup' Comes Out for Obama - WSJ.com: "The parody is raising eyebrows in ad circles, partly because Budweiser's maker, Anheuser-Busch, can't do much to stop it. In a departure from normal industry practice, neither Anheuser nor its ad firm, Omnicom Group's DDB Chicago, own the Whassup slogan or concept. Instead, the brewer paid Mr. Stone roughly $37,000 to license the idea for five years. That deal expired three years ago, says Mr. Stone, who appeared with his buddies in several of the Budweiser Whassup ads."

FMC Creative License

2008-10-03T21:43:24Z

On Monday, October 6, the Future of Music Coalition is holding a session on sampling and licensing at the Public Theater here in NYC: Creative License. Preceding that event is a seminar on What's the Future for Musicians.

Accio Injunction

2008-09-09T22:39:33Z

In what is likely to be the most magical copyright case to come to the Southern District of New York this year, US District Judge Robert Patterson ruled in favor of Warner Brothers and J.K Rowling against RDR Books, finding that the publisher of the Harry Potter Lexicon infringed on the plaintiffs' copyrighted expression in the collected Harry Potter works. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. RDR Books

While a victory for the original author, this case does provide useful guidance for future reference guides to fictional works on how to create a guide that will be considered fair use.

The key issue that the court has with the Lexicon is the extent to which it borrows language directly from the original Harry Potter novels and companion books. The court writes, "Although it is difficult to quantify how much of the language in the Lexicon is directly lifted from the Harry Potter novels and companion books, the Lexicon indeed contains at least a troubling amount of direct quotation or close paraphrasing of Rowling's original language. The Lexicon occasionally uses quotation marks to indicate Rowling's language, but more often the original language is copied without quotation marks, often making it difficult to know which words are Rowling's and which are Vander Ark's. … Although hundreds pages (sic) or thousands of fictional facts may amount to only a fraction of the seven-book series, this quantum of copying is sufficient to support a finding of substantial similarity where the copied expression is entirely the product of the original author's imagination and creation."

Invented facts-- such as the properties of a boggart-- constitute creative expression protected by copyright. Each "fact" reported by the Lexicon is actually expression invented by Rowling. Reproducing original expression in fragments or in a different order, however, does not preclude a finding of substantial similarity. However, the Lexicon's rearrangement of Rowling's fictional facts does not alter the protected expression in a way that the Lexicon ceases to be substantially similar to the original works.

The court finds that the Lexicon is not an infringing derivative work because it is not sufficiently creative to be a derivative work. "By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting material in an A-to-Z reference guide, the Lexicon does not recast the material in another medium to retell the story of Harry Potter, but instead gives the copyrighted material another purpose." In a footnote, the court goes on to note that this is the key difference between derivative works which are infringing and works of fair use, which are permissible.

The defendants raise the defense that the Lexicon is a fair use of material from the Harry Potter books, but the court rules that the Lexicon is insufficiently transformative to be a fair use. "The purpose of the Lexicon's use of the Harry Potter series is transformative. Presumably, Rowling created the Harry Potter series for the expressive purpose of telling and entertaining and thought provoking story centered on the character Harry Potter and set in a magical world. The Lexicon, on the other hand, uses material from the series for the practical purpose of making information about the intricate world of Harry Potter readily accessible to readers in a reference guide. … Because it serves these reference purposes, rather than the entertainment or aesthetic purposes of the original works, the Lexicon's use is transformative and does not supplant the objects of the Harry Potter works." The Lexicon's use of material from the companion books, which started life off in encyclopedic form, does add value by "adding a productive purpose to the original material," it is transformative "to a much lesser extent" since it largely supplants "the informational purpose of the original works."

"While not its primary purpose, the Lexicon does add some new insight, of whatever value, as to the Harry Potter works."

"The transformative character of the Lexicon is diminished, however, because the Lexicon's use of the original Harry Potter works is not consistently transformative. … Perhaps because Vander Ark is such a Harry Potter enthusiast, the Lexicon often lacks restraint in using Rowling's original expression for its inherent entertainment and aesthetic value." The inconsistent use of diligent citations by the Lexicon contributes to a lack of transformative character in those instances where its value as a reference guide lapses.

Weighing most heavily against Defendant on the third factor is the Lexicon's verbatim copying and close parahprasing of language form the Harry Potter works. In many instances, the copied language is a colorful literary device or distinctive description.… The Lexicon's verbatim copying of such highly aesthetic expression raises a significant question as to whether it was reasonably necessary for the purpose of creating a useful and complete reference guide.

"Additionally, the fourth factor favors Plaintiffs if publication of the Lexicon would impair the market for derivative works that Rowling is entitled or likely to license. Although there is no supporting testimony, one potential derivative market that would reasonably be developed or licensed by Plaintiffs is use of the songs and poems in the Harry Potter novels. Because Plaintifs would reasonably license the musical production or print publication of those songs and poems, Defendant unfairly harms this derivative market by reproducing verbatim the songs and poems without a license."

The court confirms that it should be possible to write a guide to a series of novels that does qualify as a fair use, by lifting less of the language directly.

"Notwithstanding Rowling's public statements of her intention to publish her own encyclopedia, the market for reference guides to the Harry Potter works is not exclusively hers to exploit or license, no matter the commercial success attributable to the popularity of the original works. The market for reference guides does not become derivative simply because the copyright holder seeks to produce or license one.… Furthermore, there is no plausible basis to conclude that publication of the Lexicon would impair sales of the Harry Potter novels… reading the Lexicon cannot serve as a substitute for reading the original novels; they are enjoyed for different purposes. The Lexicon is thus unlikely to serve as a market substitute for the Harry Potter series and cause market harm.…

"In striking the balance between the property rights of original authors and the freedom of expression of secondary authors, reference guides to works of literature should generally be encouraged by copyright law as they provide a benefit readers and students; but to borrow from Rowling's overstated views, they should not be permitted to 'plunder' the works of original authors 'without paying the customary price,' lest original authors lose incentive to create new works that will also benefit the public interest."

Other links and commentary:
Michael Madison, madisonian.net Eyes on the Fair Use Prize: "The interesting half of the opinion, from my point of view, is the treatment of the fair use argument. In effect, and without belaboring a critique of the full opinion, the court decided that the Lexicon, while alleged to be a work of scholarship, wasn’t scholarly enough."

Derek Bambauer, Info/Law, Rowling 1, Lexicon 0: "This case tees up hard copyright questions. What is the boundary of the term of art ‘derivative work’? How broad should an author’s control be over secondary, non-scholarly works treating her expression? How should courts deal with inventorying of ‘fictional facts’? This opinion resolves some of these questions in the Lexicon case, but I feel less certain it answers them for future plaintiffs."

Scrivener's Error, Harry Potter and the Copyright Infringement: "Contrary to the whingeing (and outright screaming) that you're going to hear, this is not a rejection of fair use as a concept. It is, instead, limited to the particular facts that were presented to Judge Patterson for this matter."

David Ardia, Citizen Media Law Project, Judge Rejects Fair Use Defense in Harry Potter Lexicon Case, J.K. Rowling Recovers Her Plums: "So what are we to make of the court's lengthy exposition on fair use? As I already noted, Judge Patterson's framing of the facts seems to have dictated how his fair use analysis would come out. Nevertheless, there is some good news in the opinion for fair use advocates."

NY Times, Rowling Wins Lawsuit
Against Potter Lexicon: "For seven years, a Harry Potter fanatic worked on a guidebook to J. K. Rowling's best-selling series, but in the end, a federal judge ruled on Monday, his book was too close to the work he admired."

Art auctions and false advertising at sea

2008-08-01T20:11:05Z

The New York Times, Art Purchases Lead to Lawsuits Following Cruise Ship Auctions: "When most people think of art auctions, they think of Christie’s or Sotheby’s in New York or London, not a cruise ship. But over the last two decades, auctioning ‘fine art’ on cruises, often to first-time bidders who have never met a reserve or inspected a provenance, has become big business."

Law.com, Cruise Passengers Claim Gallery Short-Changed Them During Voyage: "He ended up buying two works on a two-week cruise aboard Celebrity Cruise Lines' Constellation in June 2007. Bouverat said he was told the print and painting he purchased from Park West Gallery were worth about $15,000 apiece. He paid a total of $20,520. Once on land, he says he learned the Miro print was almost worthless, akin to poster art. The other piece was a painting of a clown playing a guitar by Anatole Krasnyansky. Bouverat said Krasnyansky appears to work exclusively in a stable of artists for Southfield, Mich.-based Park West, which bills itself as 'America's premier art dealer.'"

More links available at the Art Law Blog: At Sea (UPDATED)

Scrabulous-less

2008-08-01T15:08:03Z

Michael Madison, Madisonian, has a thoughtful look on the Scrabulous and the online reaction, The Stakes of Scrabulous, "Still, on balance, I think that Hasbro deserves a win if the case were litigated to judgment; the name 'Scrabulous' would likely be found to be confusingly derivative of 'Scrabble,' and the boards do resemble one another, though they are hardly identical. Still, if the producers of Scrabulous changed the name to 'CrosswordMania' and changed the color scheme of the Board, then they would be on safer ground. Not to say safe ground altogether, but safer. Hasbro’s IP rights don’t extend to the idea of online crossword games."

In its complaint against the Scrabulous developers, Hasbro describes the Scrabble board:

19. The SCRABBLE® playing board has bonus squares that give the player who puts a word on them double or triple letter scores and double or triple word scores. The square are colored, marked, and arranged as shown in Exhibit 1.

A. The center square is rose colored with a black star and the first player to take his or his turn receives a score that is double the value of the tiles.
B. The 4 corner squares and the 4 squares that are mid-way along each side (that is, that are 7 squares from the corners) are deep red in color and are labeled and award the player a "triple word score." There are 8 total "triple word score" squares.
C. Starting with the tile diagonally closer to the middle of the board for each corner "triple word score" square, the next four squares diagonally toward the center of the board are rose in color and are labeled "double word score." There are 16 total "double word score" squares.
D. "Triple letter score" squares are dark blue and "double letter score" squares are light blue. They form an "X" pattern through the center of the board and pyramid shapes off the sides of the board with the dark blue "triple letter score" squares forming the outer points of the "X" and the second level of the pyramids. There are 12 dark blue "triple letter score" squares and 24 light blue "double letter score" squares.

Here is a Scrabble game:

This is a Scrabulous game:

Here is what the licensed version of Scrabble on Facebook looks like. Note that the colored squares are different colors than the board game. What does this mean as far as the distinctiveness of the Scrabble trade dress?

What about a game that shares the word list and tile distribution and number of places on the board, but has a different look and places the bonus squares in different locations on the board? What if this game is configurable by the user and gives the game players the option to set it up like a Scrabble board but doesn't offer the Scrabble setup as a preset?

That's what the creators of Scrabulous have done with their new game, WordScraper. Is there any likelihood of confusion here? Copying?

Scrabbled

2008-07-29T14:19:20Z

I was too busy playing Scrabulous last week to blog about the complaint filed by Hasbro against the creators of Scrabulous, the online word game that happens to share the board layout and rules of play of Scrabble.

Complaint in Hasbro v. RJ Softwares (08cv06567, NYSD filed Jul. 24) for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, trademark dilution and common law unfair competition.

hasbro v scrabulous - Upload a Document to Scribd

In addition, Hasbro served Facebook with a DMCA takedown notice.

Facebook forwarded the takedown notice to the Scrabulous developers who prevented access to the application for ~~addicts~~ users in the US and Canada.

In the NY Times Bits Blog, Brad Stone reports Hasbro Notches Triple-Word Score Against Scrabulous With ‘Lawsuit': "'Hasbro has an obligation to act appropriately against infringement of our intellectual properties,' said Barry Nagler, Hasbro’s general counsel, in a statement. "We view the Scrabulous application as clear and blatant infringement of our Scrabble intellectual property, and we are pursuing this legal action in accordance with the interests of our shareholders, and the integrity of the Scrabble brand.'"

Wendy Seltzer argues that a game like Scrabble is not a sufficiently creative form of expression to be copyrightable. Scrabbling for Legal Rationalism: No Copyright for Games: "So the 'methods of operation' — the rules of the game, should be uncopyrightable no matter how intricate. Their particular expression in an elegantly written manual may be protected, but another is free to extract the underlying ideas and rewrite the manual to describe an identically played game."

At Madisonian, Frank Pasquale also wonders about whether copyright protects the Scrabble board, but that the similarity between the marks seems like to lead to a likelihood of confusion, Absolutely Scrabulous: "But that still leaves the elephant in the room%u2013the substantial similarity between Scrabulous and the mark Scrabble. But in keeping with the theme of this post (of pushing defenses here to the breaking point)%u2013could Scrabble be generic? I know that%u2019s doubtful, but I also have a sense that there is no other way that people refer to the %u201Cgame that involves seven lettered tiles played for points on a board that includes double and triple letter and word scores.%u201D On the other hand, if you asked the %u201Cman on the street%u201D if Scrabble is the name of a word game or the name of trademark for a company%u2019s (version of a) word game, it seems like the latter interpretation is at least as likely as the former for someone with an elementary knowledge of the law."

More than anything in the short term, the takedown will be the best promotion for Hasbro to drive traffic to the licensed Scrabble application (which, surprisingly, is dreadfully slow and ugly compared with the simple and relatively elegant Scrabulous application.)

Community Standards, Sex, Violence and Blogs

2008-06-24T20:58:22Z

The New York Times reports on the use of search engine data to establish community standards for web sites, What’s Obscene? Google Could Have an Answer: "In the trial of a pornographic Web site operator, the defense plans to show that residents of Pensacola are more likely to use Google to search for terms like ‘orgy’ than for ‘apple pie’ or ‘watermelon.’"

The Times also reports that most of the buyers of Grand Theft Auto found it acceptable that the violent, mature-rated video game include hidden sex scenes and chose not to file for a claim in a class action settlement. Hidden Sex Scenes Draw Ho-Hum, Except From Lawyers: "Lawyers who sued the makers of the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas profess to be shocked, simply shocked, that few people who bought the game were offended by sex scenes buried in its software. Any buyer upset about hidden sex in the violent game could file a claim under a settlement the lawyers struck with the game’s maker, Take-Two Interactive. Of the millions of people who bought the San Andreas version after its release in 2004, exactly 2,676 filed claims."

And, not really related, the state of Kentucky will filter blogs on its computers under the same standard it treats all other websites. Greg Beck writes at Internet Cases, Kentucky settles banned blogger’s First Amendment challenge to Internet filtering policy: "Political blogger Mark Nickolas yesterday settled his lawsuit against Kentucky, in which he challenged the state’s policy of blocking blogs on state-owned computers. The settlement provides that Kentucky will no longer target websites for restriction just because they are blogs, and will instead treat them in the same way it treats other websites with similar content. In other words, classifying a website as a ‘blog’ is no longer a good enough reason to ban a site on the state’s computers."

Value-Added Piracy

2008-06-24T17:14:06Z

NPR reports on the Chinese groups using P2P to distribute subtitled versions of American TV shows: Chinese Fans Follow American TV Online - for Free: "Han says they can download untranslated versions of the American shows from the peer-to-peer file-sharing site BitTorrent as soon as 10 minutes after new episodes air in the U.S. Then they find closed-captioned scripts in English; those also turn up online shortly after the show airs. The captioned scripts are the raw material. Han says they take those scripts and turn them into creative Chinese translations."

Previously: Perestroika by Piracy

George Carlin

2008-06-23T15:36:17Z

The New York Times reports on the passing of George Carlin, George Carlin, 71, Irreverent Standup Comedian: "Mr. Carlin was hailed for his poignant observations on the absurdities of everyday life in routines like 'Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.'"

A broadcast of the "Seven Words" routine brought to the Supreme Court the question of whether the First Amendment allows the FCC to regulate broadcasts of speech that is merely indecent. FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).

David Oxenford, Broadcast Law Blog, George Carlin - Writing the Indeceny Rules the FCC Never Did: "Perhaps the greatest misimpression of the Carlin routine is the widely held belief that there are in fact Seven Dirty Words that you can never say on the air. In fact, that is not and has never been the FCC's holding. In fact, until recently, there were no words that were specifically banned on the air - all had to be evaluated by context."

New York Times, The Feisty Station That Defended Carlin’s ‘Seven Words’ Looks Back: "In a 1978 milestone in the station’s contentious and unruly history, WBAI lost a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision that to this day has defined the power of the government over broadcast material it calls indecent."