Copyright and Censorship

By Terry Hart
Copyhype | Article Link

On January 19, 2011, members of New York City’s theater community and human rights supporters gathered to mark the one month anniversary of Belarus’ contested presidential election. The election was widely condemned as fraudulent, accompanied by the arrests of many peaceful protesters in Belarus with thousands more beaten.

100 Internet Users Responsible for Most Unlawful Copyright P2P File Sharing Content

By MarcJ
ISPreview | Article Link

A scientific study has estimated that just 100 internet users are ultimately responsible for publishing most (almost 67%) of all the "illegal" (unlawful) copyright content (music, tv shows, movies, games and applications) on public P2P (BitTorrent) file sharing networks. The primary motivation appears to be money and the study identifies several broadband ISPs, including one UK provider (Virgin Media), as unwittingly playing a big part.

The study, which set out to examine the behaviour of the users who are responsible for publishing over 55,000 files on the two main portals (Mininova and The Pirate Bay), was carried out by Spain's Carlos III University of Madrid (UC3M). The content they posted ultimately accounted for "75 percent of [all] the downloads" (i.e. by end-users).

Music Piracy is Rampant Even as Labels License Online Sites

By Kristen Schweizer

Bloomberg | Article Link

Hundreds of online music services licensed by record labels in recent years have done little to stem rampant illegal downloading, which is pushing down the value of recorded music.

Digital piracy is still rising along with websites and forums linking to content accessible by piracy services, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry said in its annual report today. Global revenue from music via the Internet and mobile phones rose 6 percent to $4.6 billion, accounting for 29 percent of record companies’ sales. The rate of growth was less than 2009’s 12 percent increase.

Record companies have been licensing online music services such as Spotify and Rdio and relying on premium ads around online videos to help make up for a drop in CD sales as more physical shops shutter and online piracy shows no signs of waning. Brazil and Spain are among countries with the highest proportion of people visiting unlicensed music sites, and the majority of content distributed on file-sharing networks infringes copyright, the IFPI said.

Fox Sues to Stop Film & TV Script Leaks

By Eriq Gardner

THR, Esq. | Article Link

Twentieth Century Fox is taking aggressive steps to keep its movie and TV scripts off of the Internet.

The studio has filed a lawsuit alleging roughly $15 million in damages against a New York woman, Patricia McIlvaine, who is said to have put up roughly 100 scripts online without authorization.

On her personal website, McIlvaine describes herself as a "struggling screenwriter who sells flowers over the phone by day and writes scripts by night." She says she collected scripts that were already posted on the web and made a free online library of scripts in order to assist other screenwriters. She's already soliciting donations for a legal defense fund.

Why is the studio targeting her? Spoiler alert!

According to the complaint, McIlvaine's actions allegedly cause particular damage to films and TV shows that are still in development. The postings "interfere and trade off of the costly and carefully designed creative processes that produce finished works ready for public consumption. They harm the fans who do not want their enjoyment of a movie or television show to be spoiled by knowing the story ahead of actually being able to watch it."

Fox's lawsuit mentions various scripts including Aliens, Edward Scissorhands, Wall Street, and Glee. It also mentions the leak of the script for the X-Men sequel Deadpool, which isn't scheduled to be released until 2012.

Game Over: Supreme Court to Review California’s Violent Video Game Restrictions

By Joey Weiner
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal
IPLJ Article Permalink

Following the attempts of a number of state legislatures, including those of Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana and California, to restrict minors’ rights to purchase violent video games, the Supreme Court will determine whether video games are granted the same free speech protection as other forms of expression.  On November 2nd, the Court began its review of the California Assembly Bill 1179, which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law in 2005.[1] The law imposes a $1,000 fine on anyone who sells or rents a violent video game to a minor[2] and requires that each violent video game imported to or distributed in the state must “be labeled with a solid white ‘18’ outlined in black.”[3]

In February 2009, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to grant the Video Software Dealers Association’s motion for summary judgment to permanently enjoin enforcement of the California Assembly Bill.[4] Though both courts ruled that the Bill would violate the First Amendment, the opinions of the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reflect varying perspectives regarding the inherent value of video games.  The district court ruled that despite the fact that video games are “mere entertainment” and are “base and malignant,” they are still protected by the First Amendment.[5] The Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, recognized that some games, though violent, may “have extensive plot lines that involve or parallel historical events, mirror common fictional plots, or place the player in a position to evaluate and make moral choices.”[6]