Showing posts with label fair use defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fair use defense. Show all posts

Friday, June 9, 2023

Supreme Court’s 2023 Copyright Fair Use Decision is Not a One-Hit Wonder; JD Supra, June 6, 2023

 Mark AvsecAngela Gottidia Mowad, JD Supra; Supreme Court’s 2023 Copyright Fair Use Decision is Not a One-Hit Wonder

"The fair use defense to copyright infringement has been remastered by the Supreme Court—at least the first factor. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith holds that the defense does not apply to commercial copying of an original work if the copy serves the same or highly similar purpose as the original. Despite the Court’s efforts to limit its holding, the decision is far from a one-hit wonder. Now more than ever, artists and others should proceed with caution when creating unauthorized derivative works, especially if they plan to commercialize them."

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Copyright in Klingon; Washington Post, 1/9/17

David Post, Washington Post; Copyright in Klingon:

"The court went awry, I believe, in holding additionally that the defendants “are not entitled to the fair use defense,” a holding that illustrates much that is wrong with copyright law these days.

To begin with, the fair use defense, involving a complicated balancing of defendant’s motives and purposes, the effect of the defendant’s use on the market for the original work and any number of other relevant factors, is hardly ever appropriate for disposition on summary judgment; there’s too much fact-finding required.
But more to the point, “Axanar” uses copyrighted material for a transformative purpose — creating a new and original work of art. It is not a substitute, in the market, for the original; if anything, it enhances the value of the original. This is precisely what our copyright law, through the fair use exception, should be encouraging — the production of new and original works of art that build on prior works to create something new and valuable."

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Sharing of television news clips hangs in the fair-use balance; ArsTechnica.com, 12/2/15

David Kravets, ArsTechnica.com; Sharing of television news clips hangs in the fair-use balance:
"Fox News is winning more than just the news network ratings wars. It's also winning the battle against copyright's fair use doctrine.
In August, a federal judge sided (PDF) with the news station's copyright-infringement lawsuit against a television and radio clipping service known as TVEyes, which charges as much as $500 a month for its service. A New York federal judge ruled that wanton sharing, time searching, and downloading of Fox News' news segments is not fair use. Then in November, US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled TVEyes could not allow its clients—like the White House, American Red Cross, members of Congress, and others—to download Fox News clips. The judge also ordered TVEyes to block users from searching Fox News clips and from allowing them to share them on social media...
All of this begs the question of what is fair use. It's complicated, and there is no bright-line rule."

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Bad News: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Oracle v. Google API Copyright Decision; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 6/29/15

Michael Barclay and Corynne McSherry, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Bad News: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Oracle v. Google API Copyright Decision:
"Sadly, today the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the Federal Circuit’s dangerous decision in Oracle v. Google. Oracle claims a copyright on the Java Application Programming Interface (API), and that Google infringed that copyright by using certain Java APIs in the Android OS. The Federal Circuit had ruled in Oracle’s favor, reversing a well-reasoned district court opinion holding that the APIs in question were not subject to copyright. Google had asked the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit decision. On behalf of 77 computer scientists, EFF had filed an amicus brief supporting Google’s petition.
The Federal Circuit’s decision has been harshly criticized for its misunderstanding of both computer science and copyright law. APIs are, generally speaking, specifications that allow programs to communicate with each other, and are different than the code that implements a program. Treating APIs as copyrightable would have a profound negative impact on interoperability, and, therefore, innovation.
Today’s decision doesn’t mean that Oracle has won the lawsuit. The case will now return to the district court for a trial on Google’s fair use defense."

Friday, January 31, 2014

Playwright Sues to Salvage Play Deconstructing ‘Three’s Company’; New York Times, 1/30/14

Patrick Healy, New York Times; Playwright Sues to Salvage Play Deconstructing ‘Three’s Company’ :
"The New York playwright David Adjmi, best known for Off Broadway satirical works like “Marie Antoinette,” went to federal court on Thursday to try to salvage his play “3C,” which has been tied up by the copyright owner of “Three’s Company,” the landmark television comedy that Mr. Adjmi deconstructs through a dark lens in “3C.”
In a 20-page complaint, which was accompanied by supportive comments from acclaimed theater artists like Jon Robin Baitz, Tony Kushner and Stephen Sondheim, Mr. Adjmi asked the Southern District Court of New York to declare that “3C” does not infringe on the copyright of “Three’s Company,” which ran from 1977 to 1984 and remains in syndication. Mr. Adjmi’s lawyers, citing the First Amendment and the legal doctrine of fair use, argue that “3C” is an original parody that only borrows some elements from the sitcom to examine its premise, character types, and homophobia and sexism in that era...
Mr. Adjmi’s lawyers cite multiple examples of parodies that were protected under the fair use doctrine, including the novel “The Wind Done Gone” (which re-tells much of “Gone With the Wind” from a slave’s perspective) and a “Saturday Night Live” sketch that featured a tourism jingle from Biblical times, “I Love Sodom,” sung to the tune of “I Love New York.” Plays like “Mr. Burns” (which uses elements from “The Simpsons”) and “Dog Sees God” (a parody of the Peanuts cartoons) have also successfully avoided copyright problems by taking personality traits and references from the original material and presenting them in wholly new ways."

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Not-So-Great Expectations; Inside Higher Ed, 10/18/13

Colleen Flaherty, Inside Higher Ed; Not-So-Great Expectations: "Politics aside, Slocum’s case and others like it in recent months raise an important question: In the age of social media and smartphones, what expectations – if any – should professors have for privacy for lectures and communications intended for students? Very little, said Slocum – but that’s “an acknowledgement of fact, of the way the Internet works, rather than a normative statement.” Privacy and intellectual property experts agreed, saying that such communications are fair game for students to share. Higher education has a complicated relationship with copyright and other ownership questions, experts said, due to historical concerns about academic freedom. Legally, however, most all of what professors say to students in lectures and in e-mails would pass the "fair use" doctrine test, making it O.K. for students to record, share and comment on even copyrighted material for non-commercial purposes. “All of us have to figure out what our expectations should be in an age of smartphones and the Internet,” said Jessica Litman, a professor of law and information at the University of Michigan who specializes in intellectual property -- professors included... “Copyright doesn't protect extemporaneous utterances unless they are recorded with the permission of their author -- here, the speaker -- so he would have no copyright claim,” she said. If Penn’s lecture had been written down – including the “rant” – he could have a copyright claim, Litman said. But in that case, the student who recorded it would have a plausible fair use defense, she added, referring to the section of copyright law that allows for unlicensed, non-commercial use of copyrighted material."

Monday, September 23, 2013

U.S. judge boosts Google 'fair use' defense of digital books; Reuters, 9/23/13

Reuters; U.S. judge boosts Google 'fair use' defense of digital books: "Google, based in Mountain View, California, has scanned more than 20 million books since its 2004 agreement with libraries worldwide to digitize books. The Authors Guild and groups representing photographers and graphic artists say the project amounts to massive copyright infringement. Google argues the practice constitutes fair use, an exception under U.S. copyright law, because it only provides portions of the works online. At a hearing in U.S. district court in New York on Monday, Judge Denny Chin said the question of fair use relies in part on whether the project "is a benefit to society." Chin then rattled off several examples of how Google's project has helped people find information, including his own law clerks. "Aren't these transformative uses, and don't they benefit society?" asked Chin."fair use,

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Google Presses Fair Use Case in Book Scanning Appeal; Library Journal, 11/12/12

Gary Price, Library Journal; Google Presses Fair Use Case in Book Scanning Appeal: "On November 9, Google asked a federal appeals court to reverse the May ruling that the Authors Guild’s long running case against Google Books could go forward as a class action. In August, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided to allow Google to appeal for decertifying the case as a class action...Since the last time Google sought dismissal of the Guild case, in July, Google’s side has been strengthened by the ruling in the Guild’s case against the HathiTrust, for allowing Google to digitize their holdings and putting them to several uses."

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Righthaven responds to fair use defense in suit; Miami Herald, 12/27/10

Miami Herald; Righthaven responds to fair use defense in suit:

"A company suing websites on behalf of the owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal says an Oregon nonprofit that helps immigrants isn't exempt from copyright laws."

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Nevada court hits copyright troll with Fair Use surprise; ArsTechnica.com, 11/24/10

Matthew Lasar, ArsTechnica.com; Nevada court hits copyright troll with Fair Use surprise:

"A Nevada judge has given copyright troll Righthaven until mid-December to explain why one of the law firm's targets wasn't exercising its right to Fair Use when it republished a newspaper article on its website."

http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/11/nevada-court-hits-righthaven-with-fair-use-surprise.ars

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Palin's publisher sues Gawker over book excerpts; Associated Press, 11/20/10

Associated Press; Palin's publisher sues Gawker over book excerpts:

"The lawsuit asks that Gawker be banned from what it terms "further copyright infringement" and that Gawker deliver the source material to the publisher so it can be destroyed.
HarperCollins is also seeking financial damages."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQrUWupgCs_sxMxtLJ32mfyioZ4A?docId=407b37d7ab4949f0bad1b6348cb6d9a6

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Courts to Rule on Fan - Created Music Videos; Reuters via New York Times, 1/15/10

Reuters via New York Times; Courts to Rule on Fan - Created Music Videos:

"More than a decade after the launch of Napster, the recording industry's complicated legal relationship with Web-savvy music fans seems no closer to resolution. But a number of cases winding their way through the courts may bring a bit of clarity in 2010 to one particularly fuzzy area of the law: fan-created online videos that contain music.

The major labels have all worked out deals with YouTube to split ad revenue with the site after a user uploads a music video. But considering that labels don't issue explicit licenses to users and YouTube continues to warn against uploading copyrighted material, it isn't clear whether the labels actually want fans to upload their music in the first place. Meanwhile, other copyright owners who don't have deals with YouTube, such as Viacom and music publisher Bourne, are still pursuing copyright infringement suits against the video-sharing giant...

FEW PRECEDENTS

There is surprisingly little case law on this topic. In September, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled against Universal Music Group in its infringement suit against Veoh.com, saying the video-sharing site was protected by the DMCA. But that case isn't binding on a New York federal court, and UMG is appealing. And in a case involving peer-to-peer site isoHunt, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in December that safe harbors are simply unavailable to sites that "induce" infringement.

The other major legal question in the EMI suit is whether lip dubs and similar mash-ups of amateur and professional content are infringing. Copyright reform activists argue that they're examples of fair use tolerated under copyright law as an accommodation to noncommercial, transformative creativity. Of course EMI will point out that, whatever the motivation of the amateur lib-dubber, Vimeo is anything but "noncommercial."

Sources familiar with the labels' thinking on the issue acknowledge these videos' promotional value, but they also note that other video-sharing sites like YouTube have struck deals with the labels and dismiss the notion that copyright owners should forgo a revenue stream simply because it also promotes their artists.

Elsewhere, Stephanie Lenz is still battling UMG over its takedown of a video she had uploaded to YouTube of her toddler son dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy." Lenz wants damages for the removal of a video she considers an obvious fair use; UMG maintains it acted in good faith to protect its copyright. And Don Henley's suit against U.S. Senate candidate Chuck DeVore (R-Calif.) over the use of "The Boys of Summer" and "All She Wants to Do Is Dance" in "parody" political videos is moving forward in federal court in Santa Ana, Calif.

U.S. courts have yet to provide clear guidance regarding the legality of pairing copyrighted music with amateur video and then broadcasting it to the world. That may finally change in 2010."

http://tv.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/01/15/arts/entertainment-us-copyright.html?scp=6&sq=copyright&st=cse

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Lawsuit accuses Fox News of copyright infringement; Yahoo News, 1/8/09

Anthony McCartney, Yahoo News; Lawsuit accuses Fox News of copyright infringement:

"A former adviser to Michael Jackson sued Fox News on Thursday for copyright infringement, claiming the cable channel aired portions of an interview with the singer's ex-wife without proper payment or permission.

The lawsuit in federal court by producer F. Marc Schaffel seeks damages from Fox News for airing portions of the 2003 interview with Debbie Rowe after Jackson's death in June. The filing states the interview made up a significant amount of Geraldo Rivera's July 5 show.

Schaffel, who once sued Jackson and won a judgment against him, owns the copyright to the Rowe interview. Portions of the interview were aired on the Fox network in 2003 as part of a special intended to balance out a damaging interview aired earlier that year.

A spokesman for Fox News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., said the channel does not comment on pending litigation. The lawsuit states Fox News has claimed a "fair use" right to air the footage as part of news programming.

The filing chides Murdoch, who has threatened to sue the British Broadcasting Corp. and others for copyright infringement because he claims they are stealing content from his company's newspapers.

"Fox sanctimoniously operates unencumbered by the very copyright restrictions it seeks to impose on its competitors," the lawsuit states."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_en_ot/us_jackson_interview_lawsuit

Friday, December 18, 2009

Google Book Search violates French copyright law; Ars Technica, 12/18/09

Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Google Book Search violates French copyright law:

Google owes €300,000 to a French publishing group after a court found the search and advertising giant liable for scanning La Martinière's books for use in Google Book Search without permission.

"Google's preferred way of indexing information—doing it without permission, relying on fair use or fair dealing laws—has run into yet another spot of trouble in Western Europe. A French court has just ruled that the advertising giant must pay €300,000 in damages to a French publishing group for scanning, indexing, and displaying snippets of its work as part of Google Book Search."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/google-book-search-violates-french-copyright-law.ars

Sunday, December 13, 2009

‘Missed Opportunity’ In File Sharing Case? Don’t Believe It; Wired, 12/8/09

David Kravets, Wired; ‘Missed Opportunity’ In File Sharing Case? Don’t Believe It:

"With the $675,000 judgment against Joel Tenenbaum now final, the inevitable finger pointing has begun.

Tenenbaum was only the second person in the nation to be sued by the RIAA for file sharing and to take the case all the way to jury trial, making it a closely watched case. It’s not surprising he lost, given that he admitted to sharing 30 songs on Kazaa and Limewire. But a few commentators have decided that Tenenbaum’s lawyer, Harvard’s Charles Nesson, is to blame for failing to offer the nuanced “fair use” defense invited by the judge...

What’s gone ignored, though, is that the defense invited by commentators and Judge Gertner wouldn’t have helped Nesson’s client in the least. Virtually none of the scenarios laid out in the ruling applied to 25-year-old Joel Tenenbaum, a classic copyright scofflaw who was neither space-shifting nor downloading music otherwise unavailable online.

“For the most part, he was downloading them and sharing them like the rest of the kids — and not particularly for sampling,” Nesson said in a telephone interview. “That is the bottom line.”...

Nesson’s performance wasn’t as stellar as it was in 1971, when he successfully defended Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case. Judge Gertner took the time to upbraid Nesson for his behavior.

“Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings on the web,” Gertner wrote, adding that Nesson and his defense team of Harvard students mounted a “chaotic” defense.

But if he’d lied about the facts — making Ars Technica and the L.A. Times happy — his client would be no better off.

The other defendant to go against the RIAA before a jury is Jammie Thomas-Rasset. A Minnesota jury dinged her $1.92 million for 24 songs this summer after jurors concluded she lied on the stand, testifying that perhaps others, including her children, were the actual copyright scofflaws.

Copyright reform advocates are perennially frustrated that their perfectly reasonable ideas of what qualifies as “fair use” online don’t get a chance to be heard in court. That’s no coincidence — the RIAA isn’t going to take a case to trial if it might produce a pro-consumer ruling. But the armchair barristers blaming Nesson for failing to carry their reform message to the Tenenbaum court are misguided.

Regardless of whether the Copyright Act is flawed, or Nesson was out to lunch, the simple fact is the RIAA had Tenenbaum dead to rights."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/nesson-2/#more-11854

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Judge Rules Shepard Fairey Can Get New Lawyer; New York Times, 11/10/09

Melena Ryzik, New York Times; Judge Rules Shepard Fairey Can Get New Lawyer:

"The street artist Shepard Fairey has won the right to a new lawyer in his ongoing suit against The Associated Press over the image that became his celebrated Barack Obama “Hope” poster. In a pretrial hearing, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein also allowed that lawyers for The A.P. can depose Mr. Fairey and his outgoing lawyers before the end of the year, The A.P. reported. The agency and the artist are countersuing each other over the rights to the image, a photo taken in April 2006 at an event at the National Press Club in Washington. Mr. Fairey recently admitted that he had lied publicly and to his own lawyers about which image he had used, which caused them to abandon his case.

He later added that he still believed that his work fell under fair-use guidelines and did not infringe on the A.P.’s copyright, a claim which his new lawyer, Geoffrey Stewart, supported, and that the agency refuted."

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/judge-rules-shepard-fairey-can-get-new-lawyer/?scp=1&sq=fairey&st=cse

Friday, October 30, 2009

Yes on One Ad Rankles NPR; Maine Public Broadcasting Network, 10/21/09

Josie Huang, Maine Public Broadcasting Network; Yes on One Ad Rankles NPR:

The campaign to overturn Maine's same-sex marriage law is taking on an unlikely new adversary: National Public Radio. NPR wants the Yes on One/Stand for Marriage Maine campaign to stop airing television spots featuring audio from an NPR story because the organization does not want to be associated with a political issue. But the campaign says it is ignoring the cease-and-desist order from NPR and will keep airing the ads.

""This is a ridiculous and frivolous complaint," says Scott Fish, spokesman for the campaign to repeal the gay marriage law, reading from a prepared statement. "Stand For Marriage Maine has the absolute right to use news clips aired on NPR in our advertisement. This is a protected exercise of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and is expressly contemplated as 'fair use' in our nation's copyright laws."

"Fair use" describes a legal principle in which copyrighted materials can be used under certain conditions, such as how much of it is used, and whether it hurts the copyright holder in any way.The 30-second ad excerpts 20 seconds from a 2004 NPR story titled "Massachusetts Schools Grapple with Including Gay and Lesbian Relationships in Sex Education." The piece examined how teachers were approaching the issue of same-sex relationships following the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts.

Of course, fair use, is all subjective, and NPR contends that this is not a case of fair use. "We've not had a potlicial organization use our content in this manner and, frankly, violate our copyright in this manner," says Dana Davis Rehm, a senior vice president at NPR overseeing communications.

She notes that two-thirds of the ad is comprised of audio from the NPR story. She further argues that the TV spots harm the reputation of NPR. "It may give people the impression that NPR permitted the use of the content in this manner, it may give people an impression that NPR has a position on this topic, either for or against the issue being discussed."

NPR has asked the Website YouTube, and other sites that were streaming the video, to stop, which they have. But Rehm says NPR has not yet approached television stations, and is still reviewing its legal options.

NPR could seek a court injunction to completely halt the ads, but it is running out of time. Voters will be asked to decide whether to repeal the same-sex marriage law in exactly two weeks.

Al Tompkins teaches broadcast ethics at the Poynter Institute. "In the two weeks that is going to pass between now and election time, it's highly unlikely that you'd be able to get a court to do much in a way of judgement on this, so the election will be over before you get much legal help."

But David Ardia, who directs the Citizen Media Law project at Harvard University, says that NPR may still be able to have an impact with its actions. "When you're talking about a political campaign, where time is of the essense, the fact that a video has been taken down during that time period can actually have the effect the copyright holder wants."

He notes that it is standard practice for a video to stay off YouTube for at least 10 days during which the copyright holder relents or decides to pursue legal action against the user. "And when you're talking about a 10-day window and only two weeks between the take down notice and the election, that can result in the video being down for most of the relevant time period."

Meanwhile, though, the ads are still running on television."

http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/9474/Default.aspx

Sunday, October 25, 2009

EFF defends Yes Men from business rage over climate hoax; Ars Technica, 10/23/09

Matthew Lasar, Ars Technica; EFF defends Yes Men from business rage over climate hoax:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is telling the US Chamber of Commerce to get over a parody site that turns the trade group's opposition to greenhouse gas legislation on its

"The nation's leading business trade association is not a happy camper about a parody site that has rewritten its controversial position on climate change legislation. Attorneys for the United States Chamber of Commerce have issued a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown demand notice against the latest prank by the Yes Men, that self-described "genderless, loose-knit association of some 300 impostors worldwide who agree their way into the fortified compounds of commerce"—and then unleash the clowns of public relations war.

But lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation are telling the Chamber to cool off about the whole affair.

What's the furor about? The Yes Men staged a fake press conference this week at the National Press Club in Washington. A "Yes Man" calling himself "Hingo Sembra" actually took to the podium in front of reporters to announce the Chamber's shift on climate change, only to have the whole spectacle turn truly bizarre when a real Chamber official showed up.

According to CBS News, "The press conference began normally but dissolved into a surreal scene when a legitimate Chamber official burst into the event, having heard about it from a reporter, and exclaimed that 'Sembra' was a phony. The activist holding the press conference then called the Chamber official, Eric Wohlschlegel, a fake and demanded his business card."

http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/10/eff-tells-business-group-to-get-over-yes-men-hoax.ars

Sunday, August 30, 2009

More questions than answers on Google Books; CNet News, 8/29/09

Tom Krazit via CNet News; More questions than answers on Google Books:

"Google's Dan Clancy had patiently answered question after question regarding Google's' Book Search settlement with publishers and authors until late in the afternoon Friday, when he was finally left speechless.

A young man from the University of California at Berkeley's School of Information asked Clancy what kind of message was sent when Google decided to "copy first and answer questions later." The question--for which there's no safe answer, if you're in Clancy's shoes--perhaps underscored the core of the opposition to the settlement, reached in October, after Google was sued in 2005 for scanning out-of-print works without explicit permission.

If the class action settlement is approved, Google stands to gain control of a priceless asset. Jason Schultz, acting director of UC Berkeley's Samuelson Law, Technology, and Public Policy Clinic, called it "the largest copyright-licensing deal in U.S. history:" the right to display the contents of out-of-print books that are still covered by copyright protection.

Google, however, has already scanned more than 10 million books. At the moment, it's not allowed to display more than a few snippets of copyright-protected books for which it doesn't have an explicit agreement with the rights holders. If the settlement is approved, Google will suddenly flip a switch and offer full-text searches of those books, as well as links to bookstores.

Nothing vexes Google's opponents more than the fact that the company assumed that it had the right to digitize nearly 100 years of written material without serious negotiations with those rights holders until it was sued. Authors have until Friday to decide if they want to opt out of the settlement and preserve the right to sue Google on their own for digitizing their book without their permission, though they can tell Google to remove their books from the Book Search archive, even if they remain in the class...

But taking Google at its word requires trust, and trust in corporations is in short supply at this point in American history. It's taken perhaps longer than it should have, but Google is gradually realizing that a fair portion of the public no longer sees it as a cute little Silicon Valley start-up with idealistic stars in its eyes, one that insists "you can make money without doing evil."

Google damaged that trust when it began scanning books without permission, arguing that it was allowed to do so under fair-use laws. Publishers and author groups also harmed that trust when they turned over the key to the castle by bringing the lawsuit as a class action, suddenly making plaintiffs out of millions of authors who did not necessarily appreciate the future value of digital books in 2005, nor authorize the negotiation of the rights to their works."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10321371-265.html

Monday, July 20, 2009

Tenenbaum circus enters big top next week; what to expect; Ars Technica, 7/20/09

Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Tenenbaum circus enters big top next week; what to expect: The second US trial of a file swapping defendant begins next Monday in Boston. Ars previews the arguments to be used by graduate student Joel Tenenbaum and by the recording industry:

"The second full trial of a US peer-to-peer file swapper begins next week. Sublimeguy14@KaZaA (aka Joel Tenenbaum, a Boston College grad student) will make his way through the marble corridors of Boston's federal courthouse next Monday to face a set of RIAA lawyers who are fresh from a $1.92 million victory in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case and eager to go 2-0 in such prosecutions.

But Tenenbaum has a secret weapon—Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, who will argue that the 816 songs in Tenenbaum's KaZaA share folder back in 2004 were simply a "fair use" of the recording industry's protected work."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/tenenbaum-circus-enters-big-top-next-week-what-to-expect.ars