It seems that 25% of the population of Los Angeles County consists of "thieves" (at least as some would describe it).

Sample money quotes from the article -

[O]ne in four people in Los Angeles County knowingly bought, copied or downloaded illegal goods in the last year, according to a Gallup Organization survey commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and scheduled to be released today.

Although previous studies have documented piracy's toll on the Los Angeles economy, the U.S. Chamber report is the first to focus on the attitudes and behavior of consumers here who knowingly buy fake goods, including bootleg movies, illegally copied CDs, knockoff handbags and counterfeit auto parts.

"The study confirmed what we already knew: That the buying of these products is widespread and is viewed as a victimless crime," said Caroline Joiner, executive director of the chamber's global anti-counterfeiting and piracy initiative.

The 25% piracy rate of Los Angeles County residents surveyed in May and June was slightly higher than the 20% nationwide rate the chamber found last year.

…

Justin Hughes, a law professor and piracy expert at Cardozo School of Law in New York, said Los Angeles might have a higher rate of counterfeiting than other cities because of the high volume of goods flowing through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. But, he added, the latest data reflect broad consumer behavior.

"Most Americans do understand copyright and trademark laws, but it's a bit like speeding laws," Hughes said. "We know they are there, and they're a good thing, but we usually find ourselves going five to 10 miles over the speed limit."

In terms of trying to objectively describe the way many currently perceive their relationship with intellectual property, Professor Hughes' "speed limit" analogy seems to be a fair one. However, it leaves out a crucial component - the direct relationship between the perceived fairness/appropriateness of the law and the incidence of those who will ignore it.

For instance, let us assume that a federally mandated speed limit was increased to 80 mph in the U.S. Would people still continue to go "five to 10 miles over the speed limit"? Surely many would, but it is fair to assume that the overall amount of speeding scofflaws would drastically increase decrease as the overall speed limit increases - and vice versa. If the federally mandated speed limit was instead capped at only 45 mph, then surely the incidence of speeding would increase (not just in terms of the overall number of drivers who would ignore the law, but also in terms of the level of contempt for it. Speeders would likely start averaging 10 to 15 miles over the speed limit, instead of the more casual 5 to 10). They may continue to speed more often and with more vigor, even though they might end up confessing to pollsters that on a purely abstract level, a stricter enforcement of speed limits would be a good thing for society.

There would be a simple reason for this dynamic - many people of perfectly good character would inherently perceive a 45-mile-an-hour speed limit as an abuse of federal authority that would hamper our quality of life well out of proportion to any potential social good such as safety/environmental concerns or energy conservation. Obviously, the definition of a fair and proper speed limit is partially dictated by the state of technology and infrastructure (i.e., the conditions of our road and highway systems, how advanced current automobile engineering and safety features are in any given era, etc.).

So let's bring the analogy back to intellectual property. If we were to analogize the strictness of current intellectual property laws to the speed limit, what would the federally enforced speed limit be today?

I'd argue that it is only about 35-miles-per-hour; a quite unreasonable restriction that hampers human progress to a level far out of proportion to any potential goods that IP legal schemes might have to offer. This too is partially dictated by the current state of our technology and infrastructure (i.e., the Internet, digital technology, how communication has evolved with new media, etc.). That is real the reason why more and more people are simply choosing to ignore the current state of the law and are rightfully guilt free about the situation.

But none of this is preventing the L.A. establishment from lining up to do the bidding of the IP lobby. As the Daily News reports -

The findings were expected to be discussed at the Westin Bonaventure hotel in downtown Los Angeles this morning at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce workshop expected to be attended by several legislators, city council members and local officials, including Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo.

You don't suppose that the "workshop" might convince local legislatures to help fight for sensible IP reform, do you? Nah. Didn't think so. We all know how these "workshops" play out and what the real goals are here: Creating an even harsher IP environment in order to hang on to the status quo business models for politically connected businesses. One that may very well turn an even higher percentage of the population into "thieves" and "pirates" in their eyes.

First it was the deceased Marilyn Monroe, now it is the alive and kicking Andy Griffith.

The so-called 'right of publicity' has the potential to mutate into another form of speech-stifling monopoly. Glad to see that the courts are getting it right in these instances.

Andy Griffith's trademark claims were also appropriately shot down. If reasonable people were actually confused that the television star was running for office, then I'd reconsider.

After reading this article, I have a newfound respect for the art of the guys who hold advertising signs on street corners.

White is part of the competitive world of "human directionals," an industry term for people who twirl signs outside restaurants, barbershops and new real estate subdivisions.

Street corner advertising on human billboards has existed for centuries, but Southern California where the weather allows sign spinners to work year-round has endowed the job with style.

Local spinners have cooked up hundreds of moves. There's the Helicopter, in which a spinner does a backbend on one hand while spinning a sign above his head. In the Blender, a spinner twirls the sign behind his back. Spanking the Horse gets the most attention. The spinner puts the sign between his legs, slaps his own behind and giddy-ups.

Thanks to growing demand, the business has turned cutthroat. There's a frenzy of talent poaching. Spinners battle one another for plum assignments and the promise of wage hikes. Some of the more prominent compete for bragging rights by posting videos on YouTube and Google Video, complete with trash talking. One YouTube comment reads, "i don't know if you stole my tricks or i just do them better."

But the limits of my respect ended when I got to this section in the article -

Aarrow keeps dozens of moves in a "trick-tionary," which only a handful of people have seen, said co-founder Mike Kenny. The company records spinners' movements and sends them in batches to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. "We have to take our intellectual property pretty seriously," he said.

Got that folks? Even after the latest Supreme Court patent smackdown, the IP legal culture still fosters the idea that you can monopolize the way you twirl a piece of cardboard around your body. If try to do that yourself, you will be sued by the patent holder of this stunning new invention that pushes the boundaries of human progress.

Ah yes, we certainly need to "take our intellectual property seriously" don't we? Things like this will certainly help the public to do just that.

[Via Lawrence Solum who is often on the lookout for new legal articles dealing with intellectual property law and philosophy.]

Viva Moffat has written an interesting paper on the problems resulting from overlapping intellectual property protections -

"The interactions between the three federal schemes of intellectual property protection – copyright, patent, and trademark – have often been overlooked. This article addresses some of the issues raised by the overlaps between these areas of law and concludes that the availability of more than one form of protection for certain creative or inventive works creates problems in many circumstances; that those problems have not been considered fully by policymakers or courts; and that overlapping protection interferes with the benefits meant to flow to the public."

It has often been said that the porn industry helps drive technological innovation (i.e., Helping to decide competing formats, etc.). Can it also help drive the legal debate over IP?

Behold the latest copyright/trademark dispute involving a gay porn film that references an Italian classic.

The response letter from the defense attorney is well worth reading.

[Hat-tip: Mathhew Heller from Courthouse news]

The 9th Circuit gets it right this time.

Here is the simplistic explanation of the important aspect of this decision:

1. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) protects "Internet Service Providers" (including most blogging websites)from liability for various material posted by third parties. For instance, if a third-party commenter were to post a defamatory comment on this site, neither myself, nor the site's operators would be legally liable for the other person's comment, since we wouldn't be considered the authors of it. It prevents our liability for 'republication' of the third-party comment, even though it appears on this site.

2. However, the DMCA does not extend its liability protections to intellectual property (IP) claims. For instance, if somebody alleges that a thrid-party posted a copyrighted video to this site, we would still be legally obligated to take it down - provided that we were given notice and the video posting doesn't otherwise comport with fair use.

Why did the DMCA carve out an explicit exception for IP in its liability protections? The usual reasons - Big media lobbied Congress to include that provision in order to protect its turf. There is no such thing as an organized political lobby for those who might be libeled in the future. (As a result of the IP exception under the DMCA, the development of the Internet still has been unfortunately slowed...but that is obviously a much bigger debate and discussion for other posts on this site and elsewhere.)

So the vital question then becomes: What is 'intellectual property' for purposes of interpreting the DMCA? Some states have a mutant form of IP protection called the 'right of publicity'. They also have other laws under the rubric of 'unfair competition' or 'trade secret' laws that also serve as a mutant (and broader) form of IP protections. Then there are also state 'common law' forms of copyright and trademark protections that you may read about from time to time.

So in other words, state concepts of IP are often defined far more broadly than federal forms of IP. If you were to accept the broader state notions of IP, and then allow those notions to dictate the meaning of the DMCA, that would mean that the DMCA offers less and less liability protections to Internet Service Providers. States would eventually be able to define "IP" so broadly that the DMCA would effectively become a meaningless hollow shell - offering no real protections for anybody.

Fortunately, the 9th Circuit saw through the nonsense, and said that the DMCA still offers liability protections for all forms of state IP claims. The only exceptions to the protection for websites under the DMCA will be for IP that is recognized under federal law.

Well done 9th Circuit! There is still plenty wrong with federal IP and the DMCA, but at least they have seen fit to minimize the damage in this particular instance.

Debra Opri has apparently joined the growing rank of attorneys who are smoking crack when it comes to trademark law.

Let's get one thing clear: Trademarking a phrase for general use is a flat out unconstitutional violation of free speech. Are Opri and Birkhead honestly arguing that is somebody uses the phrase “Goodnight my sweet baby Anna” in a book, film, or any other creative work, then that person must pay off Birkhead or risk being hauled into court??

Trademark serves a useful and legitimate purpose when it is used to identify a specific good or service. For instance, if Birkhead sold baby cribs with the brand name “Goodnight my sweet baby Anna”, it is perfectly legitimate to prevent other crib competitors from using that name. This has nothing to do with principles of monopoly. It is simply a necessary tool for consumer protection.

With that said however, it is insane to try and claim a general trademark over the phrase itself when it is divorced from a pre-existing good or service. At that point, it is no longer a tool to identify a commercial good, it then becomes a naked and virulent attempt to try and privatize language itself through a government enforced monopoly. Anyone claiming to be an attorney who endorses such nonsense out to be shamed out of the profession.

Coke is a legitimate trademark to identify a cola brand. Are Opri and her ilk seriously arguing that I have to get permission from the Coca-cola company if I write a book where I have a character say, “I'd like a Coke, please.”? Surely you see the ridiculous implications here. The Supreme Court has criticized this attempt to abuse trademark law by claiming it as "mutant" form of copyright protection. However, this hasn't prevented special interests from trying to re-enforce their monopoly over language and communication.

Paris Hilton trademarking “That's hot!”? Pat O'Reilly trademarking “Three-peat”?? Donald Trump trademarking “You're fired!”??? These people have simply wasted their time and money by listening to attorneys who simply don't know what they are talking about.

Meanwhile, if there are any artists out there who can demonstrate that they have published creative works using these “trademarked” phrases, please let me know. I will be happy to publicize your work on this blog and provide free legal defense if you are threatened.

Part 7 of Tyranny of Trademark law here.

[Update as of 4-2-07]: Larry Birkhead has issued a fascinating message on his webpage over at LarryBirkhead.net -

TRADEMARKS: I have never requested a trademark, signed or filled out any paperwork on a trademark relating to Anna Nicole Smith, and the saying "Goodnight My Sweet Anna Baby." The form was filled out by another individual on my behalf. The form was not reviewed or approved by me. The media is reporting that they have seen a copy of the form, please send me one as I have asked for a copy and never have received it. It does not have my signature or authorization, I am far too busy working on my fight for my daughter Dannielynn, to worry about things like trademarking sayings for use in movies, etc.

**In other words, I will seek to have this trademark withdrawn or cancelled on the grounds it was not approved by me.**

So Birkhead is claiming that this was done "by another individual on [his] behalf" - apparently without his consent or approval. Was he referring to attorney Debra Opri? It's impossible to know for sure. However, we do know that Opri was fired by Birkhead recently and that Opri has engaged in Gloria Allred-style media saturation overreach in trying to promote her own name. This would certainly fit the profile of an overzealous entertainment attorney who tries to make outrageous claims on intellectual property to the detriment of the client. But I'll wait for more facts to come in.

Whoever tried to make that trademark registration, it is utterly scandalous even by the standards of the Anna Nicole Smith saga.

If that fart doll that you wanted to buy happens to be more expensive this year, you can thank the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals based on its decision today in JCW Investments Inc. v. Novelty Inc. (Note how the court is careful enough to include the ® trademark sign in its decision when it refers to "Pull My Finger Fred". Do they do the same if they mention the Academy Award Oscars® in a decision?):

Meet Pull My Finger® Fred. He is a white, middle-aged, overweight man with black hair and a receding hairline, sitting in an armchair wearing a white tank top and blue pants. Fred is a plush doll and when one squeezes Fred's extended finger on his right hand, he farts. He also makes somewhat crude, somewhat funny statements about the bodily noises he emits, such as “Did somebody step on a duck?” or “Silent but deadly.”

Fartman could be Fred's twin. Fartman, also a plush doll, is a white, middle-aged, overweight man with black hair and a receding hairline, sitting in an armchair wearing a white tank top and blue pants. Fartman (as his name suggests) also farts when one squeezes his extended finger; he too cracks jokes about the bodily function. Two of Fartman's seven jokes are the same as two of the 10 spoken by Fred. Needless to say, Tekky Toys, which manufactures Fred, was not happy when Novelty, Inc., began producing Fartman, nor about Novelty's production of a farting Santa doll sold under the name Pull-My- Finger Santa.

Tekky sued for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition and eventually won on all claims. The district court awarded $116,000 based on lost profits resulting from the copyright infringement, $125,000 in lost profits attributable to trademark infringement, and $50,000 in punitive damages based on state unfair competition law. The district court then awarded Tekky $575,099.82 in attorneys' fees. On appeal, Novelty offers a number of arguments for why it should not be held liable for copyright infringement, argues that Illinois's punitive damages remedy for unfair competition is preempted by federal law, and contends that the attorneys' fees awarded by the district court should have been capped according to Tekky's contingent-fee arrangement with its attorneys. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Somewhat to our surprise, it turns out that there is a niche market for farting dolls, and it is quite lucrative…

[Hat-tip: Decision of the Day Blog]

Thanks to David K. Levine (no relation to me) and the rest of the gang here at Againstmonopoly.org for inviting me on as a guest blogger.

Brief background about myself: I produce a radio show in Los Angeles. I am also a licensed attorney who still occasionally dabbles in law on the side (mainly in defamation defense - but also with some experience in copyright infringement defense). Before that, I worked in film and television post-production which helped to form my views that current IP schemes overburden artists and stifle creativity.

I have previously guest blogged for other sites, including: Patterico.com, The Southern California Law Blog, and Calblog.com. I still occasionally guest blog for the first two sites listed, but I thought it best to bring over my posts about IP to this site for the sake of thematic consistency within blogs. If you still have an interest in other areas of law and/or media bias - feel free to check out those sites as well.

I have previously written a series of posts concerning IP entitled The Tyranny of Copyright Law, The Tyranny of Trademark Law, The Tyranny of Patent Law, and the (somewhat related) Coming Legal Superstorm Against Bloggers. [Each post is a multi-part series that is often spread out over multiple blog sites. Click on the links and they will provide further links to other parts of the respective series.]

I welcome all feedback and debate regarding my posts and the ideas that are generally put forth by this site. I know that many readers of the other blogs I have written for have a difficult time accepting the difference between real (tangible) property and so-called intellectual property. They would often roast me over the coals in their comments with delightfully amusing abuse. I hope that they will follow me over to this site on occasion to continue it (and in that process, hopefully become exposed to some new ideas that will change their thinking over time).

:-)