Rationalization knows no bounds. Instead of IP law, how about anti-IP law where we can sue people for being jerks?

Rhianna and Def Jam Music must stand trial for being inspired by David LaChappelle's ideas regarding photographic images.

They didn't copy a damned thing. They were only inspired by someone else's work which influenced they way in which they created a new work - the same way all creation happens on some level.

For that, they must now stand trial.

The court will try and tell you that the Defendants here have "copied" what amounts to "fixed expression" and that copyright doesn't cover "ideas" - but please scroll down to pages 31-34 of the PDF file of the decision below and then try to say the following to yourself with a straight face: "Copyright doesn't protect ideas, only the fixed expression of ideas."

This decision is an absolute farce and outrage. But what it is not is an aberration. It is instead an accurate and standard application of what our current monstrous copyright laws have become, and why anyone who cares about free speech, civil rights and basic human freedoms must now support serious copyright reform in order to roll back its scope.

Read and see for yourself just how far copyright goes in placing a stranglehold over ideas here:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/21/LaChapelle%20Rihanna%20lawsuit%207-21.pdf

Via The Arizona Republic / Tucson Citizen (with selected bold emphasis added):

A Tucson portrait photographer whose image of 9-year-old Christina-Taylor Green was shared with media outlets by her family after she was killed is seeking compensation from numerous media companies, including The Arizona Republic and TucsonCitizen.com, and has threatened to sue if he is not paid.

Photographer Jon Wolf owns the photo's copyright and told the Green family that he intended to donate a portion of his earnings to a charity that helps grieving children and their families. However, Tucson charity Tu Nidito has since declined any funds he might receive. The Greens say they are infuriated by Wolf's actions. A public Facebook movement to boycott Wolf's business is circulating.

Gannett Co., Inc., parent corporation of The Arizona Republic and more than 140 other media entities including 12 News and USA Today, "respects intellectual property" and is willing to pay a standard licensing fee, said Barbara Wall, Gannett's vice president/senior counsel, but the sum will be far shy of the $125,000 Wolf has specified.

...

Wolf's request included a release form signed by both of Christina-Taylor's parents during the three-day period after their daughter's death, acknowledging Wolf as the copyright holder and freeing him to pursue damages.

A representative for John and Roxanna Green has said that, at the time, the Greens didn't fully comprehend Wolf's intentions.

"It's not right," John Green said. "People are angry at him, and they should be."

Read further details of this sordid tale here:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2011/02/18/tucson-photographer-jon-wolf-seeks-fees-for-image-of-christina-taylor-green/

See the Facebook boycott page continue to grow here:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Jon-Wolf-Photography-for-suing-over-Christina-Greens-photo/145558518837516?ref=ts&sk=wall

The problem with monopolists is that they never rest. Just because an industry is working well, highly innovative and very profitable does not prevent the greedy from trying to garner monopoly under the guise of "fairness." Now the fashion industry is under attack...there is a nice article by Ed Lopez in the Freeman on the subject.

Apparently, many people choose this avenue for two reasons- convenience and ease of access. The limitations placed on local pharmacies by regulations make it impossible for buyers to get the dosages they want. In other words, it is impossible to buy Xanax online without prescriptions from local pharmacies. Since the production, distribution, and sale of Xanax pills is controlled for obvious reasons, buyers opt for online purchases to overcome these restrictions.

Also, the price of Xanax in online pharmacies is much lower than that of local stores and pharmacies. The ratio of Xanax 1 mg to each dollar is significantly cheaper. This makes it possible for users to order Xanax at prices half or even a third of that of local pharmacies. And given the wide range of brands on sale, it is not difficult to see why users may turn to a web-based Xanax pharmacy for their prescription medication.

Next, most pharmacies also provide various packages. Buyers can request a dosage that they want starting from as little as 30 pills to 360 pills. Xanax 0.25mg is the least potent and therefore least expensive tablet. This makes it possible for anyone to buy Xanax within a set budget and still save money. As for quality, there is no assurance that you will get your money's worth with cheap Xanax. Though generic brands are more popular, their quality is not guaranteed as they may not be tested.

Getting Xanax pills legally delivered to your home It is possible to place an order from an online store and get your supplies shipped to you overnight. You just have to select from a wide array, for instance, Xanax 0.5 mg, fill the details, checkout, and complete your order. Most pharmacies try to expedite deliveries after processing orders. The seller will require you to provide your personal details, contact address, and specify the recipient. With the increasing cases of fraud, most sellers guarantee confidentiality of personal details. You can make follow ups by phone or e-mail to confirm the expected day of delivery. This way, you can track your purchase and ensure that it reaches on time.

Consider to buying Xanax without a prescription from internet pharmacy? The tough laws and regulations on the local distribution and sale of Xanax have not closed the door of opportunity for people who want to buy Xanax without prescription. In fact, it has created an immense opportunity for online vendors and pharmacies to sell generic brands. Individuals who were limited on dosage because of prescriptions now have the leeway to access any amount of dosage.

Sadly, most websites don't caution buyers about the health risks involved and the dangers of using drugs without prescription. Especially with no regard to the dangers of starting with Xanax 2 mg. More often than not, buyers who have poor judgement are bound to use more prescriptions than required and in the end, they fall in to a vicious cycle of dependence and addiction.

Read all about it:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/05/16/paramount-thinks-that-filming-transformers-3-being-filmed-violates-copyright/

And, in the words of Groundhog Day's Ned Ryerson, "It's a doosy".

As noted previously (see Stop the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)), this treaty was being negotiated in secret and is an attempt to extend the reach of the west's horrible and draconian IP (patent and copyright) regimes to other countries. As I noted, the

ACTA is also similar to another arcane law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which, under the guise of protecting "property rights," snuck in provisions that criminalize even the mere possession of technology that can be used to circumvent digital protection systems (see, e.g., my post TI Uses Copyright Law to Attack TI Calculator Enthusiasts). Likewise, under the guise or protecting property rights in inventions and artistic works (patent and copyright), it "seeks to provide legal authority for the surveillance of Internet file transfers and searches of personal property". As one group notes, "ACTA goes way, way beyond the TRIPS (the copyright/patent/trademark stuff in the World Trade Organization agreement), creating an entirely new realm of liability for people who provide services on the net". More invasion of personal liberty and property rights in the name of false, artificial property rights.

The draft text has now been released, under pressure from the European Parliament (see Declan McCullagh's post, ACTA treaty aims to deputize ISPs on copyrights; see aslo Michael Geist's analysis of the draft text). As I suspected, the text (available here) reveals, as McCullagh notes, that ACTA "seek[s] to export controversial chunks of U.S. copyright law to the rest of the world," such as the DMCA's "'anti-circumvention' section, which makes it illegal to bypass copy protection even to back up a Blu-Ray disc" (see, e.g., my post TI Uses Copyright Law to Attack TI Calculator Enthusiasts). This is a horrible US law that was snuck in the DMCA that may now become part of other countries' laws. It prohibits not only copyright infringement but also makes it illegal to sell devices that could be used to circumvent encryption of DRM'd information.

Now, the DMCA also contained a "safe harbor" for ISPs that probably would not pass now (since it gave ISPs an exemption for liability that turned out to be broader than initially realized when the DMCA was enacted in the 1990s). I was concerned that ACTA would contain the anti-circumvention provisions but not the ISP safe-harbor rules--but some version of this does, at least, seem to be contemplated in the ACTA text (see pp. 20-21).

In any case, this horrible treaty needs to be stopped.

Links and analysis at Ars Technica.

For those of you who would argue that copyright doesn't need major reform because it already provides for exceptions such as "parody", here is an example to demonstrate how hollow such arguments can be in terms of how the law actually operates on a practical level for everyday users:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/04/youtube-removes-hundreds-of-those-hitler-is-speaking-german-parody-videos.html

http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/19/hitler-parody-takedown/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8617454.stm

David Post over at Volokh.com lends his (blogging) voice against the international cabal (and I don't feel that such a phrase is hyperbole in this instance) that is trying to foist a stricter copyright regime throughout the world via the ACTA treaty.

Read it here:

http://volokh.com/2010/03/26/outrageous-treaty-nonsense-or-the-copyright-tail-wagging-the-internet-dog/