http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/genes/

When I was perusing wired.com today seeing if anything interesting was happening in the digital world, I stumbled upon this compelling store that I have linked above. For those too lazy to go to the website, I’ll briefly give a rundown of the story: the ACLU has been given the OK to sue one of the largest human genome researchers for their patents on around 1/5 of the human genes on the grounds that owning the right to such information is in violation of the first amendment.

Not only do I entirely agree with the judge who ruled it was appropriate to allow the ALCU to sue, but I think this story pertains directly to what we have recently been discussing in class.

How do we expect to ever advance ourselves if only a select few have access to some of the most important information in the world? Who is to say that these people working for this research company are the most able to utilize the information they patented? It is very likely that given the opportunity, other scientists could have used the genes owned to have made astronomical advances in science. Who knows cancer could have been cured by now.

Information like this cannot be locked up. I do not always agree with some of the tenets discussed in this class, particularly in relation to sharing music and movies, but I believe this case is very clear. Information like this is for saving lives not making money.

NYTimes.com: "A cellphone shop in Accra, Ghana, which carries and repairs a variety of handsets."

http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/expertsurveys/2008survey/default.xhtml

What will the Internet look like in 2020 and how will it have affected society?  That was the topic of the third generation in a series of surveys administered to technology experts and social analysts by the joint effort of the Pew Internet Project and Elon Univerisity.  The 2008 survey included “578 leading Internet activists, builders, and commentators and 618 additional stakeholders (1,196 respondents)” and posed a series of predictions to the respondents, asking whether they would strongly agree or disagree and if they had any comments to add.

As I came across this survey while doing my senior research project, the scenario I found most interesting was the prediction below relating to social tolerance. Over 50% of respondents in both categories strongly disagreed with the vision, believing that the Internet will either leave social tolerance unchanged, or affect it for the worse.  Having reviewed some of the content in Clay Shirkey’s book, Here Comes Everybody (video here), I have to disagree with the prediction and I think viewers of Shirkey’s argument will probably agree, given the information he presents.

More relevant to this class, however, were the projections about IP law and Copyright and growth in the use of mobile devices that connect to the Internet.  Through my courses in Metropolitan Studies, one interesting fact that’s stuck with me is that people in very poor communities will often find ways to buy mobile phones for commercial use, pooling what little resources they have to gain access to the vast economic potential of the cell phone.  This leads to bizzarely counter-intuative situations where companies like Nokia conduct market research in slums like Dharavi in Mumbai (NYTimes).

Cell phones are becoming more common and more essential for the impoverished as they allow, for example, a farmer to check current market prices for his goods and negotiate a deal or help “a mother in Uganda who needs to carry a child with malaria three hours to visit the nearest doctor but who would like to know first whether that doctor is even in town.”  The respondents of the Pew Internet study overwhelmingly agreed that “The mobile phone [will be] the primary connection tool for most people in the world….[the moblie phone will be] the primary Internet connection and the only one for a majority of the people across the world, providing information in a portable, well-connected form at a relatively low price.”  Clearly, cell phones are already breaking into the markets of even the lowest economic classes and there is every reason to believe their popularity and prevalence will grow.

While, initially, usage of the phone by the poor will follow economic imperatives, how will this change in access to and usage of the Internet affect society and culture globally?  How will Copyright law interact with future cultural creations and exchanges as our locales of social networking experience an influx of people that may have only met a few people outside of their neighborhood, let alone city or country?

Ida Sim, Physician Scientist from Open Access Videos on Vimeo.

There has been some news recently about the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009(http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_SN_1373.html), which would “deliver online public access to the published results of research funded through eleven U.S. agencies and departments, requiring that peer-reviewed journal articles stemming from publicly funded research be made available in an online repository no later than six months after publication.” (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091111/0152276888.shtml) This act was recently supported by 41 Nobel Prize winning scientists who sent a letter to congress that can be found here: http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/supporters/scientists/nobelists_2009.shtml.

If research is funded by taxpayer dollars, it seems to make sense under the notion of the “public good” to allow all who are interested to be able to read this research without the barrier of expensive journals. To make publicly funded research public, makes sense, because the party line that pharmaceutical companies use, that they need patents to protect their research property so that they can have temporary monopolies to earn a profit on there discoveries and thus conduct more research is nullified, since they will get money for more research from the government, which most of them do anyway. Why should the public have to pay taxes to fund research, buy journals if they want access to that research, and then pay an inflated price for a drug or invention that gives the research company profits without repaying the public? Where is the public good? Yes, the drug or invention is a public good but the cost to the public is exorbitant. Especially when the company who earned the profit again gets public funding to conduct more research.  

If you excuse my rant above (it irks me that people seem to not care that life saving drugs are no different then a house or car or other property), the point of this post is to highlight some alternatives to the patent process. I agree with the reform allowing a limited time where the research can be solely in journals or other private places. The bill states 6 months. However, twenty years, as patent law stands now, is a long time to control research or drugs that are needed for the public good. However, one problem I foresee is that private funders of research may be discouraged from co-funding research with the government. Maybe there could be a scheme in place that allowed the current system of monopoly rights until the funders have recouped their investment plus a certain % decided by congress. Then the research would fall into the public domain. That would still motivate companies and entrepreneurs to fund research and contribute to the public good.

A second problem is research that is not conducted with any government funds.  I feel there needs to be a review board on patents that can save lives or are needful in a crisis. Such a board may institute a similar policy as I hypothesized above, letting the patent remain private until the cost plus a certain amount of profit is achieved, or maybe the government could purchase such patents under eminent domain, which if a patent is property, it should be legal? 

While reading Lessig’s conclusion on how patent law directly affects treatment of AIDS in Africa, it made me think of something I heard a few years back. In Spring of 2005, Brazil sent shock waves through the intellectual property world by threatening to start ignoring patents, especially with regards to pharmaceuticals. Earlier that year, they had already irritated higher ups at microsoft by supporting a computer literacy program for middle class families using open source software, but this drug issue took the cake for radical approaches to patent law. It made sense to Brazil that pharmaceutical companies should not be able to make billions upon billions by monopolizing drugs that are a. easy to produce, and b. in need. Developing nations which need money to tackle larger problems like infrastructure and poverty, which Lessig points out are more important factors in disease proliferation, cannot waste funds on licensing fees for drugs easy to duplicate. This is why the World IP Organization encourages to a certain extent, rights needed for sustainable development. I believe that Brazil tried to take advantage of this earlier by trying to declare AIDS a national emergency in oder legally get around producing generic drugs.

The counter argument of the pharmaceutical companies is of coarse, if their drugs were easily copied it would take away from their profit  to a point where they could not  fund research for new drugs. (In my eyes this is pretty weak) Its interesting though to think of the political implications going against intellectual property could cause, trade embargoes etc. Although Brazil never completely acted on their threats, they did get a lot of people ticked off. So the question remains, should or  how much protection do developing nations deserve from patents?

I was looking at photos of my friend’s little sister’s birthday party and I saw that she had a Hello Kitty cake– that is, Hello Kitty’s head was the cake, frosted in white and topped with a pink bow. I assume they bought it. Now, I’m no cake expert but I am a fan of TLC’s Ace of Cakes and being in this class, I’m starting to think there’s an infringement with everything, including sweet treats like this.

Any licensed character is exactly that: licensed. Just like any other copyrighted works, creating a character out of cake is no different. What about all those Spongebob, Dora the Explorer, and Barbie cakes out there? Wilton, a baking industry, sells licensed character pans that are official Disney and Nickelodeon, etc products, so it’s very easy to make a cake with a kid’s favorite cartoon. But Wilton explicitly marks on their pans that these are for home use, stating “these ‘mold making items’ are strictly prohibited for any type of commercial use since the licensor has neither the method to control the quality of the reproduction of the character nor the ability to earn royalties on sales of the ‘finished’ product.” I’m pretty sure Ace of Cakes is handling the legal situations properly when they created It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown!

This is like selling a licensed character full body costume but only allowing consumers to use it for private settings. You can have it but you don’t really own it. Profiting off the cakes with Elmo’s face is an infringement on copyright laws, so basically, there probably are local bakeries and bakers selling illegal children’s cakes.

I suppose this is fairly obvious, but I never thought of cakes infringing copyrights–only because it disappears quickly and they’re scrumptious baked goodnesses. But I have seen several cakes back home in Texas, where people explain they bought it (and unfortunately, I don’t think that the Spongebob I saw looked that tasty) but I’m sure there was no official permission granted. It’s strange because it’s just another sculpture, a work of edible art, just made out of icing and fondant.

It’s the same as arguing the difference between the private and public audience when you play the radio. It couldn’t really be under fair use because you’re claiming the character is the exact licensed one. But you can buy the TV show character as a figurine and put it on top of the cake, and there’s no infringement because you’re not deriving any works.  Ultimately, then, this is about money.

Although, I suppose you could eat the evidence, and they’ll never know.

Alexander McQueen on the left, Steve Madden on the right

I came upon this link about Alexander McQueen, who is suing Steve Madden for copying one of his shoes, after sending a cease and desist letter in September that was met with refusal from Steve Madden to stop producing and selling the bootie. The Steve Madden shoe is almost an exact copy of Alexander McQueen’s, minus the zipper pull with the Alexander McQueen trademark. This immediately reminded me of the Nina Ricci/Twilight apple-shaped perfume bottle conflict that we talked about earlier this year, except for one huge difference: fashion can’t be copyrighted.

Not that it hasn’t been tried, as demonstrated by the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, which is a pending bill that was proposed in 2006 that would give copyright protection to fashion designs for three years. Currently, only laws against counterfeit goods protect clothes, and even then it only applies to some designs where a trademark is used (think Fucci bags sold on Canal…). During a hearing for the bill on July 27th, 2006, there was disagreement amongst both legal experts and people from the fashion industry as to whether or not this bill is necessary and as of today, it is still pending. Interestingly though, the US is the only western nation that doesn’t protect fashion designs. Those who don’t support the bill argue that copyrighting fashion would hurt the little guy who wouldn’t be able to challenge larger clothing corporations, should they be accused of copyrighting, as well as hurt fabric and sewing stores as a result of less people selling their clothing.

The issue of fashion not being copyrightable came up briefly in one of our readings and I know Caroline touched on this a little in her blog post about the Forever21 shirt, but I was wondering, what does everyone else think about this? How does the creativity that is involved in fashion differ from that in other arts that are currently protected under copyright law, especially when you look at the dispute over the perfume bottles? I’m kind of stuck in the middle with this issue (damn you Wikipedia, with your neutral point of view!), as I feel like both sides present valid points, but maybe someone can convince me one way or the other…

Now that we’re all copyright law intelligentsia, we can have fun thought-experiments!  While the following isn’t exactly one of those (I kind of just wanted to say thought-experiment) it’s food for thought and could potentially spur some thought-experiments.

Copyright law has expanded in duration and in scope since it’s inception, which has lead to the inevitability of more people interacting with copyright law.  However, it wasn’t until the advent of the internet until consumers began to deal with copyright law en masse.  So what about the internet has led to wide scale interaction with copyright law?

On some level, that’s kind of a softball question.  The internet has allowed for more people to communicate more often.  The digitization of copyrighted content has allowed these more people doing more talking to also share copyrighted digitized copyright material.  While that’s true, and probably the easy answer, I think there’s a more nuanced understanding to be considered.

» Read more: Why Does Copyright Matter to Your Mom?

Take a look at the color above. What does it make you think of?

If your first thought was “Tiffany & Co,” then I’m sure company would be more than satisfied. I’ve always known that the distinctive Robin’s egg hue is a staple on any Tiffany’s product, but I didn’t realize until recently that Tiffany & Co. actually has ownership over this color by trademark. When I first heard this, I thought it was utterly ridiculous. Let’s be honest. It’s a color. It’s nothing more than a particular shade of blue. It’s not like Tiffany & Co. invented the color of Robins’ eggs. Hell, I would defend Paris Hilton’s trademark of “That’s Hot” before I would defend Tiffany & Co. At least Paris used the few neurons in her brain to come up with it herself.

However, when I actually looked into  it, I realized that Pantone, an industrial design corporation, technically produced this color using a special color reproduction system. In fact, Pantone has created a number of recognizable colors for commercial use. Think Cadbury purple. Think Barbie pink. Those are both Pantone colors, and they are both protected under trademark as well.

Let’s refer back to the US Copyright Office’s  definition of a trademark. The Office states that “trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.” Obviously, Tiffany & Co., Cadbury, or Barbie’s color trademarks do not fit into this classic definition.

They fall into the “nontraditional trademark” category. Things seem a little murky to me on this front, though. I can wrap my head around the nontraditional trademark of the design of a perfume bottle or of Apple’s iPod shape, but a trademark over a color still seems a little silly. Yes, it’s an excellent marketing and branding tool, but where’s the innovation? Does Tiffany’s really deserve to own the color?

As an intern at {} I’ve been given the responsibility of following and posting about blogs with ”lifestyle” content.  This often includes saving photos and taking quotes or advice from various bloggers.  My job is to compile all of the recent lifestyle trends, blog about them and create an internal bi-weekly magazine for the company.  My first day on the job my supervisor asked me to create designer bios that she could refer to during interviews.  Her exact instructions were to search the web and copy and paste tidbits I found “plagiarism is highly recommended – or it will take you too long.”  I was thrilled that I was given permission to take the easy way out but couldn’t help but think about how the internal magazines were going to be created.

Sure enough when I asked why we can’t have our blog public and why we don’t try to publish our magazine, she responded there was too much risk with copyright infringement since we find a lot of our “trends” from bloggers.  Recently, Germany has jumped on the bandwagon of protecting online content: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/business/global/29copy.html .   “The goal is to level the playing field with Internet companies like Google, which German publishers accuse of exploiting their content to build lucrative businesses without sharing the rewards.”  But a blogger quoted in the article is against a copyright filled internet, he claims open internet is better for society and that German publishers lacked a strong business plan-of-action for the internet.

The new policy Germany is releasing could mean bloggers having to pay for content they receive from news sources even if they have no commercial intentions.  If I were in Germany working for {} all of the blogs I’d be accessing would have to pay for their content that is cited from outside sources, which I feel would certainly decrease the amount of creative works found online.   The article uses a quote from Internet Manifesto to explain the issues of a new protection of online journalism that I found very compelling , ““Copyright must not be misused as a lever to protect outdated distribution methods and to secure new business and licensing models.””

I have not come to any solution but realize that everyday I come to {}I am potentially infringing.  I do not know the future of blogger’s rights but I feel if posts (which can be argued to be free speech) will require buying a copyright – we will lose a new significant entity for human expression.

"1948 Palestinian Exodus" article talk page

Five straightforward principles constitute the structure, community, and ideology of Wikipedia. Namely, the Five Pillars:

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (and therefore requires verifiable information and reliable sources; should not be used for purposes of promotion or hearsay, etc.)
2. Wikipedia adheres to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) standard
3. Wikipedia’s content is free, meaning anyone can edit it and use the content and no single person owns the information
4. Wikipedia’s code of conduct calls for an atmosphere of mutual respect and not of exclusivity (e.g. the don’t bite the newbies guideline) and the assumption that everyone is acting in good faith
5. Wikipedia has no other “firm rules” than these, only guidelines.

These rules and the ongoing development of various Wikipedia articles remain relatively hidden. That is, most people visit Wikipedia in order to read – not edit – the information. When pulling back the curtain of open and decentralized collaboration, however, a completely different environment is revealed. More interesting than standards of neutrality, verifiability/reliability, notability, and conflict of interest are how these standards are applied, violated, and enforced amongst editors and in articles concerning controversial topics.

Not only are all edits of an article saved in its history but they are also contested in its talk page. Accordingly, the more contentious a subject, the more extended its disputes and the longer its discussion/talk page. Wikipedia, though open to all, has certain measures in place to deal with article conflicts. Most significantly, “administrators” are chosen to be part of a vigilant group of core Wikipedians with greater access and authority about changes to articles; in this way, Wikipedia indeed has a hierarchy of users. Though Pillar #3 holds that anyone can edit information on Wikipedia, a select group of users maintain the power to review and oversee these edits. Last semester, my Globalizing Social Activism & the Power of the Media professor, explained that Wikipedia has approximately 41,393 contributors and about 1,000 active administrators for the millions of English language articles.

A guest lecturer in my Globalizing Social Activism course, Zachary Metz, extensively analyzed one particular Wikipedia article of conflict – the “1948 Palestinian Exodus.” At the time, a notice (dated February 2009) appeared at the top of the article and stated, “The neutrality of this article is disputed…Please see the discussion on the talk page.” Considering the divisiveness of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the lecturer explained that this particular page had been in dispute since 2003. That notice is now no longer on the page. Looking at the current talk page, this one article has amassed nine archives (each one of interminably long length, full of discussions and back-and-forth debates), but some level of neutrality seems to have prevailed. The page also prominently features the participation of WikiProject Palestine and WikiProject Israel in the development of the content.

Sure, people can question Wikipedia’s firm goal of neutrality and hierarchical processes of arbitration, but at its best, Wikipedia requires dialogue and interaction between people of conflicting beliefs. It may take six years to complete an article on the “1948 Palestinian Exodus,” but if conflicting sides can reach Consensus, isn’t that archived debate ultimately productive and promising? In the Berkman Center’s interview with Andrew Lih, David Weinberger quotes Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, as saying, “To me, an article is neutral if people have stopped editing it…if they’ve stopped arguing about it.” If that’s the case, the “1948 Palestinian Exodus” serves as a complex case study in Wikipedia conflict resolution and NPOV.

Jimmy Wales spoke at a conference I attended earlier this month and asserted that “openness is not the enemy of quality.” In other words, Wikipedia functions through user collaboration (as well as administrator oversight), as the facilitator of dialogue even in the face of deep-seated conflict. Regarding highly controversial articles, this collaboration gives way to open discussion and debate, archived as a virtual, encyclopedic history for all to read.