Obviously retailers are afraid that digital market will meet the demands of consumers, with little left over for them to meet two weeks. For them this is just exacerbating the problem that online music has created for them that has led to many, many record stores closing.

It will be an interesting story to watch, as well as the response of the brick and mortar stores to stay relevant.

Act now, Kim Kardashian and Lady Gaga-loving perverts, because time is running out to buy filthy, offensive, blow-up dolls modeled after these two lovely women. A Lady Gaga doll produced by a company called Pipedream Products is unavailable after Gaga threatened the company, and a Kim doll, which is totally filthy (look, even the box says so), may soon be gone too. The real-life Kim’s lawyer has demanded Pipedream stop production because the doll violates her right to publicity, whatever that is.

Of course, the company says the similarities between real Kim and “Kinky Kim” are purely coincidental, which is, of course, a lie. The box’s product description says, “Meet Kinky Kim, the busty bubble-butt bimbo who’s had more dark meat in her than a bucket of fried chicken!” Not only is that clearly not a coincidence, it’s not very nice.

http://clutch.mtv.com/2010/09/17/the-kim-kardashian-blow-up-sex-doll-is-pretty-filthy/

One of the benefits (consequences?) of being a celebrity is that you have no privacy. While us normal people have a right to privacy, celebrity’s have the right to publicity to fill the void.   To sum it up: if someone is making money of f of another’s name and likeness without the person’s consent, they may have violated the right of publicity.

Facebook, which has gone after sites with the word “book” in their names, is also trying to trademark the word “face,” according to court documents.

To put it simply… this is not going to happen. Facebook will have to show a likelihood of confusion between their mark and another’s mark that incorporates the word “Face.”  It is pretty much a non-starter to try and trademark a generic word as that would harm efforts of people trying to communicate.

To sum this all up quickly, Nance is alleging copyright infringement. A photograph is protected by copyright allowing the owner an exclusive bundle of rights including: distribute, display, reproduce, and creation of a derivative work. The Copyright Act allows statutory damages of $750 to $30,000 and treble damages for willful infringement, which bumps it up to a maximum $150,000 per infringement.

(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos

(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:
(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

(5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace; and

(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

-http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2010/10-169.html“

While it seems that you are now free to jailbreak your phone, there may be one problem: contracts. Often where IP protection leaves off, contract law can supplement. So while the law says that you can jailbreak your phone, the contract that you signed for the service may state differently. The cellphone provider could still take you to court for jailbreaking your phone based on a breach of contract.

Eleven record labels have filed a copyright-infringement suit over the use of songs like “SexyBack,” “I Kissed a Girl,” and “Don’t Stop (Til You Get Enough)” by adult Internet sites.

The suit, which was reported Friday by adult-industry newswire Xbiz, alleges defendants including RK Netmedia and Realitykings.com used copyrighted songs more than 500 times in their videos “without license or consent.”

The adult websites “know that major record labels, recording artists and music publishers do not license their works for use in such pornographic content, especially the type of extreme, sexually explicit videos” on these sites, the record companies say in the complaint.

-http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/07/13/record-labels-sue-over-use-of-music-in-online-porn/

Although the porn sites invoke 1st Amendment as a defense, I don’t see it happening. However, following City of Charleston v. The Kanawha Players they might have some hope.

Apparently there is an British violinst of this name. In 2008, he brought a suit against Bobby V and his record label for “passing off, trademark infringement, and breach of contract.” Trademarks are words, logos that act as source identifiers. Federal trademark allow trademark owners to protect their goodwill, the time and money they invested in building their brand.

In this case, Bobby Valentino had used his name (trademark) in the stream of commerce for some time and the Courts apparently saw his claim as superior, as such the Bobby V. moniker was created. Oh, IP.

A U.S. district court in New York ruled YouTube is covered by a “safe harbor” clause in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that protects service providers from penalties for their users’ copyright violations, as long as they address those violations once they’re made aware of them.

“The provider must know of the particular case before he can control it,” Judge Louis Stanton said in the ruling. “The provider need not monitor or seek out facts indicating such activity.”

-http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/23/technology/youtube_wins_viacom_case/index.htm

Viacom brought a suit against Google & Youtube under the belief that Youtube, instead of complying with the DMCA’s notice and takedown provisions, take a more proactive stance and review content before users post it. While I understand Viacom’s frustration with the copyright infringement that is rampant on Youtube, it is not what the safe harbor provides. The goal of copyright, as well as the exemptions under DCMA is to help to provide a balance between giving incentives to creators and building a robust public domain.

Reportedly, the Michael Jackson Estate has earned $1 billion since his death. This is another way that the estate will continue to grow… and in a fantastic way. Around, November the Xbox and PS3 will release a game that allows you to dance like Michael. The game will use motion-detecting camera that will track your movements and score you on how well you dance.

This almost makes me want to buy a gaming system just saw I can play this game. Most likely, I will hunt down somebody that has this game.

Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke is warning the music industry is on the brink of collapse, insisting young musicians should resist signing record deals because the major labels will “completely fold” within months.

The British rockers broke away from their longtime label, EMI, in 2007 and went on to embrace the new digital era with the release their seventh album, In Rainbows, which they offered up over the internet and allowed fans to choose the price.

Yorke has now issued a warning to upcoming artists, urging them not to sign traditional record deals because they would be tying themselves to “the sinking ship.”

In an interview for a new high school textbook called The Rax Active Citizen Toolkit, which aims to inspire youngsters to become more politically literate, Yorke claims the music industry is on the verge of a major crisis and could collapse completely within “months”.

He says, “It will be only a matter of time – months rather than years – before the music business establishment completely folds. (It will be) no great loss to the world.”

– World Entertainment News Network

As a cynic, even I have to pause a moment and wonder what’s up with the doomsday prediction.  I think a more accurate statement would have been the prediction of the end of the major label model as we know it.  I would fully support that.  It’s clear that the internet and live music is where the monetary value of music lies.  Now we just need the “old school-ers” to embrace this.

Maybe we also need to accept that the idea of purchasing music, music having monetary value in itself as outdated.  I have heard people mention that albums are now just promotional material to entice people to come to the live shows.  The idea of an album being of so little value makes me extremely sad.  However, maybe that will help people refocus and realize you can make a great sounding record on a small-budget and continue embracing technological advances.

I never quite understood why producers commanded a million dollars per track and I assume royalty on the back end as well.  A decreased recording budget would lead to less money to get the  “it” producer.  However, that means that people would turn to lesser known producers, which is an increase in creative marketplace.

We’ll see what happens. One thing I know for sure is that the music industry is not going anywhere.  It’s death has been predicted before, but it still stands and will continue to do so.