http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/feist.html
Feist Publications, Inc. vs. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc.

Feist Publications was suing Rural Telephone Service, because they were both telephone companies - meaning both books had the same content. Basically Feist wanted to monopolize the local phone book publication. Feist based their argument on the "sweat of the brow" doctrine which provides copyright protection for databases and compilations based upon the effort used to create them.

The court ruled that "compilations and databases are protected by copyright only when they are arranged and selected in an original manner," and if you've seen one phone book, you've seen them all. The content is either very similar, or exactly the same.
So, the court basically gave phone book companies permission to copy/paste an entire phone book, and sell it as their own. (the white pages, at least)

I read a case about a singer named Tom Waits who wrote a song called "Step Right Up." A commercial ad wanted to use the song in a Frito-lay ad, so Tracy-Locke hired another singer to imitate him, which he didn't do a bad job at it. Tom Waits took them to court where he got $375,000 compensatory damages and $2 million punitive damages for voice misappropriation, and $100,000 damages for violation of the Lanham Act. I think that people should just make up their own songs.

Today I researched over a legal battle against Corbis Corporation regarding an artist's copyright on public works on display. The company is charged with copyright infringement and a breach of trademark rights for selling digital reproductions of murals online without any prior agreement or licensing arrangement with the artists. These murals were very important to the Latino community in the city which has an estimated 500 murals in their neighborhoods. The plaintiffs charged Corbis, the corporate Internet art dealer owned by Bill Gates. The worst thing is that Corbis started selling over the Internet any of the murals he could get a hold of. I hate to think many other cases like this exist because not only are the true artists not being accounted for but also that in this case for example the community foresees the murals as an art originated in their community. http://findarticles.com

Article: "Viacom v. Youtube"
by Jonathan Bailey

The article is about that Viacom sued Youtube for one billion dollars. Viacom wanted Youtube to remove about one hundred thousand of its clips. This fight may also affect Blogger and the internet itself acording to the article.

In my article I learned that Beyonce was being sued because of her release "I'm still in love (kissing you)." The song "Kissing You" was originally written by Deesree Weeks and Timothy Atack. When Sony (Beyonce's label) contacted Atack's label to get permission for the release of the song they agreed but with very strict restrictions: Beyonce couldn't rename the song, it was only to be released in the United States, and no music video was to be released. Instead of following the rules Sony and Beyonce released the song worldwide with a title change and a music video.

http://www.benedict.com/Audio/Beyonce/Beyonce.aspx

George Harrison, a former Beatles member, has been blamed for purposefully copying the Chiffons' hit song "He's So Fine." Recently, George Harrison released a song called "My Sweet Lord." After much controversy, they ruled that George Harrison accidentally copied "He's So Fine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord
and
http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm

At first when I read this, I couldn't believe a former member of the Beatles would have done something so wrong. But as I researched the topic, I realized that he unintentionally copied a part of the other song. I am surprised that this hasn't happened more often.

A college student received an e-mail that said she was going to get sued for illegally sharing music downloaded from LimeWire. She had to pay $4,000 for downloading a couple of songs. So I suggest that you just go out and buy the CD.

I learned about the lawsuits that YouTube is facing right now. I think that there are some things that could be prevented like asking to use the product. Most people don't have the money to just buy the music, so they just download it. I don't download music because I would probably be the one to get caught.

Is Limewire illegal for use? The answer is yes. Technically it is not illegal for P2P sharing, but if you share copyrighted music the authorities can get you. Although it is illegal for you to do it, the RIAA usually does not go after the users, like drugs they go after the dealers. So as long as you have a small amount of songs you should be ok.

The music industry has filed over 10,000 law suits and 2,200 of the have been settled. 25 students from Carnegie Mellon University and 16 from the University of Pittsburgh have been sued for illegaly downloading songs. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_324000.html.)

More and more people are being sued for downloading songs off the Internet. It is becoming easier and easier for people to get caught and even if you don't plan on downloading music illegally, you could accidentally download them and still get into trouble. Be careful when you download things.

I researched a lawsuit where a 12-year-old girl was sued because she was sharing her music files, which is illegal in the U.S. She was sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The girl had to pay about $2000 for the songs she had illegally shared "using the Kazaa file-sharing service." To view more of this story, go to this site:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/09/music.swap.settlement/

I have mixed feelings about this lawsuit. I feel sorry for the girl because she was very young, and that probably caused her and her family a lot of stress, not to mention a lot of money. On the other hand, she shouldn't have shared her files in the first place. She should have gotten her music legally, but not share the files at all.

Most people don't really think about the consequences of downloading music or videos. The place where most people are watching these vidoes is YouTube. They were sued by Viacom recently for using more than 150,000 unauthorized clips, which were watched more than 1.5 billion times. Viacom was seeking at least $1 billion in damages. That scares me to even try and download anything illegally.

IFPI v. Tommy Olsson
URL: http://www.msu.edu/~pergande/legal_cases.html

In my research, I found that a teen named Tommy Olsson was taken to court by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). It was said that Tommy had built a web page that linked music files to other web sites and that some of the music that was being linked to other web sites was unauthorized copyrighted music. It was said that Tommy was distributing that music for free just by the fact that he linked other web sites to that unauthorized music. Later Tommy was exonerated of the charges because he did not copy, distribute or spread the music files.

In my opinion I think that Tommy was guilty because even though he did not copy the music or anything, he still gave others the opportunity to copy and listen to that private music. Tommy gave access to others to listen and maybe copy and sell music that did not belong to the public yet.

I reasearched a copyright lawsuit against Beyonce Knowles that I found unfair. Co-writer of "Kissing You," Des'ree, is suing for $150,000 in damages. She also wants the selling of Beyonce's "Still In Love (Kissing You)" song, video, and album to be stopped.

Des'ree told Beyonce she could use her song, then claims that Beyonce did not follow her terms (not being made to change the title or make a video based on it).

I think that if she didn't want somebody else using her song their way, she should have never given permisson to do so.

You can find this article at this website: http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news?id=30690

The case that I researched was the lawsuit against Napster. The lawsuit was filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). They accused Napster of encouraging the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted music on a massive scale. I think that if certain web sites know that downloading this music is illegal, they should get rid of it. Copyright laws are there for a reason. Illegal downloading is not fair to the artist or the producers. They are losing money to websites such as Napster. You can download a whole CD for free and it is costing less money for the artists.

I read about the case of Viacom Vs. YouTube/Google. Google is the one being sued for about $1 billion because of its newest acquisition, YouTube. Google apparently has not paid enough attention to what teenagers today are uploading. Reports of teens uploading from properties of Viacom such as MTV videos and The Daily Show. Apparently the Viacom company had been trying to work out a deal with the YouTube company to have them distribute their TV shows legally, but Google would not even give them the time of day. I believe Google had it coming. If Viacom put out the effort to try and make a deal to distribute their videos legally upon the YouTube site, they just blew it off, and now Google is surprised that the Viacom company is mad about them having illegal downloads of their work?









http://nymag.com/news/media/30021/

I read about the youtube.com copyright lawsuits and to me they are not necessary. Youtube made a good point when they said "a service provider isn't responsible for what its users do with the service." I agree with this statement because they really aren't responsible for it. They just provide the service so that they can post thing on the website. I think that they should give the people a lawsuit.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060717/1852217.shtml

I researched the lawsuits that were against the Carnegie Mellon University students and another 16 from the University of Pittsburgh.
They downloaded music and movies illegally on their school campus computers. I think the students should have thought twice about what and how they went about downloading or obtaining the illegally downloaded stuff. And plus they have pressured their college.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_324000.html

I learned about the YouTube lawsuit. They tried to sue YouTube for its videos and music. But YouTube had a good argument stating that they can not be responsible for what their users upload on the computer. So they are now trying to sue the uploaders.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060717/1852217.shtml

I read about RIAA VS. Verizon Internet Services Inc. The recording industry tried to force nation's internet providers to identify subscribers suspected of illegally downloading music online. Eventually the decision was overthrown as well as an earlier one.

To me, I think that Dr. Dre shouldn't have used THX LucasFilms' "deep note" if they already denied him to have permission to use it in one of his songs. That's just a big no no and he'll probably get a 'slap on the hand' for doing so. He shouldn't have done it. I agree with them for filing a lawsuit on him.

http://benedict.com/Audio/Dre/Dre.aspx

I found out that Des'ree sued diva Beyonce Knowles for her album cover "I'm kissing you" on April 14th, 2007. Beyonce was granted permission to use this song, but not make a video, not change the words, or re-title the work. I agree with this completely because it was her fault that she changed it all up.

http://www.benedict.com/Audio/Beyonce/Beyonce.aspx

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY was sued in 2001 for using pictures of another geographic magazine. The pictures were printed in the articles all throughout the 1888 to 1996 magazines. Before 2001, the NGC was legally able to use scans of the originals. But in 2001, Congress passed a copyright law that prohibited the use of any photography already used and published in world magazines. I agree because the people who took these photos went through the trouble and hard work in getting these great pictures.

I researched about Frederick Hart, a famous sculptor in the mid to late 1900's. His most famous work Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the "Three Soldiers". In 1998 when "The Devil's Advocate", starring Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino, Hart faced issues with The National Cathedral. The National Cathedral denounced the film, saying that Hart's statue in the background of one of the scenes in the movie, was a "grotesque distortion of sacred art". The Cathedral was worried about how Hart's art reflected in a negative way on them, so they sued.

I researched about the The Devil's Advocate: Warner Bros. vs Frederick Hart. In the article, Hart sues Warner Bros. for using "Ex Nihilo" and putting pictures on it that the National Cathedral denounced the film as a grotesque distortion of sacred art. Warner Bros. could still sell the movie, seeing as sue date was near the release of the movie. They had to cut out over 20 minutes of the 450,000 copies they had.


http://www.benedict.com/Visual/Devil/Devil.aspx

I read about that Web Site operators cannot distribute computer programs to crack codes that prevent the piracy of movies. That basically means downloading a program that can steal a movie for you. I agree with this because I wouldn't want anybody stealing movies I'm trying to sell and make money. I think that if you don't wanna buy it off the internet, then don't make programs to crack the code to get it. You're just hurting the company's profits.

http://www.dvd-copy.com/documents/1904-www.nytimes.com_library_tech_00_08_biztech_articles_18dvd.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2006/07/31/daily3.html

I read an article about 4 college schools who sued this store for selling unmarked merchandise. Since they all won a championship in either football champ. games and bowl games, I would have to say I can agree with them even more suing this store for taking credit that is a complete scam and is completely copyrighted. Check out more from this web site up top.

I read about the ZZ Top vs. John Lee Hooker case over ZZ Tops "La Grange" copying John Lee Hooker's "Boogie Chillen". After reading the case and the ruling, I say ZZ Top did copy the beat slightly but the words are completely different so if you ask me, there two different songs with similar beats.

Yes, I agree copyright infringement is wrong.

iTunes got sued for copyright by Billboard Radio Monitor for failing to secure licenses to sell song downloads. I'm glad I don't use iTunes at all because I don't want that to happen to me.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/05/18/music.copyright.lawsuit/