avocets
Avocets
rss 2.0 subscribe to this page
search


related to entertainment+copyright
1 + blog
1 + computers
1 + free_software
1 + intellectual
1 + linux
1 + open_source
1 + oss
1 + property
1 + software
view all
•  projects
•  owners
•  tags
The story of Linux and open source software is one of the most sensational tales of technology in recent history. What started as the brainchild of a handful of dedicated individuals (Torvalds, Stallman, et al) has ballooned to a multi-million-member movement that is both idealistically appealing and financially sound - just ask the multitude of companies relying on - or profiting from - the use of Linux. But this movement has created something of a parallel universe in the software world - one where intellectual property rights are turned on their head. While most companies in the technology and entertainment industries (which are increasingly influenced by each other) launch intellectual property battles on a grand scale, those behind the free software movement eschew protection of intellectual property rights and have created both products and business models that are successful without these protections. I take a critical look at the output of the Free Software movement (both products and business models based on it) and specifically the way that its views toward protection of intellectual property rights has affected that output. What is the nature of the free software movement and its products, especially with respect to corporate involvement and sponsorship? I show that although the free software movement has been successful in many of its endeavours, the ideal of a world where all software is essentially a community-developed public good, provided unrestricted and free of charge to everyone, is unrealistic. The free software movement is as helped by traditional software-for-profit business models as it seeks to overturn them. Futhermore, there are areas where the free software industry is especially hindered (although not doomed), particularly in the areas of entertainment and usability.

This is an article from the Wahab & Medenica law firm's media blog which deals with issues of intellectual property. This blog entry explains the significance of emerging laws in response to the growing trend of copying fashion designs. Designers have been trying even harder these days to protect their works and as a result Congress proposes a new method. The Design Piracy Prohibition Act proposes a limited three year term for fashion designs that commences upon whichever is earlier the date of publication of registration or the date the design is first made public.  Under this act the term fashion is defined broadly to include everything from handbags to footwear. The blog goes on to explain the current status of Copyright laws in regards to fashion design.  Two cases are presented in order to challenge the issue of the functionality hurdle which designers face when trying to protect their work.  The most important case is the Kieselstein v. Accessories by Pearl in which the court granted Kieselstein the right to copyright the design of the belt buckle. Even though this is a step in the right direction for fashion protection, there are no cases which deal with the protection of garments of clothing. The United States does not protect fashion designs but France and England do and this article suggest that the United States should follow their lead. The proposed Design Piracy Prohibition Act will follow in the steps of the E.U. regulation which currently protects fashion designs in the form of registered and unregistered community designs. This new act will address the copycat culture which has grown tremendously within the fashion industry. Even though the act will protect the original designer, it will severely restrict a designer's ability to emulate the styles of others.  The importance of this article to my thesis is the proposition of an alternate method of fashion protection, The Design Piracy Prohibition Act.  Even though this act has not been passed yet, the blog explains what might happen if it is passed as well as provides background information about the act itself.