This source is the statement of the United States Copyright Office and was presented on July 27th 2006. It begins by summarizing what Congress has already done in order to protect design. In 1998, as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, they finally took some action. The Vessel Hull Act which is codified in Chapter 13 of Title 17 offers protection to items that enjoy vessel hull designs. The Office believes that adequate protection is provided for under HR 5055. The Office goes onto explain what protection is offered under existing law, and the protection under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act. This Act protects a ‘useful article’ or a ‘vessel hull’ which it defines as something that has a use and it not just created to ‘portray the appearance of the article. In this statement the Office says that by simply changing the definition of ‘useful article’ in the Act, protection for fashion designs can be provided.

The proposed legislation which is H.R. 5055 would give protection to fashion designs by changing a few things in chapter 13 of the Vessel Hull Act. In the definition of ‘useful article’, ‘an article of apparel’ would be included. The bill explains what would come under an ‘article of clothing’. Vessel Hull designs are given 10 years of protection but ‘articles of clothing’ would be given just 3 years of protection. The Office states that the legislation will protect haute couture designs which are sold at high prices. These designs are copied and then sold at far lower prices, hence reducing sales of the original designs. The designs change very fast and 3 years should be enough for the designer to be given enough ‘exclusivity in the field’. The statement also talks about the recovery from infringement and what designers get in damages. They conclude by saying that the Office doesn’t have enough information to decide whether fashion protection is necessary. They do see the harm that is borne by fashion designers when their work is copied but do not think there is enough evidence to prove it necessary for legislation.

This source is an excellent one for my paper. Not only is it first hand, thereby being a primary source of the Copyright Office of America, but it provide a just and fair argument. It is similar to what I am arguing: There is a need for some form of protection which the current legislation does not provide for, but there also needs to be a balance to the legislation that is brought in which will be sufficient evidence and will cover for all loop holes.

A powerpoint sharing service -- reviewed on techcrunch.

A long, annotated list of sites and products that allow some form of note taking.

This is an open source text editor in alpha release as of 10/13/2005. Perhaps perhaps perhaps.

This is amazing. Shared document editing that can be uploaded or downloaded and shared in a million ways, including sending right to a blog. Writeboard is totally primitive compared to this, which allows you to tag your documents.

A post from the socialsoftwareweblog about online collaborative text editors.