Podcasts about copyright troll

Brand protection is the process and set of actions that a right holder undertakes to prevent third parties from using its intellectual property without permission, as this may cause loss of revenue and, usually more importantly, destroys brand equity, reputation and trust. Brand protection seeks primarily to ensure that trademarks, patents, and copyrights are respected, though other intellectual property rights such as industrial design rights or trade dress can be involved. Counterfeiting is the umbrella term to designate infringements to intellectual property, with the exception of the term piracy which is sometimes (colloquially) used to refer to copyright infringement. A more narrow definition of brand protection which focuses on trademark infringement, is sometimes used. Counterfeiting of physical goods that involves trademark infringement is indeed one of the predominant forms of intellectual property infringement. However, both copyright and patent infringement are possible without an associated trademark infringement, and both may result in loss of revenue and of brand equity. Eliminating diversion, gray market, or product theft and resale, are generally considered as part of a brand protection strategy, even though an intellectual property may not be necessarily infringed. A copyright troll is a party (person or company) that enforces copyrights it owns for purposes of making money through strategic litigation, in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, sometimes while without producing or licensing the works it owns for paid distribution. Critics object to the activity because they believe it does not encourage the production of creative works, but instead makes money through the inequities and unintended consequences of high statutory damages provisions in copyright laws intended to encourage creation of such works. Both the term and the concept of a copyright troll began to appear in the mid-2000s. It derives from the pejorative "patent trolls", which are companies that enforce patent rights to earn money from companies that are selling products, without having products of their own for sale. It is distinguished from organizations such as ASCAP, which collect royalties and enforce copyrights of their members. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Court sanctions were not enough to prevent attorney Richard Liebowitz from filing lawsuit after lawsuit on behalf of photographers alleging copyright infringement. The problem is Liebowitz also routinely falsely claimed his clients registered their copyrights prior to filing lawsuits, lied to the court, and violated several court orders, ultimately leading to his disbarment. Is Liebowitz a crusader for justice (at least in his own mind) or just another copyright troll?  

A copyright troll is a party (person or company) that enforces copyrights it owns for purposes of making money through litigation, in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, generally without producing or licensing the works it owns for paid distribution. Critics object to the activity because they believe it does not encourage the production of creative works, but instead makes money through the inequities and unintended consequences of high statutory damages provisions in copyright laws intended to encourage creation of such works. Both the term and the concept of a copyright troll began to appear in the mid-2000s. It derives from the pejorative "patent trolls", which are companies that enforce patent rights to earn money from companies that are selling products, without having products of their own for sale. It is distinguished from organizations such as ASCAP, which collect royalties and enforce copyrights of their members. Limitations and exceptions to copyright are provisions, in local copyright law or Berne Convention, which allow for copyrighted works to be used without a license from the copyright owner. Limitations and exceptions to copyright relate to a number of important considerations such as market failure, freedom of speech, education and equality of access (such as by the visually impaired). Some view limitations and exceptions as "user rights"—seeing user rights as providing an essential balance to the rights of the copyright owners. There is no consensus among copyright experts as to whether user rights are rights or simply limitations on copyright. See for example the National Research Council's Digital Agenda Report, note 1. The concept of user rights has also been recognized by courts, including the Canadian Supreme Court in CCH Canadian Ltd v. Law Society of Upper Canada (2004), which classed "fair dealing" as such a user right. These kinds of disagreements in philosophy are quite common in the philosophy of copyright, where debates about jurisprudential reasoning tend to act as proxies for more substantial disagreements about good policy. The idea–expression distinction or idea–expression dichotomy is a legal doctrine in the United States that limits the scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the expression or manifestation of that idea. Unlike patents, which may confer proprietary rights in relation to general ideas and concepts per se when construed as methods, copyrights cannot confer such rights. An adventure novel provides an illustration of the concept. Copyright may subsist in the work as a whole, in the particular story or characters involved, or in any artwork contained in the book, but generally not in the idea or genre of the story. Copyright, therefore, may not subsist in the idea of a man venturing out on a quest, but may subsist in a particular story that follows that pattern. Similarly, if the methods or processes described in a work are patentable, they may be the subject of various patent claims, which may or may not be broad enough to cover other methods or processes based on the same idea. Arthur C. Clarke, for example, sufficiently described the concept of a communications satellite (a geostationary satellite used as a telecommunications relay) in a 1945 paper that it was not considered patentable in 1954 when it was developed at Bell Labs. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Recently a copyright trolling outfit emailed me demanding $44,000 USD for infringing copyright by publishing a variety of images. Here's what I did to defend the claim and end up only paying $600. I was sloppy which resulted in paying $600. Learn how I could have avoided that as well. All in all, not a bad outcome from what looked like a terrible situation.Learn more at Fatstacksblog.comSponsored by Ezoic

On this episode of The H3 Podcast we get into the weeds talking about purchasing a mobility scooter, we look at one of the dumbest products ever conceived by mankind, we talk about PewDiePie's wedding, we talk about YouTube suing a DMCA copyright troll into the freaking dirt, and a whole lot more!

PDS 8.19 Youtube is Suing A Copyright Troll, Mulan Boycott, & China Ramps Up Misinformation Campaign by The Philip DeFranco Show

Mastercard and Microsoft team up to create a "digital identity" system, is group chat the future of social media? Brokering Bitcoin, smart contract developers and the SEC, are browsewrap terms of service enforceable? And more! Hosts: Denise Howell and Stefan Szpajda Guest: Evan Brown Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-law.Public list of discussion pointsTWiL on FacebookAttorneys may submit a self-study form to their local CLE board seeking MCLE credit approval. Please check the rules and requirements for your specific jurisdiction before submitting any forms. Special thanks to Nigel Clutterbuck for the TWiL theme music.

Mastercard and Microsoft team up to create a "digital identity" system, is group chat the future of social media? Brokering Bitcoin, smart contract developers and the SEC, are browsewrap terms of service enforceable? And more! Hosts: Denise Howell and Stefan Szpajda Guest: Evan Brown Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-law.Public list of discussion pointsTWiL on FacebookAttorneys may submit a self-study form to their local CLE board seeking MCLE credit approval. Please check the rules and requirements for your specific jurisdiction before submitting any forms. Special thanks to Nigel Clutterbuck for the TWiL theme music.

Mastercard and Microsoft team up to create a "digital identity" system, is group chat the future of social media? Brokering Bitcoin, smart contract developers and the SEC, are browsewrap terms of service enforceable? And more! Hosts: Denise Howell and Stefan Szpajda Guest: Evan Brown Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-law.Public list of discussion pointsTWiL on FacebookAttorneys may submit a self-study form to their local CLE board seeking MCLE credit approval. Please check the rules and requirements for your specific jurisdiction before submitting any forms. Special thanks to Nigel Clutterbuck for the TWiL theme music.

Mastercard and Microsoft team up to create a "digital identity" system, is group chat the future of social media? Brokering Bitcoin, smart contract developers and the SEC, are browsewrap terms of service enforceable? And more! Hosts: Denise Howell and Stefan Szpajda Guest: Evan Brown Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-law.Public list of discussion pointsTWiL on FacebookAttorneys may submit a self-study form to their local CLE board seeking MCLE credit approval. Please check the rules and requirements for your specific jurisdiction before submitting any forms. Special thanks to Nigel Clutterbuck for the TWiL theme music.

Marketplace Fairness Act Debate pairing Rebecca Madigan of the Performance Marketing Association and Steve DelBianco from Internet advocacy organization NetChoice, plus Ken White aka Popehat (criminal defense lawyer with Brown, White and Newhouse) returns to discuss sanctions on copyright troll.