At 75, an artist may be too old to write a new hit single, but that doesn’t make them too old to sue someone famous with a new hit single for a large sum of money over 10 syllables from a 37-year-old song. Cameroonian artist, Manu Dibango, is suing both Michael Jackson and Rihanna for copyright infringement over his 1972 hit, Soul Makossa. The complicating factor is that Jackson was already sued decades ago for infringing the tune in his 1983 single, Wanna Be Startin’ Something, and he had settled with Dibango, but now he’s under fire again for allegedly licensing the infringing bit to Rihanna for her 2007 hit, Please Don’t Stop the Music, without contacting Dibango to get permission. According to Wikipedia, Soul Makossa features a Duala chant, “Mama-ko, mama-sa, ma-ka-ma-ko-ssa,” while a similar sounding Swahili chant, “Ma Ma Se, Ma Ma Sa, Ma Ma Coo Sa,” appears in both Jackson’s and Rihanna’s song. Dibango is demanding €500,000, and that the courts block the labels from receiving any money from the allegedly infringing tunes until the matter is resolved.
Dibango has a history of making great music, but more recently, he served as President of the Cameroon Music Corporation, where he was known for defending intellectual property rights and fighting piracy. It’s a real shame that you need to hire a law firm to make use of a catchy phrase from another song, but I guess that’s what happens when everyone is focused on “protecting” their rights, rather than on making music.
We’ve seen stories of people being fired over email and even text message before, but now there’s a story of a Canadian spa worker fired via Facebook (via Michael Geist). The woman still got dressed and went to into work that day because she thought it was a joke. Using Facebook seems rather harsh, though she admits to being hired over Facebook and the firing was done via private message (as opposed to a wall post…), but it’s no real surprise that a common method of communication eventually gets used this way. That doesn’t mean it’s not cruel, but I wouldn’t expect it to be an isolated case (we’ve already seen legal papers served via Facebook). It’s got to make you wonder what’s next though, fired via Twitter? “@unfortunatesoul btw you’re #fired sry”
There was a time when online petitions were pretty common, but they never were that effective at actually lobbying government, mainly because there’s no easy way to validate signatures. The concept was ported straight from the analog world to the digital, but it’s interesting to see how government lobbying has evolved online. The Ontario government recently backed down from proposed restrictions on young drivers in the face of a significant backlash, which included a Facebook group that gathered over 150,000 members. The Premier, Dalton McGuinty, mused about conducting consultations through Facebook and, though that never materialized, the group was cited as one of the major indications that the government had “stepped in it.” Earlier this year, another Facebook group, Fair Copyright for Canada, had caught the attention of the national parliament in Canada.
What is it that Facebook groups have that online petitions don’t? First of all, 150,000 members in a Facebook group is not the equivalent of 150,000 signatures on a (real) petition. A portion of this group’s members are probably not even from Ontario (though at least Facebook provides some assurance that most members are real individual people). But, in the same way that 150,000 signatures isn’t the same as 150,000 people at a rally outside the legislature, you take the context into account. It’s a pretty significant number for getting a sense of a public reaction — the government definitely hit a nerve here. A Facebook group also contains associated debate and discussion, links to other efforts (websites, YouTube videos, etc.) and a means for members to coordinate further efforts online and offline. It’s more about organizing protest efforts than simply presenting a list of names.
Obviously, there are other relevant services besides Facebook (and there are lots of silly Facebook groups), but the Facebook example serves as an interesting illustration of how this sort of political activism has evolved from the digital attempt at petitions to a more involved hub of activity. In Canada, we see examples of politicians now beginning to pay attention, but to get involved — like McGuinty suggested through consultations and like the Obama team has demonstrated through a campaign — would take things to another level.
The Copyright Board of Canada has decided to increase the levy on blank CDs from 21 cents to 29 cents each. The levy is a sort of “you’re a criminal tax” that assumes blank CDs are going to be used for unauthorized copying. Blank CDs in Canada are now often more expensive than blank DVDs (which have no levy and hold more data), and most of that cost goes directly to the record industry. In 2006, about 70% went to the labels, but it seems like even more now, with actual price of CD-Rs dropping. With a 21 cent levy, a pack of 50 CD-Rs sells for about $12 before tax. That’s 24 cents per CD-R — 87.5% of the price goes to the record industry. And that’s before the 8 cent increase.
The board notes that sales of blank CDs are declining, but justifies the increase by arguing that compression allows people to store more songs on a CD. Meanwhile, there’s no levy on digital audio players (the Canadian record industry was worried it would legalize downloading and seemed to prefer to push for tougher copyright legislation instead). What’s going to happen when the Copyright Board realizes that blank CD sales are likely declining, not because everyone is using compression, but because less people are using CDs? This “you’re a criminal tax” has always been a short-term band-aid solution that’s not going to fix the record industry’s problem. Do Canadians really need to pay the record industry $30 million a year for the right to burn a few songs onto a CD every now and then? Luckily, the current government has expressed a desire to cancel the levy, though we’ll have to wait and see if they can follow through.
Guitar virtuoso Joe Satriani has sued Coldplay for copyright infringement over claims that their hit single, Viva La Vida, used “substantial original portions” of his song If I Could Fly from 2004, seeking damages for “any and all profits.” The lawsuit has been filed in Los Angeles federal court. Call me a skeptic, but it was just back in June when Techdirt covered a story about a band called Creaky Boards making a similar claim. The difference is that the Creaky Boards didn’t sue. They made a cheeky video and used the opportunity to get some attention (also, later retracting the statement after Coldplay refuted it). However, one notable difference here is that Coldplay was very unlikely to have heard the Creaky Boards song, while Joe Satriani is well known, especially among guitarists. When you listen to this clip, the melodies are certainly very similar:
But does that mean it was copied? Most people’s knee-jerk reaction is to assume it must have been, but here’s an idea: Creaky Boards, Coldplay and Joe Satriani all have a similar melody over a similar chord sequence. When Coldplay responded to Creaky Boards, Chris Martin called it a “simple coincidence.” Is it not plausible that it’s just a somewhat natural melody to sing over those chords? You can’t copyright a chord sequence. If you searchYouTubeforthesesortsofclaims, you quickly realize that a lot of songs sound the same. Some cases are blatant infringement, but for most, there are only so many notes in a scale…
Chris Martin hassaid: “We’re definitely good, but I don’t think you can say we’re that original. I regard us as being incredibly good plagiarists.” I bet he wishes he hadn’t said that now, but to what extent is that true about all of our ideas? Isn’t a certain element of “plagiarism” a natural part of the creative process? Where’s the line between plagiarism and inspiration? Of course, trying to pass someone’s work off as your own is bad because it’s dishonest and you aren’t giving proper credit, and your reputation will likely suffer for it if someone finds out. But even if Coldplay did get the melody from Satriani (whether consciously or unconsciously), how much damage have they done? If you listen to the theme of Satriani’s song and the verse of Coldplay’s, the melodies are very similar, but the songs in their entirety are very different. Coldplay takes the song in a completely different direction in the chorus, while that melody is Satriani’s chorus. Coldplay’s song has lyrics, Satriani’s is instrumental. They appeal to different audiences, they’re very different songs. Even if it is an case of infringement, how significant is it?
That’s saying little about the legal realities though. It’s bound to be a sticky issue in court. Coldplay will likely claim independent creation to try and clear their name (unless they did blatantly rip it off, in which case they might look for a settlement). How do you prove whether or not someone came up with a melody independently? How many notes or rhythms need to be similar to prove that one melody is a derivative of another? This is going to be an interesting case to watch.
The Ontario Premier says he wants to engage young people in dialogue on Facebook (via Michael Geist) over protests against proposed restrictions on young drivers. The strict, zero-tolerance proposals have caused many young people to speak out on Facebook, and one protest group now has over 140,000 members. The Premier has responded publicly, “I think we need to find a way to get on Facebook… I think we need to find a way to engage in a dialogue in a social network where they are,” noting that most young people won’t come to the traditional legislative meetings. There’s one snag though — government computers currently block Facebook.
This isn’t the first time a Facebook group has caught the attention of Canadian politicians (it’s also not the first time this Ontario government has proposed controversial driving laws). Over the past year, a Facebook group, created by Geist, protesting proposed copyright legislation, was mentioned repeatedly by the opposition in federal parliament. This time, the government itself is bringing an online protest to attention. The idea of Facebook consultations drew some criticism in the comments on Geist’s post — why should the government conduct its business on a proprietary, privately owned silo? But Geist isn’t suggesting that the government rely on Facebook or any one service, just that they could make use of services that people are already using. Facebook is especially relevant for legislation affecting young voters. In an earlier column, Geist notes that it takes more than just an “if you build it, they will come” approach. Governments could broaden their online consultation strategies to include a presence on social networks where active dialogue is already taking place. In this particular case, it’s still a bit too early to tell if this is just talk or if the government is serious about experimenting. A good first step might be to reconsider that Facebook ban.
Looks like cops aren’t the only ones looking online for evidence of crime. Just in the past week, we’ve seen two stories of small businesses using the web to do some detective work of their own. Canadian retailers in Cape Breton are hiring loss preventional specialists who are making use of social networking tools to track down shoplifters, finding dumb criminals bragging about items they’ve stolen on YouTube and then using Facebook to help identify the thieves. When a shoplifter has been identified, that information is shared with other members in the retail association who may choose to block that person from their stores. One of the mall owners interviewed also notes in the comments that Facebook is especially useful in checking for potential accomplices (friends who were there at the time of the theft). Despite the effectiveness of using the internet as a crime fighting tool, politicians elsewhere have been trying to get evidence of crime removed from YouTube even though it helps police — and now retailers — to catch dumb criminals.
The second story involves an Australian restaurant owner who tracked down bill dodgers using Facebook. The group of five diners stepped outside for a smoke and never returned after racking up a bill of $340 USD. Restaurant staff recalled that one of the diners had inquired about a former waitress when the group arrived. They contacted the waitress, searched a few names on Facebook and came across a profile belonging to one of the diners, who was pictured with his girlfriend (also in the group). Facebook showed that they worked at a restaurant down the street. They contacted the manager and, within hours, the diner returned to pay the bill (along with a generous tip and an apology). Later, the restaurant was notified that the man and his girlfriend had both been fired. No criminal charges were filed.
Whether it’s dumb criminals who can’t resist bragging or sloppy criminals giving away clues to their identity, the web makes it a lot easier for law enforcement and victims to track them down.
Last week, the Toronto Police Homicide Squad launched a new website containing profiles of unsolved murder cases and wanted persons. Each profile contains details of the investigation — a written synopsis, photos and links to Google maps or even YouTube videos — and allows visitors to submit tips directly to the police. It serves not only as an appeal for information, but also as a resource for grieving families. Some of the “cold cases” date back decades, and the police are hoping that increased attention on the web (or even from the press on the website launch) might lead to a break in an investigation.
Police have long since used online tools to search for evidence themselves, but we’re starting to see them engaging online communities and developing tools and methods to appeal to the public for information through the web. A few years back, a cop from a neighboring city received a lot of press for uploading a surveillance video to YouTube, and now Toronto’s Crime Stoppers service has its own YouTube channel and Facebook page. Though, in the surveillance video case, the media coverage of the YouTube angle seemed to help a lot more than the actual video (and comments on some of the Crime Stoppers videos make you wish the comment audio preview was mandatory.) The Toronto police have found a lot of success in solving and preventing crime using these tools, and they recently presented their methods to an Interpol audience.
It’s great to see law enforcement embracing the web as a means of two-way communication with the public, though it may take some time before these latest efforts pay off. The new site looks like it could use some more design work, and previous success has involved engaging a largely younger audience on social networks, rather than trying to draw witnesses to a separate site. As long as they continue to experiment, police are bound to find the right methods to make these tools useful.
It was just a few years ago when Apple used the moron in a hurry test to defend itself against a trademark suit, but their own legal department seems to have forgotten about it already. Apple has sent a cease and desist letter to the Victoria School of Business and Technology for the use of a blue and green apple element in their logo. The Canadian school has created a comparison page on their website in an attempt to highlight the differences between the logos, hoping to dissuade Apple from launching a lawsuit by building public support. The page also contains the legal correspondence to date, including a letter in which the school’s president asks if Apple is “suggesting that anyone using any variation of an apple for technology education related use is infringing on Apple’s trademark.”
The legal question is really about consumer confusion, as the Canadian Supreme Court has understood in the past. Trademark law doesn’t grant the holder an exclusive right over every use of a mark, just the right to prevent confusing or misleading use of it. The school is a technology school, but they’re also a school — an apple is a pretty common symbol for education. It seems like “even a moron in a hurry” would recognize the difference between the two logos, especially since the acronym “VSBT” is part of the school’s. The real problem here seems to be the requirement of trademark law that the holder of a mark actively polices its use. This requirement encourages these sorts of cease and desist letters, even if it seems like a comparison between apples and oranges.
Seth Godin thinks Firefox is missing the point by launching new features in response to Google Chrome. He says the problem now is that “when your friends switch to Firefox, your life doesn’t get better.” Firefox needs to provide people with an incentive to spread it, so that the more people use it, the better it gets for users (think of a social networking site — you have a better experience if more of your friends join). He suggests new communication and collaboration features that only work if you have Firefox.
I think he’s missing the point.
He ignores the Firefox community. The life of a Firefox user does improve as the user base grows. A more vibrant community means better add-ons, bug fixes, security patches, phishing reports, translations/dictionaries, etc. — all members benefit. Mozilla is already providing the sort of incentive he describes. Sure, there may be ways to improve, but I don’t think they’re missing the point.
Plus, “only for Firefox users” isn’t the Mozilla approach. Mozilla wants to improve the web for everyone — not just Firefox users. Mozilla thinks your browser should be like your phone or your car; it shouldn’t matter if your friends or co-workers are using the same product. You don’t need to consider which phone carrier your friend uses before making a call, or which car your co-worker has before providing directions; you shouldn’t have to think about what browser someone uses before communicating with them online. People don’t need special browser-specific features in order to communicate browser-to-browser, that’s what web services (or add-ons) are for. Those kinds of features would make life on the web more difficult for everyone if they were Firefox specific, and if they weren’t, Google could just implement them in Chrome.
The community is one thing Firefox has that Chrome can’t copy overnight.
If you read someresponses to Chrome from people at Mozilla, it doesn’t seem like they’re missing the point. Competition in the browser market is validation of Mozilla’s mission for Firefox, and Mozilla plans to compete by continuing to innovate and to involve the community. Seth Godin makes a great observation about giving people an incentive to spread your product — “people will recommend something if adoption improves their lives” — but he doesn’t mention the ways in which Mozilla has already taken that to heart. How do you think Firefox became popular in the first place?
