You are on page 1of 3


MALLO, Margaret | PESTANO, Camille | MAROMA, Jomel ± Beryllium

Ê Legal right granted to the author, creator or artist of an original work to copy, distribute and adapt
the work
Ê Does not protect ideas, only their expression or fixation
Ê Ownership of an intellectual property within the limits prescribed by a particular nation's or
international law


(— p 
p  p 
1. Copyright can protect my ideas.
2. I can copyright a name or title.
3. I can simply post a copy to myself as proof of copyright.
4. Everything on the Internet µpublic domain¶ and free to use
5. Anything without a copyright notice is not protected.
6. If I change someone else¶s work I can claim it as my own.
7. I can legally copy 10% without it being infringement.
8. It¶s OK to use copy or publish other peoples work if I don't make any money out of it.
9. It¶s hard to prove copyright infringement.
10. Confusion over copyright in music


Ê Limited use of copyrighted material without asking permission from the rights holders
Ê Usually done for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship
Ê Provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another
author's work
Ê Copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose
c  à
Ê A play on the word ½
Ê The exercise of using copyright law to extend the right to distribute copies and modified versions
of a work and requiring that the same rights be preserved in modified versions of the work
Ê A general method in making a software free, including all modified and extended versions of the
Ê The simplest way to make program free software is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted.

Article 1:

£ ± If you illegally downloaded — ½, now might be the time to delete. The Oscar-
winning film's production company Monday filed suit against 5,000 John Does who illegally shared the
movie, and is now trying to get the sharers' Internet service providers to reveal their names, CNN reports.
ISPs say they don't have the resources to track down the names of the 50,000 IP addresses identified in
the recent wave of copyright suits that includes the ½ action, but the production company insists
that "information obtained in discovery will lead to the identification of each of the defendants' true
names." And the guy behind the suit, Nicolas Chartier, co-founder of ½production company
Voltage, is nothing if not aggressive: He got banned from the Academy Awards for lobbying judges to
vote for the film, CNN notes. Skeptics of his lawsuit, he says, are "morons."
- Jane Yager| Posted Jun 2, 2010 5:22 AM CDT

Article 2:
-Darren Tebo August 13, 2010

In what many may consider a surprise move, today Oracle filed a lawsuit against Google. The lawsuit
alleges that Google has infringed on the Intellectual Property that has belonged to Oracle since the
company acquired Sun Microsystems last year.

According to MarketWatch, Oracle filed the complaint in a federal court in California. Oracle claims in the
lawsuit that Google has infringed on seven patents and copyrights with its Android mobile Operating
System. A Google spokesman has stated that the company has yet to receive the actual lawsuit
Therefore, they declined to comment on the situation. A spokeswoman for Oracle has also declined to
comment. Oracle claimed the Java platform as a portion of their purchase of Sun Microsystems. The
sale was finalized earlier this year upon the completion of a European antitrust review.
Larry Ellison, CEO, Oracle stated ³Java is the single most important software we've ever acquired.´ during
a conference call in early 2009. That sentiment was once again reiterated when the lawsuit was made
today. Oracle stated that the Java platform currently has 6.5 million developers that leverage the platform.

They state that Google Android is competitive with Oracle¶s Java platform for cell phones and other
mobile devices. The reason for their claim is apparently the fact that Android includes Java applications.
Due to the fact that Android is the number two cellular phone platform, this lawsuit will have huge
implications for the future of the market. One thing is for sure. Neowin will be watching this case with
great interest.
Article 3:
tech-654142Virgin Media trials copyright infringement monitoring tech


 ½ ½ 

November 26th 2009

Virgin Media is to begin trials of CView, a DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) tool which will monitor P2P traffic
over its broadband for any illicit activity.
Before we jump to conclusions that this is the new Phorm, it has to be noted that the technology isn't to
identify copyright infringers, more to collate data about just how serious a problem the file-sharing of
copyrighted material is over the Virgin Media broadband network.

"Understanding how consumer behaviour is changing will be an important requirement of Virgin Media's
upcoming music offering and, should they become law, the Government's legislative proposals will also
require measurement of the level of copyright infringement on ISPs' networks," said Jon James,
Executive Director of Broadband at Virgin Media about the trial.
"Detica's CView technology potentially offers a non-intrusive solution which enhances our understanding
of aggregate customer behaviour without identifying or storing individual customers' data."

Detica, the folks behind CView, are a subsidiary of BAE Systems. Its technology is currently used by the
government for issues pertaining to Homeland security.
Other clients include Vodafone, 3 and BT.
Virgin Media has told the Register that 40 per cent of its network will be monitored by CView, but those
that are involved "will not be warned".
Even though the technology will not be monitoring those who illegally file-share, it will be interesting to
see just how much information piped through the Virgin Media broadband cables daily which is deemed
to be 'illegal'.

%&'HTTP : / /W W W . NE TW ORKW ORLD. CO M/ NE W S/ 2008/ 1 21 10 8- CI S C O- C OP Y RI G HT -LA W S UI T. HTM L

Cisco sued by Free Software Foundation for copyright infringement

FSF alleges Cisco's Linksys products violated its software licenses

½ !" #$—

The Free Software Foundation Thursday slapped Cisco with a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement
related to Cisco's Linksys wireless routers.

The FSF alleges that "in the course of distributing various products under the Linksys brand, Cisco has
violated the licenses of many programs on which the FSF holds copyright, including GCC, binutils, and
the GNU C Library." Cisco has denied its users their right to share and modify the software as a result,
the FSF adds.

FSF Licensing Compliance Engineer Brett Smithwriting in his blog said the FSF in 2003 learned that the
Linksys WRT54G wireless router used a GNU/Linux system in its firmware, "but customers weren't
receiving all the source code they were entitled to under our licenses."

Smith adds that the FSF began working with Cisco in 2003 to help the company establish a process for
complying with FSF's software licenses. It also emerged that other Cisco products were not in full
compliance either, according to Smith, who described the FSF's five-year effort to get Cisco compliant as
a "running game of Whack-a-Mole."

Cisco has refused to "notify customers about previous violations and inform them about how they can
now obtain complete source code," Smith claims. "The FSF has put in too many hours helping the
company fix the numerous mistakes it's made over the years. Cisco needs to take responsibility for its
own license compliance," he adds.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Software
Freedom Law Center, which is providing representation to the FSF in this case. A copy of the complaint is
available on the FSF Web site.

In a statement, Cisco says: "Cisco is a strong supporter of open source software. Cisco takes its open
source software obligations and responsibilities seriously and is disappointed that a suit has been filed by
the Free Software Foundation related to our work with them in our Linksys Division. We are currently
reviewing the issues raised in the suit, but believe we are substantially in compliance. We have always
worked very closely with the FSF and hope to reach a resolution agreeable to the company and the

The suit came just days after the blogosphere debated whether Cisco is an open-source leech or an
open-source champion.