NormalVisual writes: When the Jack Daniels distillery recently became aware of a book whose cover they felt substantially infringed their trademark, they didn't go into instant "Terminator mode" — instead, they wrote a very thoughtful, civil letter to the infringing party, and even offered to help defray the costs of coming into compliance. I believe plenty of other companies (and many in the tech world) could use this as an example of how *not* to alienate people and come off looking like a bunch of greedy jerks.
vile209 writes: "A thread on Something Awful about a user being threatened by the RIAA's lawyers. Something seems fishy though, the user claims he did not download the songs and has a solid alibi. This news story has made the front page of Digg.com and now has over 50 thousand views on the SA forums. Also Submitted because he is being sued for "Europe — The Final Countdown""
Big Hairy Goofy Guy writes: "This month's Bead&Button magazine has an editorial (PDF) about ethical behavior as it relates to beadwork designs. For those zealots who believe "information wants to be free" (such as myself) it is a bit surprising that such an ancient art could be subjected to such a strict copyright regime. At one extreme is the question "how should artists and publishers be compensated" and at the other extreme is the question "how can you own a pattern of beads?"
From the article: "It is unethical to teach a beading project... without the artist's permission." Fill in the... with "that has appeared in a magazine, book, or website" or with "learned in another teacher's class" It appears that this magazine is concerned only with the first question.
See also: Sarah Feingold's article (PDF) in the same issue on how copyright law applies to beadwork."