Reader Tim DiPaula alerts us to the news that folks singer Jake Holmes is suing Jimmy Page for copyright infringement, claiming that the Led Zeppelin song "Dazed and Confused" is a copy of his own song, of the same name, recorded two years earlier. The TMZ link above has clips from both songs, which certainly have some pretty serious similarities. But what's really amazing, of course, is that Holmes recorded his song in 1967, and Zeppelin did their song in 1969. And Holmes is just noticing now? TMZ notes that copyright law has a three year statute of limitation, saying that this lawsuit can only cover damages from the last three years. But, of course, as with all things copyright law related, it might not be that simple. The courts have been somewhat divided on this, but some interpret the law to say exactly what TMZ says -- that it will only cover infringement from the past three years. However, others have interpreted it to mean that it's only three years from the last infringing act. So as long as infringement has been happening all along... some courts will cover that entire period. Of course, you might think that regardless of the statute of limitations issues, Page has a pretty damn good laches claim. Forty plus years to bring the lawsuit? Yeah, the courts might not like that very much.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The NY Times is running a long article looking at one of the favorite moral panics of the day: cyberbullying. The specific article questions how schools should be dealing with the issue, especially when it comes to activity that takes place entirely off-campus. The article actually focuses a lot of attention on the middle school principal we wrote about a couple months ago who sent a long email to parents telling them to ban all social networking from their kids -- effectively taking the "head in sand" approach to dealing with these issues. To be fair, in this article, that principal comes off as a lot more reasonable, initially telling angry parents that off-campus activity really is outside of the domain of what the school should be involved in.

In reading through the article, though, part of what struck me is that it seems like some parents are simply trying to get the school to act because they're unwilling to act themselves. Take, for example, this exchange towards the beginning of the article:

Punish him, insisted the parents.

"I said, 'This occurred out of school, on a weekend,' " recalled the principal, Tony Orsini. "We can't discipline him."

Had they contacted the boy's family, he asked.

Too awkward, they replied. The fathers coach sports together.

What about the police, Mr. Orsini asked.

A criminal investigation would be protracted, the parents had decided, its outcome uncertain. They wanted immediate action.

In other words, there were plenty of paths that the family could have taken, but they didn't want to actually do anything. They wanted the school to act as parents for the kid because they were unwilling to do so. That's not to say these things don't create difficult situations, but it seems like a weak solution when parents just punt the issue and demand that schools handle it. And, of course, the article also highlights cases where parents also get (reasonably) upset when schools punish their kids for off-campus activity.

It's no secret that kids can and will be mean. And with modern communication technology it's easier for kids to be mean directly more often and in much more public ways. That's a challenge, to be sure, but asking schools to handle those issues doesn't seem like an effective or an efficient solution.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The government is denying 10 U.S. citizens and residents, three of whom are veterans, the ability to fly to or from the United States. Nearly all have Middle Eastern names, and many are stranded overseas, according to a federal lawsuit.

The Guardian has a fantastic article on a topic we've mentioned before, but haven't discussed in a while. It's about how copyright is getting in the way of us preserving our history. Archivists around the world are facing a massive problem: what should be easier due to new technologies has become an incredible legal nightmare. Digital content degrades quickly, and formats change all the time. Locking up that content, and using things like DRM (where it's illegal to even try to circumvent it) is making it impossible to do important archival activities. This is a huge problem that's only been getting worse -- so it's great to see a mainstream publication like The Guardian addressing it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Filed under: Cellphones

After holding out for years, MTA has finally caved to the public's demand for cellphones in New York subways. New York City Transit has announced a deal with Transit Wireless, who's forking out $46.8 million over 10 years for the privilege of installing service in the 277 underground stations currently lacking coverage. Cell phone providers will have to pay Transit Wireless for their customers to be able to roam onto the subway network, but it's hard to feel sorry for them: a consortium of major providers, including Verizon and Sprint offered up a mere $40 (not a typo) to install similar coverage. The good news for subway passengers loathe to have the privacy of their commute interrupted by rude cellphone talkers is that coverage won't be extended to train tunnels, only the stations, meaning passengers will have to take care of business before they get on the train. Proponents cite the need for passengers to be able to text message and call out of stations in the case of emergencies, but we're just glad to finally step into a station without going through internet withdrawls. The first six stations should have coverage in two years, and once proven the system will expand to the rest of the stations in the following four years.

[Via textually.org]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Office Depot Featured Gadget: Xbox 360 Platinum System Packs the power to bring games to life!