We missed this story when it appeared last month, so we are commenting on it now.

A woman who was arrested on allegations she sold illegal music compact discs was jailed last month and left by law enforcement authorities in solitary confinement for more than four days. The woman, Adriana Torres-Flores, 38, of Springdale, Arkansas, was left without food, toilet facilities, or sleeping facilities. Torres-Flores said she drank her own urine to for fluids.

Torres-Flores had been arrested in December 2007 on criminal charges she was selling bootlegged compact discs at a Springdale, Arkansas flea market. Torres-Flores faces deportation proceedings because she is not a U.S. citizen.

We discovered news of Ms. Torres-Flores’ situation after we read a The New York Times last week about the bootlegged entertainment that no longer is available on Canal Street, long known as one of New York City’s major distribution points for discount goods, many of which are counterfeit. The story details an initiative Mayor Michael Bloomberg began in December 2003 with the aim of reducing the amount of counterfeit goods in the city that never sleeps.

A separate December 2003 from the Times details the results of an afternoon raid against counterfeit goods.

In both Times stories, the newspaper quotes financial estimates from trade associations — the Motion Picture Association of America in last week’s story; the International Chamber of Commerce in the 2003 story — that purport to detail the amount of money the associations’ member lose to counterfeit or bootlegged goods.

Ms. Torres-Flores’ situation is egregious because of the unusual circumstances surrounding her detention. In many other ways, however, her situation is consistent with an effort by multinational copyright industries to use municipal police to enforce and uphold the protection of their narrow interests. We wrote about this situation last year when editorializing about the Fulton County Sherriff’s involvement (with blue-jacketed representatives from the Recording Industry Association of America) in a raid of DJ Drama’s Atlanta studio.

DJ Drama and several of his colleagues were arrested in January 2007 for making mixtapes allegedly in violation of the Copyright Act of 1976.

See also:

Eric A. Taub. Off New York Streets, Film Piracy Is Online. The New York Times. April 14, 2008.

Mark Minton. Woman Forgotten 4 Days In Tiny Cell. Arkansas Democrat Gazette. March 11, 2008.

Copycense. Mix Tapes Compared to Cocaine? February 7, 2007.

Michael Wilson. 2 Chinatown Stores Raided In Counterfeit-Goods Sweep. The New York Times. Dec. 3, 2003.

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Public Knowledge. Don’t Trust the Media to Get Copyright Right: Scrabulous Coverage Scores Few Points. Jan. 22, 2008. Often, we have taken the press to task for its frequently errant and one-sided coverage of intellectual property issues. When IP was a backwater issue, poor (and sometimes inaccurate) coverage was a problem, but was not evident. Now IP often warrants front-page, above-the-fold coverage, and the mistakes not only are evident, they are harmful. A news organization’s primary professional objective is to get it right. Writing flowery prose like Selena Roberts is optional. Talking loud and saying little like Stephen A. is optional. Whining while cashing checks like Mr. Tony is optional.

Getting it right, on the other hand, is mandatory.

Marc Fisher got it wrong in a big way last month, likely because he relied on second-hand reporting and did not do the requisite amount of fact- and document checking. Now, as PK points out, several media outlets seem to have gotten the Scrabulous/Facebook story wrong, attributing to an alleged copyright infringement problem what really is an alleged trademark infringement problem. Not only is this unacceptable, it is grossly unprofessional. If the news media can’t get it right, above all else, it’s useless.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 29, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Larry Barrett. Publishing Company Settles Software Suit With SIIA. Internetnews.com. Jan. 18, 2008. We find it interesting that while SIIA promotes that it will pay informants up to $1 million to snitch on others for alleged copyright infringement, the lobbying group (which counts among its membership Bloomberg, Dow Jones, Reed Elsevier, and Copyright Clearance Center) has paid out only $39,500, or an average of $2,821.43 per informant. This makes us wonder whether McNulty and Greggs pay Bubbles better for his information than the multinational database content industry pays for its information.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 22, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Julie Hilden. Seinfeld Sued: Will “Sneaky Chef” Author Missy Chase Lapine Succeed In Her Suit Against Jerry and Jessica Seinfeld? FindLaw. Jan. 15, 2008. We reported on Jessica Seinfeld’s cookbook back in October. Now the inevitable lawsuit (.pdf) has been filed, alleging copyright infringement and defamation, among other things. As William Patry noted in a comment about an infringement case involving the Baltimore Ravens’ logo, substantial similarity should not be enough to win an infringement lawsuit. The evidence also should show the defendant had access to the allegedly infringed work. Stay tuned.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 22, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

AdRants. Ford Slaps Brand Enthusiasts, Returns Love With Legal Punch. Jan. 14, 2007. Ford, which desperately needs some love from the public, shoots itself in the foot by threatening legal action over the use of its logo in a calendar sold by a Mustang owners club. Our first reaction was “how dumb can you be?” Upon reconsideration, though, American trademark law may have required Ford to take some level of action because of potential dilution issues. The issue has been resolved now, but one has to think this issue could have been handled in a manner that would not have left Ford looking like a bully. Just because there’s a legal issue doesn’t mean the law needs to be used like a club.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 15, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

“Concern for those who elected you is representative democracy, not corruption; moreover, as noted above, in the case of copyright, until just this year, the copyright committees have been chaired by individuals who had no constituent interests and therefore tried to make policy as they saw fit. That we disagree with their view of policy doesn’t make their view corrupt. The Copyright Office, for example, has testified in favor of term extension and the other bills people find objectionable, and it is immune from the sort of “corruption” at issue. Tarring those who don’t see things the way we do as ‘corrupt’ is incorrect and a poor way to convince them to see things the way we would like.

“At the same time, campaign finance reform has long been a pressing need, and if Professor Lessig can provide constructive assistance in that effort, we will all be grateful.”

The Patry Copyright Blog. Copyright, Corruption and “Corruption.” June 21, 2007.

Of all the people out there that call themselves copyright experts, there are several reasons why we think Bill Patry is one of the few that deserves that title and stands at the top of the heap. One of the most important reasons, in our view, is his ability to see and explain copyright clearly through several different perspectives.

Despite its beginning, Patry’s post is not about Lawrence Lessig’s decision to “retire” from copyright advocacy. It is about the legislative process, specifically as that process applies (or is applied) to copyright laws and regulations. Patry challenges Lessig’s suggestion that “corruption” was at the root of Congress’ decision to pass the Copyright Term Extension Act (.pdf) in 1998, and in doing so summarizes four decades of Congressional committee history to support his ultimate contention: elected officials serve the interests of their constituents, and except in rare instances, corruption (or “corruption”) has nothing to do with their political positions.

We have seen parts of the copyright legislative process as it applies to libraries and often have lamented how often libraries and library patrons get shortchanged. We’ve often thought (and have written in this space) that “corruption,” as defined by Lessig, may have been part of the reason library representative organizations (LROs) have not received all they have wanted.

But we also have thought (and have written in this space) that LROs have not been as effective in playing the political game as they could be. Returning to the term extension issue, we opined in our Lessig piece last week that the term extension issue lacked a clear focus on ultimate harm to a wide range of people. LROs spent much time and money doing all the official things that needed to be done: including lobbying Congressmen, writing amici briefs, and distributing alerts to their membership.

Still, LROs — as did Lessig — failed to engage the regular Joe and Jane Doe on the term extension issue in a way that would have fueled the public outrage necessary for elected officials and federal judges to look beyond the law and consider public policy. That has nothing to do with corruption (or “corruption”), but is simply a decision to execute a strategy that ultimately did not bring the desired result.

And who’s to say that what LROs want is good for libraries or is good public policy? Further, many could reasonably argue that Section 108 is proof positive that libraries have not gotten shortchanged in the legislative process.

This leads us to a conclusion that Patry’s post suggests: instead of complaining about being the victims of “corruption,” maybe parties involved in lobbying for a balanced copyright law would be more effective in their legislative and judicial interventions if they become more effective advocates for the public at large, instead of for the institutions they represent. In particular, LROs have been staunch advocates for open access to information. Restrictive copyright inhibits open access to information, which affects the public in a variety of ways. But are libraries and librarians making this clear to the public in a way people can understand?

For example, how could have LROs better engaged the public to demonstrate that term extension is not some issue reserved for nine judges and two advocates who choose to argue legal and constitutional abstractions on October 9, 2002, but instead an issue that may keep a 10-year-old girl in Iowa from creating the next great animated character because a large corporation wants to shackle culture to stuff its wallets?

In other words, how can LROs and others concerned with balanced copyright make it plain? As much as we rant in this space about the “piracy” frame, we concede it is brilliant and effective because it is plain. Those concerned with balanced copyright must find a way to make their issues as plain to the public and Congress as copyright holders have made “piracy” plain to the public and Congress.

Copycense™: Creativity & Code.™ A venture of Seso Group LLC.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed an injunction against Google that prohibited it from facilitating access to images via thumbnails. The plaintiff in the case, Perfect 10, Inc., an owner and publisher of adult images, sued Google and Amazon.com for copyright infringement in November 2004.

In the summer of 2005, Perfect 10 asked a federal district court to levy a preliminary injunction against Google to keep the search engine provider from “copying, reproducing, distributing, publicly displaying, adapting or otherwise infringing, or contributing to the infringement of Perfect 10’s photographs …” The district court granted Perfect 10’s injunction request against both Google and Amazon. Both Google and Amazon appealed, leading to the Circuit Court’s decision.

The case is Perfect 10 vs Amazon.com, and Google, Inc., CV-06-55405. (.pdf)

Copycense™: Creativity & Code.™ A venture of Seso Group LLC.

Technorati Tags: Copycense, K. Matthew Dames