One of the big issues with copyright is that it stifles innovation. I was reminded of this again yesterday, when I saw a play, The Mystery of Irma Vep link here. It was written by Charles Ludlam who, the program notes observe, "Upon realizing that his teachers, and the commercial theater, wanted him to subscribe to the Stanislavskian method of behaving in a 'civilized manner in a room, not to do anything extraordinary,' Ludlam and a group of like-minded artists founded The Ridiculous Theatrical Company.... He quickly became famous for gleefully ransacking other genres and works.... Everything was fair game,... drawing on great works of literature as well as movies, plays, television ads, songs, comic books, or 'something shouted in the street' for all twenty-nine of his plays." Irma is a marvel of casting and direction, with two men playing all seven parts, including those of three women. Imagine the rapid fire costume changes, since both actors had to be onstage together most of the time.

The audience laughed their heads off. What a loss if copyright had interfered.

Variety reports here on how copyrights have actually prevented the classic Fugitive television program from being re-distributed in its original form.

One of the reasons I tend to dismiss the notion of 'moral rights' for artists is because of how it is selectively enforced (in addition to the obvious dangers of creating a mutant form of 'super-copyright). The Fugitive is a clear example. If the concept applies to painted canvases, then why not television shows?

Of course this is not a new phenomenon. My own personal experience (and confession) with the problem can be found:

Here and here and here.

You have probably never heard of the Naked Cowboy who parades around the streets of New York in his underpants, cowboy boots and hat, playing a guitar and singing. You should because it once again demonstrates the absurdity of IP law. The Mars candy people and its ad agency created billboards featuring a naked cowboy link here and here. He sued for invasion of privacy and breach of his trademark. A New York court has thrown out the privacy charge, which seems almost logical, since the cowboy's strutting is clearly not private. Some such "street artists" might even pay for the publicity.

But the trademark invasion remains to be adjudicated. Trial is set for high noon on July 11. I'll bet you can't wait to hear how it turns out. You can read the 23 page opinion link here.link here

In the endless saga about royalties from radio stations paid out to artists, Wired reports that a vote on this is expected on Thursday on this, and the two main opponents have been exchanging symbolic gifts in the lead up.

The question is whether radio stations provide a service to artists by promoting their wares on the air, or whether they are exploiting them. Seeing (or rather listening) that radio stations rarely mention who the artist is, the latter would seem to hold. But given that artists often give songs to stations for them to be played, one would argue the opposite. And if the station actually buys the CD, wouldn't it be allowed to play it like a library allows patrons to read its books?

Wired reports on this astonishing claim, and provides a copy of the MPAA's legal brief to back it up.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe you cannot insure yourself against acting illegally. In that light, I interpret the following court decision as determining that software piracy is legal.

UNIK Associates was in the business of reselling software to businesses. Symantec sued and won a case against UNIK, alleging that it pirated its software products. UNIK then sued its insurance company to make it pay the fine, and has just won. The court argues that the policy covered copyright and trademark infringements.

The New York Times computer columnist, David Pogue, also writes books on software. He recently published an article complaining that he had given the PDF of one of his books to a few blind people as an act of generosity, and the PDF then appeared all over the internet link here. His column produced a deluge of comment, both favorable and not link here. Commenters suggested making the book for sale in downloadable form and others in free form, arguing that might actually increase sales of the hard copy. Another suggested a test using one of his older texts. Pogue has now agreed to such a test, selling a downloadable PDF, though not the free version.

The free downloadable form of publication is one that readers of this blog will find familiar, since two of its authors have published texts in that form, the most recent of which is available here . We will report the outcome of Pogue's experiment as it becomes available. A lot of us still like to have hard-copy reference books in hand as well as an online copy as we work on our computers so it will be an interesting experiment.

Been here before. The courts have blessed a settlement between Pfizer and Ranbaxy, an Indian generic maker of Lipitor, the anti-cholesterol medicine, in which the generic is kept off the US market for about 20 months link here. The news story suggests the deal may be worth on the order of $10 billion to Pfizer.

In an interesting twist to the story, the deal involved no cash payments which would have been against the law, but Ranbaxy was being allowed to sell its generic in a number of international markets. They include Canada, so smart American buyers can avoid the monopolist's prices by buying there and having the med mailed to them individually in the US.

Lipitor already faced competition from a generic form of Zocor, but Pfizer has apparently been pretty successful in keeping its established customers.

In response to some of the AP apologists, Jeff Jarvis at Buzz Machine hammers the point home quite well:

What the AP and The New York Times' Hansell don't seem to realize is how hostile an act it is to send lawyer letters to individuals. They have armies of attorneys. We bloggers don't. The mere act of sending us a letter can cost us money out of our own pockets. Sending a lawyer letter is an assault.

Saul tweaks me about having a conversation first: "Mr. Jarvis, in particular, often talks about blogging as a conversation. It seems like the A.P. wants to talk, and many bloggers would prefer a temper tantrum to a discussion." Saul, I don't think you're cut out for a career as a playground monitor, for you don't have the most basic skill of the job: recognizing who started it. The AP sent its lawyer letters. It declared war.

And so, Saul, I'd say you should pose this to the AP: Why didn't it start a conversation an open conversation before starting war?

Patterico also defends the flanks.

The Times of Britain helps explain why:

France to ban illegal downloaders from using the internet under three-strikes rule

Anyone who persists in illicit downloading of music or films will be barred from broadband access under a controversial new law that makes France a pioneer in combating internet piracy.

"There is no reason that the internet should be a lawless zone," President Sarkozy told his Cabinet yesterday as it endorsed the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" scheme that from next January will hit illegal downloaders where it hurts.

Under a cross-industry agreement, internet service providers (ISPs) must cut off access for up to a year for third-time offenders.

In a classical French approach the scheme will be enforced by a new £15 million a year state agency, to be called Hadopi (high authority for copyright protection and dissemination of works on the internet).

Read the whole thing here.