By Evan Brown

In recent years, mashups have gained quiet prominence in the hip-hop and dance music scenes. As sample-based music has proliferated, many producers have done what artists and students in many media have done—tried their hand at reimagining influential and interesting works by other artists. This sometimes takes the form of combining—“mashing up”—the songs of different artists in musically pleasing ways. This was a logical extension of both sampling and a tradition among DJs of mixing a capella tracks with instrumental tracks. But in decades past most of these attempts were either ephemeral performances or never distributed beyond the producer’s own social circle. But online distribution via personal websites, YouTube, and newer platforms like Bandcamp, Soundcloud, and DatPiff has made it easier than ever to get mashups to the masses—and to copyright holders.

Continue reading →

By Pedro Celis

Urban Dictionary is becoming a significant tool in the legal world. Dozens of courts have used Urban Dictionary to define slang terms not present in traditional dictionaries, federal prosecutors have used its definitions as evidence in a criminal complaint, and a law review article proposed a method for when and how courts should cite crowdsourced websites such as Urban Dictionary. Using Urban Dictionary allows courts and parties to define slang terms without relying on expensive expert witnesses. But this practice also raises some concerns. Urban Dictionary’s definitions are created by users and ranked according to the number of “up” or “down” votes they receive. They lack some of the quality control safeguards used by other crowdsourced websites such as Wikipedia. Urban Dictionary definitions cannot be edited or removed, even if they are incorrect. In contrast, Wikipedia users monitor and edit entries written by others to crowdsource quality control as well as content creation. Moreover, according to the New York Times, humor is the primary reason people vote for an Urban Dictionary entry. Thus, Urban Dictionary may be less reliable than other crowdsourced websites.

Continue reading →

By Caitlin Forsyth

As the Washington Legal Foundation has explained, “[t]he right to enter into agreements concerning the use of a patented invention on any terms that do not extend the patent’s scope is one of the oldest and most secure of all patent rights.” That right, however, has lost most of its meaning with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in FTC v. Actavis.

In Actavis, Solvay Pharmaceuticals obtained a patent for its brand-name drug AndroGel. Later, Actavis and Paddock filed applications for generic drugs modeled after AndroGel pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act. In their applications, Actavis and Paddock certified that the generics would not infringe Solvay’s patent, as they were challenging the validity and scope of the patent. Solvay sued Actavis and Paddock, claiming patent infringement. The FDA eventually approved Actavis’s generic product, but instead of bringing its drug to market, Actavis entered into a “reverse payment,” also known as a “pay for delay,” settlement agreement with Solvay. Actavis agreed not to bring its generic to market for a specified number of years. Other generics manufacturers made similar agreements with Solvay.

Continue reading →

By Megan Fensterman

During his recent nomination hearing in front of the Senate Commerce Committee, the newly appointed FCC chairman Tom Wheeler stated that he supports ending the unpopular ban on consumers unlocking their cell phones in order to switch wireless carriers. Responding to questions from the committee, Wheeler stated, “I am a strong supporter of intellectual property rights. At the same point in time, I believe that when I as a consumer or you as a consumer, or anyone have fulfilled our commitment and we’ve paid off our contract, that we ought to have the right to use that device and move it across carriers as we see fit.”

The Chairman’s comments further fueled debate over the controversial ban issued last October by the Library of Congress as part of their triennial process of issuing exceptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Continue reading →

By Matthew Fredrickson

The Federal Trade Commission’s recent amendments to its Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule will take effect on July 1, 2013, but the changes might ultimately exacerbate a fundamental problem that has persisted since the Rule’s debut: people, parents and children alike, lie. The new amendments will expand the definition of “personal information,” the collection of which triggers a series of special mandates by which child-directed, commercial websites must abide. Expanding this definition and increasing the number of triggers places a greater burden on these websites, which, in response, just ban children from using their services. This response, however, does not deter children, who lie about their age to gain access, often with the help of their parents. Additional regulations might very well lead to more lying and an increase in the unprotected presence of children online.

Continue reading →