copyright law: unintentionally hilarious/engraging

so i’m currently researching and drafting my last body chapter, which will be generally about the influence of copyright on the livejournal vidding community. reading about copyright is often tedious as the laws are quite complex, long-winded, and law journals use footnotes to an almost obscene degree. the examples i’m finding in work by rosemary coombe (2001), demers (2006) and others have many, many examples of ridiculous applications of copyright law in cases that seem much more like bullying than a valid legal complaint. my favourite is one cited in both books where disney forced a childcare centre to take the pictures of disney characters off their wall. someone explain that one to me. in my own research, i came across a fan website which was issued a cease-and-desist letter from the MPAA (motion picture association of america) demanding that they stop using the phrase “NC-17” to denote stories with sexual content or adult themes. i can’t help but wonder how using this phrase affects the MPAA in any way. it’s absolutely hilarious, but at the same time just makes my blood boil.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s