The "creator" of the Dance move known as the electric slide has filed a DMCA based takedown notice for videos he deems to infringe and because they show "bad dancing". He is also seeking compensation from the use of the dance move at a wedding celebration shown on the Ellen Degeneres Show. Next up, the Funky Chicken, the moonwalk, and the Hustle? More seriously, does the DMCA have any limit on its scope?

Remember Samy? The creator of the infamous worm was unfortunate enough to be the the target in MySpace's latest litigation. As was said in the earlier story, the script was "written for fun" and caused no damage. The source and technical explanation for the "attack" was not even released until after MySpace had patched the vulnerability. Apparently this was enough to get the 20 year old (19 at the time of writing the worm) three years of probation, three months of community service, pay restitution to MySpace and is also banned from the Internet. Clearly, disclosing security vulnerabilities doesn't pay.

INTEL filed a legal action against Mr Sean Torongeau. Torongeau, it said, is trading as PROINTELL and that might confuse people and devalue Chipzilla's mark.

"By combining Intell with the generic and laudatory term 'pro', Defendant has caused and is likely to continue to cause confusion that Intel is the source of sponsor of Defendan'ts computer services, or that there is an association or relationship between the companies."

PROINTELL repairs computers, designs websites, hosts websites. Intel lawyers think PROINTELL will "tarnish, blur, or dilute, or likely tarnish, blur or dilute the distinctive quality of the famous Intel mark."

After the RIAA dismissed its file sharing suit against Patti Santangelo last year, it decided to go after her children. Both Michelle Santangelo, age 20, and Robert Santangelo, 16, were targeted by the RIAA after the record labels determined that they were responsible for whatever file-sharing went on in the Santangelo household.

In his answer, Robert Santangelo denies the charges and demands a trial by jury, while accusing the record labels of engaging in a "wide-ranging conspiracy to defraud the courts of the United States." Santangelo also calls the labels a "cartel" that acts in collusion, violating US antitrust laws by "entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in an identical manner and through common lawyers."

Indeed, Santangelo and his attorneys appear to be using every entry in the file-sharing defense playbook in this case. They argue that making music available does not constitute infringement; that the statute of limitations on the alleged infringement (which supposedly occurred five years ago) has expired; that the music industry has "enticed and encouraged children to download music for free," and that the damages sought by the RIAA are unconstitutionally excessive.

Ever recorded a television show or a movie so you can watch it later? Or ripped a CD so you can listen to it on your MP3 player?

With changes to Canada's copyright laws expected as early as next month, these mundane 21st century activities could theoretically be open to prosecution — unless the Conservative government steps in with expanded "fair use" or "fair dealing" protections for consumers.

Exacerbating the situation is intense pressure from the United States, where Canada is considered a rogue when it comes to copyright and intellectual property. It still hasn't ratified a 1997 World Intellectual Property Organization copyright treaty.

As well, a group of Canadian musicians, including the Barenaked Ladies and Broken Social Scene, have come out against the technological protection measures, arguing they actually stifle creativity and their relationship with consumers.

A proposed order in a file-sharing lawsuit would force the recording industry to divulge closely-held details of their wholesale pricing arrangements. UMG v. Lindor is one of the highest-profile file-sharing cases in the news today, due in no small part to the efforts of Marie Lindor's attorney Ray Beckerman, who maintains the Recording Industry vs The People Blog along with Ty Rogers.

The record labels are strenuously opposing Lindor's attempts to gain access to the pricing information. They have argued that it shouldn't be divulged, and if it is, it should only be done so under a protective order that would keep the data highly confidential. The RIAA regards the wholesale price per song-widely believed to be about 70¢ per track-as a trade secret.

The pricing data really may not be all that secret. Late in 2005, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer launched an investigation into price fixing by the record labels, alleging collusion between the major labels in their dealings with the online music industry.

The pricing information could be crucial for Lindor as she makes the argument that the damages sought by the RIAA are excessive. In this and other cases, the labels are seeking statutory damages of $750 per song shared. Lindor argues that the actual damages suffered by the RIAA are in line with the wholesale price per song, and if that is indeed the case, damages should be capped accordingly-between $2.80 and $7.00 per song-if infringement is proven.

Linking to copyright music posted elsewhere online without permission can be illegal, an Australian appeals court ruled Monday.

The issue before a three-judge panel at the Federal Court of Australia was whether Stephen Cooper, a retired policeman who ran the now-defunct site MP3s4free.net, was legally allowed to post links to mostly copyright MP3 files hosted on other servers. Cooper does not appear to have hosted any copyright music on MP3s4free.net.

Cooper, a resident of the state of Queensland, had argued that he had no power to prevent illegal copying because users could "automatically" add links to the site without his control. He likened his site to Google's search engine as a mechanism for pointing users to other sites--an analogy that one judge deemed "unhelpful," in part because Google was not designed exclusively to facilitate music downloads.

We had already mentioned the fact that German politicians seemed to be overreacting to a recent school shooting. There was talk about outlawing violent video games and other activities like paintball. Wired's Chris Kohler has some more details on the legislation that has actually been proposed and apparently it isn't just about banning the games, but would potentially send all sorts of people to jail for just about any association with a violent video game -- including playing one. The report claims: "developers, retailers and players of videos featuring 'cruel violence' could face up to a year in jail." Players? Can you just imagine that opening conversation between cellmates when someone explains that he's been thrown in jail for playing Grand Theft Auto rather than committing grand theft auto?

In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"

Lawyers for Saddam Hussein have lodged an appeal against the former Iraqi president's death sentence for crimes against humanity, court officials say.

The appeal was lodged just two days before the expiry of a deadline and a month after the sentence was imposed.

A panel of nine judges will review the verdict, which has been criticised by human rights groups as flawed.

The country's interior ministry has said that civilian deaths in November rose by 44% compared to the previous month.

He and six co-defendants are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity over the killing of at least 100,000 Kurds in northern Iraq.