It's Alive . . . ALIVE!

Now that this particular blogmonster is up on its feet, I need to thank my students Clancy Ratliff and Laurie Johnson for a combination of inspiration and technical advice. Their blogs are linked to this page waaaaaaaay down on the left. Enjoy.

Valenti's Wallenda-Like Balancing Act

According to this Hollywood Reporter story delivered to me via Yahoo News, Jack Valenti made an appearance at ShoWest in which he declared was on piracy for about the fourteenth time in recent memory. See Valenti Vows Piracy War if, like me, you can't get enough of Valenti's hyperbole. But, but, BUT . . . if you head over to the MPAA's site for Valenti's press releases, you'll see what I suspect to be the very same speech under a very different headline: "VALENTI ANNOUNCES DRAMATIC BOX OFFICE AND ADMISSIONS INCREASES IN DECADES IN SHOWEST ADDRESS" in which Valenti is quoted as saying: "theatrical exhibition will endure no matter how hard and fast blow the technological winds." The article continues: "Valenti said that was never more evident than in 2002 with box office totals of $9.5 billion, an increase of 13.2% over 2001. 'That?s the highest year-to-year increase in twenty years,' he said."

So, which was it? The latest declaration of war by the leader of an industry staggered by the crippling threat of broadband piracy? Or a celebration of one of the most financially successful years in Hollywood's history?

It couldn't be both, now . . . could it?

Victor/Victorious

The Supremes have ruled near unanimously (Scalia joining 2/3 of the opinion) in the case of Victoria's Secret vs. a dirty book store named "Victor's Little Secret," formerly known simply as "Victor's Secret." As the opinion details, a colonel from nearby Fort Knox saw the smut shop's ad, took offense, and dutifully notified the lingerie giant, who sued on the grounds that Victor was diluting their trademark. Victor's Secret did sell lingerie among other tawdry wares, but as the court suggests, the likelihood of a Victoria's Secret shopper inadvertently mistaking Victor's Secret (Little or otherwise) for the lingerie store was practically nil. So, oddly, the Court seems biased in favor of the "little guy," (in this case, Victor) in the case of trademark, while deferring to corporate interests in copyright cases. The opinion is available at Cornell's Supreme Court archive. Thanks to Ann Bartow for the heads-up via one of my many, many e-mail lists.