David Kravets, Wired; Feds Prosecuting More Counterfeiters, IP Pirates:
"Federal prosecutions of criminal counterfeiting and copyright infringement cases have jumped over the past five years, as have IP-related prison terms, according to a Justice Department report.
The congressionally required report reviewed dozens of cases involving counterfeited pharmaceutical drugs, toothpaste, oil pipeline couplings, sports jerseys, DVDs and software. Movie camcording was also included.
The increases in sentences and prosecutions came even though one-third fewer IP cases were referred to federal authorities for prosecution (.pdf). There were 565 referrals in 2004 and 365 in 2008, the last year for which figures were compiled, according to data compiled in The PRO-IP ACT First Annual Report 2008-2009.
That said, the number of actual prosecutions increased from 2004 to 2008, despite fewer forwarded cases. Prison sentences have varied but generally have also been getting more severe.
While more defendants are getting terms in the one- to five-year range, the number of defendants getting no time has increased as well, from 79 in 2004 to 107 last year. Just three defendants got more than five years in 2008, down from 16 the prior year.
The report was required under the PRO-IP Act, which President George W. Bush signed last year. The act, which aims to bolster the United States’ enforcement of intellectual property crimes worldwide, (.pdf) also created a so-called copyright czar.
The position is on par with the nation’s drug czar. Obama’s pick for the position, Victoria Espinel, has been approved by the Senate Judiciary and is waiting for confirmation by the full Senate."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/federal-counterfeiting-prosecutions/
Monday, December 7, 2009
Colleges Should Protect Humanists in Fair-Use Cases; Chronicle of Higher Education, 12/6/09
Carol Loeb Shloss, Chronicle of Higher Education; Colleges Should Protect Humanists in Fair-Use Cases:
"Did you see the news item that a Stanford professor had won a six-figure settlement from the James Joyce estate? That was me.
I am happy about the outcome of the lawsuit, but I'm also concerned for other humanities scholars working on projects that might leave them exposed to the same kinds of legal pressures and risks that I faced, risks that their colleges usually don't cover.
To make a labyrinthine saga short, in September I won $240,000 from the Joyce estate to cover legal fees incurred in the battle to publish a Web site containing evidence deleted from my book Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2003). The estate threatened to sue first me and then the publisher if the book included quotes from Joyce's writing. I edited out important material from Joyce's notebooks, and the publisher took out even more evidence. With help from Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society's Fair Use Project, and other counsel, I went to court and, in 2007, won the rights to quote the documents on an online site.
But my legal victory obscures several major questions that should concern every humanities scholar on American college campuses. What role should colleges play in protecting their faculty in potential copyright disputes? Why should copyrights, when they are generated by faculty members, be excluded from university risk-management policies? Why does a special Fair Use Project like the one at Stanford have to exist at all? The underlying lack of protections exposed by this case indicates that humanities scholars throughout the country would benefit from a restructuring of university risk management.
In 2007 when the first stage of the Shloss vs. the Estate of James Joyce settlement was reached, Lessig, the founder of the Stanford Fair Use Project, said: "We will continue to defend academics threatened by overly aggressive copyright holders, as well as other creators for whom the intended protections of 'fair use' do not work in practice. I am hopeful that this is the last time this defendant will be involved in an action like this. But it is only the first time that we will be defending academics in these contexts."
The Fair Use Project is exemplary. But without it, I would have been exposed to threats that the university claimed belonged solely on my shoulders. The back story illustrates the structural inequalities that leave others in my position vulnerable, for I was receiving threatening letters from the Joyce estate long before I began to work with the Fair Use Project.
In such circumstances, one might assume that humanities scholars are covered by the university's risk-management department, whose purpose, at least at Stanford, is "for humanitarian, social, legal, and financial reasons," to "protect the health and safety of members of the community." The mission statement reveals that "in order to fulfill these objectives, we will consider all types of risks, including but not limited to natural risks, environmental risks, political risks, compliance risks, economic/business risks, social risks, and technological risks."
But that list, in my case, excluded the risks of publishing books. Although the university covered hazards related to "property, casualty, workers' compensation, crime, boilers, machinery, bonds, builder's risk, overseas programs, athletic programs, travel accident, etc.," and although the university routinely covered its medical faculty and researchers, humanities scholarship was considered by the general counsel to be outside its scope. There were two invisible categories for faculty members: one classification for medicine and the sciences and another for writers of books. Producers of patents were covered for their inventions. The only recourse for producers of copyrights was a media-perils insurance policy, purchased at the writer's personal expense.
Stanford is not alone in its approach to protecting humanities scholarship. Other college administrations also omit explicit references to protection of book publishing in their risk-management policies. They define risk as threats to a university's ability to "achieve its objectives," and cite strategic, compliance, operational, technological, and other such categories, or even specific areas of liability like aircraft, alcohol, automobiles, boilers, builder's risk, business travel, and so on. But you won't generally find explicit mention of risk to humanities scholars. Why not? Isn't producing knowledge a university objective?
One might argue, as did the general counsel of Stanford University in letters to me in 2003, that this is an appropriate policy because writers of books in the humanities are only expressing an opinion or a point of view. The university, as an institution, has no obligation to defend any attitude held by a single individual. Or one might contend that patents have a greater claim to institutional protection because university property is usually involved in generating inventions. Without the equipment in laboratories, scientists or engineers could not fulfill the demands of their experiments. Their work innately involves overhead that the university has assumed in the interest of progress. Or, more cynically, one might consider that patents usually generate income for the university, jobs for graduate-student assistants, and recognition in the corporate, industrial, and military worlds.
But such views ignore the degree to which colleges benefit from the work of humanities scholars, the implicit cost of creating a "two-tiered" faculty, and the extent to which academe's founding principles are put to the test by distinguishing between copyrights and patents.
When the work of a humanist is prohibited by an overly zealous copyright holder, as it was in Shloss v. the Estate of James Joyce, what is at stake is freedom of inquiry, not just the defense of an opinion or a point of view. Humanistic research is not simply a personal pursuit, but the very condition of any scholar's employment and as such inseparable from her or his professional duties. Why should it matter what field a faculty member belongs to? Invention is invention, discovery is discovery, and progress in human understanding isn't, or at least shouldn't be, limited to what contributes most to corporate, industrial, or military advantage.
If colleges are not simply handmaidens of financial profit, but authentic in their claim to be impartial proponents of progress, then the humanities, which speak in the voice of copyright, must be honored and protected with the same structures of risk management that govern the sciences. If colleges claim benefit, as they do, from the prestige of humanistic endeavors, then colleges should shield the risks incurred by those contributing to those benefits. They should not leave a large portion of the faculty unprotected. It is this general failing that is the precondition of the Stanford Fair Use Project. Were this not the case, there would have been no reason for Lessig to say to me, "This should not be happening to you." For it would not have happened.
Carol Loeb Shloss is a consulting professor of English at Stanford University. She is author of Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2003), supplemental material for which can be found at http://www.lucia-the-authors-cut.info."
http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Should-Protect/49306/?key=SD5zJVRobXAfYXsweHIWKCcBa395Jx0qPCJHZXkaZlBQ
"Did you see the news item that a Stanford professor had won a six-figure settlement from the James Joyce estate? That was me.
I am happy about the outcome of the lawsuit, but I'm also concerned for other humanities scholars working on projects that might leave them exposed to the same kinds of legal pressures and risks that I faced, risks that their colleges usually don't cover.
To make a labyrinthine saga short, in September I won $240,000 from the Joyce estate to cover legal fees incurred in the battle to publish a Web site containing evidence deleted from my book Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2003). The estate threatened to sue first me and then the publisher if the book included quotes from Joyce's writing. I edited out important material from Joyce's notebooks, and the publisher took out even more evidence. With help from Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society's Fair Use Project, and other counsel, I went to court and, in 2007, won the rights to quote the documents on an online site.
But my legal victory obscures several major questions that should concern every humanities scholar on American college campuses. What role should colleges play in protecting their faculty in potential copyright disputes? Why should copyrights, when they are generated by faculty members, be excluded from university risk-management policies? Why does a special Fair Use Project like the one at Stanford have to exist at all? The underlying lack of protections exposed by this case indicates that humanities scholars throughout the country would benefit from a restructuring of university risk management.
In 2007 when the first stage of the Shloss vs. the Estate of James Joyce settlement was reached, Lessig, the founder of the Stanford Fair Use Project, said: "We will continue to defend academics threatened by overly aggressive copyright holders, as well as other creators for whom the intended protections of 'fair use' do not work in practice. I am hopeful that this is the last time this defendant will be involved in an action like this. But it is only the first time that we will be defending academics in these contexts."
The Fair Use Project is exemplary. But without it, I would have been exposed to threats that the university claimed belonged solely on my shoulders. The back story illustrates the structural inequalities that leave others in my position vulnerable, for I was receiving threatening letters from the Joyce estate long before I began to work with the Fair Use Project.
In such circumstances, one might assume that humanities scholars are covered by the university's risk-management department, whose purpose, at least at Stanford, is "for humanitarian, social, legal, and financial reasons," to "protect the health and safety of members of the community." The mission statement reveals that "in order to fulfill these objectives, we will consider all types of risks, including but not limited to natural risks, environmental risks, political risks, compliance risks, economic/business risks, social risks, and technological risks."
But that list, in my case, excluded the risks of publishing books. Although the university covered hazards related to "property, casualty, workers' compensation, crime, boilers, machinery, bonds, builder's risk, overseas programs, athletic programs, travel accident, etc.," and although the university routinely covered its medical faculty and researchers, humanities scholarship was considered by the general counsel to be outside its scope. There were two invisible categories for faculty members: one classification for medicine and the sciences and another for writers of books. Producers of patents were covered for their inventions. The only recourse for producers of copyrights was a media-perils insurance policy, purchased at the writer's personal expense.
Stanford is not alone in its approach to protecting humanities scholarship. Other college administrations also omit explicit references to protection of book publishing in their risk-management policies. They define risk as threats to a university's ability to "achieve its objectives," and cite strategic, compliance, operational, technological, and other such categories, or even specific areas of liability like aircraft, alcohol, automobiles, boilers, builder's risk, business travel, and so on. But you won't generally find explicit mention of risk to humanities scholars. Why not? Isn't producing knowledge a university objective?
One might argue, as did the general counsel of Stanford University in letters to me in 2003, that this is an appropriate policy because writers of books in the humanities are only expressing an opinion or a point of view. The university, as an institution, has no obligation to defend any attitude held by a single individual. Or one might contend that patents have a greater claim to institutional protection because university property is usually involved in generating inventions. Without the equipment in laboratories, scientists or engineers could not fulfill the demands of their experiments. Their work innately involves overhead that the university has assumed in the interest of progress. Or, more cynically, one might consider that patents usually generate income for the university, jobs for graduate-student assistants, and recognition in the corporate, industrial, and military worlds.
But such views ignore the degree to which colleges benefit from the work of humanities scholars, the implicit cost of creating a "two-tiered" faculty, and the extent to which academe's founding principles are put to the test by distinguishing between copyrights and patents.
When the work of a humanist is prohibited by an overly zealous copyright holder, as it was in Shloss v. the Estate of James Joyce, what is at stake is freedom of inquiry, not just the defense of an opinion or a point of view. Humanistic research is not simply a personal pursuit, but the very condition of any scholar's employment and as such inseparable from her or his professional duties. Why should it matter what field a faculty member belongs to? Invention is invention, discovery is discovery, and progress in human understanding isn't, or at least shouldn't be, limited to what contributes most to corporate, industrial, or military advantage.
If colleges are not simply handmaidens of financial profit, but authentic in their claim to be impartial proponents of progress, then the humanities, which speak in the voice of copyright, must be honored and protected with the same structures of risk management that govern the sciences. If colleges claim benefit, as they do, from the prestige of humanistic endeavors, then colleges should shield the risks incurred by those contributing to those benefits. They should not leave a large portion of the faculty unprotected. It is this general failing that is the precondition of the Stanford Fair Use Project. Were this not the case, there would have been no reason for Lessig to say to me, "This should not be happening to you." For it would not have happened.
Carol Loeb Shloss is a consulting professor of English at Stanford University. She is author of Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2003), supplemental material for which can be found at http://www.lucia-the-authors-cut.info."
http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Should-Protect/49306/?key=SD5zJVRobXAfYXsweHIWKCcBa395Jx0qPCJHZXkaZlBQ
Artists' lawsuit: major record labels are the real pirates; Ars Technica, 12/7/09
Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica; Artists' lawsuit: major record labels are the real pirates:
Between $50 million and $60 billion may be owed to musicians and artists in Canada, but not from your run-of-the-mill file sharers. The Canadian recording industry itself is being accused of massive copyright infringement, and the list of miffed artists just keeps getting longer.
"Given how aggressively the recording industry likes to pursue file sharers, one would assume that the industry itself is in the clear when it comes to copyright infringement. But that assumption has been put to the test in Canada, where a massive infringement lawsuit is brewing against some major players. Members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, including the Big Four (Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada), face the prospect of damages ranging from $50 million up to $60 billion due to their use of artists' music without permission. That's right: $60 billion.
The lawsuit in question goes back to October 2008, but continues to be dragged up in the news because new plaintiffs keep joining the case. Most recently, jazz musician Chet Baker's estate has joined the growing list of musicians and artists who are getting on the music industry's case for their abuse of a certain aspect of Canadian copyright practices—something that the labels themselves don't even deny doing.
As University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist pointed out on his blog, the issue stems from a change to the law in the 1980s that eventually produced something known as the "pending list." Essentially, record companies no longer had to get a compulsory license every time they wanted to use a song for, say, a compilation album. Instead, they went ahead and used the song without waiting for authorization or making payment, adding the song to a list of music that is pending authorization and payment. If you're questioning whether you read that right, that basically means the record industries could use songs as long as they pinky swore they would get authorization and pay the artist for it eventually.
As you can imagine, the business didn't quite work that way. Instead of keeping up with its tab on the pending list, the recording industry just kept adding songs—without obtaining any rights. The pending list among the lawsuit's defendants has topped 300,000 songs from both large and small artists alike—300,000 songs that the labels are openly admitting that they have not secured the rights for. In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the record companies have been unjustly enriched by the use of their unauthorized music (they have, after all, been selling the music without permission and not paying out).
The plaintiffs also show that they are painfully aware of the hypocritical stance the industry has taken in regard to copyright abuse. One part of the complaint says the companies have shown "reckless, high-handed and arrogant conduct aggravated by their clandestine disregard for the copyright interests of the class members in contrast to their strict compliance enforcement policy and unremitting approach to consumers in the protection of their corporate copyright interests." Ouch.
The recording companies targeted in the suit acknowledge that the pending list reflects unpaid royalties "in excess of $50 million," but the real extent of the damage could go far higher—possibly to the tune of $60 billion. This is because the class is asking for both statutory and punitive damages for the labels' behavior (as Geist points out, the same standards being used to go after individual file sharers), meaning that the labels could be asked to pay up to $20,000 per infringement."
Between $50 million and $60 billion may be owed to musicians and artists in Canada, but not from your run-of-the-mill file sharers. The Canadian recording industry itself is being accused of massive copyright infringement, and the list of miffed artists just keeps getting longer.
"Given how aggressively the recording industry likes to pursue file sharers, one would assume that the industry itself is in the clear when it comes to copyright infringement. But that assumption has been put to the test in Canada, where a massive infringement lawsuit is brewing against some major players. Members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, including the Big Four (Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada), face the prospect of damages ranging from $50 million up to $60 billion due to their use of artists' music without permission. That's right: $60 billion.
The lawsuit in question goes back to October 2008, but continues to be dragged up in the news because new plaintiffs keep joining the case. Most recently, jazz musician Chet Baker's estate has joined the growing list of musicians and artists who are getting on the music industry's case for their abuse of a certain aspect of Canadian copyright practices—something that the labels themselves don't even deny doing.
As University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist pointed out on his blog, the issue stems from a change to the law in the 1980s that eventually produced something known as the "pending list." Essentially, record companies no longer had to get a compulsory license every time they wanted to use a song for, say, a compilation album. Instead, they went ahead and used the song without waiting for authorization or making payment, adding the song to a list of music that is pending authorization and payment. If you're questioning whether you read that right, that basically means the record industries could use songs as long as they pinky swore they would get authorization and pay the artist for it eventually.
As you can imagine, the business didn't quite work that way. Instead of keeping up with its tab on the pending list, the recording industry just kept adding songs—without obtaining any rights. The pending list among the lawsuit's defendants has topped 300,000 songs from both large and small artists alike—300,000 songs that the labels are openly admitting that they have not secured the rights for. In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the record companies have been unjustly enriched by the use of their unauthorized music (they have, after all, been selling the music without permission and not paying out).
The plaintiffs also show that they are painfully aware of the hypocritical stance the industry has taken in regard to copyright abuse. One part of the complaint says the companies have shown "reckless, high-handed and arrogant conduct aggravated by their clandestine disregard for the copyright interests of the class members in contrast to their strict compliance enforcement policy and unremitting approach to consumers in the protection of their corporate copyright interests." Ouch.
The recording companies targeted in the suit acknowledge that the pending list reflects unpaid royalties "in excess of $50 million," but the real extent of the damage could go far higher—possibly to the tune of $60 billion. This is because the class is asking for both statutory and punitive damages for the labels' behavior (as Geist points out, the same standards being used to go after individual file sharers), meaning that the labels could be asked to pay up to $20,000 per infringement."
How Team Tenenbaum missed a chance to shape P2P fair use law; Ars Technica, 12/7/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; How Team Tenenbaum missed a chance to shape P2P fair use law:
A federal judge has made it official: P2P file-swapper Joel Tenenbaum is on the hook for $675,000. The real tragedy here, though, is what might have been, as the judge admits she was receptive to all kinds of limited fair use claims and again slams the record industry's lawsuit campaign.
"Federal judge Nancy Gertner today officially brought down the tent on the Joel Tenenbaum P2P Big Top World 'O Fun, all but admitting that she would have given Tenenbaum's arguments about "fair use" a truly sympathetic hearing were it not for the shoddy behavior of his legal team. What could have turned into a watershed case instead became another statutory crucifixion, with Gertner finally entering the jury's $675,000 verdict against the young file-swapper whose defense crashed down with an in-court admission that he had been lying all along.
Gertner signed off the jury's damage amounts, which means that Sony BMG is entitled to $112,500, Warner Bros. gets $225,000, Arista Records gets $45,000, and Universal picks up $292,500.
The record labels wanted more, though; specifically, they asked for an injunction against Tenenbaum that would stop him from "promot[ing]… using the Internet or any online media distribution system to infringe copyrights."
According to Gertner, "the word 'promote' is far too vague to withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment. Although plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, they have no right to silence defendant's criticism of the statutory regime under which he is obligated to pay those damages. This Court has neither the desire nor the authority to serve as the censor of defendant's public remarks regarding online file-sharing."...
Also remember that Gertner throughout has been quite a public critic of the music industry's lawsuit campaign. She continues that criticism in the memo, saying, "The Court, deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits, the imbalance of resources between the parties, and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on by the Internet, did everything in its power to permit Tenenbaum to make his best case for fair use."...
"Rather than tailoring his fair use defense to suggest a modest exception to copyright protections, Tenenbaum mounted a broadside attack that would excuse all file-sharing for private enjoyment." By striking so broadly at the idea of copyright, Tenenbaum took the matter out of Gertner's hands. "Whether the widespread, unlimited file sharing that the record suggests he engaged in benefits the public more than our current copyright protections is a balance to be struck by Congress, not this Court," she concluded.
In addition, she singled out Nesson for criticism in a footnote to the memo. "Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings to the Web." Examples of Nesson's bad behavior in the case "are legion."
And so we're left wondering what might have been. Tenenbaum can still contest the damage award, arguing that it was unconstitutionally excessive (papers on that claim are due in January), but "reducing a ridiculous damage award" is far less important than shoring up robust fair use rights."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-team-tenenbaum-missed-a-chance-to-shape-p2p-fair-use-law.ars
A federal judge has made it official: P2P file-swapper Joel Tenenbaum is on the hook for $675,000. The real tragedy here, though, is what might have been, as the judge admits she was receptive to all kinds of limited fair use claims and again slams the record industry's lawsuit campaign.
"Federal judge Nancy Gertner today officially brought down the tent on the Joel Tenenbaum P2P Big Top World 'O Fun, all but admitting that she would have given Tenenbaum's arguments about "fair use" a truly sympathetic hearing were it not for the shoddy behavior of his legal team. What could have turned into a watershed case instead became another statutory crucifixion, with Gertner finally entering the jury's $675,000 verdict against the young file-swapper whose defense crashed down with an in-court admission that he had been lying all along.
Gertner signed off the jury's damage amounts, which means that Sony BMG is entitled to $112,500, Warner Bros. gets $225,000, Arista Records gets $45,000, and Universal picks up $292,500.
The record labels wanted more, though; specifically, they asked for an injunction against Tenenbaum that would stop him from "promot[ing]… using the Internet or any online media distribution system to infringe copyrights."
According to Gertner, "the word 'promote' is far too vague to withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment. Although plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, they have no right to silence defendant's criticism of the statutory regime under which he is obligated to pay those damages. This Court has neither the desire nor the authority to serve as the censor of defendant's public remarks regarding online file-sharing."...
Also remember that Gertner throughout has been quite a public critic of the music industry's lawsuit campaign. She continues that criticism in the memo, saying, "The Court, deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits, the imbalance of resources between the parties, and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on by the Internet, did everything in its power to permit Tenenbaum to make his best case for fair use."...
"Rather than tailoring his fair use defense to suggest a modest exception to copyright protections, Tenenbaum mounted a broadside attack that would excuse all file-sharing for private enjoyment." By striking so broadly at the idea of copyright, Tenenbaum took the matter out of Gertner's hands. "Whether the widespread, unlimited file sharing that the record suggests he engaged in benefits the public more than our current copyright protections is a balance to be struck by Congress, not this Court," she concluded.
In addition, she singled out Nesson for criticism in a footnote to the memo. "Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings to the Web." Examples of Nesson's bad behavior in the case "are legion."
And so we're left wondering what might have been. Tenenbaum can still contest the damage award, arguing that it was unconstitutionally excessive (papers on that claim are due in January), but "reducing a ridiculous damage award" is far less important than shoring up robust fair use rights."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-team-tenenbaum-missed-a-chance-to-shape-p2p-fair-use-law.ars
ICC IP Guidelines Issued At Anti-Piracy Gala; Intellectual Property Watch, 12/1/09
Intellectual Property Watch; ICC IP Guidelines Issued At Anti-Piracy Gala:
"The International Chamber of Commerce released its “Intellectual Property Guidelines for Business” in Spanish and Portuguese during a special session at the 1-3 December Fifth Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy in Cancun, Mexico. The IP guidelines “provide information to businesses on practical steps they can take to protect their own innovation and creativity in IP-based products and services, as well as to protect against the risk of using counterfeit materials or infringing the IP rights of other companies,” ICC said in a press release. The guidelines cover “internal IP use, supply chain practices, relations with intermediaries, and the handling of third-party IP. They deal with IP management in all its forms within companies, from IP development to component sourcing, manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing and internal corporate use,” it said.
In recent years, there has been pushback by IP users, the technology industry and others against overly strong IP rights protection, arguing among other things that it hurts innovation and economic growth, but efforts continue to address piracy and counterfeiting. The next negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is expected to be in Mexico in January. The anti-counterfeiting congress is cosponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization, World Customs Organization, and Interpol. Yo Takagi, WIPO assistant director general told the meeting, “WIPO has adopted an inclusive, development-oriented approach to the shared endeavor of building respect for intellectual property which will enable the international community to better calibrate their collaborative efforts,” according to a WIPO press release."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/12/01/icc-ip-guidelines-issued-at-anti-piracy-gala/
"The International Chamber of Commerce released its “Intellectual Property Guidelines for Business” in Spanish and Portuguese during a special session at the 1-3 December Fifth Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy in Cancun, Mexico. The IP guidelines “provide information to businesses on practical steps they can take to protect their own innovation and creativity in IP-based products and services, as well as to protect against the risk of using counterfeit materials or infringing the IP rights of other companies,” ICC said in a press release. The guidelines cover “internal IP use, supply chain practices, relations with intermediaries, and the handling of third-party IP. They deal with IP management in all its forms within companies, from IP development to component sourcing, manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing and internal corporate use,” it said.
In recent years, there has been pushback by IP users, the technology industry and others against overly strong IP rights protection, arguing among other things that it hurts innovation and economic growth, but efforts continue to address piracy and counterfeiting. The next negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is expected to be in Mexico in January. The anti-counterfeiting congress is cosponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization, World Customs Organization, and Interpol. Yo Takagi, WIPO assistant director general told the meeting, “WIPO has adopted an inclusive, development-oriented approach to the shared endeavor of building respect for intellectual property which will enable the international community to better calibrate their collaborative efforts,” according to a WIPO press release."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/12/01/icc-ip-guidelines-issued-at-anti-piracy-gala/
Google books court battle could be page-turner; Chicago Tribune, 12/7/09
Alex Pham, Chicago Tribune; Google books court battle could be page-turner:
""His [Judge Denny Chin's] preliminary approval is just his procedural OK for the parties to go ahead" to the next step of the settlement process, said James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School.
By giving his blessing, Chin essentially restarted the clock for critics to lob their complaints, giving them until Jan. 28 to file additional objections...
Potentially the most nettlesome is the question of whether the parties in the settlement should have the right to speak for, and profit from, millions of absent copyright holders or orphan books.
Instead, critics have argued that Congress, not a private lawsuit in federal court, is the appropriate venue to settle the conflict because its outcome could alter the rights of many people who may not be aware of the case.
So even if Chin grants final approval, the settlement could remain mired in the courts."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tc-biz-tech-google-1128-1206dec07,0,2145400.story
""His [Judge Denny Chin's] preliminary approval is just his procedural OK for the parties to go ahead" to the next step of the settlement process, said James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School.
By giving his blessing, Chin essentially restarted the clock for critics to lob their complaints, giving them until Jan. 28 to file additional objections...
Potentially the most nettlesome is the question of whether the parties in the settlement should have the right to speak for, and profit from, millions of absent copyright holders or orphan books.
Instead, critics have argued that Congress, not a private lawsuit in federal court, is the appropriate venue to settle the conflict because its outcome could alter the rights of many people who may not be aware of the case.
So even if Chin grants final approval, the settlement could remain mired in the courts."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tc-biz-tech-google-1128-1206dec07,0,2145400.story
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Yahoo Issues Takedown Notice for Spying Price List; Wired, 12/4/09
Kim Zetter, Wired; Yahoo Issues Takedown Notice for Spying Price List:
"Yahoo isn’t happy that a detailed menu of the spying services it provides law enforcement agencies has leaked onto the web.
Shortly after Threat Level reported this week that Yahoo had blocked the FOIA release of its law enforcement and intelligence price list, someone provided a copy of the company’s spying guide to the whistleblower site Cryptome.
The 17-page guide describes Yahoo’s data retention policies and the surveillance capabilities it can provide law enforcement, with a pricing list for these services. Cryptome also published lawful data-interception guides for Cox Communications, SBC, Cingular, Nextel, GTE and other telecoms and service providers.
But of all those companies, it appears to be Yahoo’s lawyers alone who have issued a DMCA takedown notice to Cryptome demanding the document be removed. Yahoo claims that publication of the document is a copyright violation, and gave Cryptome owner John Young a Thursday deadline for removing the document. So far, Young has refused.
Yahoo’s letter was sent on Wednesday, within hours of the posting of Yahoo’s Compliance Guide for Law Enforcement at Cryptome. In addition to copyright infringement, the letter accuses the site of revealing Yahoo’s trade secrets and engaging in “business interference.” According to the letter, disclosure of its surveillance services (.pdf) would help criminals evade surveillance."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/yahoo-spy-prices
"Yahoo isn’t happy that a detailed menu of the spying services it provides law enforcement agencies has leaked onto the web.
Shortly after Threat Level reported this week that Yahoo had blocked the FOIA release of its law enforcement and intelligence price list, someone provided a copy of the company’s spying guide to the whistleblower site Cryptome.
The 17-page guide describes Yahoo’s data retention policies and the surveillance capabilities it can provide law enforcement, with a pricing list for these services. Cryptome also published lawful data-interception guides for Cox Communications, SBC, Cingular, Nextel, GTE and other telecoms and service providers.
But of all those companies, it appears to be Yahoo’s lawyers alone who have issued a DMCA takedown notice to Cryptome demanding the document be removed. Yahoo claims that publication of the document is a copyright violation, and gave Cryptome owner John Young a Thursday deadline for removing the document. So far, Young has refused.
Yahoo’s letter was sent on Wednesday, within hours of the posting of Yahoo’s Compliance Guide for Law Enforcement at Cryptome. In addition to copyright infringement, the letter accuses the site of revealing Yahoo’s trade secrets and engaging in “business interference.” According to the letter, disclosure of its surveillance services (.pdf) would help criminals evade surveillance."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/yahoo-spy-prices
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
