Via Collectanea Blog with Peter Jaszi: Educational fair use: a provocation:
"Let me make two modest suggestions:
1. First, it's important that educators refrain from claiming too much under the heading of fair use--and, in particular, that they avoid the simple (and erroneous) proposition that merely because a use is educational, it is definitionally fair...
2. Second, it is crucial to develop the arguments for treating various kinds of educational use as "transformative." Like it or not, this is the current mantra of fair use jurisprudence, and educators need to recognize this jurisprudential fact and respond accordingly. They need to generate more and better explanations (the fair use code for media literary, referenced above, being one example), of how educational uses don't just repeat quoted material for its original purposes, but both repurpose that material and add value to it."
http://chaucer.umuc.edu/blogcip/collectanea/
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
AT&T Learns From Mom in Fighting File Sharing, The New York Times, 3/26/09
Via The New York Times: AT&T Learns From Mom in Fighting File Sharing:
"For customers who continue to share files, the e-mail messages became tougher. Eventually, repeat offenders received certified letters. This repeated nagging did get most of the people who continued to share files after the first notice to stop.
“Then you are down to a handful of people who don’t care, who are 24/7 engaged in copyright theft,” he said. “At that point it is up to the copyright owner to determine the next steps.”
AT&T, however, did not and does not plan to take any action on its own against those customers, like canceling their service, even though they ignored repeated warnings.
“We are not under any circumstances going to suspend or terminate any customer’s service as a result of a third-party allegation unless they have a court order,” Mr. Cicconi said. “The copyright owner has legal rights, and we are not going to be the agent to enforce their rights.”"
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/att-learns-from-mom-in-fighting-file-sharing/
"For customers who continue to share files, the e-mail messages became tougher. Eventually, repeat offenders received certified letters. This repeated nagging did get most of the people who continued to share files after the first notice to stop.
“Then you are down to a handful of people who don’t care, who are 24/7 engaged in copyright theft,” he said. “At that point it is up to the copyright owner to determine the next steps.”
AT&T, however, did not and does not plan to take any action on its own against those customers, like canceling their service, even though they ignored repeated warnings.
“We are not under any circumstances going to suspend or terminate any customer’s service as a result of a third-party allegation unless they have a court order,” Mr. Cicconi said. “The copyright owner has legal rights, and we are not going to be the agent to enforce their rights.”"
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/att-learns-from-mom-in-fighting-file-sharing/
Monday, March 30, 2009
Public-Domain Status of Early Sound Recordings Delayed Until 2067 According to Library Report, Library of Congress, 3/30/09
Via Library of Congress: Public-Domain Status of Early Sound Recordings Delayed Until 2067 According to Library Report:
"Sound recordings were not protected by federal copyright law until 1972. A Library of Congress report indicates that the miscellany of state laws protecting pre-1972 sound recordings will extend copyright protection until 2067, creating a situation where some recordings dating to the 19th century are not available in public domain.
The Library announced today the completion of a commissioned report that examines copyright issues associated with unpublished sound recordings. This new report from the Library of Congress and the Council on Library and Information Resources addresses the question of what libraries and archives are legally empowered to do, under current laws, to preserve and make accessible for research their holdings of unpublished sound recordings made before 1972.
The report, "Copyright and Related Issues Relevant to Digital Preservation and Dissemination of Unpublished Pre-1972 Sound Recordings by Libraries and Archives’ is one of a series of studies undertaken by the National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB), under the auspices of the Library of Congress. It was written by June Besek, executive director of the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at Columbia University. The report is available free of charge at http://www.loc.gov/global/disclaimer.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clir.org%2Fpubs%2Fabstract%2Fpub144abst.html."
http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2009/09-060.html
"Sound recordings were not protected by federal copyright law until 1972. A Library of Congress report indicates that the miscellany of state laws protecting pre-1972 sound recordings will extend copyright protection until 2067, creating a situation where some recordings dating to the 19th century are not available in public domain.
The Library announced today the completion of a commissioned report that examines copyright issues associated with unpublished sound recordings. This new report from the Library of Congress and the Council on Library and Information Resources addresses the question of what libraries and archives are legally empowered to do, under current laws, to preserve and make accessible for research their holdings of unpublished sound recordings made before 1972.
The report, "Copyright and Related Issues Relevant to Digital Preservation and Dissemination of Unpublished Pre-1972 Sound Recordings by Libraries and Archives’ is one of a series of studies undertaken by the National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB), under the auspices of the Library of Congress. It was written by June Besek, executive director of the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at Columbia University. The report is available free of charge at http://www.loc.gov/global/disclaimer.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clir.org%2Fpubs%2Fabstract%2Fpub144abst.html."
http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2009/09-060.html
Publishers Face Pressure From Libraries to Freeze Prices and Cut Deals, Chronicle of Higher Education, 3/27/09
Via Chronicle of Higher Education: Publishers Face Pressure From Libraries to Freeze Prices and Cut Deals:
"A price increase of about 5 percent a year has been the industry standard, according to Mr. Price, but Oxford has not yet announced its fee structures for 2009-10. "We're waiting for pricing decisions to be made," he said. "The question is, Do you raise prices in a year like this?"
Now more than ever, publishers feel they must walk a fine line. "We want to make sure we're not undervaluing our product, but we don't want to be seen as harsh," Mr. Price explained. "We're trying to be mindful of tough times."
He has heard from colleagues in the business that some publishers are likely to hold prices flat in response to the economic downturn, or even lower their prices...
Even consortia have had to adjust their strategies. It might be a stretch to call this a silver lining, but members of Mr. Doyle's consortium have been working to make the most of their collective resources. For instance, the University of Oregon and Oregon State University have talked about coordinating database cuts so that they don't both end up axing the same useful resource. "When things get tight," Mr. Doyle said, "you have to think about doing things a little differently.""
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i29/29a01301.htm
"A price increase of about 5 percent a year has been the industry standard, according to Mr. Price, but Oxford has not yet announced its fee structures for 2009-10. "We're waiting for pricing decisions to be made," he said. "The question is, Do you raise prices in a year like this?"
Now more than ever, publishers feel they must walk a fine line. "We want to make sure we're not undervaluing our product, but we don't want to be seen as harsh," Mr. Price explained. "We're trying to be mindful of tough times."
He has heard from colleagues in the business that some publishers are likely to hold prices flat in response to the economic downturn, or even lower their prices...
Even consortia have had to adjust their strategies. It might be a stretch to call this a silver lining, but members of Mr. Doyle's consortium have been working to make the most of their collective resources. For instance, the University of Oregon and Oregon State University have talked about coordinating database cuts so that they don't both end up axing the same useful resource. "When things get tight," Mr. Doyle said, "you have to think about doing things a little differently.""
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i29/29a01301.htm
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Remixing YouTube, One Video At A Time, NPR's All Things Considered, 3/16/09
Via NPR's All Things Considered: Remixing YouTube, One Video At A Time:
"The latest viral video doesn't just come from YouTube — it's a remix of it. Amateur musicians with video cameras and homemade gadgets are all the playthings of an Israel-based musician and producer named Kutiman, who blends their sounds and images into unique songs. To date, his videos have accumulated more than 3 million views and climbing.
In an interview with Melissa Block, Kutiman says he was searching for guitar licks on YouTube when he came across a drummer explaining a funky groove. It inspired a slew of mash-ups."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101959636
"The latest viral video doesn't just come from YouTube — it's a remix of it. Amateur musicians with video cameras and homemade gadgets are all the playthings of an Israel-based musician and producer named Kutiman, who blends their sounds and images into unique songs. To date, his videos have accumulated more than 3 million views and climbing.
In an interview with Melissa Block, Kutiman says he was searching for guitar licks on YouTube when he came across a drummer explaining a funky groove. It inspired a slew of mash-ups."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101959636
REMIX: buy the remix, Lessig Blog, 3/11/09
Via Lessig Blog: REMIX: buy the remix:
"This video [from ThruYou music album by Ophir Kutiel AKA Kutiman] is Jefferson's Moose. If you come to the Net armed with the idea that the old system of copyright is going to work just fine here, this more than anything is going to get you to recognize: you need some new ideas."
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2009/03/remix_buy_the_remix.html
"This video [from ThruYou music album by Ophir Kutiel AKA Kutiman] is Jefferson's Moose. If you come to the Net armed with the idea that the old system of copyright is going to work just fine here, this more than anything is going to get you to recognize: you need some new ideas."
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2009/03/remix_buy_the_remix.html
Kutiman's ThruYou Mashup Turns YouTube Into Funk Machine, Wired.com, 3/25/09
Via Wired.com: Kutiman's ThruYou Mashup Turns YouTube Into Funk Machine:
"Five years ago he'd never heard of the "godfather of soul," James Brown. Now an Israeli mashup artist is basking in the spotlight after making the funkiest tracks on the internet, using YouTube clips of musicians who've never met each other.
Earlier this month, Ophir Kutiel, aka Kutiman, released seven videos made by mixing and matching found footage for his project, called ThruYou. The clever musical mashups have since been viewed more than a million times, and Kutiman is basking in the glow of raves from MySpace commenters and mainstream media alike...
Thanks mostly to Twitter, it wasn't long until Kutiman had logged more than 1.5 million views on YouTube. Praise came from outlets as varied as National Public Radio and Gawker, and Kutiman drew plaudits from open source advocates like Lawrence Lessig, who called ThruYou a nail in the coffin of copyright as we know it."
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2009/03/kutimans-pionee.html
"Five years ago he'd never heard of the "godfather of soul," James Brown. Now an Israeli mashup artist is basking in the spotlight after making the funkiest tracks on the internet, using YouTube clips of musicians who've never met each other.
Earlier this month, Ophir Kutiel, aka Kutiman, released seven videos made by mixing and matching found footage for his project, called ThruYou. The clever musical mashups have since been viewed more than a million times, and Kutiman is basking in the glow of raves from MySpace commenters and mainstream media alike...
Thanks mostly to Twitter, it wasn't long until Kutiman had logged more than 1.5 million views on YouTube. Praise came from outlets as varied as National Public Radio and Gawker, and Kutiman drew plaudits from open source advocates like Lawrence Lessig, who called ThruYou a nail in the coffin of copyright as we know it."
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2009/03/kutimans-pionee.html
Remixing Is Creating And Original -- It's Not Just Derivative Copying, TechDirt.com , 3/27/09
Via TechDirt.com: Remixing Is Creating And Original -- It's Not Just Derivative Copying:
"At the beginning of the month we were one of the first to write about the amazing Thru-You "album" created by a DJ named Kutiman, who took individual sounds off of YouTube and mixed them into a full album. I've always been a believer in the concept that remixing something is a creative endeavor in its own right, but I'd never seen the point driven home quite as clearly as in this album...
The idea that what he's done is almost certainly illegal and copyright infringement (he seems incredulous at the idea) should be a clear indication that something is wrong with the current copyright regime."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1611474282.shtml
"At the beginning of the month we were one of the first to write about the amazing Thru-You "album" created by a DJ named Kutiman, who took individual sounds off of YouTube and mixed them into a full album. I've always been a believer in the concept that remixing something is a creative endeavor in its own right, but I'd never seen the point driven home quite as clearly as in this album...
The idea that what he's done is almost certainly illegal and copyright infringement (he seems incredulous at the idea) should be a clear indication that something is wrong with the current copyright regime."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1611474282.shtml
Friday, March 27, 2009
At Columbia Conference, Harvard’s Darnton Asks: Is Google the Elsevier of the Future?, Library Journal, 3/18/09
Via Library Journal: At Columbia Conference, Harvard’s Darnton Asks: Is Google the Elsevier of the Future?:
"Is the public’s interest in books at risk with the pending Google Book Search Settlement? That was one of many issues addressed at an all-day conference on the settlement, held on March 13 at Columbia University.
In the final panel of the day, which addressed public interest issues, Google’s Alexander Macgillivray, associate general counsel for products and intellectual property, responded a bit pugnaciously...He suggested that “a special type of researcher,” such as automated translation experts, would also benefit enormously from the database, that “the long term effects of those researchers having access to this corpus” could even lead “to more peace in the world,” and that the database would add significantly to access to books by disabled people, citing an endorsement from the National Federation of the Blind...
“The downside has to do with the danger of monopoly,” he [Harvard University librarian Robert Darnton] said, adding that, while not all monopolies are bad, the danger comes in the abuse of power, notably via monopoly pricing. “So we have a situation where Google can really ratchet up prices, and that’s what really worries me,” he said. “There’s no real authority to enforce fair pricing… I’m worried that Google will be the Elsevier of the future, but magnified by a hundred times.” Without a mechanism to police pricing, he warned, “it’s going to ruin libraries.”...He called the provision of one terminal in public libraries “one of the weakest provisions,” and predicted chaos in a large urban public library. Google, meanwhile, has said it would consider more than one terminal in larger libraries.
Another solution?
Is Congressional intervention on the public’s behalf a possibility? Does the settlement, for example, make it harder, or perhaps easier to go to Congress for authorization to create a national digital library? “I hate to say this, I don’t think it’s possible,” Darnton said. “We’ve got this settlement, and if it’s not modified now, it’s going to shape the world of digital information for the near future, maybe the far future.”"
http://www.libraryjournal.com/CA6645344.html
"Is the public’s interest in books at risk with the pending Google Book Search Settlement? That was one of many issues addressed at an all-day conference on the settlement, held on March 13 at Columbia University.
In the final panel of the day, which addressed public interest issues, Google’s Alexander Macgillivray, associate general counsel for products and intellectual property, responded a bit pugnaciously...He suggested that “a special type of researcher,” such as automated translation experts, would also benefit enormously from the database, that “the long term effects of those researchers having access to this corpus” could even lead “to more peace in the world,” and that the database would add significantly to access to books by disabled people, citing an endorsement from the National Federation of the Blind...
“The downside has to do with the danger of monopoly,” he [Harvard University librarian Robert Darnton] said, adding that, while not all monopolies are bad, the danger comes in the abuse of power, notably via monopoly pricing. “So we have a situation where Google can really ratchet up prices, and that’s what really worries me,” he said. “There’s no real authority to enforce fair pricing… I’m worried that Google will be the Elsevier of the future, but magnified by a hundred times.” Without a mechanism to police pricing, he warned, “it’s going to ruin libraries.”...He called the provision of one terminal in public libraries “one of the weakest provisions,” and predicted chaos in a large urban public library. Google, meanwhile, has said it would consider more than one terminal in larger libraries.
Another solution?
Is Congressional intervention on the public’s behalf a possibility? Does the settlement, for example, make it harder, or perhaps easier to go to Congress for authorization to create a national digital library? “I hate to say this, I don’t think it’s possible,” Darnton said. “We’ve got this settlement, and if it’s not modified now, it’s going to shape the world of digital information for the near future, maybe the far future.”"
http://www.libraryjournal.com/CA6645344.html
Register of Copyrights Not Asked by Congress To Weigh in on Google Book Search?, Library Journal, 3/20/09
Via Library Journal: Register of Copyrights Not Asked by Congress To Weigh in on Google Book Search?:
"Out of last Friday's all-day Columbia University conference on Google Book Search came this interesting little tidbit: Register of Copyrights Mary Beth Peters had recommended against the Library of Congress participating in Google’s initial Library Partners program, because she wasn’t sure that Google’s indexing of copyrighted books was a fair use.
That in and of itself is not a shocker—a lot of experts are still torn over whether the plan was indeed a fair use. But as Cornell University’s Peter Hirtle noted, the real surprise is that Congress, well, just didn’t seem to care about the program.
“Most disturbing of all was Peters’s admission that not one member of Congress has asked the Copyright Office to comment on the settlement," Hirtle blogged “even though it may fundamentally change how Americans can access and use copyrighted information.”
Certainly, that insight has to make one wonder how much Congress cares about the promotion of progress at the bedrock of copyright law. Last year, Congress failed to pass orphan works legislation but passed a draconian bill stiffening infringement penalties. And while sitting out the potentially momentous discussion over copyright as raised by Google Book Search, Congress is agian considering the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act—controversial legislation that would bar public access to research funded by taxpayers, and would undo the NIH’s access policy, enacted last year.
Notably, Peters was also not asked to testify at a hearing on the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act during a congressional hearing last year—but, curiously, a former register of copyright, Ralph Oman was asked, and did testify. Oman told lawmakers that the public access policies, like the NIH’s, would harm publishers and gut copyright."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6645344.html
"Out of last Friday's all-day Columbia University conference on Google Book Search came this interesting little tidbit: Register of Copyrights Mary Beth Peters had recommended against the Library of Congress participating in Google’s initial Library Partners program, because she wasn’t sure that Google’s indexing of copyrighted books was a fair use.
That in and of itself is not a shocker—a lot of experts are still torn over whether the plan was indeed a fair use. But as Cornell University’s Peter Hirtle noted, the real surprise is that Congress, well, just didn’t seem to care about the program.
“Most disturbing of all was Peters’s admission that not one member of Congress has asked the Copyright Office to comment on the settlement," Hirtle blogged “even though it may fundamentally change how Americans can access and use copyrighted information.”
Certainly, that insight has to make one wonder how much Congress cares about the promotion of progress at the bedrock of copyright law. Last year, Congress failed to pass orphan works legislation but passed a draconian bill stiffening infringement penalties. And while sitting out the potentially momentous discussion over copyright as raised by Google Book Search, Congress is agian considering the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act—controversial legislation that would bar public access to research funded by taxpayers, and would undo the NIH’s access policy, enacted last year.
Notably, Peters was also not asked to testify at a hearing on the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act during a congressional hearing last year—but, curiously, a former register of copyright, Ralph Oman was asked, and did testify. Oman told lawmakers that the public access policies, like the NIH’s, would harm publishers and gut copyright."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6645344.html
Thursday, March 26, 2009
In a First, Oregon State University Library Faculty Adopts Strong OA Policy, Library Journal, 3/25/09
Via Library Journal: In a First, Oregon State University Library Faculty Adopts Strong OA Policy:
"On March 13, the library faculty at Oregon State University (OSU) announced the school has adopted its own, Harvard-like Open Access (OA) mandate, the first in the nation for a library faculty.
Under the policy, library faculty members are now required to give an electronic copy of “the final published version of the work,” in an appropriate format (such as PDF), to be made available in the libraries’ institutional repository, ScholarsArchive@OSU."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6646361.html
"On March 13, the library faculty at Oregon State University (OSU) announced the school has adopted its own, Harvard-like Open Access (OA) mandate, the first in the nation for a library faculty.
Under the policy, library faculty members are now required to give an electronic copy of “the final published version of the work,” in an appropriate format (such as PDF), to be made available in the libraries’ institutional repository, ScholarsArchive@OSU."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6646361.html
Monday, March 23, 2009
Touchdown Steelerbaby, Pittsburgh City Paper, 3/19/09
Via Pittsburgh City Paper: Touchdown Steelerbaby:
"Fairey's own Obama poster is now the subject of litigation with the Associated Press, which claims the poster's imagery improperly borrowed one of its photographs. Obey Giant Art's [cease and desist] notice was delivered the same day the AP filed suit.
When news of Fairey's reversal hit the Internet, in fact, some bloggers speculated the lawsuit was the reason for the change. AP, some suggested, might have used Fairey's attack on Steelerbaby to bolster its own challenge.
But Michael Madison, a trademark and copyright-law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, says that the two situations raise totally different legal issues. AP is accusing Fairey of violating copyright laws, which govern writing, photos and other original work. Fairey's objection to Steelerbaby, meanwhile, was that it violated trademark laws, which govern logos and words used to identify a company's products. Different legal questions apply in those situations, Madison says. Legally speaking, "There is no inconsistency to what Fairey is doing."
On the other hand, Madison adds, "It looks like there is some inconsistency at the conceptual level." After all, Madison says, "He's staked his career on appropriating other peoples' works.""
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A60579
"Fairey's own Obama poster is now the subject of litigation with the Associated Press, which claims the poster's imagery improperly borrowed one of its photographs. Obey Giant Art's [cease and desist] notice was delivered the same day the AP filed suit.
When news of Fairey's reversal hit the Internet, in fact, some bloggers speculated the lawsuit was the reason for the change. AP, some suggested, might have used Fairey's attack on Steelerbaby to bolster its own challenge.
But Michael Madison, a trademark and copyright-law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, says that the two situations raise totally different legal issues. AP is accusing Fairey of violating copyright laws, which govern writing, photos and other original work. Fairey's objection to Steelerbaby, meanwhile, was that it violated trademark laws, which govern logos and words used to identify a company's products. Different legal questions apply in those situations, Madison says. Legally speaking, "There is no inconsistency to what Fairey is doing."
On the other hand, Madison adds, "It looks like there is some inconsistency at the conceptual level." After all, Madison says, "He's staked his career on appropriating other peoples' works.""
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A60579
As Rights Clash on YouTube, Some Music Vanishes, The New York Times, 3/23/09
The New York Times: As Rights Clash on YouTube, Some Music Vanishes:
"In early December, Juliet Weybret, a high school sophomore and aspiring rock star from Lodi, Calif., recorded a video of herself playing the piano and singing “Winter Wonderland,” and she posted it on YouTube.
Weeks later, she received an e-mail message from YouTube: her video was being removed “as a result of a third-party notification by the Warner Music Group,” which owns the copyright to the Christmas carol.
The law provides a four-point test for the fair use of copyrighted works, taking into account things like the purpose, the size of an excerpt and the effect the use might have on the commercial value of the actual work...
The body of law is ever-evolving, and each era and technology seems to force new interpretations. In the 1960s, for example, the Zapruder film, the home movie that captured the Kennedy assassination, was bought and copyrighted by Time magazine. But a judge denied that it could be a copyrighted work because of its value to the public interest.
Many of the offending videos of the user-generated variety like Ms. Weybret’s — as opposed to copies of music videos produced by Warner and its artists — would fall under fair use, according to Mr. von Lohmann, because they are noncommercial and include original material produced by the user.
Others, including Warner Music’s lawyers, might argue that the videos, while themselves created for noncommercial purposes, are nevertheless being shown on YouTube, which is a moneymaking enterprise."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/business/media/23warner.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=youtube&st=cse
"In early December, Juliet Weybret, a high school sophomore and aspiring rock star from Lodi, Calif., recorded a video of herself playing the piano and singing “Winter Wonderland,” and she posted it on YouTube.
Weeks later, she received an e-mail message from YouTube: her video was being removed “as a result of a third-party notification by the Warner Music Group,” which owns the copyright to the Christmas carol.
The law provides a four-point test for the fair use of copyrighted works, taking into account things like the purpose, the size of an excerpt and the effect the use might have on the commercial value of the actual work...
The body of law is ever-evolving, and each era and technology seems to force new interpretations. In the 1960s, for example, the Zapruder film, the home movie that captured the Kennedy assassination, was bought and copyrighted by Time magazine. But a judge denied that it could be a copyrighted work because of its value to the public interest.
Many of the offending videos of the user-generated variety like Ms. Weybret’s — as opposed to copies of music videos produced by Warner and its artists — would fall under fair use, according to Mr. von Lohmann, because they are noncommercial and include original material produced by the user.
Others, including Warner Music’s lawyers, might argue that the videos, while themselves created for noncommercial purposes, are nevertheless being shown on YouTube, which is a moneymaking enterprise."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/business/media/23warner.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=youtube&st=cse
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Sony Reaches Deal to Share in Google’s E-Book Library , The New York Times, 3/18/09
Via The New York Times: Sony Reaches Deal to Share in Google’s E-Book Library:
"Aiming to outdo Amazon.com and recapture the crown for the most digital titles in an e-book library, Sony is announcing Thursday a deal with Google to make a half million copyright-free books available for its Reader device, a rival to the Amazon Kindle.
Since 2004, Google has scanned about seven million books from major university and research library collections. For now, however, Google can make full digital copies available only of books whose copyrights have expired...
Jeffrey P. Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, has said that works in the public domain, like those Google is making available to Sony, are easy to get since there are no copyrights attached.
Google has been working to encode books in a free, open electronic publishing format, ePub, which makes them easier to read on devices like the Reader. The company is aiming to gradually increase the number of copyright-free books in the Google Book Search catalog available to Sony and any other e-book distributor that shares its goals of making books more accessible."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/technology/19sony.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
"Aiming to outdo Amazon.com and recapture the crown for the most digital titles in an e-book library, Sony is announcing Thursday a deal with Google to make a half million copyright-free books available for its Reader device, a rival to the Amazon Kindle.
Since 2004, Google has scanned about seven million books from major university and research library collections. For now, however, Google can make full digital copies available only of books whose copyrights have expired...
Jeffrey P. Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, has said that works in the public domain, like those Google is making available to Sony, are easy to get since there are no copyrights attached.
Google has been working to encode books in a free, open electronic publishing format, ePub, which makes them easier to read on devices like the Reader. The company is aiming to gradually increase the number of copyright-free books in the Google Book Search catalog available to Sony and any other e-book distributor that shares its goals of making books more accessible."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/technology/19sony.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
NIH Open Access mandate made permanent, Science Commons, 3/17/09
Via Science Commons: NIH Open Access mandate made permanent:
"The NIH Public Access Policy, which was due to expire this year, has now been made permanent by the 2009 Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law last week...
Prior to NIH’s mandatory deposit requirement, under a voluntary policy NIH began in 2005, the compliance rate in terms of deposits in PubMed had been very low (4%, as published in an NIH report to Congress in 2006). Shortly after the adoption of the new mandatory policy, submissions spiked to an all time high, prompting an NIH official to project compliance rates of 55-60%. Just take a look at this NIH chart, and note the sharp rise after the policy took effect in early 2008."
http://sciencecommons.org/weblog/archives/2009/03/17/nih-mandate-made-permanent/
"The NIH Public Access Policy, which was due to expire this year, has now been made permanent by the 2009 Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law last week...
Prior to NIH’s mandatory deposit requirement, under a voluntary policy NIH began in 2005, the compliance rate in terms of deposits in PubMed had been very low (4%, as published in an NIH report to Congress in 2006). Shortly after the adoption of the new mandatory policy, submissions spiked to an all time high, prompting an NIH official to project compliance rates of 55-60%. Just take a look at this NIH chart, and note the sharp rise after the policy took effect in early 2008."
http://sciencecommons.org/weblog/archives/2009/03/17/nih-mandate-made-permanent/
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Associated Press Files Countersuit Over Obama Poster, The New York Times, 3/11/09
Via The New York Times: Associated Press Files Countersuit Over Obama Poster:
"The Associated Press has filed a countersuit against the artist Shepard Fairey, who created the famous “Hope” poster of Barack Obama, The A.P. said in a statement."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/associated-press-files-countersuit-over-obama-poster/
"The Associated Press has filed a countersuit against the artist Shepard Fairey, who created the famous “Hope” poster of Barack Obama, The A.P. said in a statement."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/associated-press-files-countersuit-over-obama-poster/
Obama Administration Claims Copyright Treaty Involves State Secrets?!?, TechDirt, 3/13/09
Via TechDirt: Obama Administration Claims Copyright Treaty Involves State Secrets?!?:
"Plenty of folks are quite concerned about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations are being negotiated in secret. This is a treaty that (from the documents that have leaked so far) is quite troubling. It likely will effectively require various countries, including the US, to update copyright laws in a draconian manner. Furthermore, the negotiators have met with entertainment industry representatives multiple times, and there are indications that those representatives have contributed language and ideas to the treaty. But, the public? The folks actually impacted by all of this? We've been kept in the dark, despite repeated requests for more information. So far, the response from the government had been "sorry, we always negotiate these things in secret, so we'll keep doing so...
Can the US Trade Representative please describe the damage to national security if the public gets to see what's being proposed that would require governments around the country to enact significantly more draconian intellectual property laws?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090313/1456154113.shtml
"Plenty of folks are quite concerned about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations are being negotiated in secret. This is a treaty that (from the documents that have leaked so far) is quite troubling. It likely will effectively require various countries, including the US, to update copyright laws in a draconian manner. Furthermore, the negotiators have met with entertainment industry representatives multiple times, and there are indications that those representatives have contributed language and ideas to the treaty. But, the public? The folks actually impacted by all of this? We've been kept in the dark, despite repeated requests for more information. So far, the response from the government had been "sorry, we always negotiate these things in secret, so we'll keep doing so...
Can the US Trade Representative please describe the damage to national security if the public gets to see what's being proposed that would require governments around the country to enact significantly more draconian intellectual property laws?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090313/1456154113.shtml
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Research copyright bill would end free health info, Detroit Free Press, 3/5/09
Detroit Free Press: Research copyright bill would end free health info:
"Current law requires scientists to submit NIH-funded work to PubMed Central when it is accepted for publication in a journal. It's free to the public after one year.
The [Fair Copyright in Research Works] bill would keep studies protected under journals' copyrights, often for decades, according to the U.S. Copyright Office.
"I don't think there's a good thing to say about this bill. It's basically a corporate giveaway," said Jessica Litman, a copyright law professor at U-M. "The people own it, they shouldn't have to pay to see it again.""
http://www.freep.com/article/20090305/NEWS15/903050359
"Current law requires scientists to submit NIH-funded work to PubMed Central when it is accepted for publication in a journal. It's free to the public after one year.
The [Fair Copyright in Research Works] bill would keep studies protected under journals' copyrights, often for decades, according to the U.S. Copyright Office.
"I don't think there's a good thing to say about this bill. It's basically a corporate giveaway," said Jessica Litman, a copyright law professor at U-M. "The people own it, they shouldn't have to pay to see it again.""
http://www.freep.com/article/20090305/NEWS15/903050359
Monday, March 9, 2009
Steelerbaby Blues, Pittsburgh City Paper, 3/5/09
Via Pittsburgh City Paper: Steelerbaby Blues:
"Shepard Fairey is the creator of the iconic Obama "Hope" poster. He's been admired by critics and guerilla artists, and just weeks ago he was the subject of a profile on CBS Sunday Morning. But Pittsburgh graphic designer Larkin Werner has a different perspective. To him, Fairey is the guy who is "picking on a baby."
The baby in question is Steelerbaby, a blue-eyed kewpie doll clad in a knit black-and-gold uniform. Steelerbaby became an online hit -- he boasts more than 2,000 friends on Facebook -- after Werner created a Web site for the doll during the NFL playoffs in 2005. The following year, he started designing and selling Steelerbaby merchandise at the online store cafepress.com to satisfy demand for the doll Werner describes as "slightly creepy."
But early last month, Werner learned that Fairey's company, Obey Giant Art Inc., sent cafepress.com a cease-and-desist letter, informing the online store that Steelerbaby's merchandise marked with the word "Obey" was infringing on the artist's trademark. "
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A59932
"Shepard Fairey is the creator of the iconic Obama "Hope" poster. He's been admired by critics and guerilla artists, and just weeks ago he was the subject of a profile on CBS Sunday Morning. But Pittsburgh graphic designer Larkin Werner has a different perspective. To him, Fairey is the guy who is "picking on a baby."
The baby in question is Steelerbaby, a blue-eyed kewpie doll clad in a knit black-and-gold uniform. Steelerbaby became an online hit -- he boasts more than 2,000 friends on Facebook -- after Werner created a Web site for the doll during the NFL playoffs in 2005. The following year, he started designing and selling Steelerbaby merchandise at the online store cafepress.com to satisfy demand for the doll Werner describes as "slightly creepy."
But early last month, Werner learned that Fairey's company, Obey Giant Art Inc., sent cafepress.com a cease-and-desist letter, informing the online store that Steelerbaby's merchandise marked with the word "Obey" was infringing on the artist's trademark. "
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A59932
Friday, March 6, 2009
Lawrence Lessig Answers Your Questions on Copyright, Corruption, and Congress, The New York Times Freakonomics Blog, 3/2/09
Via The New York Times Freakonomics Blog: Lawrence Lessig Answers Your Questions on Copyright, Corruption, and Congress:
"Last week we solicited your questions for Stanford Law School Professor (and open-source hero, and anti-corruption leader) Lawrence Lessig. (Past Q&A’s can be found here.)...
Q: Do you find any proposed “optimum copyright” period plausible? If so, which one, and which arguments did you find persuasive?– Nat Howard
A: There are two different issues with copyright terms: first, how long should they be? Second, should they ever be extended? The answer to the second question is, as Milton Friedman put it, a “no brainer”: “No. Never.” Copyright is about creating incentives. You can’t create incentives backward. Even the United States Congress can’t order George Gershwin to create anything more. His creativity is over — however sad that may be.
The answer to the first question is harder. The term should be as long as it needs to be to create the incentives to create, but not longer. And the obvious point is that at some point, the promise of future benefits adds essentially nothing to present incentives to create. Economists who have estimated the matter have calculated between 14 and 28 years as an optimal copyright term. I’d be happy even to get it down to 50.
Finally, regardless of the length, the one huge mistake we’ve made is to give up any system to require copyright owners to take steps to maintain their copyright. The result is, after a relatively short time, it is practically impossible to identify the owner of a vast majority of copyrighted work. Our framers insisted on formalities as a condition to getting copyright protection. I wouldn’t go that far, but I would require that after an initial term of automatic protection, a copyright owner would be required to take steps to register or maintain clear title to his or her copyrighted works, after, say, 14 years.
(And to the copyright mavens out there, this requirement would apply to domestic works only, so there’s no “Berne problem.”)"
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/lawrence-lessig-answers-your-questions-on-copyright-corruption-and-congress/?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse
"Last week we solicited your questions for Stanford Law School Professor (and open-source hero, and anti-corruption leader) Lawrence Lessig. (Past Q&A’s can be found here.)...
Q: Do you find any proposed “optimum copyright” period plausible? If so, which one, and which arguments did you find persuasive?– Nat Howard
A: There are two different issues with copyright terms: first, how long should they be? Second, should they ever be extended? The answer to the second question is, as Milton Friedman put it, a “no brainer”: “No. Never.” Copyright is about creating incentives. You can’t create incentives backward. Even the United States Congress can’t order George Gershwin to create anything more. His creativity is over — however sad that may be.
The answer to the first question is harder. The term should be as long as it needs to be to create the incentives to create, but not longer. And the obvious point is that at some point, the promise of future benefits adds essentially nothing to present incentives to create. Economists who have estimated the matter have calculated between 14 and 28 years as an optimal copyright term. I’d be happy even to get it down to 50.
Finally, regardless of the length, the one huge mistake we’ve made is to give up any system to require copyright owners to take steps to maintain their copyright. The result is, after a relatively short time, it is practically impossible to identify the owner of a vast majority of copyrighted work. Our framers insisted on formalities as a condition to getting copyright protection. I wouldn’t go that far, but I would require that after an initial term of automatic protection, a copyright owner would be required to take steps to register or maintain clear title to his or her copyrighted works, after, say, 14 years.
(And to the copyright mavens out there, this requirement would apply to domestic works only, so there’s no “Berne problem.”)"
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/lawrence-lessig-answers-your-questions-on-copyright-corruption-and-congress/?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse
Monday, March 2, 2009
Copyright Challenge for Sites That Excerpt, The New York Times, 3/1/09
Via The New York Times: Copyright Challenge for Sites That Excerpt:
"Generally, the excerpts have been considered legal, and for years they have been welcomed by major media companies, which were happy to receive links and pass-along traffic from the swarm of Web sites that regurgitate their news and information.
But some media executives are growing concerned that the increasingly popular curators of the Web that are taking large pieces of the original work — a practice sometimes called scraping — are shaving away potential readers and profiting from the content.
With the Web’s advertising engine stalling just as newspapers are under pressure, some publishers are second-guessing their liberal attitude toward free content."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/business/media/02scrape.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
"Generally, the excerpts have been considered legal, and for years they have been welcomed by major media companies, which were happy to receive links and pass-along traffic from the swarm of Web sites that regurgitate their news and information.
But some media executives are growing concerned that the increasingly popular curators of the Web that are taking large pieces of the original work — a practice sometimes called scraping — are shaving away potential readers and profiting from the content.
With the Web’s advertising engine stalling just as newspapers are under pressure, some publishers are second-guessing their liberal attitude toward free content."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/business/media/02scrape.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Amazon lets authors mute Kindle books read-aloud feature (AFP), Yahoo Tech, 2/28/09
Via Yahoo Tech: Amazon lets authors mute Kindle books read-aloud feature (AFP):
"Amazon is yielding to concerns of authors by letting them selectively silence a read-aloud feature in Kindle 2 electronic book readers that hit the market in February.
The US Authors Guild had warned that the new Kindle feature could pose a "significant challenge" to the publishing industry and hinted at possible legal action by saying they were studying the matter closely.
"Kindle 2's experimental text-to-speech feature is legal: no copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given," Amazon said late Friday in an announcement posted online."
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/afp/usitinternetkindleamazoncopyright
"Amazon is yielding to concerns of authors by letting them selectively silence a read-aloud feature in Kindle 2 electronic book readers that hit the market in February.
The US Authors Guild had warned that the new Kindle feature could pose a "significant challenge" to the publishing industry and hinted at possible legal action by saying they were studying the matter closely.
"Kindle 2's experimental text-to-speech feature is legal: no copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given," Amazon said late Friday in an announcement posted online."
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/afp/usitinternetkindleamazoncopyright
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Law Professor Weighs In On 'Hope' Squabble, Fresh Air with Terry Gross, 2/26/09
Via Fresh Air with Terry Gross: Podcast [9 min. 18 sec.] and Show Summary for "Law Professor Weighs In On 'Hope' Squabble":
"Law professor Greg Lastowka talks with Fresh Air about the intellectual-property issues involved in what might be called the audacity-of-"Hope" case."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101187066
"Law professor Greg Lastowka talks with Fresh Air about the intellectual-property issues involved in what might be called the audacity-of-"Hope" case."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101187066
Mannie Garcia: The Photo That Sparked 'Hope', Fresh Air with Terry Gross, 2/26/09
Via Fresh Air with Terry Gross: Podcast [10 min. 58 sec.] and Show Summary for "Mannie Garcia: The Photo That Sparked 'Hope':
"In April 2006, Associated Press photographer Mannie Garcia took a batch of photos of then-Sen. Barack Obama at a National Press Club discussion about the crisis in Darfur. One of those photographs later became the basis for Shepard Fairey's iconic "Hope" poster, an image that came to be intimately associated with Obama's campaign."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101184444
"In April 2006, Associated Press photographer Mannie Garcia took a batch of photos of then-Sen. Barack Obama at a National Press Club discussion about the crisis in Darfur. One of those photographs later became the basis for Shepard Fairey's iconic "Hope" poster, an image that came to be intimately associated with Obama's campaign."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101184444
Shepard Fairey: Inspiration Or Infringement?, Fresh Air with Terry Gross, 2/26/09
Via Fresh Air with Terry Gross: Podcast [25 min. 34 sec.] and Show Summary for "Shepard Fairey: Inspiration Or Infringement?":
"The Associated Press has threatened to sue the artist who created the iconic "Hope" poster of Barack Obama for copyright infringement, but Shepard Fairey says his work is protected under the principle of "Fair Use," which exempts artists and others from some copyright restrictions, under certain circumstances.
Fairey based his poster on an April 2006 photo of Obama taken by AP photographer Mannie Garcia."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101182453
"The Associated Press has threatened to sue the artist who created the iconic "Hope" poster of Barack Obama for copyright infringement, but Shepard Fairey says his work is protected under the principle of "Fair Use," which exempts artists and others from some copyright restrictions, under certain circumstances.
Fairey based his poster on an April 2006 photo of Obama taken by AP photographer Mannie Garcia."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101182453
OP-ED: The Kindle Swindle?, The New York Times, 2/24/09
OP-ED, Roy Blount, Jr., Via The New York Times: The Kindle Swindle?:
"The Kindle 2 is a portable, wireless, paperback-size device onto which people can download a virtual library of digitalized titles. Amazon sells these downloads, and where the books are under copyright, it pays royalties to the authors and publishers.
Serves readers, pays writers: so far, so good. But there’s another thing about Kindle 2 — its heavily marketed text-to-speech function. Kindle 2 can read books aloud. And Kindle 2 is not paying anyone for audio rights...
What the guild is asserting is that authors have a right to a fair share of the value that audio adds to Kindle 2’s version of books. For this, the guild is being assailed. On the National Federation of the Blind’s Web site, the guild is accused of arguing that it is illegal for blind people to use “readers, either human or machine, to access books that are not available in alternative formats like Braille or audio.”
In fact, publishers, authors and American copyright laws have long provided for free audio availability to the blind and the guild is all for technologies that expand that availability. (The federation, though, points out that blind readers can’t independently use the Kindle 2’s visual, on-screen controls.) But that doesn’t mean Amazon should be able, without copyright-holders’ participation, to pass that service on to everyone."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25blount.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
"The Kindle 2 is a portable, wireless, paperback-size device onto which people can download a virtual library of digitalized titles. Amazon sells these downloads, and where the books are under copyright, it pays royalties to the authors and publishers.
Serves readers, pays writers: so far, so good. But there’s another thing about Kindle 2 — its heavily marketed text-to-speech function. Kindle 2 can read books aloud. And Kindle 2 is not paying anyone for audio rights...
What the guild is asserting is that authors have a right to a fair share of the value that audio adds to Kindle 2’s version of books. For this, the guild is being assailed. On the National Federation of the Blind’s Web site, the guild is accused of arguing that it is illegal for blind people to use “readers, either human or machine, to access books that are not available in alternative formats like Braille or audio.”
In fact, publishers, authors and American copyright laws have long provided for free audio availability to the blind and the guild is all for technologies that expand that availability. (The federation, though, points out that blind readers can’t independently use the Kindle 2’s visual, on-screen controls.) But that doesn’t mean Amazon should be able, without copyright-holders’ participation, to pass that service on to everyone."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25blount.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Jackson Browne vs. John McCain: Round 3, The New York Times, 2/24/09
Via The New York Times: Jackson Browne vs. John McCain: Round 3:
"A legal dispute between Jackson Browne and Senator John McCain over Mr. Browne’s song “Running on Empty” will keep running: In federal district court in California on Friday, a judge denied motions filed by Mr. McCain and the Republican National Committee to halt a lawsuit brought against them by Mr. Browne, according to court documents. In his suit, Mr. Browne said that Mr. McCain and the committee had infringed on his copyrights by using “Running on Empty” in a presidential campaign commercial without Mr. Browne’s permission. Mr. McCain and the R.N.C. had argued that First Amendment and fair-use rules permitted the use of the song because it occurred in a political context, but Judge R. Gary Klausner was unconvinced; Judge Klausner also set a late April date for a hearing to set a schedule for a jury trial."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/jackson-browne-vs-john-mccain-round-3/
"A legal dispute between Jackson Browne and Senator John McCain over Mr. Browne’s song “Running on Empty” will keep running: In federal district court in California on Friday, a judge denied motions filed by Mr. McCain and the Republican National Committee to halt a lawsuit brought against them by Mr. Browne, according to court documents. In his suit, Mr. Browne said that Mr. McCain and the committee had infringed on his copyrights by using “Running on Empty” in a presidential campaign commercial without Mr. Browne’s permission. Mr. McCain and the R.N.C. had argued that First Amendment and fair-use rules permitted the use of the song because it occurred in a political context, but Judge R. Gary Klausner was unconvinced; Judge Klausner also set a late April date for a hearing to set a schedule for a jury trial."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/jackson-browne-vs-john-mccain-round-3/
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Pirate Bay Trial Begins With Theatrics, Wall Street Journal, 2/17/09
Via Wall Street Journal: Pirate Bay Trial Begins With Theatrics:
"At the helm of The Pirate Bay are the site’s rebellious founders, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde, and Fredrik Neij, along with the company’s financial backer, Carl Lundstrom. All four men staunchly claim their innocence and argue that the site, which launched back in 2003 and has since garnered 22 million users, merely serves as a search engine that uses bit torrent technology to direct users to copyrighted material without actually hosting it.
And as one of the Web’s most popular file-sharing sites, The Pirate Bay founders have a storied and eccentric following behind them–the company was formed based on the ideals of Piratbyrån, a Swedish anti-copyright organization, and now has the backing of a political group called the Pirate Partythat was created in the Web site’s honor.
The trial looks to be a litmus test of sorts for other file-sharing sites under the gun for copyright infringement issues, with big ticket names such as MGM Pictures and Sony BMG as plaintiffs and bigwigs from the Motion Picture Association of America snarling that “the operators of the Pirate Bay and others like them are criminals who profit handsomely by facilitating the distribution of millions of copyrighted creative works and files protected under the law.”
But co-founder Sunde has pointed out that file-sharing has a life of its own and that even if The Pirate Bay is shut down, the practice will be up and running somewhere else. Moreover, he has remarked, “It does not matter if they require several million or one billion. We are not rich and have no money to pay. They won’t get a cent.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/02/17/pirate-bay-trial-begins-with-theatrics/
"At the helm of The Pirate Bay are the site’s rebellious founders, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde, and Fredrik Neij, along with the company’s financial backer, Carl Lundstrom. All four men staunchly claim their innocence and argue that the site, which launched back in 2003 and has since garnered 22 million users, merely serves as a search engine that uses bit torrent technology to direct users to copyrighted material without actually hosting it.
And as one of the Web’s most popular file-sharing sites, The Pirate Bay founders have a storied and eccentric following behind them–the company was formed based on the ideals of Piratbyrån, a Swedish anti-copyright organization, and now has the backing of a political group called the Pirate Partythat was created in the Web site’s honor.
The trial looks to be a litmus test of sorts for other file-sharing sites under the gun for copyright infringement issues, with big ticket names such as MGM Pictures and Sony BMG as plaintiffs and bigwigs from the Motion Picture Association of America snarling that “the operators of the Pirate Bay and others like them are criminals who profit handsomely by facilitating the distribution of millions of copyrighted creative works and files protected under the law.”
But co-founder Sunde has pointed out that file-sharing has a life of its own and that even if The Pirate Bay is shut down, the practice will be up and running somewhere else. Moreover, he has remarked, “It does not matter if they require several million or one billion. We are not rich and have no money to pay. They won’t get a cent.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/02/17/pirate-bay-trial-begins-with-theatrics/
Pirates vs. University Presses, Inside Higher Ed, 2/24/09
Via Inside Higher Ed: Pirates vs. University Presses:
"Princeton University Press has emerged as something of an expert on the issue -- a distinction the press wishes it didn't have. Over the summer, an author the press declined to identify informed the publisher that his book was being made available for downloading in its entirety on one of these Web sites. For several months, Princeton had a staffer focused on identifying piracy sites with its books, and following up with "take down" notices that threaten legal action for keeping the books up. Some of the Web sites take the books down, but then others pop up. Most of these sites operate outside the United States and take advantage of countries with relatively loose copyright laws, at least as applied to digital publishing...
Some of the pirate sites themselves are proud of their role.
Peter Sunde, one of the founders of the Pirate Bay, a Swedish operation that is at the center of these disputes, said via e-mail that he doesn't care if university presses are bothered by his organization's actions. "If I say the world is flat, does that make it true?" he asked.
He said copyright was irrelevant because "we're letting anyone share whatever they want with whomever they want. That's it.... Blaming us for what people do is like blaming the people who build roads for helping people rob banks, for God's sake.""
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/18/pirate
"Princeton University Press has emerged as something of an expert on the issue -- a distinction the press wishes it didn't have. Over the summer, an author the press declined to identify informed the publisher that his book was being made available for downloading in its entirety on one of these Web sites. For several months, Princeton had a staffer focused on identifying piracy sites with its books, and following up with "take down" notices that threaten legal action for keeping the books up. Some of the Web sites take the books down, but then others pop up. Most of these sites operate outside the United States and take advantage of countries with relatively loose copyright laws, at least as applied to digital publishing...
Some of the pirate sites themselves are proud of their role.
Peter Sunde, one of the founders of the Pirate Bay, a Swedish operation that is at the center of these disputes, said via e-mail that he doesn't care if university presses are bothered by his organization's actions. "If I say the world is flat, does that make it true?" he asked.
He said copyright was irrelevant because "we're letting anyone share whatever they want with whomever they want. That's it.... Blaming us for what people do is like blaming the people who build roads for helping people rob banks, for God's sake.""
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/18/pirate
Library Associations Oppose Repealing Public Access Bill, Urge Action, Information Today, 2/23/09
Via Information Today, Library Associations Oppose Repealing Public Access Bill, Urge Action:
"The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, H.R. 801 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.801:), recently introduced by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., would repeal the NIH Public Access Policy and prevent other federal agencies from enacting similar open access policies. In response, 10 library associations and advocacy groups, including AALL (American Association of Law Libraries), ACRL (Association of College & Research Libraries), ALA (American Library Association), ARL (Association of Research Libraries), and GWLA (Greater Western Library Alliance), have sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee members opposing the bill (www.wo.ala.org/districtdispatch/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/oawg_to_judiciary-09-feb-_3_x.pdf) and expressing their long-standing and strong support for the NIH Open Access Policy. A SPARC-sponsored analysis that outlines why the NIH Public Access policy does not affect copyright law was attached to the letter."
http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/wndReader.asp?ArticleId=52728
"The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, H.R. 801 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.801:), recently introduced by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., would repeal the NIH Public Access Policy and prevent other federal agencies from enacting similar open access policies. In response, 10 library associations and advocacy groups, including AALL (American Association of Law Libraries), ACRL (Association of College & Research Libraries), ALA (American Library Association), ARL (Association of Research Libraries), and GWLA (Greater Western Library Alliance), have sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee members opposing the bill (www.wo.ala.org/districtdispatch/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/oawg_to_judiciary-09-feb-_3_x.pdf) and expressing their long-standing and strong support for the NIH Open Access Policy. A SPARC-sponsored analysis that outlines why the NIH Public Access policy does not affect copyright law was attached to the letter."
http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/wndReader.asp?ArticleId=52728
Obama Administration Mulls Constitutionality of Copyright Act, Wired, 2/19/09
Via Wired, Obama Administration Mulls Constitutionality of Copyright Act:
"In a few weeks, we'll likely know the Obama administration's position on whether it supports hefty monetary awards in file sharing litigation brought by the Recording Industry Association of America.
The Bush administration's position was clear. It supported the Copyright Act's penalties of up to $150,000 per infringed song.
"Congress acted reasonably in crafting the current incarnation by ensuring that it serves both a compensatory and deterrent purpose. Congress established a damages range that provides compensation for copyright owners in a regime in which actual damages are hard to quantify," the Bush administration wrote in 2007...
The minimum penalty under the Copyright Act equals a ratio of about 750 times the actual injury, assuming the value of a single music track costs $1 to purchase. Rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts say financial punishments exceeding a 9-to-1 ratio are unconstitutional."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/02/obama-administr.html
"In a few weeks, we'll likely know the Obama administration's position on whether it supports hefty monetary awards in file sharing litigation brought by the Recording Industry Association of America.
The Bush administration's position was clear. It supported the Copyright Act's penalties of up to $150,000 per infringed song.
"Congress acted reasonably in crafting the current incarnation by ensuring that it serves both a compensatory and deterrent purpose. Congress established a damages range that provides compensation for copyright owners in a regime in which actual damages are hard to quantify," the Bush administration wrote in 2007...
The minimum penalty under the Copyright Act equals a ratio of about 750 times the actual injury, assuming the value of a single music track costs $1 to purchase. Rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts say financial punishments exceeding a 9-to-1 ratio are unconstitutional."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/02/obama-administr.html
[New Zealand] Government delays copyright laws, TVNZ, 2/23/09
Via TVNZ, [New Zealand] Government delays copyright laws:
"WATCH the video (1:31)"
"After weeks of protest the government has delayed introducing controversial copyright laws.
It has told the industry to find a way to make the legislation work or it will be dumped altogether.
The government has announced it is delaying the controversial section 92a that critics say will force internet providers to cut people's connections without proving first they have breached copyright.
The Prime Minister has told the laws backers they have a month to figure out how they will make it work, or it goes...
The decision comes after weeks of opposition to the law."
http://tvnz.co.nz/technology-news/internet-industry-told-find-own-solution-2500023
"WATCH the video (1:31)"
"After weeks of protest the government has delayed introducing controversial copyright laws.
It has told the industry to find a way to make the legislation work or it will be dumped altogether.
The government has announced it is delaying the controversial section 92a that critics say will force internet providers to cut people's connections without proving first they have breached copyright.
The Prime Minister has told the laws backers they have a month to figure out how they will make it work, or it goes...
The decision comes after weeks of opposition to the law."
http://tvnz.co.nz/technology-news/internet-industry-told-find-own-solution-2500023
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Facebook Withdraws Changes in Data Use, The New York Times, 2/18/09
The New York Times: Facebook Withdraws Changes in Data Use:
After a wave of protests from its users, the Facebook social networking site said Wednesday that it would withdraw changes to its so-called terms of service concerning the data supplied by the tens of millions of people who use it.
The about-face was made known to many users in a message posted on the Facebook home page saying : “Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”
The posting invited users to click on a link to get more details."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/technology/internet/19facebook.html?em
After a wave of protests from its users, the Facebook social networking site said Wednesday that it would withdraw changes to its so-called terms of service concerning the data supplied by the tens of millions of people who use it.
The about-face was made known to many users in a message posted on the Facebook home page saying : “Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”
The posting invited users to click on a link to get more details."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/technology/internet/19facebook.html?em
Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information, The New York Times, 2/17/09
Via The New York Times: Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information:
"Reacting to an online swell of suspicion about changes to Facebook’s terms of service, the company’s chief executive moved to reassure users on Monday that the users, not the Web site, “own and control their information."
The online exchanges reflected the uneasy and evolving balance between sharing information and retaining control over that information on the Internet. The subject arose when a consumer advocate’s blog shined an unflattering light onto the pages of legal language that many users accept without reading when they use a Web site.
The pages, called terms of service, generally outline appropriate conduct and grant a license to companies to store users’ data. Unknown to many users, the terms frequently give broad power to Web site operators.
This month, when Facebook updated its terms, it deleted a provision that said users could remove their content at any time, at which time the license would expire. Further, it added new language that said Facebook would retain users’ content and licenses after an account was terminated...
Greg Lastowka, an associate professor at the Rutgers School of Law who is writing a book on Internet law, said Facebook’s language was not unusual. “Most Web sites today offer terms of service that are designed to protect and further the interests of the company writing the terms, and most people simply agree to terms without reading them.”
For Facebook, the ability to store users’ data and use their names and images for commercial purposes is important as it seeks to make more money from the virtual interactions of friends.
But balancing the desire for sharing with the need for control remains a challenge for Facebook as it turns five years old this month. “We’re at an interesting point in the development of the open online world where these issues are being worked out,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/technology/internet/17facebook.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=facebook&st=cse
"Reacting to an online swell of suspicion about changes to Facebook’s terms of service, the company’s chief executive moved to reassure users on Monday that the users, not the Web site, “own and control their information."
The online exchanges reflected the uneasy and evolving balance between sharing information and retaining control over that information on the Internet. The subject arose when a consumer advocate’s blog shined an unflattering light onto the pages of legal language that many users accept without reading when they use a Web site.
The pages, called terms of service, generally outline appropriate conduct and grant a license to companies to store users’ data. Unknown to many users, the terms frequently give broad power to Web site operators.
This month, when Facebook updated its terms, it deleted a provision that said users could remove their content at any time, at which time the license would expire. Further, it added new language that said Facebook would retain users’ content and licenses after an account was terminated...
Greg Lastowka, an associate professor at the Rutgers School of Law who is writing a book on Internet law, said Facebook’s language was not unusual. “Most Web sites today offer terms of service that are designed to protect and further the interests of the company writing the terms, and most people simply agree to terms without reading them.”
For Facebook, the ability to store users’ data and use their names and images for commercial purposes is important as it seeks to make more money from the virtual interactions of friends.
But balancing the desire for sharing with the need for control remains a challenge for Facebook as it turns five years old this month. “We’re at an interesting point in the development of the open online world where these issues are being worked out,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/technology/internet/17facebook.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=facebook&st=cse
Monday, February 16, 2009
Truckie's Amazing copyright fight, Daily Telegraph, 2/7/09
Via Daily Telegraph: Truckie's Amazing copyright fight:
"TRUCK driver and musician Mark O'Keefe has penned more than 1000 songs.
He acknowledges that none have been hits - except, he claims, the one he co-wrote with singer Alex Lloyd on a beer coaster at a Rozelle pub.
The single Amazing took Lloyd to fame and fortune, topping Triple J's Hottest 100 poll in 2001 and becoming the most frequently played song on Aussie radio in 2002. Used as the soundtrack for a series of ad campaigns, the song has kept the royalties rolling in.
Mr O'Keefe is suing Lloyd, saying he jointly authored the song and is entitled to half the profits. With no money to pay lawyers, Mr O'Keefe, 47, yesterday represented himself at a Federal Court hearing."
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,27574,25018997-5006009,00.html
"TRUCK driver and musician Mark O'Keefe has penned more than 1000 songs.
He acknowledges that none have been hits - except, he claims, the one he co-wrote with singer Alex Lloyd on a beer coaster at a Rozelle pub.
The single Amazing took Lloyd to fame and fortune, topping Triple J's Hottest 100 poll in 2001 and becoming the most frequently played song on Aussie radio in 2002. Used as the soundtrack for a series of ad campaigns, the song has kept the royalties rolling in.
Mr O'Keefe is suing Lloyd, saying he jointly authored the song and is entitled to half the profits. With no money to pay lawyers, Mr O'Keefe, 47, yesterday represented himself at a Federal Court hearing."
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,27574,25018997-5006009,00.html
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
EFF Chastises YouTube, Seeks Fair Users; Public Knowledge, 2/4/09
Via Public Knowledge: EFF Chastises YouTube, Seeks Fair Users:
"In a post to the Deep Links blog yesterday, EFF senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann makes it quite clear that he's had enough of Big Content's efforts to squelch fair uses on YouTube. He points to a recent spate of abusive takedowns--largely believed to be the result of a breakdown in negotiations between YouTube and the Warner Music Group--as evidence that the DMCA notice and takedown system is now being used blatantly as a tool for censorship, rather than copyright enforcement. His proposed solution comes in two parts. First, YouTube must fix Content ID, its automatic digital fingerprinting/filtering system...
Second, von Lohmann thinks that it's time for a little impact litigation and he's looking to the YouTube community for help".
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1976
"In a post to the Deep Links blog yesterday, EFF senior staff attorney Fred von Lohmann makes it quite clear that he's had enough of Big Content's efforts to squelch fair uses on YouTube. He points to a recent spate of abusive takedowns--largely believed to be the result of a breakdown in negotiations between YouTube and the Warner Music Group--as evidence that the DMCA notice and takedown system is now being used blatantly as a tool for censorship, rather than copyright enforcement. His proposed solution comes in two parts. First, YouTube must fix Content ID, its automatic digital fingerprinting/filtering system...
Second, von Lohmann thinks that it's time for a little impact litigation and he's looking to the YouTube community for help".
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1976
YouTube Copyright System Gone Mad, EFF Prepares to Sue: Read Write Web, 2/3/09
Read Write Web: YouTube Copyright System Gone Mad, EFF Prepares to Sue:
"Using YouTube's new automated copright detection technology, Warner Brothers detected last month that 15 year old Juliet Weybret had posted a video of herself playing the piano and singing the 1934 song Winter Wonderland. This unrepentant little criminal might have thought that such a widely covered tune had entered the public domain, 75 years after it was recorded, but Juliet was clearly unfamiliar with legislation like the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act, which extended copyright protection to 95 years or more after publication date.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is not happy with the situation...
What does the EFF intend to do about it? The organization has put out a call to people who have had videos taken off of YouTube at the behest of Warner and whose videos were both noncommercial and substantially original. The EFF says it will help serve a counter notice and offer legal protection to as many people as it can. "We can't promise to take every case," they say, "but neither will we stand by and watch semi-automated takedowns trample fair use.""
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/youtube_copyright_system_eff_action.php
"Using YouTube's new automated copright detection technology, Warner Brothers detected last month that 15 year old Juliet Weybret had posted a video of herself playing the piano and singing the 1934 song Winter Wonderland. This unrepentant little criminal might have thought that such a widely covered tune had entered the public domain, 75 years after it was recorded, but Juliet was clearly unfamiliar with legislation like the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act, which extended copyright protection to 95 years or more after publication date.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is not happy with the situation...
What does the EFF intend to do about it? The organization has put out a call to people who have had videos taken off of YouTube at the behest of Warner and whose videos were both noncommercial and substantially original. The EFF says it will help serve a counter notice and offer legal protection to as many people as it can. "We can't promise to take every case," they say, "but neither will we stand by and watch semi-automated takedowns trample fair use.""
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/youtube_copyright_system_eff_action.php
KFC's Secret Recipe Returns Home, MSNBC.com, 2/10/09
[Trade Secret is one of the four types of Intellectual Property (the others being Patent, Trademark, and Copyright). Along with Coca Cola's secret recipe, KFC's is among the most famous trade secrets in the world] Via MSNBC.com: KFC's Secret Recipe Returns Home:
""This recipe has amazing global importance and the reason is that you could maybe put on your hand the number of world, global trade secrets that are housed in a single packet, in a single form," said KFC President Roger Eaton.""
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29126268/#storyContinued
""This recipe has amazing global importance and the reason is that you could maybe put on your hand the number of world, global trade secrets that are housed in a single packet, in a single form," said KFC President Roger Eaton.""
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29126268/#storyContinued
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Copyright Research Bill ReIntroduced, LIS News, 2/4/09
Via LIS News: Copyright Research Bill ReIntroduced:
"The Fair Copyright in Research Works bill, a controversial measure that would ban public access policies similar to those of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was reintroduced in Congress last night, after being shelved at the end of 2008.
The bill resurfaces as proponents in the Association of American Publishers’ (AAP) Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division holds its annual conference today in Washington, DC. Although the text of HR 801 has yet to be posted online, those who have seen it say it has much the same text as HR 6845, which was the subject of a spirited hearing held before a Congressional subcommittee last year.
In a statement, AAP officials praised the bill's reintroduction, and said the legislation "would help keep the Federal Government from undermining copyright protection for journal articles." The library community, however, strongly opposses the measure."
http://lisnews.org/node/32669/
"The Fair Copyright in Research Works bill, a controversial measure that would ban public access policies similar to those of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was reintroduced in Congress last night, after being shelved at the end of 2008.
The bill resurfaces as proponents in the Association of American Publishers’ (AAP) Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division holds its annual conference today in Washington, DC. Although the text of HR 801 has yet to be posted online, those who have seen it say it has much the same text as HR 6845, which was the subject of a spirited hearing held before a Congressional subcommittee last year.
In a statement, AAP officials praised the bill's reintroduction, and said the legislation "would help keep the Federal Government from undermining copyright protection for journal articles." The library community, however, strongly opposses the measure."
http://lisnews.org/node/32669/
AP alleges copyright infringement of Obama image, Associated Press, 2/4/09
Via AP alleges copyright infringement of Obama image: AP alleges copyright infringement of Obama image:
"The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.
The AP says it owns the copyright, and wants credit and compensation. Fairey disagrees.
"The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission," the AP's director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement. "AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey's attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution."
"We believe fair use protects Shepard's right to do what he did here," says Fairey's lawyer, Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a lecturer at the Stanford Law School."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hcqhpLfgHpcIipb1rVGvAoa5BusAD96560SG0
"The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.
The AP says it owns the copyright, and wants credit and compensation. Fairey disagrees.
"The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission," the AP's director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement. "AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey's attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution."
"We believe fair use protects Shepard's right to do what he did here," says Fairey's lawyer, Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a lecturer at the Stanford Law School."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hcqhpLfgHpcIipb1rVGvAoa5BusAD96560SG0
One Man’s Blanche Is a University’s Infringement, The New York Times, 2/5/09
Via The New York Times: One Man’s Blanche Is a University’s Infringement:
"Through friends Mr. Rosenthal obtained pro bono representation from lawyers at the New York office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, who argued that First Amendment rights contained in the legal doctrine of fair use allowed Mr. Rosenthal to create a new performance piece partly inspired by the “Streetcar” character.
But in a cease-and-desist letter to Mr. Rosenthal’s lawyer, sent on Jan. 22, the university’s legal team disputed that the fair-use doctrine applied to this play."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/theater/05ceas.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=infringement&st=cse
"Through friends Mr. Rosenthal obtained pro bono representation from lawyers at the New York office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, who argued that First Amendment rights contained in the legal doctrine of fair use allowed Mr. Rosenthal to create a new performance piece partly inspired by the “Streetcar” character.
But in a cease-and-desist letter to Mr. Rosenthal’s lawyer, sent on Jan. 22, the university’s legal team disputed that the fair-use doctrine applied to this play."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/theater/05ceas.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=infringement&st=cse
Monday, February 2, 2009
Some Fear Google’s Power in Digital Books, The New York Times, 2/1/09
Via The New York Times: Some Fear Google’s Power in Digital Books:
"To Thomas Augst, an English professor at New York University who has studied the history of libraries, including those in the past that were run as businesses, what is significant is that the digitization of books is ending the distinction between circulating libraries, meant for public readers, and research libraries, meant for scholars. It’s not as if anyone from the public can walk into the Harvard library.
“A positive way to look at what Google is doing,” he said, “is that it is advancing the circulating of books and leveling these distinctions.”
In a final twist, however, the digital-rights class-action agreement has the potential to make physical libraries newly relevant. Each public library will have one computer with complete access to Google Book Search, a service that normally would come as part of a paid subscription.
One of Mr. Darnton’s concerns is that a single computer may not be enough to meet public demand. But Mr. Augst already can see a great benefit.
Google is “creating a new reason to go to public libraries, which I think is fantastic,” he said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20book%20search&st=cse
"To Thomas Augst, an English professor at New York University who has studied the history of libraries, including those in the past that were run as businesses, what is significant is that the digitization of books is ending the distinction between circulating libraries, meant for public readers, and research libraries, meant for scholars. It’s not as if anyone from the public can walk into the Harvard library.
“A positive way to look at what Google is doing,” he said, “is that it is advancing the circulating of books and leveling these distinctions.”
In a final twist, however, the digital-rights class-action agreement has the potential to make physical libraries newly relevant. Each public library will have one computer with complete access to Google Book Search, a service that normally would come as part of a paid subscription.
One of Mr. Darnton’s concerns is that a single computer may not be enough to meet public demand. But Mr. Augst already can see a great benefit.
Google is “creating a new reason to go to public libraries, which I think is fantastic,” he said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/technology/internet/02link.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20book%20search&st=cse
Copyright in the Age of YouTube, ABA Journal, February 2009 Issue
Via ABA Journal: Copyright in the Age of YouTube, As user-generated sites flourish, copyright law struggles to keep up:
"“The entertainment industry wants to change the law to protect their existing business models,” he says, “rather than change their business models to adapt to new technology.”
Protectionist behavior by copyright owners is nothing new. “There’s a recurrent pattern whenever a new technology crops up,” [Jessica] Litman says. “Existing content industries insist that the new technology must play by the old copyright rules. ... The new companies say that the old rules fit your technology and business models, but they don’t fit our technology and business models. Sometimes the older companies impose restrictions that try to stop the new technology, but in the end, the old and new companies reach some compromise.”
This time, however, copyright owners may need to compromise with more than just the new online businesses. Content owners may need to reach an understanding with tens of millions of U.S. Internet users.
“History tells us that unless the [copyright] rules will accommodate their interests, there will be no stability,” Litman says. “If the public does not see the rules as legitimate, they won’t obey them.”
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/copyright_in_the_age_of_youtube
"“The entertainment industry wants to change the law to protect their existing business models,” he says, “rather than change their business models to adapt to new technology.”
Protectionist behavior by copyright owners is nothing new. “There’s a recurrent pattern whenever a new technology crops up,” [Jessica] Litman says. “Existing content industries insist that the new technology must play by the old copyright rules. ... The new companies say that the old rules fit your technology and business models, but they don’t fit our technology and business models. Sometimes the older companies impose restrictions that try to stop the new technology, but in the end, the old and new companies reach some compromise.”
This time, however, copyright owners may need to compromise with more than just the new online businesses. Content owners may need to reach an understanding with tens of millions of U.S. Internet users.
“History tells us that unless the [copyright] rules will accommodate their interests, there will be no stability,” Litman says. “If the public does not see the rules as legitimate, they won’t obey them.”
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/copyright_in_the_age_of_youtube
Saturday, January 31, 2009
At Panel on Google Book Settlement, Support, Criticism, Contentiousness, Library Journal, 1/29/09
Via Library Journal: At Panel on Google Book Settlement, Support, Criticism, Contentiousness:
- "Pricing issues unresolved
- Is public library access “product placement”?
- Will city managers think Google is a library?
In a lively, sometimes contentious discussion Saturday at the American Library Association (ALA) Midwinter Meeting in Denver, Dan Clancy, engineering director for the Google Book Search Project, diligently explicated the proposed settlement with publishers and authors over books scanned from libraries, but was unable to answer some pressing questions from librarians, noting that the settlement itself remains unresolved."
Monday, January 26, 2009
MIT's Management School Shares Teaching Materials Online, The Wired Campus, 1/26/09
Via The Wired Campus, The Chronicle of Higher Education: MIT's Management School Shares Teaching Materials Online:
"What distinguishes the new site, according to JoAnne Yates, deputy dean for programs, is that whereas OpenCourseWare allows visitors to browse a linear series of resources and notes for a specific course, the management-school’s site allows them to search for specific “teaching artifacts”—e.g., case studies or simulation models—that might be applied to any number of courses. Those artifacts will be searchable by concept or business problem, like sustainability."
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=3574&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en
"What distinguishes the new site, according to JoAnne Yates, deputy dean for programs, is that whereas OpenCourseWare allows visitors to browse a linear series of resources and notes for a specific course, the management-school’s site allows them to search for specific “teaching artifacts”—e.g., case studies or simulation models—that might be applied to any number of courses. Those artifacts will be searchable by concept or business problem, like sustainability."
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=3574&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en
Monday, January 19, 2009
RIAA pulls out of John Doe cases involving college students, Ars Technica, 1/19/09
Via Ars Technica, RIAA pulls out of John Doe cases involving college students:
"With these and other cases being wrapped up, there are only a couple of high-profile remnants of the industry's war against P2P users left on the agenda. One is the scheduled retrial of Jammie Thomas later this year; the other is the case against Joel Tenenbaum, who is being represented by Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson and a host of students. The RIAA feels confident about the evidence it has in the Thomas case and its chances for a victory in a second trial, but whether it has the stomach to actually go through with it remains to be seen. The Tenenbaum case is shaping up to be another PR nightmare with the RIAA, as Nesson recently convinced the presiding judge to stream the court proceedings online, a decision the RIAA is anxious to see overturned."
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090119-riaa-pulls-out-of-john-doe-cases-involving-college-students.html
"With these and other cases being wrapped up, there are only a couple of high-profile remnants of the industry's war against P2P users left on the agenda. One is the scheduled retrial of Jammie Thomas later this year; the other is the case against Joel Tenenbaum, who is being represented by Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson and a host of students. The RIAA feels confident about the evidence it has in the Thomas case and its chances for a victory in a second trial, but whether it has the stomach to actually go through with it remains to be seen. The Tenenbaum case is shaping up to be another PR nightmare with the RIAA, as Nesson recently convinced the presiding judge to stream the court proceedings online, a decision the RIAA is anxious to see overturned."
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090119-riaa-pulls-out-of-john-doe-cases-involving-college-students.html
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Google Book Settlement Link Dump Awesomeness, 11/25/08
[Links to lots of information about the Google Book Search Settlement] Via "Google Book Settlement Link Dump Awesomeness":
http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/
http://pureinformation.org/archives/2008/11/25/google-book-settlement-link-dump-awesomeness/
From Siva Vaidhyanathan "My initial take on the Google-publishers settlement", Siva Vaidhyanathan's Blog, The Googlization of Everything, 10/28/08
From Siva Vaidhyanathan, Via Siva Vaidhyanathan's Blog, The Googlization of Everything: "My initial take on the Google-publishers settlement":
"My major criticisms of Google Book Seach have always concerned the actions of the university libraries that have participated in this program rather than Google itself. Companies should always do what is best for them. But the university libraries have a different, much higher mission. And they have clear ethical obligations. So I now turn to them.
From the beginning, this has seemed to be a major example of corporate welfare. Libraries at public universities all over this country (including the one that employs me) have spent many billions of dollars collecting these books. Now they are just giving away access to one company that is cornering the market on on-line access. They did this without concern for user confidentiality, preservation, image quality, search prowess, metadata standards, or long-term sustainability...
At the core of this settlement is this fact that university libraries much confront: For the first time, elements of library collections will be offered for sale in widespread manner via a private contractor. Perhaps this is only a shift of degree. Perhaps it is a major mission shift. It's worth a good argument, no?
Ultimately, I have to ask: Is this really the best possible system for the universal spread of knowledge? I think we can do better. Watch this space to see how."
http://www.googlizationofeverything.com/2008/10/my_initial_take_on_the_googlep.php
"My major criticisms of Google Book Seach have always concerned the actions of the university libraries that have participated in this program rather than Google itself. Companies should always do what is best for them. But the university libraries have a different, much higher mission. And they have clear ethical obligations. So I now turn to them.
From the beginning, this has seemed to be a major example of corporate welfare. Libraries at public universities all over this country (including the one that employs me) have spent many billions of dollars collecting these books. Now they are just giving away access to one company that is cornering the market on on-line access. They did this without concern for user confidentiality, preservation, image quality, search prowess, metadata standards, or long-term sustainability...
At the core of this settlement is this fact that university libraries much confront: For the first time, elements of library collections will be offered for sale in widespread manner via a private contractor. Perhaps this is only a shift of degree. Perhaps it is a major mission shift. It's worth a good argument, no?
Ultimately, I have to ask: Is this really the best possible system for the universal spread of knowledge? I think we can do better. Watch this space to see how."
http://www.googlizationofeverything.com/2008/10/my_initial_take_on_the_googlep.php
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
RI judge hears arguments in music downloading case, Sydney Morning Herald, 1/7/09
Via Sydney Morning Herald: RI judge hears arguments in music downloading case:
"A Rhode Island couple whose son is accused of illegally sharing songs online should not be forced to surrender their home computer for inspection because it would violate their right to privacy, their lawyer argued at a federal court hearing Tuesday...
Record company lawyers believe Tenenbaum downloaded the songs on his parents' computer in Providence and urged a federal magistrate on Tuesday for permission to copy the machine's hard drive for proof of copyright infringement...
But Charles Nesson, a Harvard Law School professor representing Arthur and Judie Tenenbaum and their son, said the computer contains information protected by attorney-client privilege and holds other sensitive and personal material that has nothing to do with the case."
http://news.smh.com.au/technology/ri-judge-hears-arguments-in-music-downloading-case-20090108-7c3z.html
"A Rhode Island couple whose son is accused of illegally sharing songs online should not be forced to surrender their home computer for inspection because it would violate their right to privacy, their lawyer argued at a federal court hearing Tuesday...
Record company lawyers believe Tenenbaum downloaded the songs on his parents' computer in Providence and urged a federal magistrate on Tuesday for permission to copy the machine's hard drive for proof of copyright infringement...
But Charles Nesson, a Harvard Law School professor representing Arthur and Judie Tenenbaum and their son, said the computer contains information protected by attorney-client privilege and holds other sensitive and personal material that has nothing to do with the case."
http://news.smh.com.au/technology/ri-judge-hears-arguments-in-music-downloading-case-20090108-7c3z.html
Friday, January 9, 2009
Many happy returns for Warner Music, The Guardian, 1/6/09
Via The Guardian: Many happy returns for Warner Music:
"Despite everyone's carefree joy in singing Happy Birthday to You, this simple song puts you in legal jeopardy every time it exits your mouth. A considerable amount of money flows to the corporation that owns the copyright. But ... maybe that company doesn't own the copyright, and maybe you are in no legal peril. Professor Robert Brauneis, of George Washington University law school, took a professional, long, deep look into these questions. This Happy Birthday matter, it turns out, is a murky mess.
Brauneis published a 69-page disquisition called Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song. Before plunging into the legal history, evidence and arguments, he examined the history...
...Brauneis reckons that the copyright probably expired, for various reasons, decades ago. Nevertheless, nominal ownership passed to a succession of individuals and then companies, which did and do aggressively collect fees.
The story comes with plenty of evidentiary paperwork and audio recordings. These include: filings in four federal court cases in the 1930s and 1940s; litigation filings over the management of a trust that was created to receive royalties; unpublished papers of and about Patty and Mildred Hill; probate court records in Louisville, Kentucky, and in Chicago; and records from the US Copyright Office.
Brauneis has put more than 100 items online at http://tinyurl.com/6p3ygk for you to peruse and sing along with."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jan/06/improbable-research-warner-music-copyright
"Despite everyone's carefree joy in singing Happy Birthday to You, this simple song puts you in legal jeopardy every time it exits your mouth. A considerable amount of money flows to the corporation that owns the copyright. But ... maybe that company doesn't own the copyright, and maybe you are in no legal peril. Professor Robert Brauneis, of George Washington University law school, took a professional, long, deep look into these questions. This Happy Birthday matter, it turns out, is a murky mess.
Brauneis published a 69-page disquisition called Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song. Before plunging into the legal history, evidence and arguments, he examined the history...
...Brauneis reckons that the copyright probably expired, for various reasons, decades ago. Nevertheless, nominal ownership passed to a succession of individuals and then companies, which did and do aggressively collect fees.
The story comes with plenty of evidentiary paperwork and audio recordings. These include: filings in four federal court cases in the 1930s and 1940s; litigation filings over the management of a trust that was created to receive royalties; unpublished papers of and about Patty and Mildred Hill; probate court records in Louisville, Kentucky, and in Chicago; and records from the US Copyright Office.
Brauneis has put more than 100 items online at http://tinyurl.com/6p3ygk for you to peruse and sing along with."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jan/06/improbable-research-warner-music-copyright
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)