Tom Giovanetti, Dallas News; NAFTA negotiators must protect U.S. intellectual property
"When the North American Free Trade Agreement came into effect, the U.S. economy was already more dependent on innovation than upon traditional manufacturing. And in the 30 years since, that trend has only continued. Today, the U.S. is a creators' economy; we patent new inventions, copyright new creative works, and trademark strong new brands.
These industries, identified as the intellectual property-intensive industries by the Commerce Department, are responsible for nearly one-third of all U.S. jobs and for more than 38 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. So there's a good chance you or someone close to you works in these industries, which include software, music and book publishing, movies and entertainment, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and enzymes, patented and hybridized plants and seeds, microchip design or aircraft manufacturing.
In any given year, the intellectual property-intensive industries are responsible for around 60 percent of all U.S. exports. In other words, the majority of what the rest of the world wants from the U.S. is our creative output."
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Most Popular Game on the Planet Accused of Copyright Violation; Bloomberg, May 28, 2018
Yuji Nakamura and Sam Kim, Bloomberg; Most Popular Game on the Planet Accused of Copyright Violation
"The companies behind two of the world’s most popular video games are squaring off in court.
PUBG Corp., an affiliate of South Korean studio Bluehole Inc., is suing the Korean unit of North Carolina-based Epic Games, arguing that its smash hit Fortnite copies many of the characteristics of its own PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds. The suit, alleging copyright infringement, was filed in South Korea.
PUBG introduced its game last year and it became a huge hit as players embraced the Hunger Games-style concept in which 100 players race to kill each other until there’s a sole survivor. But the game’s features have been embraced by rivals, prompting earlier legal action. Fortnite has a similar concept of 100 people competing with each other, but differs by letting players build fortifications similar to Minecraft and using more cartoon-like graphics aimed at younger players."
"The companies behind two of the world’s most popular video games are squaring off in court.
PUBG Corp., an affiliate of South Korean studio Bluehole Inc., is suing the Korean unit of North Carolina-based Epic Games, arguing that its smash hit Fortnite copies many of the characteristics of its own PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds. The suit, alleging copyright infringement, was filed in South Korea.
PUBG introduced its game last year and it became a huge hit as players embraced the Hunger Games-style concept in which 100 players race to kill each other until there’s a sole survivor. But the game’s features have been embraced by rivals, prompting earlier legal action. Fortnite has a similar concept of 100 people competing with each other, but differs by letting players build fortifications similar to Minecraft and using more cartoon-like graphics aimed at younger players."
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Why thousands of AI researchers are boycotting the new Nature journal ; Guardian, May 29, 2018
Neil Lawrence, Guardian;
Many in our research community see the Nature brand as a poor proxy for
academic quality. We resist the intrusion of for-profit publishing into
our field. As a result, at the time of writing, more than 3,000
researchers, including many leading names in the field from both
industry and academia, have signed a statement refusing to submit, review or edit for this new journal.
We see no role for closed access or author-fee publication in the
future of machine-learning research. We believe the adoption of this new
journal as an outlet of record for the machine-learning community would
be a retrograde step."
Ivanka Trump Wins China Trademarks, Then Her Father Vows to Save ZTE; The New York Times, May 28, 2018
Sui-Lee Wee, The New York Times; Ivanka Trump Wins China Trademarks, Then Her Father Vows to Save ZTE
"China this month awarded Ivanka Trump seven new trademarks across a broad collection of businesses, including books, housewares and cushions.
At around the same time, President Trump vowed to find a way to prevent a major Chinese telecommunications company from going bust, even though the company has a history of violating American limits on doing business with countries like Iran and North Korea.
Coincidence? Well, probably.
Still, the remarkable timing is raising familiar questions about the Trump family’s businesses and its patriarch’s status as commander in chief."
"China this month awarded Ivanka Trump seven new trademarks across a broad collection of businesses, including books, housewares and cushions.
At around the same time, President Trump vowed to find a way to prevent a major Chinese telecommunications company from going bust, even though the company has a history of violating American limits on doing business with countries like Iran and North Korea.
Coincidence? Well, probably.
Still, the remarkable timing is raising familiar questions about the Trump family’s businesses and its patriarch’s status as commander in chief."
Statement on Steps to Protect Domestic Technology and Intellectual Property from China’s Discriminatory and Burdensome Trade Practices; Press Release, The White House, May 29, 2018
Press Release, The White House;
Statement on Steps to Protect Domestic Technology and Intellectual Property from China’s Discriminatory and Burdensome Trade Practices
"On March 22, 2018, the President signed a memorandum announcing that the United States would take multiple steps to protect domestic technology and intellectual property from certain discriminatory and burdensome trade practices by China. These actions were announced following a report of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative regarding China’s practices with respect to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. In accordance with the March 22 memorandum, the President has been updated on the progress of the announced actions as follows:
- To protect our national security, the United States will implement specific investment restrictions and enhanced export controls for Chinese persons and entities related to the acquisition of industrially significant technology. The proposed investment restrictions and enhanced export controls will be announced by June 30, 2018, and they will be implemented shortly thereafter.
- The United States will continue to pursue litigation at the World Trade Organization for violations of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights based on China’s discriminatory practices for licensing intellectual property. The United States filed the case regarding these violations on March 23, 2018.
- Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the United States will impose a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion of goods imported from China containing industrially significant technology, including those related to the “Made in China 2025” program. The final list of covered imports will be announced by June 15, 2018, and tariffs will be imposed on those imports shortly thereafter.
In addition, the United States will continue efforts to protect domestic technology and intellectual property, stop noneconomic transfers of industrially significant technology and intellectual property to China, and enhance access to the Chinese market. Likewise, the United States will request that China remove all of its many trade barriers, including non-monetary trade barriers, which make it both difficult and unfair to do business there. The United States will request that tariffs and taxes between the two countries be reciprocal in nature and value. Discussions with China will continue on these topics, and the United States looks forward to resolving long-standing structural issues and expanding our exports by eliminating China’s severe import restrictions."
Controversy Hides Within US Copyright Bill; Intellectual Property Watch, May 29, 2018
Steven Seidenberg, Intellectual Property Watch; Controversy Hides Within US Copyright Bill
"In a time when partisanship runs wild in the USA and the country’s political parties can’t seem to agree on anything, the Music Modernization Act is exceptional. The MMA passed the House of Representatives on 25 April with unanimous support. And for good reason. Almost all the major stakeholders back this legislation, which will bring some badly needed changes to copyright law’s treatment of music streaming. But wrapped in the MMA is a previously separate bill – the CLASSICS Act – that has been attacked by many copyright law experts, is opposed by many librarians and archivists, and runs counter to policy previously endorsed by the US Copyright Office."
"In a time when partisanship runs wild in the USA and the country’s political parties can’t seem to agree on anything, the Music Modernization Act is exceptional. The MMA passed the House of Representatives on 25 April with unanimous support. And for good reason. Almost all the major stakeholders back this legislation, which will bring some badly needed changes to copyright law’s treatment of music streaming. But wrapped in the MMA is a previously separate bill – the CLASSICS Act – that has been attacked by many copyright law experts, is opposed by many librarians and archivists, and runs counter to policy previously endorsed by the US Copyright Office."
The Demise Of Copyright Toleration; Techdirt, May 24, 2018
Robert S. Schwartz, Techdirt; The Demise Of Copyright Toleration
"Although denying fair use, these content owners were acknowledging a larger truth about copyright, the Internet, and even the law in general: It works largely due to toleration. Not every case is clear; not every outcome can be enforced; and not every potential legal outcome can be endured. Instead, “grey area” conduct must be impliedly licensed, or at least tolerated.
Counsel then or now could not have cited a single court holding on whether the private, noncommercial recording of a song is a lawful fair use. Long before the Supreme Court in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. said that video home recording from broadcasts as a fair use, the music industry could have pursued consumers for home audio recording from vinyl records. But the risk of losing and establishing a bad precedent was too great.
Toleration endured because fair use, and the practicalities of enforcement, had to be endured by content owners. They recognized that their own creative members also relied on fair use in adapting and building on the works of contemporaries as well as earlier generations. They also realized that offending consumers by suing them might not be a good idea – a reason (in addition to the possibility of losing) why the Sony plaintiffs dropped the individual consumer defendants they had originally named."
"Although denying fair use, these content owners were acknowledging a larger truth about copyright, the Internet, and even the law in general: It works largely due to toleration. Not every case is clear; not every outcome can be enforced; and not every potential legal outcome can be endured. Instead, “grey area” conduct must be impliedly licensed, or at least tolerated.
Counsel then or now could not have cited a single court holding on whether the private, noncommercial recording of a song is a lawful fair use. Long before the Supreme Court in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. said that video home recording from broadcasts as a fair use, the music industry could have pursued consumers for home audio recording from vinyl records. But the risk of losing and establishing a bad precedent was too great.
Toleration endured because fair use, and the practicalities of enforcement, had to be endured by content owners. They recognized that their own creative members also relied on fair use in adapting and building on the works of contemporaries as well as earlier generations. They also realized that offending consumers by suing them might not be a good idea – a reason (in addition to the possibility of losing) why the Sony plaintiffs dropped the individual consumer defendants they had originally named."
Friday, May 25, 2018
‘Big Deal’ Cancellations Gain Momentum; Inside Higher Ed, May 8, 2018
Lindsay McKenzie, Inside Higher Ed; ‘Big Deal’ Cancellations Gain Momentum
"Also last year, SPARC, an advocacy group for open access and open education, launched a resource tracking big-deal cancellations worldwide. Greg Tananbaum, a senior consultant at SPARC, said that there is a “growing momentum” toward cancellations.
According to data from SPARC (which may not be comprehensive, said Tananbaum), in 2016 five U.S. and Canadian institutions announced cancellations with big publishers such as Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis and Elsevier. In 2017, seven more North American institutions said they planned to cancel their big deals, including the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Kansas State University, among others.
Motivation for Cancellation
Both Tananbaum and Anderson agree that one factor driving cancellations of big deals is that library budgets are not growing at the same rate as the cost of subscriptions. Given budget restrictions, “there’s just a reality that tough choices have to be made,” said Tananbaum."
"Also last year, SPARC, an advocacy group for open access and open education, launched a resource tracking big-deal cancellations worldwide. Greg Tananbaum, a senior consultant at SPARC, said that there is a “growing momentum” toward cancellations.
According to data from SPARC (which may not be comprehensive, said Tananbaum), in 2016 five U.S. and Canadian institutions announced cancellations with big publishers such as Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis and Elsevier. In 2017, seven more North American institutions said they planned to cancel their big deals, including the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Kansas State University, among others.
Motivation for Cancellation
Both Tananbaum and Anderson agree that one factor driving cancellations of big deals is that library budgets are not growing at the same rate as the cost of subscriptions. Given budget restrictions, “there’s just a reality that tough choices have to be made,” said Tananbaum."
Why Every Media Company Fears Richard Liebowitz; Slate, May 24, 2018
Justin Peters, Slate; Why Every Media Company Fears Richard Liebowitz
"Key
to Liebowitz’s strategy is the pursuit of statutory damages. Under the
Copyright Act of 1976, federal plaintiffs can be awarded statutory
damages if they can prove “willful” infringement,
a term that is not explicitly defined in the text of the bill. (“What
is willful infringement? It’s what the courts say it is,” explained
Adwar. Welcome to the wonderfully vague world of copyright law!) If
a plaintiff had registered the work in question with the Copyright
Office before the infringement occurred or up to three months after the
work was initially published, then he or she can sue for statutory
damages, which can be as high as $150,000 per work infringed. That’s
a pretty hefty potential fine for the unauthorized use of a photograph
that, if it had been licensed prior to use, might not have earned the
photographer enough for a crosstown taxi.
“Photographers are basically small businesses. They’re little
men. But you have this powerful tool, which is copyright law,” said Kim,
the freelance photographer. The question that copyright attorneys,
media executives, and federal judges have been asking themselves for 2½
years is this: Is Richard Liebowitz wielding that tool responsibly? “He
offers [his clients] nirvana, basically. He essentially offers them: I
will sue for you, I don’t care how innocuous the infringement, I don’t
care how innocuous the photograph, I will bring that lawsuit for you and
get you money,” said attorney Kenneth Norwick. And the law allows him
to do it. So is Liebowitz gaming the system by filing hundreds of
“strike suits” to compel quick settlements? Or is he an avenging angel
for photographers who have seen their livelihoods fade in the internet
age? “They can call Richard Liebowitz a troll,” said Kim. “Better to be a
troll than a thief.”...
Over the past 2½ years, Liebowitz has attained boogeyman status in the
C-suites of major media organizations around the country. Like the
villain in a very boring horror movie featuring content management
systems and starring bloggers, his unrelenting litigiousness has
inspired great frustration amongst editors and media lawyers fearful
that they will be the next to fall victim to the aggravating time-suck
known as a Richard Liebowitz lawsuit. And he is probably all of the
things his detractors say he is: a troll, an opportunist, a guy on the
make taking advantage of the system. He is also a creature of the media
industry’s own making, and the best way to stop him and his disciples is
for media companies to stop using photographers’ pictures without
paying for them—and to minimize the sorts of editorial mistakes borne
out of ignorance of or indifference to federal copyright law. “People
should realize—and hopefully will continue to realize,” said Liebowitz,
“that photographers need to be respected and get paid for their work.”"
It Took 17 Years: Freelancers Receive $9 Million in Copyright Suit; The New York Times, April 30, 2018
Jaclyn Peiser, The New York Times;It Took 17 Years: Freelancers Receive $9 Million in Copyright Suit
"Seventeen
years after nearly 3,000 freelance journalists filed a class-action
lawsuit claiming copyright infringement by some of the country’s biggest
publishers, the checks are finally in the mail.
The
2,500 writers who made it through the tortuous legal process will start
receiving their pieces of a settlement totaling $9 million this week...
The
Authors Guild filed the suit — along with the American Society of
Journalists and Authors, the National Writers Union and 21 freelance
writers named as class representatives — in 2001 after publishers
licensed articles by freelancers to the electronic database Lexis/Nexis
and other digital indexers without getting the writers’ approval. The
publishers include The New York Times, Dow Jones, and Knight Ridder, as
well as Reed Elsevier, the provider of Lexis/Nexis.
Thursday, May 24, 2018
New privacy rules could spell the end of legalese — or create a lot more fine print; The Washington Post, May 24, 2018
Elizabeth Dwoskin, The Washington Post; New privacy rules could spell the end of legalese — or create a lot more fine print
"“The companies are realizing that it is not enough to get people to just click through,” said Lorrie Cranor, director of the CyLab Usable Privacy and Security Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s former chief technologist. “That they need to communicate so that people are not surprised when they find out what they consented to.”
That has become more apparent in the past two months since revelations that a Trump-connected consultancy, Cambridge Analytica, made off with the Facebook profiles of up to 87 million Americans. Cranor said that consumer outrage over Cambridge was directly related to concerns that companies were engaging in opaque practices behind the scenes, and that consumers had unknowingly allowed it to happen by signing away their rights.
Irrespective of simpler explanations, the impact and success of the GDPR will hinge upon whether companies will try to force users to consent to their tracking or targeting as condition for access to their services, said Alessandro Acquisti, a Carnegie Mellon computer science professor and privacy researcher. "This will tell us a lot regarding whether the recent flurry of privacy policy modifications demonstrates a sincere change in the privacy stance of those companies or is more about paying lip service to the new regulation. The early signs are not auspicious.""
"“The companies are realizing that it is not enough to get people to just click through,” said Lorrie Cranor, director of the CyLab Usable Privacy and Security Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s former chief technologist. “That they need to communicate so that people are not surprised when they find out what they consented to.”
That has become more apparent in the past two months since revelations that a Trump-connected consultancy, Cambridge Analytica, made off with the Facebook profiles of up to 87 million Americans. Cranor said that consumer outrage over Cambridge was directly related to concerns that companies were engaging in opaque practices behind the scenes, and that consumers had unknowingly allowed it to happen by signing away their rights.
Irrespective of simpler explanations, the impact and success of the GDPR will hinge upon whether companies will try to force users to consent to their tracking or targeting as condition for access to their services, said Alessandro Acquisti, a Carnegie Mellon computer science professor and privacy researcher. "This will tell us a lot regarding whether the recent flurry of privacy policy modifications demonstrates a sincere change in the privacy stance of those companies or is more about paying lip service to the new regulation. The early signs are not auspicious.""
Public Knowledge Welcomes Sen. Wyden’s ACCESS to Recordings Act; Public Knowledge, May 23, 2018
Shiva Stella, Public Knowledge; Public Knowledge Welcomes Sen. Wyden’s ACCESS to Recordings Act
"Today, Senator Wyden (D-OR) introduced the ACCESS to Recordings Act, which would extend federal copyright protection to pre-1972 sound recordings, and in doing so, harmonize them with their modern counterparts. Public Knowledge applauds Senator Wyden for acknowledging the injustices posed by the current system and fighting to rationalize our copyright law.
The CLASSICS Act, a flawed bill that would hurt consumers, was recently incorporated into the Music Modernization Act, a larger bill addressing other issues in music licensing. Public Knowledge supports the ACCESS to Recordings Act because it provides full federal protection for pre-1972 sound recordings -- something the CLASSICS Act avoids."
"Today, Senator Wyden (D-OR) introduced the ACCESS to Recordings Act, which would extend federal copyright protection to pre-1972 sound recordings, and in doing so, harmonize them with their modern counterparts. Public Knowledge applauds Senator Wyden for acknowledging the injustices posed by the current system and fighting to rationalize our copyright law.
The CLASSICS Act, a flawed bill that would hurt consumers, was recently incorporated into the Music Modernization Act, a larger bill addressing other issues in music licensing. Public Knowledge supports the ACCESS to Recordings Act because it provides full federal protection for pre-1972 sound recordings -- something the CLASSICS Act avoids."
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
No one’s ready for GDPR; The Verge, May 22, 2018
Sarah Jeong, The Verge; No one’s ready for GDPR
"The General Data Protection Regulation will go into effect on May 25th, and no one is ready — not the companies and not even the regulators...
GDPR is only supposed to apply to the EU and EU residents, but because so many companies do business in Europe, the American technology industry is scrambling to become GDPR compliant. Still, even though GDPR’s big debut is bound to be messy, the regulation marks a sea change in how data is handled across the world. Americans outside of Europe can’t make data subject access requests, and they can’t demand that their data be deleted. But GDPR compliance is going to have spillover effects for them anyway. The breach notification requirement, especially, is more stringent than anything in the US. The hope is that as companies and regulatory bodies settle into the flow of things, the heightened privacy protections of GDPR will become business as usual. In the meantime, it’s just a mad scramble to keep up."
"The General Data Protection Regulation will go into effect on May 25th, and no one is ready — not the companies and not even the regulators...
GDPR is only supposed to apply to the EU and EU residents, but because so many companies do business in Europe, the American technology industry is scrambling to become GDPR compliant. Still, even though GDPR’s big debut is bound to be messy, the regulation marks a sea change in how data is handled across the world. Americans outside of Europe can’t make data subject access requests, and they can’t demand that their data be deleted. But GDPR compliance is going to have spillover effects for them anyway. The breach notification requirement, especially, is more stringent than anything in the US. The hope is that as companies and regulatory bodies settle into the flow of things, the heightened privacy protections of GDPR will become business as usual. In the meantime, it’s just a mad scramble to keep up."
How The Recording Industry Hid Its Latest Attempt To Expand Copyright (And Why You Should Call Your Senator To Stop It); Techdirt, May 21, 2018
Mike Masnick, Techdirt; How The Recording Industry Hid Its Latest Attempt To Expand Copyright (And Why You Should Call Your Senator To Stop It)
"Larry Lessig has a piece over at Wired where he explains how this is really just the latest attempt at copyright extension. Earlier this year, we had noted (happily!) that it appeared that the usual crew of copyright maximalists had appeared to give in, saying they had no intention to push for any sort of copyright term extension this year, meaning that for the first time in decades in the US, some works may actually enter the public domain on January 1st next year. And while the CLASSICS Act isn't a straight-up copyright term extension, it is a form of copyright expansion on old works, done for no other purpose than to give the copyright holders more ways to extract money, without any corresponding public benefit. As Lessig notes, this is explicitly a welfare system for musicians...
Now, I should note that I've seen some recording industry lobbyists mocking Lessig's piece, claiming that how could he be against supporting musicians. This, of course, is the whole setup of this bill. It's designed -- like so many copyright expansions in the past -- to make it hard for people to question, because, really, who doesn't want to support the content creators we like? But that ignores the other side of this equation. Copyright is designed to benefit the public. The whole setup is to give an exclusivity to content creators for a limited time in order to give them the incentive to create.
For EVERY SINGLE WORK that would be impacted by this bill, that incentive worked. It worked decades and decades ago. Those recordings were all created prior to 1972. So why do they now need more incentive for the works that were already created? And why, if we're giving them more incentive, does the public not get anything back in return? That's the hidden part that the lobbyists and think tank shills for the recording industry are hoping you'll ignore. The "expansion" here is at the expense of the public. And it's a big expense. For no benefit at all. The copyright system was an incentive system for creation, in the recognition that it would then help the public get access to content. But the CLASSICS Act flips that over. It takes away from the public and provides no new incentives to anyone."
"Larry Lessig has a piece over at Wired where he explains how this is really just the latest attempt at copyright extension. Earlier this year, we had noted (happily!) that it appeared that the usual crew of copyright maximalists had appeared to give in, saying they had no intention to push for any sort of copyright term extension this year, meaning that for the first time in decades in the US, some works may actually enter the public domain on January 1st next year. And while the CLASSICS Act isn't a straight-up copyright term extension, it is a form of copyright expansion on old works, done for no other purpose than to give the copyright holders more ways to extract money, without any corresponding public benefit. As Lessig notes, this is explicitly a welfare system for musicians...
Now, I should note that I've seen some recording industry lobbyists mocking Lessig's piece, claiming that how could he be against supporting musicians. This, of course, is the whole setup of this bill. It's designed -- like so many copyright expansions in the past -- to make it hard for people to question, because, really, who doesn't want to support the content creators we like? But that ignores the other side of this equation. Copyright is designed to benefit the public. The whole setup is to give an exclusivity to content creators for a limited time in order to give them the incentive to create.
For EVERY SINGLE WORK that would be impacted by this bill, that incentive worked. It worked decades and decades ago. Those recordings were all created prior to 1972. So why do they now need more incentive for the works that were already created? And why, if we're giving them more incentive, does the public not get anything back in return? That's the hidden part that the lobbyists and think tank shills for the recording industry are hoping you'll ignore. The "expansion" here is at the expense of the public. And it's a big expense. For no benefit at all. The copyright system was an incentive system for creation, in the recognition that it would then help the public get access to content. But the CLASSICS Act flips that over. It takes away from the public and provides no new incentives to anyone."
Music Modernization Act Gains Momentum in Senate; Variety, May 15, 2018
Ted Johnson and Paula Parisi, Variety; Music Modernization Act Gains Momentum in Senate
"[Smokey] Robinson spoke forcefully on behalf of the MMA and particularly the CLASSICS Act, sharing how a few years ago, he audited the digital services playing his music and found they owed him $250,000. After confronting them, he was offered $12,000 and told, “If you don’t like it, sue us.” Robinson noted there are few artists with the economic means to take on that sort of battle, concluding “We need your help!’”
The legislation passed the House unanimously last month, and it also includes sweeping changes to the licensing regime for digital music services. A Senate version was recently introduced.
The Senators seemed inclined to provide that help."
"[Smokey] Robinson spoke forcefully on behalf of the MMA and particularly the CLASSICS Act, sharing how a few years ago, he audited the digital services playing his music and found they owed him $250,000. After confronting them, he was offered $12,000 and told, “If you don’t like it, sue us.” Robinson noted there are few artists with the economic means to take on that sort of battle, concluding “We need your help!’”
The legislation passed the House unanimously last month, and it also includes sweeping changes to the licensing regime for digital music services. A Senate version was recently introduced.
The Senators seemed inclined to provide that help."
Monday, May 21, 2018
Patent and trademark office coming to Durango; The Durango Herald, May 18, 2018
Patrick Armijo, The Durango Herald; Patent and trademark office coming to Durango
"Several workshops with officials from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia, are planned for Tuesday and registration for the workshops has been extended until Monday.
The workshop schedule includes:
9:15-10:30 a.m.: An Overview of Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights and Trade Secrets.
10:45 to noon: Conducting Preliminary Federal Trademark Search Using USPTO Website.
1:30 to 2:30 p.m.: Seven-Step Strategy for Preliminary U.S. Patent Search Using USPTO Databases.
2:45 to 3:15 p.m.: Non-USPTO Solicitations and Invention Promotion Scams: Asking the Right Questions.
3:15-4:15 p.m.: A local panel for resources on patent and trademark issues with Ken Freudenberg, an intellectual property attorney; Ryan Finnigan, co-founder of the Maker Lab at the Powerhouse Science Center; Mark Radtke, assistant regional director for the Rocky Mountain Regional Patent and Trademark Office in Denver; John Wolgamott, president of StoneAge Inc.; and Roger Zalneraitis, executive director of La Plata Economic Development Alliance."
"Several workshops with officials from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia, are planned for Tuesday and registration for the workshops has been extended until Monday.
The workshop schedule includes:
9:15-10:30 a.m.: An Overview of Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights and Trade Secrets.
10:45 to noon: Conducting Preliminary Federal Trademark Search Using USPTO Website.
1:30 to 2:30 p.m.: Seven-Step Strategy for Preliminary U.S. Patent Search Using USPTO Databases.
2:45 to 3:15 p.m.: Non-USPTO Solicitations and Invention Promotion Scams: Asking the Right Questions.
3:15-4:15 p.m.: A local panel for resources on patent and trademark issues with Ken Freudenberg, an intellectual property attorney; Ryan Finnigan, co-founder of the Maker Lab at the Powerhouse Science Center; Mark Radtke, assistant regional director for the Rocky Mountain Regional Patent and Trademark Office in Denver; John Wolgamott, president of StoneAge Inc.; and Roger Zalneraitis, executive director of La Plata Economic Development Alliance."
‘Westworld’ Season 2: Seven Big Things We Still Don’t Know at Midseason; The New York Times, May 21, 2018
Scott Tobias, The New York Times; ‘Westworld’ Season 2: Seven Big Things We Still Don’t Know at Midseason
[SPOILERS BELOW]
"Delos cares about its intellectual property. The theme parks are merely a means to an end — that much was clear from the first season, even clearer from the second, in which recovering Dolores’s father, Peter Abernathy (Louis Herthum), has been a top priority.”
[SPOILERS BELOW]
"Delos cares about its intellectual property. The theme parks are merely a means to an end — that much was clear from the first season, even clearer from the second, in which recovering Dolores’s father, Peter Abernathy (Louis Herthum), has been a top priority.”
Hasbro trademarks Play-Doh's distinctive "sweet, slightly musky" scent; CBS, May 18, 2018
CBS; Hasbro trademarks Play-Doh's distinctive "sweet, slightly musky" scent
"Hasbro has trademarked the scent of Play-Doh. The toy company on Friday announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has recognized Play-Doh's distinctive smell with a registered trademark, something rarely issued for a scent."
"Hasbro has trademarked the scent of Play-Doh. The toy company on Friday announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has recognized Play-Doh's distinctive smell with a registered trademark, something rarely issued for a scent."
Law Professors Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Reject or Amend CLASSICS Act; Public Knowledge, May 15, 2018
Press Release, Public Knowledge; Law Professors Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Reject or Amend CLASSICS Act
“The expert consensus is clear: The CLASSICS Act is a problematic attempt to shortcut full federalization of pre-1972 copyrights. At best a half-measure, at worst a ploy to avoid difficult but necessary conversations about artist and consumer rights, CLASSICS complicates the status of legacy recordings without any countervailing benefit to protect nonprofit users and archivists. We welcome the insight of the more than 40 professors on this letter and look forward to working to bring true reform and harmonization to these works.”
You may view the letter here. You may also view Meredith Rose’s testimony from today’s hearing on “Protecting and Promoting Music Creation for the 21st Century” for more information on the CLASSICS Act and why it should be amended or rejected from the Music Modernization Act."
"Yesterday, more than 40 intellectual property law professors sent a letter
to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA),
Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and all members of the
committee, urging them to reject or, at a minimum, amend the CLASSICS
Act to ensure that its provisions are in line with existing federal
copyright law.
The
Senate recently combined the Classics Act, a flawed bill that hurts
consumers, with the Music Modernization Act, a bill that creates a
database of songwriters and performers to ensure that creators receive
fair compensation for their work. Public Knowledge supports the Music
Modernization Act, but agrees with these law professors that the
CLASSICS Act harms the public interest. Public Knowledge contends that
the CLASSICS Act fails to provide full federal protection for pre-1972
sound recordings, making it out of sync with the rest of copyright law.
The following can be attributed to Meredith Rose, Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge:
“The expert consensus is clear: The CLASSICS Act is a problematic attempt to shortcut full federalization of pre-1972 copyrights. At best a half-measure, at worst a ploy to avoid difficult but necessary conversations about artist and consumer rights, CLASSICS complicates the status of legacy recordings without any countervailing benefit to protect nonprofit users and archivists. We welcome the insight of the more than 40 professors on this letter and look forward to working to bring true reform and harmonization to these works.”
You may view the letter here. You may also view Meredith Rose’s testimony from today’s hearing on “Protecting and Promoting Music Creation for the 21st Century” for more information on the CLASSICS Act and why it should be amended or rejected from the Music Modernization Act."
Sunday, May 20, 2018
Congress' Latest Move to Extend Copyright Protection Is Misguided; Wired, May 18, 2018
Lawrence Lessig, Wired; Congress' Latest Move to Extend Copyright Protection Is Misguided
"That this statute has nothing to do with the
constitutional purpose of “promot[ing] Progress” is clear from its very
title. The “Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and
Important Contributions to Society Act” (or CLASSICS) is as blatant a
gift without any public return as is conceivable. And it's not just a
gift through cash; it's a gift through a monopoly regulation of speech.
Archives with recordings of music from the 1930s or 1940s would now have
to clear permission before streaming their musical content even if the
underlying work was in the public domain.
Yet there is no registry of these owners anywhere. And while massive digital suppliers, such as Apple Music and Spotify,
could probably afford to carry the burden, no public or non-profit
website could even begin to bear the cost of assuring they were not
committing a crime. The act doesn’t harmonize American law with
international law. Indeed, it creates more disharmony. No other
jurisdiction creates a similar right anywhere. The act is simply a gift,
paid for by further weakening the ability of archivists to keep our
culture accessible. That’s why more than 40 professors of intellectual
property of all political stripes signed a letter this week asking Congress to reject the CLASSICS Act."
Friday, May 18, 2018
States Offer Information Resources: 50+ Open Data Portals; Forbes, April 30, 2018
Meta S. Brown, Forbes; States Offer Information Resources: 50+ Open Data Portals
Today, with more 200,000 datasets, it’s a lot more popular. Still, real-life demands for information about our governments, people and economy exceed the supply of available data.
The creation of a centralized portal for federal government data has fostered open data initiative across the country. Dozens of cities have established their own open data portals (here are 90 examples).
In the 50 years since the federal Freedom of Information Act was passed, US states have been gradually introducing similar laws (see freedom of information laws by state). Likewise, many are now developing state-level open data portals.
These state data resources vary in style and depth. Some look much like data.gov, and include a wide variety of datasets. But not every state has a comprehensive data portal yet, let alone deep selections of data.
Here’s a listing of general and geographic open data portals for US states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico..."
"The United States federal open data portal, data.gov, launched in May, 2009, with just 47 datasets. It was not an instant hit.
Today, with more 200,000 datasets, it’s a lot more popular. Still, real-life demands for information about our governments, people and economy exceed the supply of available data.
The creation of a centralized portal for federal government data has fostered open data initiative across the country. Dozens of cities have established their own open data portals (here are 90 examples).
In the 50 years since the federal Freedom of Information Act was passed, US states have been gradually introducing similar laws (see freedom of information laws by state). Likewise, many are now developing state-level open data portals.
These state data resources vary in style and depth. Some look much like data.gov, and include a wide variety of datasets. But not every state has a comprehensive data portal yet, let alone deep selections of data.
Here’s a listing of general and geographic open data portals for US states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico..."
Europe’s open-access drive escalates as university stand-offs spread; Nature, May 17, 2018
Holly Else, Nature; Europe’s open-access drive escalates as university stand-offs spread
"Bold efforts to push academic publishing towards an open-access model are gaining steam. Negotiators from libraries and university consortia across Europe are sharing tactics on how to broker new kinds of contracts that could see more articles appear outside paywalls. And inspired by the results of a stand-off in Germany, they increasingly declare that if they don’t like what publishers offer, they will refuse to pay for journal access at all. On 16 May, a Swedish consortium became the latest to say that it wouldn’t renew its contract, with publishing giant Elsevier.
Under the new contracts, termed ‘read and publish’ deals, libraries still pay subscriptions for access to paywalled articles, but their researchers can also publish under open-access terms so that anyone can read their work for free.
Advocates say such agreements could accelerate the progress of the open-access movement. Despite decades of campaigning for research papers to be published openly — on the grounds that the fruits of publicly funded research should be available for all to read — scholarly publishing’s dominant business model remains to publish articles behind paywalls and collect subscriptions from libraries (see 'Growth of open access'). But if many large library consortia strike read-and-publish deals, the proportion of open-access articles could surge."
"Bold efforts to push academic publishing towards an open-access model are gaining steam. Negotiators from libraries and university consortia across Europe are sharing tactics on how to broker new kinds of contracts that could see more articles appear outside paywalls. And inspired by the results of a stand-off in Germany, they increasingly declare that if they don’t like what publishers offer, they will refuse to pay for journal access at all. On 16 May, a Swedish consortium became the latest to say that it wouldn’t renew its contract, with publishing giant Elsevier.
Under the new contracts, termed ‘read and publish’ deals, libraries still pay subscriptions for access to paywalled articles, but their researchers can also publish under open-access terms so that anyone can read their work for free.
Advocates say such agreements could accelerate the progress of the open-access movement. Despite decades of campaigning for research papers to be published openly — on the grounds that the fruits of publicly funded research should be available for all to read — scholarly publishing’s dominant business model remains to publish articles behind paywalls and collect subscriptions from libraries (see 'Growth of open access'). But if many large library consortia strike read-and-publish deals, the proportion of open-access articles could surge."
Thursday, May 17, 2018
New Guidelines For Tech Companies To Be Transparent, Accountable On Censoring User Content; Intellectual Property Watch, May 7, 2018,
Intellectual Property Watch; New Guidelines For Tech Companies To Be Transparent, Accountable On Censoring User Content
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called on Facebook, Google, and other social media companies today to publicly report how many user posts they take down, provide users with detailed explanations about takedowns, and implement appeals policies to boost accountability.
EFF, ACLU of Northern California, Center for Democracy & Technology, New America’s Open Technology Institute, and a group of academic experts and free expression advocates today released the Santa Clara Principles, a set of minimum standards for tech companies to augment and strengthen their content moderation policies. The plain language, detailed guidelines call for disclosing not just how and why platforms are removing content, but how much speech is being censored. The principles are being released in conjunction with the second edition of the Content Moderation and Removal at Scale conference. Work on the principles began during the first conference, held in Santa Clara, California, in February.
“Our goal is to ensure that enforcement of content guidelines is fair, transparent, proportional, and respectful of users’ rights,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Nate Cardozo."
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called on Facebook, Google, and other social media companies today to publicly report how many user posts they take down, provide users with detailed explanations about takedowns, and implement appeals policies to boost accountability.
EFF, ACLU of Northern California, Center for Democracy & Technology, New America’s Open Technology Institute, and a group of academic experts and free expression advocates today released the Santa Clara Principles, a set of minimum standards for tech companies to augment and strengthen their content moderation policies. The plain language, detailed guidelines call for disclosing not just how and why platforms are removing content, but how much speech is being censored. The principles are being released in conjunction with the second edition of the Content Moderation and Removal at Scale conference. Work on the principles began during the first conference, held in Santa Clara, California, in February.
“Our goal is to ensure that enforcement of content guidelines is fair, transparent, proportional, and respectful of users’ rights,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Nate Cardozo."
Meet IP Nani, Modi Government's Intellectual Property Mascot; India Times, May 17, 2018
Bobins Abraham, India Times; Meet IP Nani, Modi Government's Intellectual Property Mascot
"Minister of Commerce and Industry Shri Suresh Prabhu has launched the government's Intellectual Property (IP) mascot – IP Nani – at the conference on National Intellectual Property Rights Policy in New Delhi.
Speaking on the occasion, the Minister said that protection of Intellectual Property Rights is critical for building a knowledge-based society...
Mascot IP Nani is a tech-savvy grandmother who helps the government and enforcement agencies in combating IP crimes with the help of her grandson “Chhotu” aka Aditya. The IP mascot will spread awareness about the importance of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) among people, especially children, in an interesting manner."
"Minister of Commerce and Industry Shri Suresh Prabhu has launched the government's Intellectual Property (IP) mascot – IP Nani – at the conference on National Intellectual Property Rights Policy in New Delhi.
Speaking on the occasion, the Minister said that protection of Intellectual Property Rights is critical for building a knowledge-based society...
Mascot IP Nani is a tech-savvy grandmother who helps the government and enforcement agencies in combating IP crimes with the help of her grandson “Chhotu” aka Aditya. The IP mascot will spread awareness about the importance of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) among people, especially children, in an interesting manner."
Why ‘Fahrenheit 451’ Is the Book for Our Social Media Age; The New York Times, May 10, 2018
Ramin
Bahrani, The New York Times;
Why ‘Fahrenheit 451’ Is the Book for Our Social Media Age
[Kip Currier: Looking forward to seeing this May 19th-debuting HBO adaptation of Ray Bradbury's ever-timely Fahrenheit 451 cautionary intellectual freedom tale, starring Michael B. Jordan as a book-burning-fireman-turned-book-preserver.]
"Burning books in the film posed a legal challenge. The cover art of most books is protected by copyright, and in most cases we were unable to obtain permission to display it — let alone burn it on camera. So the art directors for my film designed countless original book covers that we could burn."
Why ‘Fahrenheit 451’ Is the Book for Our Social Media Age
[Kip Currier: Looking forward to seeing this May 19th-debuting HBO adaptation of Ray Bradbury's ever-timely Fahrenheit 451 cautionary intellectual freedom tale, starring Michael B. Jordan as a book-burning-fireman-turned-book-preserver.]
"Burning books in the film posed a legal challenge. The cover art of most books is protected by copyright, and in most cases we were unable to obtain permission to display it — let alone burn it on camera. So the art directors for my film designed countless original book covers that we could burn."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)