'Game of Thrones' Plot Leaker Risks Drag-on Battle, Dungeon; US News, 5/9/16

Steven Nelson, US News; 'Game of Thrones' Plot Leaker Risks Drag-on Battle, Dungeon:

"Though some of the spoiler's supporters scoff that HBO is misusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to force YouTube to remove videos that don't contain copyrighted imagery, experts say it's clear that divulging TV plots does violate U.S. copyright law.

"If he's giving away detailed plot information, he definitely faces the possibility of being liable for criminal copyright infringement, no question," says Deborah Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

"The coolest thing about 'Game of Thrones' is you think, 'They're not going to go there,' and then they go there – that's such a critical part of the creativity of this work," she says. "When you have a fictional plot that's an original creation of an author, especially a plot like this one in a fantasy work, you get to the area copyright protects: creative expression."

Gerhardt says HBO's right to first publication of its creative works can be enforced using either criminal or civil penalties.

The U.S. Supreme Court, she also points out, ruled against The Nation magazine's fair use defense after it published a leaked part of ex-President Gerald Ford's memoir dealing with his pardon of predecessor Richard Nixon."

Fair use does not mean free: Copyright recommendations would crush Australian content; Sydney Morning Herald, 5/6/16

Kim Williams, Sydney Morning Herald; Fair use does not mean free: Copyright recommendations would crush Australian content:

"The Productivity Commission's draft report on Australia's copyright arrangements makes recommendations that would be incredibly detrimental to our national creative talent. The report is overall profoundly disappointing and a major cause for concern."

[Webinar] Who Pays the Freight? Open Access: The Future of Funding, 5/25/16

[Webinar] Who Pays the Freight? Open Access: The Future of Funding:

Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Time: 11:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Duration: 1 hour

"Who Pays the Freight? Open Access: The Future of Funding

Now in full flight, the Open Access movement promises to revolutionize the discipline of peer-reviewed research. Billed as a treasure trove for citizen scientists and major institutions alike, the benefits of Open Access still need to be paid for - but by who?

The attention on funding models has been increasing for years, as has discussion around journal transition and conversion. Best practices presume these models are continually refined through historical experience, policy and competition. But the iterative nature of OA can come with a cost in terms of implementation, integration, and aggregation performance. Questions remain about sustainability and integrity.

So, who pays the freight? In this webcast, our experts will highlight how librarians are tackling this important issue, and how the library can shape the future of funding Open Access.

Speakers

Ann Oakerson, Senior Adviser, The Center for Research Libraries

Rebecca Jozwiak, Analyst, The Bloor Group"

Elsevier defends its value after Open Access disputes; The Bookseller, 4/28/16

Benedicte Page, The Bookseller; Elsevier defends its value after Open Access disputes:

"[D]irector of access and policy Alicia Wise, vice-president of global corporate relations Tom Reller and policy director Gemma Hersh say criticism from a vocal minority is unrepresentative of the publisher’s regular contact with millions of researchers. The trio say that detractors obscure a key fact: that Elsevier is seeking to negotiate the new landscapes of OA and content-sharing in such a way that its economic sustainability, and therefore ability to maintain quality, is not compromised.

Publishers are “rubbish at communicating their value,” says Hersh (left), then proceeds to attempt to do just that. “We have over one million submissions a year and immediately reject a third of those,“ she says. “The management of that process in itself is an enormous feat. You then have the co-ordination of those manuscripts you have accepted, finding the right people to peer review those, making that as efficient a process as possible. That takes time.

“Once you’ve gone through the peer review process, if you look at the article that is actually published in a journal, it looks radically different [to the one submitted due to] that process of transformation, the copy-editing, the database linking, the data visualisation tools, making sure that the metadata for the article is all right, so when people come to [Elsevier database] ScienceDirect or type a search into Google, they can actually find what they are looking for on their platforms.”

She continues: “The plagiarism detection tools that we invest in to make sure research is reliable and trustworthy; with journals like The Lancet, the statisticians it employs to verify what goes into the article so it is treated as high-quality, cutting-edge research. The marketing of the journal brand—there’s a reason why journals are well known. People want to publish in them because they are known as having high-quality content. We do all that marketing. The investments we make off the back of that, so people know how their articles are being used, how they can identify collaborators to work with after publication and how they can use tools like [Elsevier’s institutional research networking platform] SciVal.”"

Sony patents contact lens that records what you see; CNet, 5/2/16

Michelle Starr, CNet; Sony patents contact lens that records what you see:

"A new patent, awarded to the company in April, describes a contact lens that can be controlled by the user's deliberate blinks, recording video on request.

Sensors embedded in the lens are able to detect the difference between voluntary and involuntary blinks. The image capture and storage technology would all be embedded in the lens around the iris, and piezoelectric sensors would convert the movements of the eye into energy to power the lens.

Of course, at this point, this technology isn't small enough to be comfortably embedded in a contact lens, so it's only theoretical."