Reprint of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ Tests German Law; New York Times, 6/1/16

Melissa Eddy, New York Times; Reprint of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ Tests German Law:

"A German publisher of right-wing books has begun selling a reprint of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” originally issued in 1943 by the Nazi party’s central publishing house, a move that risks violating Germany’s law against the distribution of Nazi propaganda.

A copyright on “Mein Kampf” that was held by the Bavarian government expired on Dec. 31, and an annotated scholarly edition was published this year with government permission.

Now, state prosecutors in the German city of Leipzig, where the publisher, Der Schelm, is based, are investigating whether they can press charges . Last week, prosecutors in Bamberg opened a separate investigation after a bookseller, who was not identified, advertised Der Schelm’s edition.

Although Hitler’s two-volume treatise, written from 1924 to 1927 and laying out his ideas on race and violence, is widely available on the internet, the annotated version is the only one that is legal in Germany. The 3,500 comments accompanying the text provide context for the work, and they are aimed, in part, at trying to prevent a new generation from taking up Nazi ideologies.

“Promoting an edition without annotations is considered a criminal offense,” Christopher Rosenbusch, a spokesman for prosecutors in Bamberg, said on Wednesday."

Donald Trump's 'playbooks' offer a glimpse into his ruthless business practices; Guardian, 6/1/16

Rupert Neate and Lauren Gambino, Guardian; Donald Trump's 'playbooks' offer a glimpse into his ruthless business practices:

"US district court judge Gonzalo Curiel on Tuesday made public more than 400 pages of Trump University “playbooks” describing how Trump staff should target prospective students’ weaknesses to encourage them to sign up for a $34,995 Gold Elite three-day package.

Trump University staff were instructed to get people to pile on credit card debt and to target their financial weaknesses in an attempt to sell them the high-priced real estate courses.

The documents contained an undated “personal message” from Trump to new enrollees at the school: “Only doers get rich. I know that in these three packed days, you will learn everything to make a million dollars within the next 12 months.”...

New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman, who has also sued Trump University, renewed his attacks on Trump on Tuesday. “You are not allowed to protect the trade secrets of a three-card Monte game,” Schneiderman said ahead of the document’s release."

Why Google’s fair use victory over Oracle matters; Guardian, 5/31/16

Pamela Samuelson, Guardian; Why Google’s fair use victory over Oracle matters:

"Further cascades of liability could have happened outside the Android ecosystem. An Oracle victory in the Google case would have emboldened other software firms with valuable APIs to become more aggressive in challenging unlicensed uses of those APIs. Someone wanting to develop a program to run on another firm’s platform must use that platform’s API to enable the second program to interoperate with the platform. (Think of an API as an information equivalent to the plug and socket configurations that are necessary for physical devices to interoperate with the electrical grid.) If the second program isn’t configured to send and receive information in the precise way that the first program’s API specifies, it just won’t work at all.

If the developer of an API owns copyright in that API, it can say no to any unlicensed use of it. Or it can condition its willingness to license use of the API on high royalties or impose restrictions on the other firm’s development (such as forbidding adaptation of the same program to run on other platforms).

Since 1992, courts have overwhelmingly rejected copyright claims in program interface specifications. These rulings are consistent with the prevailing norm in the computing industry since its early days: that it is OK to use another firm’s API as long as the second firm reimplements the API in independently written code. Over the past two decades, the software industry has thrived because the court rulings converged with industry norms that allow innovative software developers to build upon existing programs and platforms to offer consumers many choices of products for smart phones and other computing devices."

Open Data Platform Lets Aid Groups Respond More Efficiently To Crises; Huffington Post, 5/27/16

Eleanor Goldberg, Huffington Post; Open Data Platform Lets Aid Groups Respond More Efficiently To Crises:

"When a humanitarian crisis hits, there’s an inevitable mad scramble to collect data, which is often scattered, limited and fail to offer a “big picture” of the situation at hand.

Nearly two years after the launch of the Humanitarian Data Exchange, however, governments, nonprofits, aid workers and the general public can now share information from the ground and upload it to one platform so that it’s stored, and accessible, in a single location.

The goal is to be able to offer up humanitarian aid in an efficient and faster way.

The project, which is managed by the U.N.’s Office for the Coordination of Human Affairs, now covers about 250 locations across the world. Those include Ecuador and Kenya’s Kakuma refugee camp, according to Reuters."

Kraftwerk loses hip-hop music-sampling copyright case; Ars Technica, 5/31/16

Jennifer Baker, Ars Technica; Kraftwerk loses hip-hop music-sampling copyright case:

"After a decades-long battle, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (the supreme German Constitutional Court) has overturned a ban on a song that used a two-second sample of a Kraftwerk recording.

In 1997, music producer Moses Pelham used a clip from 1977 release Metall auf Metall (Metal on Metal) in the song Nur mir (Only Mine) performed by Sabrina Setlur.

Lead singer of Kraftwerk, Ralf Huetter, sued Pelham, and in 2012 the electropop pioneer won his case for copyright infringement in Germany's Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), gaining damages and a block on Nur mir. However, in today’s judgment, the eight judges of the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court decided that the lower court did not sufficiently consider whether the impact of the sample on Krafwerk might be “negligible.”

Pelham successfully argued that sampling is common practice in the hip hop genre and that in some cases “artistic freedom overrides the interest of the owner of the copyright.""