Jonathan Hillel via San Jose Mercury News; Opinion: Justice Department's fear of Google book publishing is misplaced:
"Many of the public comments decrying the settlement come from Google's largest competitors. The Internet Archive, which has scanned 1.5 million books to date, claims that Google will monopolize the market for orphaned texts. But the comments by the Archive and others ignore a crucial fact.
The fact that orphan works are out of print implies that these books have little if any market value, and publishers do not consider them profitable to sell. Therefore, they are only available at the few libraries that stock them. In this state, orphan works are unlikely to ever be rediscovered by the market or gain popularity.
Digitizing orphan works will make them available, but there is no guarantee they would acquire market value or earn a profit. Google is paying a high upfront cost for this gambit in both infrastructure investment and settlement payments.
Given all that investment, antitrust penalties on Google would allow its competitors to free-ride on its investment. Internet Archive President Peter Brantley has advocated requiring open access to the orphan works. In practice, that would mean that after Google pays to scan all orphan works, its competitors will be able to pick and choose which ones to offer...
Google is creating a market for orphan works and is making them available for widespread access. Antitrust interference will only distort market incentives and hinder the growth of this nascent sector."
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_12893298
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Japanese e-library project could lose out to Google Book Search without government flex; Mainichi Daily News, 7/24/09
Op-Ed: Mainichi Daily News; Japanese e-library project could lose out to Google Book Search without government flex:
"Imagine being able to read and search all the books in the world on the Internet. Such convenience has taken a step closer to reality, thanks to U.S. search engine giant Google's new Book Search service. However, it may be too early to rejoice over the feat without reservation.
Under the U.S. copyright law's fair use provision, literary and other works can be used without right-holders' permission for public purposes, and Google's electronic library project is based on this provision. And, while it may serve the public good to allow people to use literary documents amassed at conventional libraries, U.S. publishers have opposed the publication of books on the Internet without their permission and brought the case into the court.
The lawsuit ended up in a settlement and, if the U.S. court approves the settlement, Google will be entitled to launch an e-library project for a fee for books the company deems out of print or unavailable in exchange for a royalty. The settlement, however, applies outside the U.S. as well, under international copyright protection conventions.
The case has wreaked havoc on book publishers worldwide since right-holders will be automatically incorporated into the settlement unless they specifically opt out.
In the meantime, Japan's National Diet Library (NDL) is also accelerating the digitization of its book collection. The move follows a recent revision to Japan's Copyright Law, allowing the NDL to digitize books without right-holders' permission, as well as a large budget increase for digitization of books under the supplementary budget.
However, one needs to obtain permission from individual right-holders before publicizing digitized books online in Japan. If things are left as is, Google is certain to become dominant in the e-library project.
There's also a concern from a cultural perspective. Since Google Book Search mainly deals with book collections at libraries in the U.S., search results would inevitably tend to show more books published in the U.S. It would not only help expand the influence of the English language but could also prompt further prevalence of American ways of thinking and interpretation around the world.
Digitization of books and their distribution on the Web is an issue that relates to the concept of soft power, with which countries aspire to gain a greater voice in the international community through attaining support for their unique culture and values.
Online distribution for a fee has already become common in the music industry. It is hoped that the Japanese government will flexibly proceed with legal revisions so as to facilitate online distribution of books' content in Japan, including the e-library project."
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/editorial/news/20090723p2a00m0na015000c.html
"Imagine being able to read and search all the books in the world on the Internet. Such convenience has taken a step closer to reality, thanks to U.S. search engine giant Google's new Book Search service. However, it may be too early to rejoice over the feat without reservation.
Under the U.S. copyright law's fair use provision, literary and other works can be used without right-holders' permission for public purposes, and Google's electronic library project is based on this provision. And, while it may serve the public good to allow people to use literary documents amassed at conventional libraries, U.S. publishers have opposed the publication of books on the Internet without their permission and brought the case into the court.
The lawsuit ended up in a settlement and, if the U.S. court approves the settlement, Google will be entitled to launch an e-library project for a fee for books the company deems out of print or unavailable in exchange for a royalty. The settlement, however, applies outside the U.S. as well, under international copyright protection conventions.
The case has wreaked havoc on book publishers worldwide since right-holders will be automatically incorporated into the settlement unless they specifically opt out.
In the meantime, Japan's National Diet Library (NDL) is also accelerating the digitization of its book collection. The move follows a recent revision to Japan's Copyright Law, allowing the NDL to digitize books without right-holders' permission, as well as a large budget increase for digitization of books under the supplementary budget.
However, one needs to obtain permission from individual right-holders before publicizing digitized books online in Japan. If things are left as is, Google is certain to become dominant in the e-library project.
There's also a concern from a cultural perspective. Since Google Book Search mainly deals with book collections at libraries in the U.S., search results would inevitably tend to show more books published in the U.S. It would not only help expand the influence of the English language but could also prompt further prevalence of American ways of thinking and interpretation around the world.
Digitization of books and their distribution on the Web is an issue that relates to the concept of soft power, with which countries aspire to gain a greater voice in the international community through attaining support for their unique culture and values.
Online distribution for a fee has already become common in the music industry. It is hoped that the Japanese government will flexibly proceed with legal revisions so as to facilitate online distribution of books' content in Japan, including the e-library project."
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/editorial/news/20090723p2a00m0na015000c.html
Copyright Office Proposes Rule Change Exempting Works Only Available Online from Mandatory Deposit; Law Librarian Blog, 7/22/09
Law Librarian Blog; Copyright Office Proposes Rule Change Exempting Works Only Available Online from Mandatory Deposit:
"The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is proposing to amend its regulations governing mandatory deposit of electronic works published in the United States and available only online. The amendments would establish that such works are exempt from mandatory deposit until a demand for deposit of copies of such works is issued by the Copyright Office. From the notice of proposed rulemaking, 74 Fed. Reg. 34286 (July 15, 2009):
This notice proposes that the current section 202.19(c)(5) exemption be amended so that all electronic works published in the United States and available only online enjoy a qualified exemption from mandatory deposit, which would mean that any work in this class is exempt until the Copyright Office issues a demand for its deposit. This revised exemption would apply to all published electronic works available only online. It would apply to serials, monographs, sound recordings, automated databases, and all other categories of electronic works. Furthermore, because the revised exemption would apply exclusively to published online-only works, there will be no need to retain the current list of machine-readable works in physical formats to which the exemption does not apply. It is important to emphasize, however, that the revised exemption would not apply to those works published in both physical and online formats. These works, because they are not published ``only''online, were never exempted from mandatory deposit."
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2009/07/copyright-office-proposes-rule-change-exempting-works-only-available-online-from-mandatory-deposit.html
"The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is proposing to amend its regulations governing mandatory deposit of electronic works published in the United States and available only online. The amendments would establish that such works are exempt from mandatory deposit until a demand for deposit of copies of such works is issued by the Copyright Office. From the notice of proposed rulemaking, 74 Fed. Reg. 34286 (July 15, 2009):
This notice proposes that the current section 202.19(c)(5) exemption be amended so that all electronic works published in the United States and available only online enjoy a qualified exemption from mandatory deposit, which would mean that any work in this class is exempt until the Copyright Office issues a demand for its deposit. This revised exemption would apply to all published electronic works available only online. It would apply to serials, monographs, sound recordings, automated databases, and all other categories of electronic works. Furthermore, because the revised exemption would apply exclusively to published online-only works, there will be no need to retain the current list of machine-readable works in physical formats to which the exemption does not apply. It is important to emphasize, however, that the revised exemption would not apply to those works published in both physical and online formats. These works, because they are not published ``only''online, were never exempted from mandatory deposit."
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2009/07/copyright-office-proposes-rule-change-exempting-works-only-available-online-from-mandatory-deposit.html
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
'U' teams with Amazon to make 400,000 rare books available; Michigan Daily, 7/21/09
AP via Michigan Daily; 'U' teams with Amazon to make 400,000 rare books available:
"The University of Michigan said Tuesday it is teaming up with Amazon.com Inc. to offer reprints of 400,000 rare, out-of-print and out-of-copyright books from its library. Seattle-based Amazon's BookSurge unit will print the books on demand in soft cover editions at prices from $10 to $45...
The books in the Michigan-Amazon deal do not have copyright protection and are in the public domain, so no royalty payments go to the author or original publisher...
"Public and university libraries are seeing the benefits of print-on-demand as an economic and environmentally conscious way to support their missions of preserving and making rare or out-of-copyright material broadly available to the public," [BookSurge spokeswoman Amanda] Wilson said.
University of Michigan libraries Dean Paul Courant said the arrangement means "books unavailable for a century or more will be able to go back into print, one copy at a time.""
http://www.michigandaily.com/content/2009-07-20/u-teams-amazon-make-400000-rare-books-available
"The University of Michigan said Tuesday it is teaming up with Amazon.com Inc. to offer reprints of 400,000 rare, out-of-print and out-of-copyright books from its library. Seattle-based Amazon's BookSurge unit will print the books on demand in soft cover editions at prices from $10 to $45...
The books in the Michigan-Amazon deal do not have copyright protection and are in the public domain, so no royalty payments go to the author or original publisher...
"Public and university libraries are seeing the benefits of print-on-demand as an economic and environmentally conscious way to support their missions of preserving and making rare or out-of-copyright material broadly available to the public," [BookSurge spokeswoman Amanda] Wilson said.
University of Michigan libraries Dean Paul Courant said the arrangement means "books unavailable for a century or more will be able to go back into print, one copy at a time.""
http://www.michigandaily.com/content/2009-07-20/u-teams-amazon-make-400000-rare-books-available
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
A Writer's Tale; Wall Street Journal, 7/20/09
L. Gordon Crovitz via Wall Street Journal; A Writer's Tale: Mark Helprin doesn't think his words ought to be free:
"Novelist Mark Helprin couldn't have made up what happened after an op-ed article he wrote for the New York Times in 2007 urging stronger protection for copyright. He thought this was a topic of interest only to publishing houses, authors and copyright lawyers. Instead, within a week there were 750,000 comments online criticizing him for wanting to extend authors' rights beyond the current 70 years, many of them opposing any copyright protection at all.
As Mr. Helprin read through many of the blog posts and other comments, he was taken aback to see that so many people opposed the centuries-old and constitutionally protected right of authors to the proceeds of their work. His newest book, "Digital Barbarism," is a sharp polemic on how the Internet makes information accessible but also creates a view among some of the digerati that what is easily accessed has little value and deserves little protection."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804423491263485.html
"Novelist Mark Helprin couldn't have made up what happened after an op-ed article he wrote for the New York Times in 2007 urging stronger protection for copyright. He thought this was a topic of interest only to publishing houses, authors and copyright lawyers. Instead, within a week there were 750,000 comments online criticizing him for wanting to extend authors' rights beyond the current 70 years, many of them opposing any copyright protection at all.
As Mr. Helprin read through many of the blog posts and other comments, he was taken aback to see that so many people opposed the centuries-old and constitutionally protected right of authors to the proceeds of their work. His newest book, "Digital Barbarism," is a sharp polemic on how the Internet makes information accessible but also creates a view among some of the digerati that what is easily accessed has little value and deserves little protection."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804423491263485.html
Jackson Browne, Republicans Settle Copyright Case; Billboard, 7/21/09
Gary Graff via Billboard; Jackson Browne, Republicans Settle Copyright Case:
"Jackson Browne is hopeful that the protection of music copyrights will be bolstered by the settlement of his lawsuit against U.S. Sen. John McCain and the Republican Party over unauthorized use of one of his songs in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign.
Last August Browne sued McCain, the Ohio Republican Party and the Republican National Committee for copyright infringement, false endorsement and violating his right of publicity after his 1977 hit "Running On Empty" was used without permission in a McCain campaign ad that aired on TV and the Internet."
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/jackson-browne-republicans-settle-copyright-1003995650.story
"Jackson Browne is hopeful that the protection of music copyrights will be bolstered by the settlement of his lawsuit against U.S. Sen. John McCain and the Republican Party over unauthorized use of one of his songs in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign.
Last August Browne sued McCain, the Ohio Republican Party and the Republican National Committee for copyright infringement, false endorsement and violating his right of publicity after his 1977 hit "Running On Empty" was used without permission in a McCain campaign ad that aired on TV and the Internet."
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/jackson-browne-republicans-settle-copyright-1003995650.story
Barnes & Noble Plans an Extensive E-Bookstore; New York Times, 7/21/09
Motoko Rich via New York Times; Barnes & Noble Plans an Extensive E-Bookstore:
"In an announcement on Monday, Barnes & Noble said that it would offer more than 700,000 books that could be read on a wide range of devices, including Apple’s iPhone, the BlackBerry and various laptop or desktop computers. When Barnes & Noble acquired Fictionwise in March, that online retailer had about 60,000 books in its catalog.
More than 500,000 of the books now offered electronically on BN.com can be downloaded free, through an agreement with Google to provide electronic versions of public domain books that Google has scanned from university libraries. Sony announced a similar deal in March to offer the public domain books on its Reader device.
Barnes & Noble is promoting its e-bookstore as the world’s largest, an implicit stab at Amazon.com, which offers about 330,000 for its Kindle device. Currently, Google’s public domain books cannot be read on a Kindle."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/technology/internet/21book.html?_r=1&hpw
"In an announcement on Monday, Barnes & Noble said that it would offer more than 700,000 books that could be read on a wide range of devices, including Apple’s iPhone, the BlackBerry and various laptop or desktop computers. When Barnes & Noble acquired Fictionwise in March, that online retailer had about 60,000 books in its catalog.
More than 500,000 of the books now offered electronically on BN.com can be downloaded free, through an agreement with Google to provide electronic versions of public domain books that Google has scanned from university libraries. Sony announced a similar deal in March to offer the public domain books on its Reader device.
Barnes & Noble is promoting its e-bookstore as the world’s largest, an implicit stab at Amazon.com, which offers about 330,000 for its Kindle device. Currently, Google’s public domain books cannot be read on a Kindle."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/technology/internet/21book.html?_r=1&hpw
Monday, July 20, 2009
Tenenbaum circus enters big top next week; what to expect; Ars Technica, 7/20/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Tenenbaum circus enters big top next week; what to expect: The second US trial of a file swapping defendant begins next Monday in Boston. Ars previews the arguments to be used by graduate student Joel Tenenbaum and by the recording industry:
"The second full trial of a US peer-to-peer file swapper begins next week. Sublimeguy14@KaZaA (aka Joel Tenenbaum, a Boston College grad student) will make his way through the marble corridors of Boston's federal courthouse next Monday to face a set of RIAA lawyers who are fresh from a $1.92 million victory in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case and eager to go 2-0 in such prosecutions.
But Tenenbaum has a secret weapon—Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, who will argue that the 816 songs in Tenenbaum's KaZaA share folder back in 2004 were simply a "fair use" of the recording industry's protected work."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/tenenbaum-circus-enters-big-top-next-week-what-to-expect.ars
"The second full trial of a US peer-to-peer file swapper begins next week. Sublimeguy14@KaZaA (aka Joel Tenenbaum, a Boston College grad student) will make his way through the marble corridors of Boston's federal courthouse next Monday to face a set of RIAA lawyers who are fresh from a $1.92 million victory in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case and eager to go 2-0 in such prosecutions.
But Tenenbaum has a secret weapon—Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, who will argue that the 816 songs in Tenenbaum's KaZaA share folder back in 2004 were simply a "fair use" of the recording industry's protected work."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/tenenbaum-circus-enters-big-top-next-week-what-to-expect.ars
Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos; New York Times, 7/20/09
Noam Cohen via New York Times; Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos:
"At a time when celebrities typically employ a team of professionals to control their images, Wikipedia is a place where chaos rules. Few high-quality photographs, particularly of celebrities, make it onto this site. This is because the site runs only pictures with the most permissive Creative Commons license, which allows anyone to use an image, for commercial purposes or not, as long as the photographer is credited...
Last winter the German Federal Archives released 100,000 low-resolution digital copies under a license so they could appear on Wikipedia. Recently a Wikipedia user, Derrick Coetzee, downloaded more than 3,000 high-resolution photographs from the British National Portrait Gallery — to serve, in essence, as the head shots for important historical figures like Charlotte Brontë or Charles Darwin.
The gallery threatened legal action against Mr. Coetzee, saying that while the painted portraits may be old and thus beyond copyright protection, the photographs are new and therefore copyrighted work. The gallery is demanding a response by Monday from Mr. Coetzee, who is being represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In an e-mail message on Friday a gallery spokeswoman, Eleanor Macnair, wrote that “contact has now been made” with the Wikimedia Foundation and “we remain hopeful that a dialogue will be possible.”
But none of this has made much of an improvement in Wikipedia’s photography. Any gallery of hideous Wikipedia photographs would include the former N.B.A. star George Gervin, who is standing stiffly in a suit in a shot that is cropped longer and thinner than would be typical even for a basketball player. The unrestricted photograph came from the office of Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who has been cut out of it.
As in Mr. Gervin’s case, the government is a prime source for public domain photographs...
“To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,” Mr. Avenaim said. “If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=wikipedia&st=cse
"At a time when celebrities typically employ a team of professionals to control their images, Wikipedia is a place where chaos rules. Few high-quality photographs, particularly of celebrities, make it onto this site. This is because the site runs only pictures with the most permissive Creative Commons license, which allows anyone to use an image, for commercial purposes or not, as long as the photographer is credited...
Last winter the German Federal Archives released 100,000 low-resolution digital copies under a license so they could appear on Wikipedia. Recently a Wikipedia user, Derrick Coetzee, downloaded more than 3,000 high-resolution photographs from the British National Portrait Gallery — to serve, in essence, as the head shots for important historical figures like Charlotte Brontë or Charles Darwin.
The gallery threatened legal action against Mr. Coetzee, saying that while the painted portraits may be old and thus beyond copyright protection, the photographs are new and therefore copyrighted work. The gallery is demanding a response by Monday from Mr. Coetzee, who is being represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In an e-mail message on Friday a gallery spokeswoman, Eleanor Macnair, wrote that “contact has now been made” with the Wikimedia Foundation and “we remain hopeful that a dialogue will be possible.”
But none of this has made much of an improvement in Wikipedia’s photography. Any gallery of hideous Wikipedia photographs would include the former N.B.A. star George Gervin, who is standing stiffly in a suit in a shot that is cropped longer and thinner than would be typical even for a basketball player. The unrestricted photograph came from the office of Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who has been cut out of it.
As in Mr. Gervin’s case, the government is a prime source for public domain photographs...
“To me the problem is the Wikipedia rule of public use,” Mr. Avenaim said. “If they truly wanted to elevate the image on the site, they should allow photographers to maintain the copyright.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=wikipedia&st=cse
Canada set to try again on new copyright law; Washington Post, 7/
Randall Palmer via Washington Post; Canada set to try again on new copyright law:
"The U.S. Trade Representative fingered Canada in April, putting it on its priority watch list because of growing concerns about what it sees as weak protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.
There is always a struggle between pleasing copyright holders and users, a balance that tries to recognize the modern reality of an increasingly tech-savvy population while not eliminating ownership rights protection for companies and artists."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/17/AR2009071702693.html
"The U.S. Trade Representative fingered Canada in April, putting it on its priority watch list because of growing concerns about what it sees as weak protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.
There is always a struggle between pleasing copyright holders and users, a balance that tries to recognize the modern reality of an increasingly tech-savvy population while not eliminating ownership rights protection for companies and artists."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/17/AR2009071702693.html
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Net pirates face three-strikes rule; Sydney Morning Herald, 7/16/09
Ashe Moses via Sydney Morning Herald; Net pirates face three-strikes rule:
"People who are caught repeatedly downloading movies, music and TV shows illegally would have their internet disconnected under legislative changes being considered by the [Australian]Federal Government.
The movie and music industries have been pushing ISPs to implement this "three-strikes" scheme voluntarily for years but talks have stalled...
The three-strikes scheme has been proposed in both France and New Zealand, but both countries dropped the proposal after a public backlash.
This week both France and New Zealand reintroduced new, modified three-strikes proposals with enhanced judicial oversight.
Britain is also reportedly considering three-strikes legislation, and the British Government outlined a goal of reducing unlawful file sharing by 70-80 per cent by 2011 in its Digital Britain report, released last month."
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/net-pirates-face-threestrikes-rule-20090716-dm9s.html?page=1
"People who are caught repeatedly downloading movies, music and TV shows illegally would have their internet disconnected under legislative changes being considered by the [Australian]Federal Government.
The movie and music industries have been pushing ISPs to implement this "three-strikes" scheme voluntarily for years but talks have stalled...
The three-strikes scheme has been proposed in both France and New Zealand, but both countries dropped the proposal after a public backlash.
This week both France and New Zealand reintroduced new, modified three-strikes proposals with enhanced judicial oversight.
Britain is also reportedly considering three-strikes legislation, and the British Government outlined a goal of reducing unlawful file sharing by 70-80 per cent by 2011 in its Digital Britain report, released last month."
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/net-pirates-face-threestrikes-rule-20090716-dm9s.html?page=1
That pesky checklist; Scholarly Communications @ Duke Blog, 7/19/09
Kevin Smith via Scholarly Communications @ Duke Blog; That pesky checklist:
"The recent flurry of activity in the copyright infringement lawsuit brought by publishers against Georgia State University has focused attention – mine, at least – on the “Fair Use Checklist” that has been adopted for use in quite a number of college and university copyright policies."
http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2009/07/19/that-pesky-checklist/
"The recent flurry of activity in the copyright infringement lawsuit brought by publishers against Georgia State University has focused attention – mine, at least – on the “Fair Use Checklist” that has been adopted for use in quite a number of college and university copyright policies."
http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2009/07/19/that-pesky-checklist/
Future of Newspapers: Profitless? Go Wireless; Wired's Duel Perspectives Blog, 7/14/09
Douglas Wolk via Wired's Duel Perspectives Blog; Future of Newspapers: Profitless? Go Wireless:
"The Wall Street Journal's publisher Les Hinton has called Google a "digital vampire," but even his paper, one of the last holdouts of subscription-based online content, has made its articles' full text accessible via Google searches. Using free content as bait for paying customers doesn't work for newspapers. And the revenue from internet advertising is less a stream than a dribble — nowhere near enough to support a robust paper (or paperless paper) on its own.
Still, there's a crucial distinction that might yet save news organizations. Users are pretty clearly uninterested in paying for content on the open internet, but what they are, in practice, willing to pay for is mobile content...
One possible future of news as a commodity is hyperlocal information — the sort of thing that's already becoming popularized by services like Yelp, whose incarnation as an iPhone app offers directions to nearby restaurants and services, complete with with user reviews."
http://www.wired.com/dualperspectives/article/news/2009/07/dp_newspaper_wired0714
"The Wall Street Journal's publisher Les Hinton has called Google a "digital vampire," but even his paper, one of the last holdouts of subscription-based online content, has made its articles' full text accessible via Google searches. Using free content as bait for paying customers doesn't work for newspapers. And the revenue from internet advertising is less a stream than a dribble — nowhere near enough to support a robust paper (or paperless paper) on its own.
Still, there's a crucial distinction that might yet save news organizations. Users are pretty clearly uninterested in paying for content on the open internet, but what they are, in practice, willing to pay for is mobile content...
One possible future of news as a commodity is hyperlocal information — the sort of thing that's already becoming popularized by services like Yelp, whose incarnation as an iPhone app offers directions to nearby restaurants and services, complete with with user reviews."
http://www.wired.com/dualperspectives/article/news/2009/07/dp_newspaper_wired0714
Music Industry Lures ‘Casual’ Pirates to Legal Sites; New York Times, 7/19/09
Eric Pfanner via New York Times; Music Industry Lures ‘Casual’ Pirates to Legal Sites:
"Record company executives say there are three kinds of music fans. There are those who buy music, and those who get a kick out of never paying for it. And then there are those whom Rob Wells at Universal Music Group calls “dinner party pirates”: the vast majority of listeners, those who copy music illegally because it is more convenient than buying it.
If those low-level copyright cheats could be converted to using legal music services, the digital music business would get much-needed help. Yet even industry executives acknowledge that until recently, they were not giving those listeners many ways to do what they wanted: to sample new music and to play it back anytime, at little or no cost."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/technology/internet/20stream.html?_r=1&hpw
"Record company executives say there are three kinds of music fans. There are those who buy music, and those who get a kick out of never paying for it. And then there are those whom Rob Wells at Universal Music Group calls “dinner party pirates”: the vast majority of listeners, those who copy music illegally because it is more convenient than buying it.
If those low-level copyright cheats could be converted to using legal music services, the digital music business would get much-needed help. Yet even industry executives acknowledge that until recently, they were not giving those listeners many ways to do what they wanted: to sample new music and to play it back anytime, at little or no cost."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/technology/internet/20stream.html?_r=1&hpw
Were we smarter 100 years ago..?; James Boyle's Public Domain Blog, 7/17/09
James Boyle's Public Domain Blog; Were we smarter 100 years ago..?:
"I have been rereading the legislative history of the 1909 Copyright Act. I have come to the conclusion that 100 years ago we were smarter about copyright, about disruptive technologies, about intellectual property, monopolies and network effects than we are today. At least, the legislative hearings were much smarter. The hearings I am looking at took place in 1906 — thanks to the wonder of Google books you can read them yourself, if you are really nerdy."
http://www.thepublicdomain.org/2009/07/17/were-we-smarter-100-years-ago/
"I have been rereading the legislative history of the 1909 Copyright Act. I have come to the conclusion that 100 years ago we were smarter about copyright, about disruptive technologies, about intellectual property, monopolies and network effects than we are today. At least, the legislative hearings were much smarter. The hearings I am looking at took place in 1906 — thanks to the wonder of Google books you can read them yourself, if you are really nerdy."
http://www.thepublicdomain.org/2009/07/17/were-we-smarter-100-years-ago/
Stamps, Sculpture and Free Expression; Stanford Center for Internet and Society, 7/15/09
Anthony Falzone via Stanford Center for Internet and Society; Stamps, Sculpture and Free Expression:
"We filed an amicus brief today in Gaylord v. U.S., a potentially important but little-noticed fair use case on appeal in the Federal Circuit. We filed it on behalf of the Andy Warhol Foundation, and several other amici, including the Warhol Museum, contemporary artists Barbara Kruger, Thomas Lawson, Jonathan Monk, and Allen Ruppersberg, and a variety of law professors who care about the extent to which copyright promotes and protects free expression.
One of the important questions the case presents is whether this stamp makes fair use of the statue that appears in it. The image you see is a photograph of a sculpture taken at dawn in a snowstorm. The sculpture itself is called The Column, and is part of the Korean War Veterans' Memorial in Washington DC. It features nineteen larger-than-life soldiers arranged in two columns, representing a platoon of soldiers on patrol in the Korean War. The Postal Service got permission to use the photograph that appears on the stamp, but not the column depicted in it, so the sculptor sued the Postal Service for infringing his copyrights in the sculpture.
One of the important questions this case presents is whether and to what extent an artists has the right to use existing imagery to create new artistic expression. We think fair use does and should protect this right, which is crucial to huge amounts of expression, including vast amounts of modern art. We submitted an amicus brief because we thought the Federal Circuit should hear the views of those who create, promote and defend that art."
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6223
"We filed an amicus brief today in Gaylord v. U.S., a potentially important but little-noticed fair use case on appeal in the Federal Circuit. We filed it on behalf of the Andy Warhol Foundation, and several other amici, including the Warhol Museum, contemporary artists Barbara Kruger, Thomas Lawson, Jonathan Monk, and Allen Ruppersberg, and a variety of law professors who care about the extent to which copyright promotes and protects free expression.
One of the important questions the case presents is whether this stamp makes fair use of the statue that appears in it. The image you see is a photograph of a sculpture taken at dawn in a snowstorm. The sculpture itself is called The Column, and is part of the Korean War Veterans' Memorial in Washington DC. It features nineteen larger-than-life soldiers arranged in two columns, representing a platoon of soldiers on patrol in the Korean War. The Postal Service got permission to use the photograph that appears on the stamp, but not the column depicted in it, so the sculptor sued the Postal Service for infringing his copyrights in the sculpture.
One of the important questions this case presents is whether and to what extent an artists has the right to use existing imagery to create new artistic expression. We think fair use does and should protect this right, which is crucial to huge amounts of expression, including vast amounts of modern art. We submitted an amicus brief because we thought the Federal Circuit should hear the views of those who create, promote and defend that art."
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6223
Amazon Kindle users surprised by 'Big Brother' move; Guardian, 7/17/09
Bobbie Johnson via Guardian; Amazon Kindle users surprised by 'Big Brother' move:
"It is not the first time that Amazon has removed titles that were produced in breach of copyright and sold illegally through its store. Examples include pirated copies of Twilight books by Stephanie Meyer, Harry Potter books and the works of novelist Ayn Rand.
Although the work of Orwell - who died in 1950 - has entered the public domain in some countries, it is not yet free of copyright restrictions in the United States or Europe.
Although Amazon is believed to be in negotiations with a number of European mobile manufacturers to support the Kindle, the device has only gone in sale in the US. This means that any copy produced for it would need to have been officially licensed by the Orwell Estate - which has been careful to protect its rights in the past."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/17/amazon-kindle-1984
"It is not the first time that Amazon has removed titles that were produced in breach of copyright and sold illegally through its store. Examples include pirated copies of Twilight books by Stephanie Meyer, Harry Potter books and the works of novelist Ayn Rand.
Although the work of Orwell - who died in 1950 - has entered the public domain in some countries, it is not yet free of copyright restrictions in the United States or Europe.
Although Amazon is believed to be in negotiations with a number of European mobile manufacturers to support the Kindle, the device has only gone in sale in the US. This means that any copy produced for it would need to have been officially licensed by the Orwell Estate - which has been careful to protect its rights in the past."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jul/17/amazon-kindle-1984
How not to defend newspapers; Guardian, 7/15/09
Dan Kennedy via Guardian; How not to defend newspapers:
"How badly did the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Ted Diadiun screw up in his now-infamous video in which he disparaged bloggers as "pipsqueaks", wrongly claimed that blogs steal content and hailed newspapers as the only legitimate source of journalism?...
Diadiun is the Plain Dealer's "reader representative", a position roughly analogous to those held by New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt and Washington Post ombudsman Andy Alexander. That is, he is the paper's in-house critic, fielding complaints and comments from readers...
Diadiun's downfall began with a colleague's bad idea. On 5 July, he wrote approvingly of a column by Connie Schultz in which she promoted a proposal to change the copyright law. The proposal – similar to one advanced by federal appeals-court judge Richard Posner – would ban bloggers and aggregators from linking to copyrighted content without permission for 24 hours after publication...
He did stick to his guns on the need for news organisations to get paid for their content. On that many of us would agree – though the copyright revision of which he and Schultz are so enamoured is stunningly awful, and possibly a violation of the first amendment."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/15/ted-diadiun-plain-dealer-bloggers
"How badly did the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Ted Diadiun screw up in his now-infamous video in which he disparaged bloggers as "pipsqueaks", wrongly claimed that blogs steal content and hailed newspapers as the only legitimate source of journalism?...
Diadiun is the Plain Dealer's "reader representative", a position roughly analogous to those held by New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt and Washington Post ombudsman Andy Alexander. That is, he is the paper's in-house critic, fielding complaints and comments from readers...
Diadiun's downfall began with a colleague's bad idea. On 5 July, he wrote approvingly of a column by Connie Schultz in which she promoted a proposal to change the copyright law. The proposal – similar to one advanced by federal appeals-court judge Richard Posner – would ban bloggers and aggregators from linking to copyrighted content without permission for 24 hours after publication...
He did stick to his guns on the need for news organisations to get paid for their content. On that many of us would agree – though the copyright revision of which he and Schultz are so enamoured is stunningly awful, and possibly a violation of the first amendment."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/15/ted-diadiun-plain-dealer-bloggers
Indonesian Artists Refuse Copyright As Being Against Their Religious Beliefs; Tech Dirt, 7/17/09
Mike Masnick via Tech Dirt; Indonesian Artists Refuse Copyright As Being Against Their Religious Beliefs:
"Boing Boing points us to a story about how some batik-makers in Java, Indonesia are resisting attempts by the gov't to have them copyright their designs. The local government is warning the designers that without copyrighting, the designs others could copy them and claim them as their own, but the designers have a religious objection to the idea:
"They believe that each time they create something, it is not they who worked, but it is God who worked through their human body and soul," Gunawan said. "Being grateful [to God] is sufficient for them."
What's funny, then, is to see the politicians fret about this, worrying how people in Malaysia might copyright the design first and "there is little that we can do." Except... if the designers don't care, what needs to be done? If someone else profits from it, so what? How does that harm the original designer?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/0142075579.shtml
"Boing Boing points us to a story about how some batik-makers in Java, Indonesia are resisting attempts by the gov't to have them copyright their designs. The local government is warning the designers that without copyrighting, the designs others could copy them and claim them as their own, but the designers have a religious objection to the idea:
"They believe that each time they create something, it is not they who worked, but it is God who worked through their human body and soul," Gunawan said. "Being grateful [to God] is sufficient for them."
What's funny, then, is to see the politicians fret about this, worrying how people in Malaysia might copyright the design first and "there is little that we can do." Except... if the designers don't care, what needs to be done? If someone else profits from it, so what? How does that harm the original designer?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/0142075579.shtml
‘Drop Internet Issues From ACTA, Add Public Interest’; Intellectual Property Watch, 7/17/09
Intellectual Property Watch; ‘Drop Internet Issues From ACTA, Add Public Interest’:
"Nine organisations representing the technology industry, libraries, digital rights and privacy interests have sent a letter to United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk urging that issues related to the internet be dropped from negotiations for an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). They also demanded that in the secretive ACTA negotiation, negotiating documents be made available to those representing the public interest, and that advisory committees be created to include civil society and internet-related industry interests.
The demands are based on information that rights holders alone have had access to the negotiating texts, and the fact that leaked versions of the draft treaty text showed ACTA “could harm a significant portion of the economy as well as consumer interests.” USTR officials, who have claimed the talks are transparent, are at an undisclosed location in Morocco on 16-17 July for the latest round of closed-door negotiations of the plurilateral treaty.
The 14 July letter is available here [pdf]."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/07/17/%e2%80%98drop-internet-issues-from-acta-add-public-interest%e2%80%99/
"Nine organisations representing the technology industry, libraries, digital rights and privacy interests have sent a letter to United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk urging that issues related to the internet be dropped from negotiations for an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). They also demanded that in the secretive ACTA negotiation, negotiating documents be made available to those representing the public interest, and that advisory committees be created to include civil society and internet-related industry interests.
The demands are based on information that rights holders alone have had access to the negotiating texts, and the fact that leaked versions of the draft treaty text showed ACTA “could harm a significant portion of the economy as well as consumer interests.” USTR officials, who have claimed the talks are transparent, are at an undisclosed location in Morocco on 16-17 July for the latest round of closed-door negotiations of the plurilateral treaty.
The 14 July letter is available here [pdf]."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/07/17/%e2%80%98drop-internet-issues-from-acta-add-public-interest%e2%80%99/
Why Amazon went Big Brother on some Kindle e-books; Ars Technica, 7/17/09
Ken Fisher via Ars Technica; Why Amazon went Big Brother on some Kindle e-books:
"As it turns out, the books in question were being sold by Amazon despite being unauthorized copies. The works weren't legit. It was all copywrong. In other words, Amazon was selling bad books. Hot letters. Pilfered paragraphs.
MobileReference, the publisher in question, formats and sells public domain books on Amazon. The only problem is that George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 are not yet in the public domain, at least not in the US. According to Amazon's statement to Ars Technica, "These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books." When the publisher informed Amazon of this, Amazon moved to rectify the situation. The two books are no longer listed on MobleReference's website, either.
But does Amazon's Terms of Service even allow for this kind of “rectification”? Peter Kafka examined the ToS and believes that there is no backing for this move. The ToS makes it sound as if all sales are final:
Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.
One possible loophole would be in the licensing: Amazon cannot license to you something for which it has no rights to license. Also, we suspect that some indemnification clauses in the third party contracts also put the publisher, not Amazon, on the hook for possible infringement problems."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/amazon-sold-pirated-books-raided-some-kindles.ars
"As it turns out, the books in question were being sold by Amazon despite being unauthorized copies. The works weren't legit. It was all copywrong. In other words, Amazon was selling bad books. Hot letters. Pilfered paragraphs.
MobileReference, the publisher in question, formats and sells public domain books on Amazon. The only problem is that George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 are not yet in the public domain, at least not in the US. According to Amazon's statement to Ars Technica, "These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books." When the publisher informed Amazon of this, Amazon moved to rectify the situation. The two books are no longer listed on MobleReference's website, either.
But does Amazon's Terms of Service even allow for this kind of “rectification”? Peter Kafka examined the ToS and believes that there is no backing for this move. The ToS makes it sound as if all sales are final:
Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.
One possible loophole would be in the licensing: Amazon cannot license to you something for which it has no rights to license. Also, we suspect that some indemnification clauses in the third party contracts also put the publisher, not Amazon, on the hook for possible infringement problems."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/amazon-sold-pirated-books-raided-some-kindles.ars
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle; New York Times, 7/17/09
Brad Stone via New York Times; Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle:
"Amazon’s published terms of service agreement for the Kindle does not appear to give the company the right to delete purchases after they have been made. It says Amazon grants customers the right to keep a “permanent copy of the applicable digital content.”
Retailers of physical goods cannot, of course, force their way into a customer’s home to take back a purchase, no matter how bootlegged it turns out to be. Yet Amazon appears to maintain a unique tether to the digital content it sells for the Kindle.
“It illustrates how few rights you have when you buy an e-book from Amazon,” said Bruce Schneier, chief security technology officer for British Telecom and an expert on computer security and commerce. “As a Kindle owner, I’m frustrated. I can’t lend people books and I can’t sell books that I’ve already read, and now it turns out that I can’t even count on still having my books tomorrow.”
Justin Gawronski, a 17-year-old from the Detroit area, was reading “1984” on his Kindle for a summer assignment and lost all his notes and annotations when the file vanished. “They didn’t just take a book back, they stole my work,” he said.
On the Internet, of course, there is no such thing as a memory hole. While the copyright on “1984” will not expire until 2044 in the United States, it has already expired in other countries, including Canada, Australia and Russia. Web sites in those countries offer digital copies of the book free to all comers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=1
"Amazon’s published terms of service agreement for the Kindle does not appear to give the company the right to delete purchases after they have been made. It says Amazon grants customers the right to keep a “permanent copy of the applicable digital content.”
Retailers of physical goods cannot, of course, force their way into a customer’s home to take back a purchase, no matter how bootlegged it turns out to be. Yet Amazon appears to maintain a unique tether to the digital content it sells for the Kindle.
“It illustrates how few rights you have when you buy an e-book from Amazon,” said Bruce Schneier, chief security technology officer for British Telecom and an expert on computer security and commerce. “As a Kindle owner, I’m frustrated. I can’t lend people books and I can’t sell books that I’ve already read, and now it turns out that I can’t even count on still having my books tomorrow.”
Justin Gawronski, a 17-year-old from the Detroit area, was reading “1984” on his Kindle for a summer assignment and lost all his notes and annotations when the file vanished. “They didn’t just take a book back, they stole my work,” he said.
On the Internet, of course, there is no such thing as a memory hole. While the copyright on “1984” will not expire until 2044 in the United States, it has already expired in other countries, including Canada, Australia and Russia. Web sites in those countries offer digital copies of the book free to all comers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=1
Some E-Books Are More Equal Than Others; New York Times, 7/17/09
Pogue's Posts via New York Times; Some E-Books Are More Equal Than Others:
"This morning, hundreds of Amazon Kindle owners awoke to discover that books by a certain famous author had mysteriously disappeared from their e-book readers. These were books that they had bought and paid for—thought they owned.
But no, apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic edition, and apparently Amazon, whose business lives and dies by publisher happiness, caved. It electronically deleted all books by this author from people’s Kindles and credited their accounts for the price.
This is ugly for all kinds of reasons. Amazon says that this sort of thing is “rare,” but that it can happen at all is unsettling; we’ve been taught to believe that e-books are, you know, just like books, only better. Already, we’ve learned that they’re not really like books, in that once we’re finished reading them, we can’t resell or even donate them. But now we learn that all sales may not even be final.
As one of my readers noted, it’s like Barnes & Noble sneaking into our homes in the middle of the night, taking some books that we’ve been reading off our nightstands, and leaving us a check on the coffee table.
You want to know the best part? The juicy, plump, dripping irony?
The author who was the victim of this Big Brotherish plot was none other than George Orwell. And the books were “1984” and “Animal Farm.
Scary."
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/some-e-books-are-more-equal-than-others/
"This morning, hundreds of Amazon Kindle owners awoke to discover that books by a certain famous author had mysteriously disappeared from their e-book readers. These were books that they had bought and paid for—thought they owned.
But no, apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic edition, and apparently Amazon, whose business lives and dies by publisher happiness, caved. It electronically deleted all books by this author from people’s Kindles and credited their accounts for the price.
This is ugly for all kinds of reasons. Amazon says that this sort of thing is “rare,” but that it can happen at all is unsettling; we’ve been taught to believe that e-books are, you know, just like books, only better. Already, we’ve learned that they’re not really like books, in that once we’re finished reading them, we can’t resell or even donate them. But now we learn that all sales may not even be final.
As one of my readers noted, it’s like Barnes & Noble sneaking into our homes in the middle of the night, taking some books that we’ve been reading off our nightstands, and leaving us a check on the coffee table.
You want to know the best part? The juicy, plump, dripping irony?
The author who was the victim of this Big Brotherish plot was none other than George Orwell. And the books were “1984” and “Animal Farm.
Scary."
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/some-e-books-are-more-equal-than-others/
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Podcast: NPR's Fresh Air; The New Price Point? 'Free'; 7/8/09
Podcast [30 min. 49 sec.] NPR's Fresh Air; The New Price Point? 'Free':
"Journalist Chris Anderson believes that businesses can profit by giving their material away on the Internet. His new book Free: The Future of a Radical Price explains how "free" can become a marketing technique, helping businesses gain credibility in an economy that increasingly values reputation.
The editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, Anderson is the author of The Long Tail. Previously, he was U.S. business editor at The Economist."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106347439
"Journalist Chris Anderson believes that businesses can profit by giving their material away on the Internet. His new book Free: The Future of a Radical Price explains how "free" can become a marketing technique, helping businesses gain credibility in an economy that increasingly values reputation.
The editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, Anderson is the author of The Long Tail. Previously, he was U.S. business editor at The Economist."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106347439
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Special Report: Swedish Author’s Take On The Catcher In The Rye Copyright Case; Intellectual Property Watch, 7/10/09
Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen via Intellectual Property Watch; Special Report: Swedish Author’s Take On The Catcher In The Rye Copyright Case:
"Windupbird Publishing owned by Swedish author Fredrik Colting, alias John David California, promises that its books will “tickle your feet and yank your soul.” But American author J.D. Salinger is not amused and has indeed been wound up by Colting’s latest book, which he says is infringing on the copyright of his best-seller, “Catcher in the Rye.” A New York court recently sided with Salinger, but Intellectual Property Watch talked to Colting about why the battle is bound to go on.
Colting said he wants to appeal the New York ruling this week. “I believe we will win,” he said. The appeal will go to the Circuit Court of Appeal, in which there will be three judges, he said. The case is expected to come up in September."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/07/10/special-report-swedish-authors-take-on-the-catcher-in-the-rye-copyright-court-case/
"Windupbird Publishing owned by Swedish author Fredrik Colting, alias John David California, promises that its books will “tickle your feet and yank your soul.” But American author J.D. Salinger is not amused and has indeed been wound up by Colting’s latest book, which he says is infringing on the copyright of his best-seller, “Catcher in the Rye.” A New York court recently sided with Salinger, but Intellectual Property Watch talked to Colting about why the battle is bound to go on.
Colting said he wants to appeal the New York ruling this week. “I believe we will win,” he said. The appeal will go to the Circuit Court of Appeal, in which there will be three judges, he said. The case is expected to come up in September."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/07/10/special-report-swedish-authors-take-on-the-catcher-in-the-rye-copyright-court-case/
Obama Poster Photographer Says He Owns the Picture; New York Times, 7/15/09
Randy Kennedy via New York Times; Obama Poster Photographer Says He Owns the Picture:
"A freelance photographer who took the picture of Barack Obama that became the basis for Shepard Fairey’s well-known “Hope” poster has filed court papers arguing that The Associated Press, for whom he was working temporarily at the time, does not own the copyright to the picture.
The photographer, Mannie Garcia, said that he worked for The Associated Press for five weeks in the spring of 2006, when he took the picture of Mr. Obama listening intently at an event concerning Darfur at the National Press Club in Washington. Mr. Garcia contends in his papers, filed July 8 in federal court in Manhattan, that he received no benefits or vacation from The Associated Press during his time working for the news service and “never agreed to assign his copyright rights” to any photographs he took, so that he owns them and should benefit from any profits made from them.
Mr. Fairey and The Associated Press have been locked in a court battle for several months over the Obama image. The Associated Press contends that it owns the copyright to the picture and that Mr. Fairey misappropriated it. Mr. Fairey is seeking a declaratory judgment that his borrowing is protected under fair-use exceptions to copyright law, which allow limited use of protected materials for purposes like criticism or comment.
George F. Carpinello, Mr. Garcia’s lawyer, said that his client is saying “neither one of you should win this case - I should win this case.” A spokesman for The Associated Press said that it is “evaluating Mannie Garcia’s position, but remains confident in AP’s ownership of the copyright because Mr. Garcia was an employee of AP when he took the photo in 2006.”"
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/obama-poster-photographer-says-he-owns-the-picture/?scp=1&sq=garcia%20obama%20hope%20fairey&st=cse
"A freelance photographer who took the picture of Barack Obama that became the basis for Shepard Fairey’s well-known “Hope” poster has filed court papers arguing that The Associated Press, for whom he was working temporarily at the time, does not own the copyright to the picture.
The photographer, Mannie Garcia, said that he worked for The Associated Press for five weeks in the spring of 2006, when he took the picture of Mr. Obama listening intently at an event concerning Darfur at the National Press Club in Washington. Mr. Garcia contends in his papers, filed July 8 in federal court in Manhattan, that he received no benefits or vacation from The Associated Press during his time working for the news service and “never agreed to assign his copyright rights” to any photographs he took, so that he owns them and should benefit from any profits made from them.
Mr. Fairey and The Associated Press have been locked in a court battle for several months over the Obama image. The Associated Press contends that it owns the copyright to the picture and that Mr. Fairey misappropriated it. Mr. Fairey is seeking a declaratory judgment that his borrowing is protected under fair-use exceptions to copyright law, which allow limited use of protected materials for purposes like criticism or comment.
George F. Carpinello, Mr. Garcia’s lawyer, said that his client is saying “neither one of you should win this case - I should win this case.” A spokesman for The Associated Press said that it is “evaluating Mannie Garcia’s position, but remains confident in AP’s ownership of the copyright because Mr. Garcia was an employee of AP when he took the photo in 2006.”"
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/obama-poster-photographer-says-he-owns-the-picture/?scp=1&sq=garcia%20obama%20hope%20fairey&st=cse
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Google Image Search Plays Nice with Creative Commons for Bloggers; eWeek.com, 7/10/09
Clint Boulton via eWeek.com; Google Image Search Plays Nice with Creative Commons for Bloggers:
"Google adds a usage rights tool in its Image Search to help users find images protected by Creative Commons and other fair use licenses. The move should help the search engine giant fortify its position as a company that respects copyright holders as it seeks to fend off a Justice Department inquiry over its Google Book Search deal...
Naturally, the Creative Commons representatives were thrilled with Google's new Image Search tool. Every time a technology provider implements technology that helps uphold Creative Commons licenses, it lends greater validity to the cause to foster fair use.
"This is a huge step forward for the future of image search on the Web, so congratulations to the Google team on another great CC implementation!" Creative Commons rep Fred Benenson wrote in a blog.
The move is a huge step for Google, which has not always endeared itself to copyright holders in the past and may soon have to defend itself against a formal inquiry by the U.S. Justice Department over Google Book Search, its sweeping plan to digitize the world's books and make them accessible to users and libraries over the Internet for fees."
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Google-Image-Search-Plays-Nice-With-Creative-Commons-For-Bloggers-564223/
"Google adds a usage rights tool in its Image Search to help users find images protected by Creative Commons and other fair use licenses. The move should help the search engine giant fortify its position as a company that respects copyright holders as it seeks to fend off a Justice Department inquiry over its Google Book Search deal...
Naturally, the Creative Commons representatives were thrilled with Google's new Image Search tool. Every time a technology provider implements technology that helps uphold Creative Commons licenses, it lends greater validity to the cause to foster fair use.
"This is a huge step forward for the future of image search on the Web, so congratulations to the Google team on another great CC implementation!" Creative Commons rep Fred Benenson wrote in a blog.
The move is a huge step for Google, which has not always endeared itself to copyright holders in the past and may soon have to defend itself against a formal inquiry by the U.S. Justice Department over Google Book Search, its sweeping plan to digitize the world's books and make them accessible to users and libraries over the Internet for fees."
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Google-Image-Search-Plays-Nice-With-Creative-Commons-For-Bloggers-564223/
Thursday, July 9, 2009
European Publishers Call on E.U. to Protect Copyright; New York Times, 7/9/09
Eric Pfanner via New York Times; European Publishers Call on E.U. to Protect Copyright:
"Leading European newspaper and magazine publishers on Thursday called on the European Commission to strengthen copyright protection as a way to lay the groundwork for new ways to generate revenue online.
The publishers said widespread use of their work by online news aggregators and other Web sites was undermining their efforts to develop an online business models at a time when readers and advertisers are defecting from newspapers and magazines.
“Numerous providers are using the work of authors, publishers and broadcasters without paying for it,” the publishers said in a letter to Viviane Reding, the European media and telecommunications commissioner. “Over the long term, this threatens the production of high-quality content and the existence of independent journalism.”
The petition echoes other recent calls from publishers for greater copyright protection as they try to move beyond a business models based largely on advertising and try to generate more revenue from users. Only a handful of newspapers or magazines, including The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times, have had success charging readers to use their sites.
The initiative grew out of a campaign in Germany, led by Axel Springer, which publishes the tabloid Bild, to strengthen copyright law in that country. German publishers want to create a so-called neighboring right for publishers, similar to protections that already exist for music publishers and other content owners.
The right would give publishers greater control over secondary use of their work that generates revenue.
Publishers have not said publicly what they would do with such a right, but executives say one possibility would be to try to get business users to pay for access to online content. Under such a practice, businesses would have to pay for special licenses; fees would be collected by a new organization modeled on the “societies” that gather royalties on behalf of musical copyright owners. Private individuals would be allowed access to news sites without such a license.
The letter presented Thursday to Ms. Reding also stopped short of specific proposals. Instead, publishers want stricter enforcement of existing legislation, said Heidi Lambert, a spokeswoman for the European Publishers Council, a trade group that has endorsed the petition.
European publishers have been leading an effort to get Google and other Internet companies to adopt a new technology that manages the relationship between online publishers and search engines. The system, called the Automated Content Access Protocol, would allow publishers to set the terms of search engines’ and aggregators’ use of their content.
Publishers say the system, championed by the publishers’ council and the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers, would make it easier to create profitable Web sites. Critics say, however, that it would create unnecessary new hurdles for users.
Google did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Martin Selmayr, a spokesman for Ms. Reding, said she had not yet reviewed the document and could not comment on it. But he referred to a speech she gave Thursday in Brussels, in which she said that a top priority for developing the digital economy in Europe was the creation of “a simple, consumer-friendly legal framework for accessing digital content in Europe’s single market, while ensuring at the same time fair remuneration of creators.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/technology/internet/10copyright.html?_r=1&hpw
"Leading European newspaper and magazine publishers on Thursday called on the European Commission to strengthen copyright protection as a way to lay the groundwork for new ways to generate revenue online.
The publishers said widespread use of their work by online news aggregators and other Web sites was undermining their efforts to develop an online business models at a time when readers and advertisers are defecting from newspapers and magazines.
“Numerous providers are using the work of authors, publishers and broadcasters without paying for it,” the publishers said in a letter to Viviane Reding, the European media and telecommunications commissioner. “Over the long term, this threatens the production of high-quality content and the existence of independent journalism.”
The petition echoes other recent calls from publishers for greater copyright protection as they try to move beyond a business models based largely on advertising and try to generate more revenue from users. Only a handful of newspapers or magazines, including The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times, have had success charging readers to use their sites.
The initiative grew out of a campaign in Germany, led by Axel Springer, which publishes the tabloid Bild, to strengthen copyright law in that country. German publishers want to create a so-called neighboring right for publishers, similar to protections that already exist for music publishers and other content owners.
The right would give publishers greater control over secondary use of their work that generates revenue.
Publishers have not said publicly what they would do with such a right, but executives say one possibility would be to try to get business users to pay for access to online content. Under such a practice, businesses would have to pay for special licenses; fees would be collected by a new organization modeled on the “societies” that gather royalties on behalf of musical copyright owners. Private individuals would be allowed access to news sites without such a license.
The letter presented Thursday to Ms. Reding also stopped short of specific proposals. Instead, publishers want stricter enforcement of existing legislation, said Heidi Lambert, a spokeswoman for the European Publishers Council, a trade group that has endorsed the petition.
European publishers have been leading an effort to get Google and other Internet companies to adopt a new technology that manages the relationship between online publishers and search engines. The system, called the Automated Content Access Protocol, would allow publishers to set the terms of search engines’ and aggregators’ use of their content.
Publishers say the system, championed by the publishers’ council and the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers, would make it easier to create profitable Web sites. Critics say, however, that it would create unnecessary new hurdles for users.
Google did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Martin Selmayr, a spokesman for Ms. Reding, said she had not yet reviewed the document and could not comment on it. But he referred to a speech she gave Thursday in Brussels, in which she said that a top priority for developing the digital economy in Europe was the creation of “a simple, consumer-friendly legal framework for accessing digital content in Europe’s single market, while ensuring at the same time fair remuneration of creators.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/technology/internet/10copyright.html?_r=1&hpw
U. of Wisconsin, U. of Texas Expand Their Agreements With Google; Chronicle of Higher Education, The Wired Campus, 7/9/09
Chronicle of Higher Education, The Wired Campus; U. of Wisconsin, U. of Texas Expand Their Agreements With Google:
"The University of Wisconsin at Madison and the University of Texas at Austin, two longtime participants in Google’s massive book-digitizing project, announced today that they have expanded their agreements with the company. The new deals strengthen the alliance between two big university systems and Google’s Book Search program at a time when it is drawing scrutiny from librarians and federal regulators, among others."
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=3875
"The University of Wisconsin at Madison and the University of Texas at Austin, two longtime participants in Google’s massive book-digitizing project, announced today that they have expanded their agreements with the company. The new deals strengthen the alliance between two big university systems and Google’s Book Search program at a time when it is drawing scrutiny from librarians and federal regulators, among others."
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=3875
[University of Texas] Libraries and Google Amend Book Search Agreement; University of Texas at Austin, 7/9/09
University of Texas at Austin; [University of Texas] Libraries and Google Amend Book Search Agreement:
The University of Texas Libraries announces an amendment of its agreement with Google Inc. to create digital copies of books from the Libraries' collections.
The original agreement—which assures discovery, preservation and access to extraordinary resources at The University of Texas at Austin—has been amended to reflect changes made possible by Google's pending settlement with authors and publishers groups.
"The new agreement between the University of Texas Libraries and Google insures that our participation in the project will fulfill our initial primary goals of discovery, preservation and access," says Vice Provost and Libraries Director Fred Heath. "Additional provisions will enhance local access while allowing for the introduction of rich materials from our collections to a broad audience."
The Libraries' partnership with Google is part of the Google Books Library Project, started in December 2004, to digitize volumes drawn from the collections of respected institutions around the globe, including the University of Michigan, Stanford University, Oxford University, the New York Public Library and more. Through this historic collaboration, millions of books from the collections of the University of Texas Libraries and other partner institutions will be discoverable online.
"As the university's Commission of 125 has noted, the citizens of Texas expect our flagship university to 'actively address pressing public problems of Texas, the nation, and the world,'" says Heath. "In this age of rapidly expanding information resources, it is essential that the university leverage the reach of the Internet to make its collections more readily available to students, faculty and citizens—regardless of their location."
Particular materials from collections at the Libraries—especially items from the Nettie Lee Benson Latin American Collection—are now available in varying amounts, depending on copyright status, through Google Book Search. Under the settlement, public domain works will still be available in their full text and millions of in-copyright, out-of-print works will be available to be previewed and accessed online by readers. The subscription program proposed by the settlement will provide for subscriber institutions to allow their students and patrons to access the full texts of all the works included in the subscription database.
For more information, visit the University of Texas Libraries-Google Digitization Program online."
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/07/09/libraries_google_search/
The University of Texas Libraries announces an amendment of its agreement with Google Inc. to create digital copies of books from the Libraries' collections.
The original agreement—which assures discovery, preservation and access to extraordinary resources at The University of Texas at Austin—has been amended to reflect changes made possible by Google's pending settlement with authors and publishers groups.
"The new agreement between the University of Texas Libraries and Google insures that our participation in the project will fulfill our initial primary goals of discovery, preservation and access," says Vice Provost and Libraries Director Fred Heath. "Additional provisions will enhance local access while allowing for the introduction of rich materials from our collections to a broad audience."
The Libraries' partnership with Google is part of the Google Books Library Project, started in December 2004, to digitize volumes drawn from the collections of respected institutions around the globe, including the University of Michigan, Stanford University, Oxford University, the New York Public Library and more. Through this historic collaboration, millions of books from the collections of the University of Texas Libraries and other partner institutions will be discoverable online.
"As the university's Commission of 125 has noted, the citizens of Texas expect our flagship university to 'actively address pressing public problems of Texas, the nation, and the world,'" says Heath. "In this age of rapidly expanding information resources, it is essential that the university leverage the reach of the Internet to make its collections more readily available to students, faculty and citizens—regardless of their location."
Particular materials from collections at the Libraries—especially items from the Nettie Lee Benson Latin American Collection—are now available in varying amounts, depending on copyright status, through Google Book Search. Under the settlement, public domain works will still be available in their full text and millions of in-copyright, out-of-print works will be available to be previewed and accessed online by readers. The subscription program proposed by the settlement will provide for subscriber institutions to allow their students and patrons to access the full texts of all the works included in the subscription database.
For more information, visit the University of Texas Libraries-Google Digitization Program online."
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/07/09/libraries_google_search/
Court Rules DC & WB Didn't Violate Superman Licensing Agreement w/ Siegels; ComicBooksResources.com, 7/9/09
ComicBooksResources.com; Court Rules DC & WB Didn't Violate Superman Licensing Agreement w/ Siegels:
"Another court decision has been made in the Siegel family’s tense relationship with DC Comics. By virtue of previous decisions, the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel have been co-owners with DC Comics of the Superman copyright from 1999 until now. In 2008, the Siegels alleged that DC, in licensing the Superman characters to Warner Bros. Entertainment for audiovisual projects including “Smallville” and “Superman Returns,” violated the terms of their profit-sharing agreement.
The plaintiffs felt that because Warner Bros. Entertainment and DC Comics are both part of the same corporate entity, the licensing fees paid to DC Comics in the period between 1999 and 2002 (for the aforementioned "Smallville" and "Superman Returns" projects) were below market value. Essentially, the Siegels argued that DC Comics gave Warner Bros. Entertainment a "sweetheart deal," which would result in DC (and due to their co-ownership, the Siegels) not receiving as much money as they would in a traditionally “fair market deal.”
In today’s decision, the court ruled that DC and Warner Bros. Entertainment did indeed participate in a “fair market deal,” and that the Siegels are not entitled to any payments beyond the terms of the audiovisual licenses as they presently stand."
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21944
"Another court decision has been made in the Siegel family’s tense relationship with DC Comics. By virtue of previous decisions, the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel have been co-owners with DC Comics of the Superman copyright from 1999 until now. In 2008, the Siegels alleged that DC, in licensing the Superman characters to Warner Bros. Entertainment for audiovisual projects including “Smallville” and “Superman Returns,” violated the terms of their profit-sharing agreement.
The plaintiffs felt that because Warner Bros. Entertainment and DC Comics are both part of the same corporate entity, the licensing fees paid to DC Comics in the period between 1999 and 2002 (for the aforementioned "Smallville" and "Superman Returns" projects) were below market value. Essentially, the Siegels argued that DC Comics gave Warner Bros. Entertainment a "sweetheart deal," which would result in DC (and due to their co-ownership, the Siegels) not receiving as much money as they would in a traditionally “fair market deal.”
In today’s decision, the court ruled that DC and Warner Bros. Entertainment did indeed participate in a “fair market deal,” and that the Siegels are not entitled to any payments beyond the terms of the audiovisual licenses as they presently stand."
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21944
K.K.R. and Bertelsmann May Make Sweet Music; New York Times, 7/9/09
New York Times; K.K.R. and Bertelsmann May Make Sweet Music:
"The fund run by Henry Kravis is teaming with the German media group Bertelsmann to pounce on some of the choicest bits of the music business — copyrights to songs.
Given the turbulence in the recorded music sector, and the ownership of libraries like Michael Jackson’s up in the air, they’ll likely have a wealth of assets from which to choose, the publication suggests.
Widespread digital distribution of music has hampered the ability of companies like Warner Music Group and EMI to make money from their traditional activity of finding new artists and marketing their tunes. Yet, their copyright businesses continue to produce profit, Breakingviews notes. In the quarter that ended in March, Warner’s publishing division posted 40 percent operating margins, four times those of its recorded music division."
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/kkr-and-bertelsmann-may-make-sweet-music-together/?scp=1&sq=copyright%20emi&st=cse
"The fund run by Henry Kravis is teaming with the German media group Bertelsmann to pounce on some of the choicest bits of the music business — copyrights to songs.
Given the turbulence in the recorded music sector, and the ownership of libraries like Michael Jackson’s up in the air, they’ll likely have a wealth of assets from which to choose, the publication suggests.
Widespread digital distribution of music has hampered the ability of companies like Warner Music Group and EMI to make money from their traditional activity of finding new artists and marketing their tunes. Yet, their copyright businesses continue to produce profit, Breakingviews notes. In the quarter that ended in March, Warner’s publishing division posted 40 percent operating margins, four times those of its recorded music division."
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/kkr-and-bertelsmann-may-make-sweet-music-together/?scp=1&sq=copyright%20emi&st=cse
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Music Labels Reach Online Royalty Deal; New York Times, 7/7/09
Claire Cain Miller via New York Times; Music Labels Reach Online Royalty Deal:
"On Tuesday, after a two-year battle, record labels and online radio stations agreed on new royalty rates for streaming music online. Many of the music sites had argued that the old rates were so high they were being forced out of business.
“This is definitely the agreement that we’ve been waiting for,” said Tim Westergren, the founder of Pandora, one of the most popular Internet radio sites.
The conflict began in March 2007, when the federal Copyright Royalty Board ruled that all so-called webcasters needed to pay a fee, set to increase to 0.19 cent a song next year, each time they streamed a song. Webcasters said the fees would eat up most of their revenue, which mostly comes from online advertising.
The new agreement treats sites differently depending on their size and business model. It applies to the period from 2006 through 2015 for big sites and through 2014 for small sites. The sites in question often provide customized streams of music, but listeners do not get to directly choose which songs they hear, and they are not permitted to store the music on their computers...
Webcasters also agreed to give more detailed information about the songs they play and how many people listen to them to SoundExchange, the nonprofit organization that collects and distributes digital royalties on behalf of artists and labels."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/internet/08radio.html?_r=1&hpw
"On Tuesday, after a two-year battle, record labels and online radio stations agreed on new royalty rates for streaming music online. Many of the music sites had argued that the old rates were so high they were being forced out of business.
“This is definitely the agreement that we’ve been waiting for,” said Tim Westergren, the founder of Pandora, one of the most popular Internet radio sites.
The conflict began in March 2007, when the federal Copyright Royalty Board ruled that all so-called webcasters needed to pay a fee, set to increase to 0.19 cent a song next year, each time they streamed a song. Webcasters said the fees would eat up most of their revenue, which mostly comes from online advertising.
The new agreement treats sites differently depending on their size and business model. It applies to the period from 2006 through 2015 for big sites and through 2014 for small sites. The sites in question often provide customized streams of music, but listeners do not get to directly choose which songs they hear, and they are not permitted to store the music on their computers...
Webcasters also agreed to give more detailed information about the songs they play and how many people listen to them to SoundExchange, the nonprofit organization that collects and distributes digital royalties on behalf of artists and labels."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/internet/08radio.html?_r=1&hpw
Monday, July 6, 2009
Science moves from the stacks to the Web; print too pricey; Ars Technica, 7/6/09
John Timmer via Ars Technica; Science moves from the stacks to the Web; print too pricey: If information isn't online, it may as well not exist. In the latest sign that the world of traditional print has become a world of hurt, the American Chemical Society is reported to be planning to switch to an online-only publishing model for its journals:
"A recent decision by a prominent academic publisher to switch to digital-only distribution was apparently motivated by simple economics: print no longer made financial sense.
The publisher in question is the American Chemical Society, which, in addition to being a professional society, produces a few dozen journals...
With online content, literature searches can be squeezed in among the frequent but short breaks that occur within experiments. If anything, avoiding a trip to the library allows people to work harder.
And, in many ways, online content is simply better. Instead of the one-size-fits-all constraints on images imposed by print, visual data can be shown in high quality online, allowing interested parties the opportunity to get more detail in those cases that are important to them. The rise of supplemental data—related information that can't be squeezed into the word limits enforced by most journals—has also made online reading essential. Supplemental data started out as a way to include video (which doesn't translate to print) or peripheral data that was once omitted entirely via the phrase "data not shown." Now, supplemental data are often longer than the actual publication and contain information that is essential to its interpretation.
Finally, online publications are easier to integrate with everything else we do online: look for definitions of terms, search for related content, brush up on background, etc.
That's not to say nothing is lost in the transition away from print. Print makes it easier to stay up on the latest news and editorial material that many journals include, and it probably does a better job of enabling the (occasional) serendipitous identification of relevant information.
Still, the scientific community as a whole has embraced online publishing, and other fields are likely to do the same. A number of publishers have responded by creating online-only editions of their properties, or moving individual journals away from print. A couple of publishers—the Public Library of Science and Biomed Central—have also made online, open access publishing central to their strategy from the start. But, to my knowledge, this is the first time that a major academic publisher has chosen to transition away from print so completely."
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/07/academic-publisher-reportedly-going-online-only.ars
"A recent decision by a prominent academic publisher to switch to digital-only distribution was apparently motivated by simple economics: print no longer made financial sense.
The publisher in question is the American Chemical Society, which, in addition to being a professional society, produces a few dozen journals...
With online content, literature searches can be squeezed in among the frequent but short breaks that occur within experiments. If anything, avoiding a trip to the library allows people to work harder.
And, in many ways, online content is simply better. Instead of the one-size-fits-all constraints on images imposed by print, visual data can be shown in high quality online, allowing interested parties the opportunity to get more detail in those cases that are important to them. The rise of supplemental data—related information that can't be squeezed into the word limits enforced by most journals—has also made online reading essential. Supplemental data started out as a way to include video (which doesn't translate to print) or peripheral data that was once omitted entirely via the phrase "data not shown." Now, supplemental data are often longer than the actual publication and contain information that is essential to its interpretation.
Finally, online publications are easier to integrate with everything else we do online: look for definitions of terms, search for related content, brush up on background, etc.
That's not to say nothing is lost in the transition away from print. Print makes it easier to stay up on the latest news and editorial material that many journals include, and it probably does a better job of enabling the (occasional) serendipitous identification of relevant information.
Still, the scientific community as a whole has embraced online publishing, and other fields are likely to do the same. A number of publishers have responded by creating online-only editions of their properties, or moving individual journals away from print. A couple of publishers—the Public Library of Science and Biomed Central—have also made online, open access publishing central to their strategy from the start. But, to my knowledge, this is the first time that a major academic publisher has chosen to transition away from print so completely."
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/07/academic-publisher-reportedly-going-online-only.ars
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Video: Land Down Under ripoff claim; Sydney Morning Herald, 6/24/09
Video [1 min. 53 sec.]: Was Men at Work's Land Down Under ripped off children's classic 'Kookaburra Sits in an Old Gumtree'? Listen and see via Sydney Morning Herald; Land Down Under ripoff claim:
http://media.smh.com.au/national/national-news/land-down-under-ripoff-claim-601909.html
http://media.smh.com.au/national/national-news/land-down-under-ripoff-claim-601909.html
Authors throw the book at pirates; Sydney Morning Herald, 6/8/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Authors throw the book at pirates:
"FEEL like reading Australian author Colleen McCullough's Thorn Birds, but don't want to pay for a copy?
Then just hop onto a site like Wattpad.com and the book is available free as an electronic download. While this might be a bonus for readers, it is a disaster for authors, who get no royalties from the downloads.
Like the music industry, which has fought and partly won the battle over free music downloads from sites like Kazaa and Limewire, the publishing industry is about to face a similar struggle with piracy as electronic books become a reality.
The copies of McCullough's works were the most flagrant breaches of copyright the Herald found on sites set up to allow file sharing. But other Australian authors' work are also available.
David Malouf's 1985 work Five Stories from the Antipodes is available in Russian from Scribd. And for a month, John Birmingham's science fiction work Weapons of Choice, the first in the Axis of Time trilogy, was available from the Suvudu Free Library.
Birmingham's agent in the US, Russell Galen, at Scovil Chickak Galen, said he believed the free download had been authorised by the publisher as a marketing tool for his new novel Without Warning, recently released in hard cover.
But for many authors, the morphing of these sites from file sharing sites into fully digital bookshops/libraries is just one more issue they must confront in the rapidly evolving world of digital books...
Amazon's approach to the e-book market is very much "a walled garden" similar to the early days of the Apple iTunes store. Amazon controls books available for purchase from its electronic bookstore. It only publishes books for which publishers give permission, it sets the price and they can only be downloaded to a Kindle or on an iPhone using Kindle software.
Google has announced it would begin selling electronic versions of new books online later this year, in a direct challenge to Amazon.
Google sent shockwaves through the industry in 2005 when it announced plans to scan millions of books through its Google Book search service. This allows people to browse and search millions of texts in libraries around the world.
Google has limited full downloads to books out of copyright, and only snippets are available from copyrighted books, but it has led to a brawl over who has the right to digitise a book: the author? The traditional publisher? Or anyone?
After all, books are available in libraries. Why not in a digital library? On the other hand shouldn't the author have control over digital publication of his or her work, because once it is on the internet it can be copied at the click of a mouse? Last October Google reached a settlement with authors and publishers who filed a class action alleging copyright infringement over the Google Book project, in effect acknowledging that authors had copyright.
Under the settlement Google agreed to establish an independent "Book Rights Registry" which will provide revenue from sales and advertising to authors and publishers who agree to digitise their books. Publishers and authors are now in the process of opting in or out of the Google settlement.
The executive director of the Australian Society of Authors, Jeremy Fisher, said the Google settlement was an important acknowledgement that authors owned the copyright. But there is still seething resentment about the way Google has gone about digitising copyright material without permission.
Ms Capel, McCullough's agent, said she had not yet opted in on behalf of her clients because it is a bit like "paying a burglar to get your stuff back"...
The Australian Society of Authors provides advice for writers on how to seek redress if their works are digitised without authorisation. In the US there are take-down laws that can be activated and similarly in Australia, Mr Fisher said.
"Other countries though are more problematic. We have had success in having unauthorised works taken down, but it takes time."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/books/authors-throw-the-book-at-pirates/2009/06/07/1244313033953.html
"FEEL like reading Australian author Colleen McCullough's Thorn Birds, but don't want to pay for a copy?
Then just hop onto a site like Wattpad.com and the book is available free as an electronic download. While this might be a bonus for readers, it is a disaster for authors, who get no royalties from the downloads.
Like the music industry, which has fought and partly won the battle over free music downloads from sites like Kazaa and Limewire, the publishing industry is about to face a similar struggle with piracy as electronic books become a reality.
The copies of McCullough's works were the most flagrant breaches of copyright the Herald found on sites set up to allow file sharing. But other Australian authors' work are also available.
David Malouf's 1985 work Five Stories from the Antipodes is available in Russian from Scribd. And for a month, John Birmingham's science fiction work Weapons of Choice, the first in the Axis of Time trilogy, was available from the Suvudu Free Library.
Birmingham's agent in the US, Russell Galen, at Scovil Chickak Galen, said he believed the free download had been authorised by the publisher as a marketing tool for his new novel Without Warning, recently released in hard cover.
But for many authors, the morphing of these sites from file sharing sites into fully digital bookshops/libraries is just one more issue they must confront in the rapidly evolving world of digital books...
Amazon's approach to the e-book market is very much "a walled garden" similar to the early days of the Apple iTunes store. Amazon controls books available for purchase from its electronic bookstore. It only publishes books for which publishers give permission, it sets the price and they can only be downloaded to a Kindle or on an iPhone using Kindle software.
Google has announced it would begin selling electronic versions of new books online later this year, in a direct challenge to Amazon.
Google sent shockwaves through the industry in 2005 when it announced plans to scan millions of books through its Google Book search service. This allows people to browse and search millions of texts in libraries around the world.
Google has limited full downloads to books out of copyright, and only snippets are available from copyrighted books, but it has led to a brawl over who has the right to digitise a book: the author? The traditional publisher? Or anyone?
After all, books are available in libraries. Why not in a digital library? On the other hand shouldn't the author have control over digital publication of his or her work, because once it is on the internet it can be copied at the click of a mouse? Last October Google reached a settlement with authors and publishers who filed a class action alleging copyright infringement over the Google Book project, in effect acknowledging that authors had copyright.
Under the settlement Google agreed to establish an independent "Book Rights Registry" which will provide revenue from sales and advertising to authors and publishers who agree to digitise their books. Publishers and authors are now in the process of opting in or out of the Google settlement.
The executive director of the Australian Society of Authors, Jeremy Fisher, said the Google settlement was an important acknowledgement that authors owned the copyright. But there is still seething resentment about the way Google has gone about digitising copyright material without permission.
Ms Capel, McCullough's agent, said she had not yet opted in on behalf of her clients because it is a bit like "paying a burglar to get your stuff back"...
The Australian Society of Authors provides advice for writers on how to seek redress if their works are digitised without authorisation. In the US there are take-down laws that can be activated and similarly in Australia, Mr Fisher said.
"Other countries though are more problematic. We have had success in having unauthorised works taken down, but it takes time."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/books/authors-throw-the-book-at-pirates/2009/06/07/1244313033953.html
Phone ringtones a "public performance"? EFF, AT&T say no; Ars Technica, 7/2/09
Matthew Lasar via Ars Technica; Phone ringtones a "public performance"? EFF, AT&T say no: ASCAP argues that ringtones are "public performances" of music under the Copyright Act and need to have a license. EFF, AT&T, Verizon and others tell a federal court that the idea is ridiculous; after all, you don't need a public performance license to drive around town in a convertible with the radio on:
"Needless to say, EFF et al's amicus filing calls ASCAP's arguments specious and dangerous, potentially making every consumer a copyright violator whenever they receive a mobile call on the street. Section 110(4) of the Copyright Act, EFF contends, makes it clear that a consumer does not engage in a public performance when, for example, she:
• Rolls down the window of her car while the stereo is playing;
• Sings "Happy Birthday" at a private gathering in a public park;
• Hums a tune while walking on a public sidewalk; or
• Listens to music on the radio while sitting on the beach.
"ASCAP has attempted to mollify consumers with press statements that its members would never pursue individuals for these everyday activities," EFF concludes. "But ASCAP's forbearance is hardly an adequate substitute for the absolute statutory privilege enjoyed by consumers pursuant to Section 110(4)." And even if cell phone users are never dinged for "public ringing," they'll surely pay higher prices for ringtones if ASCAP wins this case.
Similarly, CTIA takes issue with the public performance argument. "The playing of a ringtone does not involve a transmission," the trade group says, "is not at all akin to a public concert or dance, and is no more a public performance than the commonplace act of playing a CD in a car with the windows (or top) down."
So now it's up to the "rate court," aka the Southern District of New York, to sift through all these takes on "performance" and come up with a wireless fee policy for ringtones. In the meantime, savor the moment—one of the few when you'll find AT&T and these public interest groups on the same legal page."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/telcos-and-reform-groups-slam-ascap-on-ringtone-grab.ars
"Needless to say, EFF et al's amicus filing calls ASCAP's arguments specious and dangerous, potentially making every consumer a copyright violator whenever they receive a mobile call on the street. Section 110(4) of the Copyright Act, EFF contends, makes it clear that a consumer does not engage in a public performance when, for example, she:
• Rolls down the window of her car while the stereo is playing;
• Sings "Happy Birthday" at a private gathering in a public park;
• Hums a tune while walking on a public sidewalk; or
• Listens to music on the radio while sitting on the beach.
"ASCAP has attempted to mollify consumers with press statements that its members would never pursue individuals for these everyday activities," EFF concludes. "But ASCAP's forbearance is hardly an adequate substitute for the absolute statutory privilege enjoyed by consumers pursuant to Section 110(4)." And even if cell phone users are never dinged for "public ringing," they'll surely pay higher prices for ringtones if ASCAP wins this case.
Similarly, CTIA takes issue with the public performance argument. "The playing of a ringtone does not involve a transmission," the trade group says, "is not at all akin to a public concert or dance, and is no more a public performance than the commonplace act of playing a CD in a car with the windows (or top) down."
So now it's up to the "rate court," aka the Southern District of New York, to sift through all these takes on "performance" and come up with a wireless fee policy for ringtones. In the meantime, savor the moment—one of the few when you'll find AT&T and these public interest groups on the same legal page."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/telcos-and-reform-groups-slam-ascap-on-ringtone-grab.ars
Friday, July 3, 2009
Two pop thinkers and their fight about zero; Times Online, 7/1/09
Antonia Senior via Times Online; Two pop thinkers and their fight about zero: Can the online generation expect everything from music to newspapers to be free? Two leading authors furiously disagree:
"There was a life before the internet. It’s hard to imagine now, but when people wanted to find stuff out or read things, they had to stand up, walk to a bookshelf and brush away the dust. And, get this, people would, once upon a time, expect to pay for the movies they watched, the books they read or music they listened to.
The notion of media being free online, whether legally or illegally, is at the centre of Chris Anderson’s new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price. Anderson’s first book, The Long Tail, was much fêted. But his second work has attracted a fierce critic in the shape of Malcolm Gladwell, the lauded pop-thinker and author of the seminal books The Tipping Point, Blink and Outliers...
[Anderson] began to be more interested in “freemium”: the idea that any product has two versions — the free and the premium. If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is. In the early days of the internet, freemium was the model most media outlets tried. Give consumers the bait, hook them in, and convert them to cash. But they didn’t convert. As Anderson says, the gap in the consumer’s mind between 0p and 1p is infinitely greater than the gap between 1p and £1.
The next model tried was the freeconomy model. There was a rush to give away all content free. Old-fashioned media subsidised new, waiting for the advertisers to come in and plug the funding gap. But they didn’t. Media outlets are in a bind. A quick suicide if they do not embrace the internet, a slow death if they do. They are moving back towards freemium, but a reimagined version.
“The gaming industry,” Anderson says, “ is the one getting it right. They all tend to use the same model. Use free to build the biggest possible audience, then convert about 10-20 per cent to paid, using something that’s non-punitive.” Online gamers can play free, but can pay for cheats that save time, or cool add-ons for their avatars.
The logic of Anderson’s argument, which suggests that only the best-content providers will be able to monetise their free content, leads to conclusions that he shies away from. Only a few will be able to make the conversion from free to a hybrid of free and paid, and there will be copious casualties across a range of media, from record labels to newspapers.
Gladwell, like Anderson, is a journalist, and perhaps wants to shoot the messenger. He may not like Anderson’s take on the way that the expectation of free goods is dictating the economics of the internet. But that does not mean Anderson is wrong. The brutal truth is that if consumers cannot be induced to pay for content, and the advertising does not pick up, much of the media as we know it is doomed."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6612954.ece
"There was a life before the internet. It’s hard to imagine now, but when people wanted to find stuff out or read things, they had to stand up, walk to a bookshelf and brush away the dust. And, get this, people would, once upon a time, expect to pay for the movies they watched, the books they read or music they listened to.
The notion of media being free online, whether legally or illegally, is at the centre of Chris Anderson’s new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price. Anderson’s first book, The Long Tail, was much fêted. But his second work has attracted a fierce critic in the shape of Malcolm Gladwell, the lauded pop-thinker and author of the seminal books The Tipping Point, Blink and Outliers...
[Anderson] began to be more interested in “freemium”: the idea that any product has two versions — the free and the premium. If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is. In the early days of the internet, freemium was the model most media outlets tried. Give consumers the bait, hook them in, and convert them to cash. But they didn’t convert. As Anderson says, the gap in the consumer’s mind between 0p and 1p is infinitely greater than the gap between 1p and £1.
The next model tried was the freeconomy model. There was a rush to give away all content free. Old-fashioned media subsidised new, waiting for the advertisers to come in and plug the funding gap. But they didn’t. Media outlets are in a bind. A quick suicide if they do not embrace the internet, a slow death if they do. They are moving back towards freemium, but a reimagined version.
“The gaming industry,” Anderson says, “ is the one getting it right. They all tend to use the same model. Use free to build the biggest possible audience, then convert about 10-20 per cent to paid, using something that’s non-punitive.” Online gamers can play free, but can pay for cheats that save time, or cool add-ons for their avatars.
The logic of Anderson’s argument, which suggests that only the best-content providers will be able to monetise their free content, leads to conclusions that he shies away from. Only a few will be able to make the conversion from free to a hybrid of free and paid, and there will be copious casualties across a range of media, from record labels to newspapers.
Gladwell, like Anderson, is a journalist, and perhaps wants to shoot the messenger. He may not like Anderson’s take on the way that the expectation of free goods is dictating the economics of the internet. But that does not mean Anderson is wrong. The brutal truth is that if consumers cannot be induced to pay for content, and the advertising does not pick up, much of the media as we know it is doomed."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6612954.ece
Arizona State Sued Over Kindle E-Textbook Usage; Library Journal, 7/2/09
Lynn Blumenstein via Library Journal; Arizona State Sued Over Kindle E-Textbook Usage:
"Arizona State University (ASU), Tempe, is being sued by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and the American Council of the Blind (ACB) over the use of Amazon’s Kindle DX electronic reading device as a means of distributing electronic textbooks to its students, because the new ereader's menu isn't accessible to the blind.
Disabilities Act violation?The plaintiffs claim that such usage violates Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 because the device cannot be used by blind students. The NFB and ACB also filed complaints with the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
NFB acknowledges that the Kindle DX features text-to-speech technology that can read textbooks aloud to blind students. The menu limitation, however, makes it impossible for a blind user to purchase books from Amazon’s Kindle store, select a book to read, activate the text-to-speech feature, and use the advanced reading functions available on the Kindle DX, according to NFB...
Five other universities are deploying the Kindle DX as part of a pilot project to assess the role of electronic textbooks and reading devices in the classroom: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Pace University, New York, NY; Princeton University, NJ; and Reed College, Portland, OR."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6668651.html
"Arizona State University (ASU), Tempe, is being sued by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and the American Council of the Blind (ACB) over the use of Amazon’s Kindle DX electronic reading device as a means of distributing electronic textbooks to its students, because the new ereader's menu isn't accessible to the blind.
Disabilities Act violation?The plaintiffs claim that such usage violates Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 because the device cannot be used by blind students. The NFB and ACB also filed complaints with the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
NFB acknowledges that the Kindle DX features text-to-speech technology that can read textbooks aloud to blind students. The menu limitation, however, makes it impossible for a blind user to purchase books from Amazon’s Kindle store, select a book to read, activate the text-to-speech feature, and use the advanced reading functions available on the Kindle DX, according to NFB...
Five other universities are deploying the Kindle DX as part of a pilot project to assess the role of electronic textbooks and reading devices in the classroom: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Pace University, New York, NY; Princeton University, NJ; and Reed College, Portland, OR."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6668651.html
Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) Reintroduced in Senate; Library Journal, 7/2/09
Andrew Richard Albanese, Publishers Weekly via Library Journal; Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) Reintroduced in Senate:
"It looks like there’s a new copyright battle brewing in Congress after U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Joe Lieberman, (I-CT) reintroduced the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), a bill that would require every federal department and agency with an annual extramural research budget of $100 million or more to make their research available to the public within six months of publication.
The bill sets up a direct showdown—or perhaps a stalemate—with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), who in February of this year, introduced the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (HR 801) an opposing bill supported by publishers that would prohibit the federal government from requiring copyright transfer in connection with receiving federal funding.
Reintroduction
This is the second time around for both bills. The publisher-supported HR 801 was first introduced in September, 2008, in response to the implementation of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) open access mandate, effective as of April 2008, which requires NIH grantees to make their resulting research publicly available within a year. Publishers have bitterly opposed the NIH mandate on both procedural grounds, and on principle.
Procedurally, publishers claim passing the mandate in an omnibus funding bill was wrong, and Conyers, HR 801’s sponsor, has complained that the NIH mandate slighted his Judiciary committee’s jurisdiction, calling it “a change slipped through the appropriations process in the dark of night.” On principle, publishers claim the NIH mandate takes unfair advantage of publishers’ efforts, such as editing and peer-review, and diminishes copyright.
OA on the offensive?
First introduced in 2006, FRPAA represents an even broader, more aggressive mandate to offer public access to taxpayer-funded research across all agencies. Although the initial bill went nowhere legislatively, supporters say it generated critical support for OA policies, including the NIH’s.
The FRPAA would apply to all unclassified research funded by agencies including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Transportation, Environmental Protection, as well as the National Science Foundation and NASA.
Reintroducing FRPAA in 2009 would seem to be a smart political play for OA advocates—going from defense, with HR 801, to offense with the NIH mandate, and FRPAA. OA advocates, however, stress that the bill’s reintroduction is not a strategy—the FRPAA, they say, can pass.
This is partly because the NIH mandate has been successful so far, said Open access proponent Peter Suber. Second, he notes, when FRPAA first went to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in 2006, Lieberman was the committee’s ranking member—he now chairs the committee.
Last but not least, the bill’s aim syncs with President Obama’s pledge to open up government. “Cornyn and Lieberman are not interested in being a symbolic foil to Conyers,” Suber noted. “They want public access to publicly-funded research, and they think this is the time to try again.”
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6668699.html
"It looks like there’s a new copyright battle brewing in Congress after U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Joe Lieberman, (I-CT) reintroduced the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), a bill that would require every federal department and agency with an annual extramural research budget of $100 million or more to make their research available to the public within six months of publication.
The bill sets up a direct showdown—or perhaps a stalemate—with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), who in February of this year, introduced the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (HR 801) an opposing bill supported by publishers that would prohibit the federal government from requiring copyright transfer in connection with receiving federal funding.
Reintroduction
This is the second time around for both bills. The publisher-supported HR 801 was first introduced in September, 2008, in response to the implementation of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) open access mandate, effective as of April 2008, which requires NIH grantees to make their resulting research publicly available within a year. Publishers have bitterly opposed the NIH mandate on both procedural grounds, and on principle.
Procedurally, publishers claim passing the mandate in an omnibus funding bill was wrong, and Conyers, HR 801’s sponsor, has complained that the NIH mandate slighted his Judiciary committee’s jurisdiction, calling it “a change slipped through the appropriations process in the dark of night.” On principle, publishers claim the NIH mandate takes unfair advantage of publishers’ efforts, such as editing and peer-review, and diminishes copyright.
OA on the offensive?
First introduced in 2006, FRPAA represents an even broader, more aggressive mandate to offer public access to taxpayer-funded research across all agencies. Although the initial bill went nowhere legislatively, supporters say it generated critical support for OA policies, including the NIH’s.
The FRPAA would apply to all unclassified research funded by agencies including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Transportation, Environmental Protection, as well as the National Science Foundation and NASA.
Reintroducing FRPAA in 2009 would seem to be a smart political play for OA advocates—going from defense, with HR 801, to offense with the NIH mandate, and FRPAA. OA advocates, however, stress that the bill’s reintroduction is not a strategy—the FRPAA, they say, can pass.
This is partly because the NIH mandate has been successful so far, said Open access proponent Peter Suber. Second, he notes, when FRPAA first went to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in 2006, Lieberman was the committee’s ranking member—he now chairs the committee.
Last but not least, the bill’s aim syncs with President Obama’s pledge to open up government. “Cornyn and Lieberman are not interested in being a symbolic foil to Conyers,” Suber noted. “They want public access to publicly-funded research, and they think this is the time to try again.”
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6668699.html
Thursday, July 2, 2009
District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?; TechDirt, 7/2/09
Mike Masnick via TechDirt; District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?:
"The rest of the discussion on the four factors fair use test is rather troubling...
Stunningly, the judge even points out that the stories have similar arcs (which isn't surprising), but to claim that because of a similar story arc there's infringement is incredibly troubling for pretty much any writer. After all, people write stories with similar arcs all the time.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbing of all, is her finding on the fourth prong, concerning the impact on the market for the copyrighted work, she actually finds that this weighs against fair use. Again, the logic simply does not add up. The judge admits that it probably would not negatively impact the actual demand for Catcher in the Rye, she actually ignores the fact that the opposite would likely occur. If anything, it will drive more people to go out and buy copies of the original to read (or, more likely in many cases to re-read) to go along with this new book. The judge's reasoning is that this book would harm the market for an actual sequel, but again, that's difficult to square with reality. If JD Salinger announced he was writing a sequel... that would make tremendous news, and it would be quite clear that people would rush to get the "real" sequel. Even if he were to license it (which appears to be the judge's main concern) to someone else to write (which seems insanely unlikely given Salinger's actions to date), people would quickly learn of the "authorized" vs. "unauthorized" versions. It's difficult to see how it would harm the market at all.
This is a very troubling ruling that seems to go against the very basics of copyright law in many, many ways. Hopefully, the ruling does not stand for very long."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/0125045432.shtml
"The rest of the discussion on the four factors fair use test is rather troubling...
Stunningly, the judge even points out that the stories have similar arcs (which isn't surprising), but to claim that because of a similar story arc there's infringement is incredibly troubling for pretty much any writer. After all, people write stories with similar arcs all the time.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbing of all, is her finding on the fourth prong, concerning the impact on the market for the copyrighted work, she actually finds that this weighs against fair use. Again, the logic simply does not add up. The judge admits that it probably would not negatively impact the actual demand for Catcher in the Rye, she actually ignores the fact that the opposite would likely occur. If anything, it will drive more people to go out and buy copies of the original to read (or, more likely in many cases to re-read) to go along with this new book. The judge's reasoning is that this book would harm the market for an actual sequel, but again, that's difficult to square with reality. If JD Salinger announced he was writing a sequel... that would make tremendous news, and it would be quite clear that people would rush to get the "real" sequel. Even if he were to license it (which appears to be the judge's main concern) to someone else to write (which seems insanely unlikely given Salinger's actions to date), people would quickly learn of the "authorized" vs. "unauthorized" versions. It's difficult to see how it would harm the market at all.
This is a very troubling ruling that seems to go against the very basics of copyright law in many, many ways. Hopefully, the ruling does not stand for very long."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/0125045432.shtml
Jammie Thomas Decides To Appeal Constitutionality Of $1.92 Million Damages Award; TechDirt, 7/2/09
Mike Masnick via TechDirt; Jammie Thomas Decides To Appeal Constitutionality Of $1.92 Million Damages Award:
"Thomas' lawyer has announced that Thomas has decided to appeal, questioning the constitutionality of the statutory damages awarded, which was the obvious attack point."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/0049325431.shtml
"Thomas' lawyer has announced that Thomas has decided to appeal, questioning the constitutionality of the statutory damages awarded, which was the obvious attack point."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/0049325431.shtml
U.S. Confirms Investigation of Google Books Deal; New York Times, 7/2/09
Miguel Helft via New York Times; U.S. Confirms Investigation of Google Books Deal:
"Antitrust experts said the letter was the latest indication that the Justice Department is seriously examining complaints that the agreement would grant Google the exclusive right to profit from millions of so-called “orphan works,” books that are out of print and whose authors or rights holders are unknown or cannot be found.
“This is the next step in the notion that this is a serious issue, so serious that the Justice Department needs to notify the court,” said Gary L. Reback, a lawyer at Carr & Ferrell, and the author of a recent book on antitrust issues. “It sets the stage for the department to come into the court to present a problem.”...
In a response, United States District Judge Denny Chin of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, who is charged with reviewing the settlement, set a deadline of Sept. 18 for the government to present its views in writing.
Judge Chin has scheduled a hearing on the settlement for Oct. 7 and said the government could also lay out its views orally at that time.
Opponents of the settlement hailed the department’s letter, saying it was a sign that the government was listening to their complaints.
“We are heartened that the D.O.J. is taking the concerns that we have expressed seriously,” said Peter Brantley, the director of access for the Internet Archive. Mr. Brantley’s organization is spearheading an effort to digitize books from libraries and make them broadly available, in competition with Google’s own digitization project. It has argued that the settlement would make it more difficult for the Internet Archive to pursue its plan.
Google and the other parties to the settlement have vigorously defended it.
“It’s important to note that this agreement is nonexclusive and, if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S.,” Gabriel Stricker, a Google spokesman, said in a statement. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/technology/companies/03google.html?_r=1&ref=technology
"Antitrust experts said the letter was the latest indication that the Justice Department is seriously examining complaints that the agreement would grant Google the exclusive right to profit from millions of so-called “orphan works,” books that are out of print and whose authors or rights holders are unknown or cannot be found.
“This is the next step in the notion that this is a serious issue, so serious that the Justice Department needs to notify the court,” said Gary L. Reback, a lawyer at Carr & Ferrell, and the author of a recent book on antitrust issues. “It sets the stage for the department to come into the court to present a problem.”...
In a response, United States District Judge Denny Chin of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, who is charged with reviewing the settlement, set a deadline of Sept. 18 for the government to present its views in writing.
Judge Chin has scheduled a hearing on the settlement for Oct. 7 and said the government could also lay out its views orally at that time.
Opponents of the settlement hailed the department’s letter, saying it was a sign that the government was listening to their complaints.
“We are heartened that the D.O.J. is taking the concerns that we have expressed seriously,” said Peter Brantley, the director of access for the Internet Archive. Mr. Brantley’s organization is spearheading an effort to digitize books from libraries and make them broadly available, in competition with Google’s own digitization project. It has argued that the settlement would make it more difficult for the Internet Archive to pursue its plan.
Google and the other parties to the settlement have vigorously defended it.
“It’s important to note that this agreement is nonexclusive and, if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S.,” Gabriel Stricker, a Google spokesman, said in a statement. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/technology/companies/03google.html?_r=1&ref=technology
Justice Department Formalizes Probe of Google Books Settlement; Wired, 7/2/09
John C. Abell via Wired; Justice Department Formalizes Probe of Google Books Settlement:
"The settlement, between Google and book authors and publishers, allows the search giant to [sic] to create the worlds’ largest digital library by scanning millions of books housed in the nation’s research libraries. Depending on the copyright status of the book, Google shows snippets to full-texts of the books online and in search results. That prompted the Author’s Guild to sue Google in 2005, leading to a settlement in 2007 that covers all book copyright holders. That deal gives Google various legal rights to scan, index, display and sell all books in print online.
A number of parties have objected to the terms of the deal, including Microsoft, consumer groups and the heirs of Philip K. Dick. The main objection to the deal is the way in which so-called orphan works are treated. Under the terms of the agreement Google is protected from copyright infringement from authors who abandoned their books by not registering in its books database. If they show up later, all they can do is collect a little cash, change their book price or ask Google to stop selling the book. Otherwise infringement can be up to $150,000 per violation."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/justice-department-formalizes-probe-of-google-books-settlement/
"The settlement, between Google and book authors and publishers, allows the search giant to [sic] to create the worlds’ largest digital library by scanning millions of books housed in the nation’s research libraries. Depending on the copyright status of the book, Google shows snippets to full-texts of the books online and in search results. That prompted the Author’s Guild to sue Google in 2005, leading to a settlement in 2007 that covers all book copyright holders. That deal gives Google various legal rights to scan, index, display and sell all books in print online.
A number of parties have objected to the terms of the deal, including Microsoft, consumer groups and the heirs of Philip K. Dick. The main objection to the deal is the way in which so-called orphan works are treated. Under the terms of the agreement Google is protected from copyright infringement from authors who abandoned their books by not registering in its books database. If they show up later, all they can do is collect a little cash, change their book price or ask Google to stop selling the book. Otherwise infringement can be up to $150,000 per violation."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/justice-department-formalizes-probe-of-google-books-settlement/
DOJ Officially Opens Investigation Into Google Book Search; PC World, 7/2/09
Via PC World; DOJ Officially Opens Investigation Into Google Book Search:
"The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed on Thursday that it is investigating a settlement involving Google Book Search for possible antitrust violations, following months of speculation that the agency had its eye on the service.
In a filing to the judge overseeing the settlement of a lawsuit filed by The Authors Guild against Google, the DOJ informed the court that it has opened an investigation into the proposed settlement after reviewing public comments of concern. Those comments suggest that the agreement might violate the Sherman Act, a U.S. antitrust law, the DOJ said.
"The United States has reached no conclusions as to the merit of those concerns or more broadly what impact this settlement may have on competition. However, we have determined that the issues raised by the proposed settlement warrant further inquiry," the letter reads."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/167830/doj_officially_opens_investigation_into_google_book_search.html
"The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed on Thursday that it is investigating a settlement involving Google Book Search for possible antitrust violations, following months of speculation that the agency had its eye on the service.
In a filing to the judge overseeing the settlement of a lawsuit filed by The Authors Guild against Google, the DOJ informed the court that it has opened an investigation into the proposed settlement after reviewing public comments of concern. Those comments suggest that the agreement might violate the Sherman Act, a U.S. antitrust law, the DOJ said.
"The United States has reached no conclusions as to the merit of those concerns or more broadly what impact this settlement may have on competition. However, we have determined that the issues raised by the proposed settlement warrant further inquiry," the letter reads."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/167830/doj_officially_opens_investigation_into_google_book_search.html
Holden Caulfield Stays Young: Salinger Wins Copyright Suit; Wall Street Journal Law Blog, 7/1/09
Ashby Jones via Wall Street Journal Law Blog; Holden Caulfield Stays Young: Salinger Wins Copyright Suit:
"U.S. District Court judge Deborah Batts followed up on her temporary restraining order from last month, and permanently banned publication of an unauthorized sequel to J.D. Salinger’s uber-famous novel, Catcher in the Rye. Click here for the NYT article; here for the opinion; here and here for previous LB coverage of the case.
Judge Batts ruled that the novel, penned by an American living in Sweden who used the pseudonym J.D. California, did not fit into the fair use exception in copyright law because the book did not constitute a critical parody that “transformed” the original."
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/01/holden-caulfield-stays-young-salinger-wins-copyright-suit/
"U.S. District Court judge Deborah Batts followed up on her temporary restraining order from last month, and permanently banned publication of an unauthorized sequel to J.D. Salinger’s uber-famous novel, Catcher in the Rye. Click here for the NYT article; here for the opinion; here and here for previous LB coverage of the case.
Judge Batts ruled that the novel, penned by an American living in Sweden who used the pseudonym J.D. California, did not fit into the fair use exception in copyright law because the book did not constitute a critical parody that “transformed” the original."
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/01/holden-caulfield-stays-young-salinger-wins-copyright-suit/
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Intersting development in Georgia State case; Scholarly Communications @ Duke Blog, 7/1/09
Kevin Smith via Scholarly Communications @ Duke Blog; Intersting [sic] development in Georgia State case:
"The copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Georgia State University by three major publishers has been in a relatively quiet phase recently...Nevertheless, there was a development in Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Georgia State University last week that could significantly change the stakes for the rest of the academic world as it watches this case unfold...
For the rest of us, this means that the decision about fair use, if the case gets that far, will be a lot more relevant to e-reserve and course management systems use around the country. That, of course, could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how the decision goes. But it seems the decision will be based on policy and practice a lot closer to what many schools use (assuming, of course, that the new policy really does indicate changes in practice). Presumably a ruling in favor of fair use is a little more likely now that it will be decided on the basis of this more pragmatic policy. And such a ruling would more clearly support wide-spread practices in higher education. On the other hand, a ruling against Georgia State, if it happens, would be much harder for the rest of us to explain away and distinguish from our own practices."
http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2009/07/01/intersting-development-in-georgia-state-case/
"The copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Georgia State University by three major publishers has been in a relatively quiet phase recently...Nevertheless, there was a development in Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Georgia State University last week that could significantly change the stakes for the rest of the academic world as it watches this case unfold...
For the rest of us, this means that the decision about fair use, if the case gets that far, will be a lot more relevant to e-reserve and course management systems use around the country. That, of course, could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how the decision goes. But it seems the decision will be based on policy and practice a lot closer to what many schools use (assuming, of course, that the new policy really does indicate changes in practice). Presumably a ruling in favor of fair use is a little more likely now that it will be decided on the basis of this more pragmatic policy. And such a ruling would more clearly support wide-spread practices in higher education. On the other hand, a ruling against Georgia State, if it happens, would be much harder for the rest of us to explain away and distinguish from our own practices."
http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2009/07/01/intersting-development-in-georgia-state-case/
Ruling for Salinger, Judge Bans ‘Rye’ Sequel; New York Times, 7/1/09
Sewell Chan via New York Times; Ruling for Salinger, Judge Bans ‘Rye’ Sequel:
"In a victory for the reclusive writer J. D. Salinger, a federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely banned publication in the United States of a new book by a Swedish author that contains a 76-year-old version of Holden Caulfield, the protagonist of “The Catcher in the Rye.”
The judge, Deborah A. Batts, of United States District Court in Manhattan, had granted a 10-day temporary restraining order last month against the author, Fredrik Colting, who wrote the new novel under the pen name J. D. California.
In a 37-page ruling filed on Wednesday, Judge Batts issued a preliminary injunction — indefinitely banning the publication, advertising or distribution of the book in this country — after considering the merits of the case. The book has been published in Britain.
“I am pretty blown away by the judge’s decision,” Mr. Colting said in an e-mail message after the ruling. “Call me an ignorant Swede, but the last thing I thought possible in the U.S. was that you banned books.” Mr. Colting and his lawyer, Edward H. Rosenthal, said they would appeal. The decision means that “members of the public are deprived of the chance to read the book and decide for themselves whether it adds to their understanding of Salinger and his work,” Mr. Rosenthal said...
In a copyright infringement lawsuit filed June 1, lawyers for Mr. Salinger contended that the new work was derivative of “Catcher” and Holden Caulfield, and infringed on Mr. Salinger’s copyright.
The work by Mr. Colting, 33, centers on a 76-year-old “Mr. C,” the creation of a writer named Mr. Salinger. Although the name Holden Caulfield does not appear in the book, Mr. C is clearly Holden, one of the best-known adolescent figures in American fiction, aged 60 years.
(The similarities between the characters were not much in dispute. As Judge Batts wrote in her ruling, “Both narratives are told from the first-person point of view of a sarcastic, often uncouth protagonist who relies heavily on slang, euphemisms and colloquialisms, makes constant digression and asides, refers to readers in the second person, constantly assures the reader that he is being honest and that he is giving them the truth.”)
Mr. Colting’s lawyers argued, among other things, that the new novel, titled “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,” did not violate copyright laws because it amounted to a critical parody that had the effect of transforming the original work.
Judge Batts rejected that argument, writing:
To the extent Defendants contend that 60 Years and the character of Mr. C direct parodic comment or criticism at Catcher or Holden Caulfield, as opposed to Salinger himself, the Court finds such contentions to be post-hoc rationalizations employed through vague generalizations about the alleged naivety of the original, rather than reasonably perceivable parody...
While the case could still go to trial, Judge Batts’s ruling means that Mr. Colting’s book cannot be published in the United States pending the resolution of the litigation, which could drag on for months or years."
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/judge-rules-for-salinger-in-copyright-suit/?hp
"In a victory for the reclusive writer J. D. Salinger, a federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely banned publication in the United States of a new book by a Swedish author that contains a 76-year-old version of Holden Caulfield, the protagonist of “The Catcher in the Rye.”
The judge, Deborah A. Batts, of United States District Court in Manhattan, had granted a 10-day temporary restraining order last month against the author, Fredrik Colting, who wrote the new novel under the pen name J. D. California.
In a 37-page ruling filed on Wednesday, Judge Batts issued a preliminary injunction — indefinitely banning the publication, advertising or distribution of the book in this country — after considering the merits of the case. The book has been published in Britain.
“I am pretty blown away by the judge’s decision,” Mr. Colting said in an e-mail message after the ruling. “Call me an ignorant Swede, but the last thing I thought possible in the U.S. was that you banned books.” Mr. Colting and his lawyer, Edward H. Rosenthal, said they would appeal. The decision means that “members of the public are deprived of the chance to read the book and decide for themselves whether it adds to their understanding of Salinger and his work,” Mr. Rosenthal said...
In a copyright infringement lawsuit filed June 1, lawyers for Mr. Salinger contended that the new work was derivative of “Catcher” and Holden Caulfield, and infringed on Mr. Salinger’s copyright.
The work by Mr. Colting, 33, centers on a 76-year-old “Mr. C,” the creation of a writer named Mr. Salinger. Although the name Holden Caulfield does not appear in the book, Mr. C is clearly Holden, one of the best-known adolescent figures in American fiction, aged 60 years.
(The similarities between the characters were not much in dispute. As Judge Batts wrote in her ruling, “Both narratives are told from the first-person point of view of a sarcastic, often uncouth protagonist who relies heavily on slang, euphemisms and colloquialisms, makes constant digression and asides, refers to readers in the second person, constantly assures the reader that he is being honest and that he is giving them the truth.”)
Mr. Colting’s lawyers argued, among other things, that the new novel, titled “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,” did not violate copyright laws because it amounted to a critical parody that had the effect of transforming the original work.
Judge Batts rejected that argument, writing:
To the extent Defendants contend that 60 Years and the character of Mr. C direct parodic comment or criticism at Catcher or Holden Caulfield, as opposed to Salinger himself, the Court finds such contentions to be post-hoc rationalizations employed through vague generalizations about the alleged naivety of the original, rather than reasonably perceivable parody...
While the case could still go to trial, Judge Batts’s ruling means that Mr. Colting’s book cannot be published in the United States pending the resolution of the litigation, which could drag on for months or years."
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/judge-rules-for-salinger-in-copyright-suit/?hp
Buyer of Pirate Bay, a File-Sharing Site, Plans to Go Legal; New York Times, 7/1/09
Eric Pfanner via New York Times; Buyer of Pirate Bay, a File-Sharing Site, Plans to Go Legal:
"Global Gaming Factory, a publicly traded company based in Stockholm, said it would pay 60 million Swedish kronor, or $7.75 million, for the [Pirate Bay] site and hoped to turn it into a legal source of free music, movies and other content, using a novel, untested business model.
It would be a radical change. The Pirate Bay, with its Jolly Roger logo, has been the music and movie industries’ most prominent target in the battle against illegal file-sharing. To keep content free but appease content owners, Global Gaming Factory wants to generate revenue from a new, ultra-fast file-sharing system that uses networks of computers to help move large digital files.
Mr. Pandeya said the network could be used to ease the strain on Internet service providers, which have complained that file-sharing traffic is clogging up their networks. He envisions charging Internet service providers. The Pirate Bay could also generate revenue from advertising, he said.
Some of the proceeds would be returned to copyright owners, he said, while participants who agreed to allow the use of their computers to help share files would also be paid...
Recording companies, however, have grown more flexible about the kinds of businesses they are willing to license. The Universal Music Group, for instance, recently announced an agreement with a British Internet service provider, Virgin Media, to make available unlimited downloads of music for a monthly fee, with no copyright protection...
But [Mr. Pandeya] said the company had no intention of violating copyrights. “It has to be legal from Day 1,” he said. “We are on the stock market; we can’t start playing games.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/technology/companies/01pirate.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=pirate%20bay&st=cse
"Global Gaming Factory, a publicly traded company based in Stockholm, said it would pay 60 million Swedish kronor, or $7.75 million, for the [Pirate Bay] site and hoped to turn it into a legal source of free music, movies and other content, using a novel, untested business model.
It would be a radical change. The Pirate Bay, with its Jolly Roger logo, has been the music and movie industries’ most prominent target in the battle against illegal file-sharing. To keep content free but appease content owners, Global Gaming Factory wants to generate revenue from a new, ultra-fast file-sharing system that uses networks of computers to help move large digital files.
Mr. Pandeya said the network could be used to ease the strain on Internet service providers, which have complained that file-sharing traffic is clogging up their networks. He envisions charging Internet service providers. The Pirate Bay could also generate revenue from advertising, he said.
Some of the proceeds would be returned to copyright owners, he said, while participants who agreed to allow the use of their computers to help share files would also be paid...
Recording companies, however, have grown more flexible about the kinds of businesses they are willing to license. The Universal Music Group, for instance, recently announced an agreement with a British Internet service provider, Virgin Media, to make available unlimited downloads of music for a monthly fee, with no copyright protection...
But [Mr. Pandeya] said the company had no intention of violating copyrights. “It has to be legal from Day 1,” he said. “We are on the stock market; we can’t start playing games.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/technology/companies/01pirate.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=pirate%20bay&st=cse
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Supreme Court Allows Wider DVR Use; New York Times, 6/30/09
Stephanie Clifford via New York Times; Supreme Court Allows Wider DVR Use:
"The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a blow to the television networks when it declined to hear a case about a digital video recorder technology, opening the gate for wider use of DVR systems.
The case began in 2006 when Cablevision Systems, the New York-area cable operator, announced plans for what is called a network DVR system. With it, a customer would use a remote control to digitally record a program like “60 Minutes” but instead of storing the show in the customer’s at-home DVR box, the technology would store the show on a faraway Cablevision server.
The technology would let Cablevision convert set-top boxes into boxes with DVR capabilities without requiring an installation or new equipment.
“It opens up the possibility of offering a DVR experience to all of our digital cable customers,” Tom Rutledge, Cablevision’s chief operating officer, said in a statement. Programmers including Turner Broadcasting System’s Cartoon Network, CNN and television networks sued Cablevision, saying the system violated copyright law. In March 2007, a lower court agreed, ruling that Cablevision “would be engaging in unauthorized reproductions and transmissions of plaintiffs’ copyrighted programs.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York reversed that decision in August 2008. The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, but the Supreme Court’s refusal essentially reinforced the Second Circuit’s decision.
Patrick Ross, the executive director of the Copyright Alliance, an industry group that includes the Motion Picture Association of America and Time Warner, said a recording stored in a network was different from one stored in a consumer’s set-top box.
“This appears to be a very clever way for a licensee of creative works to develop new distribution methods that, it would argue, do not require licenses,” said Mr. Ross, whose group filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/technology/30cable.html?scp=1&sq=dvr&st=cse
"The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a blow to the television networks when it declined to hear a case about a digital video recorder technology, opening the gate for wider use of DVR systems.
The case began in 2006 when Cablevision Systems, the New York-area cable operator, announced plans for what is called a network DVR system. With it, a customer would use a remote control to digitally record a program like “60 Minutes” but instead of storing the show in the customer’s at-home DVR box, the technology would store the show on a faraway Cablevision server.
The technology would let Cablevision convert set-top boxes into boxes with DVR capabilities without requiring an installation or new equipment.
“It opens up the possibility of offering a DVR experience to all of our digital cable customers,” Tom Rutledge, Cablevision’s chief operating officer, said in a statement. Programmers including Turner Broadcasting System’s Cartoon Network, CNN and television networks sued Cablevision, saying the system violated copyright law. In March 2007, a lower court agreed, ruling that Cablevision “would be engaging in unauthorized reproductions and transmissions of plaintiffs’ copyrighted programs.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York reversed that decision in August 2008. The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, but the Supreme Court’s refusal essentially reinforced the Second Circuit’s decision.
Patrick Ross, the executive director of the Copyright Alliance, an industry group that includes the Motion Picture Association of America and Time Warner, said a recording stored in a network was different from one stored in a consumer’s set-top box.
“This appears to be a very clever way for a licensee of creative works to develop new distribution methods that, it would argue, do not require licenses,” said Mr. Ross, whose group filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/technology/30cable.html?scp=1&sq=dvr&st=cse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)