Matthew Lasar, Ars Technica; EFF defends Yes Men from business rage over climate hoax:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is telling the US Chamber of Commerce to get over a parody site that turns the trade group's opposition to greenhouse gas legislation on its
"The nation's leading business trade association is not a happy camper about a parody site that has rewritten its controversial position on climate change legislation. Attorneys for the United States Chamber of Commerce have issued a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown demand notice against the latest prank by the Yes Men, that self-described "genderless, loose-knit association of some 300 impostors worldwide who agree their way into the fortified compounds of commerce"—and then unleash the clowns of public relations war.
But lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation are telling the Chamber to cool off about the whole affair.
What's the furor about? The Yes Men staged a fake press conference this week at the National Press Club in Washington. A "Yes Man" calling himself "Hingo Sembra" actually took to the podium in front of reporters to announce the Chamber's shift on climate change, only to have the whole spectacle turn truly bizarre when a real Chamber official showed up.
According to CBS News, "The press conference began normally but dissolved into a surreal scene when a legitimate Chamber official burst into the event, having heard about it from a reporter, and exclaimed that 'Sembra' was a phony. The activist holding the press conference then called the Chamber official, Eric Wohlschlegel, a fake and demanded his business card."
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/10/eff-tells-business-group-to-get-over-yes-men-hoax.ars
Sunday, October 25, 2009
European Internet sinking fast under 3-strikes proposals; Boing Boing, 10/23/09
Cory Doctorow, Boing Boing; European Internet sinking fast under 3-strikes proposals:
"Things look bad for the European Internet: "3 strikes" (the entertainment industry's proposal for a law that requires ISPs to disconnect whole households if one member is accused -- without evidence or trial -- of three copyright infringements) is gaining currency. Efforts to make 3-strikes illegal are being thwarted by the European bureaucracy in the EC.
The Pirate Party, which holds a seat in the European Parliament, proposed legislation that said, essentially, that no one could be disconnected from the Internet without a fair trial. When the proposal when to the European Commission (a group of powerful, unelected bureaucrats who have been heavily lobbied by the entertainment industry), they rewrote it so that disconnection can take place without trial or other due process.
On the national level, France's Constitutional Court have approved the latest version of the French 3-strikes rule, HADOPI, which has created a kind of grudging, joke oversight by the courts (before your family's Internet connection is taken away, a judge gives the order 1-2 minutes' worth of review, and you aren't entitled to counsel and the rules of evidence don't apply -- the NYT called it similar to "traffic court"). Under this rule, there is now a national list of French people who are not allowed to be connected to the Internet; providing them with connectivity is a crime.
The only bright light is that this will play very badly in the national elections coming up in many European jurisdictions; the Swedes, in particular, are likely to kick the hell out of the MPs who voted for criminal sanctions for downloading and replace them with Pirate Party candidates, Greens, and members of other parties with a liberal stance on copyright."
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/23/european-internet-si.html
"Things look bad for the European Internet: "3 strikes" (the entertainment industry's proposal for a law that requires ISPs to disconnect whole households if one member is accused -- without evidence or trial -- of three copyright infringements) is gaining currency. Efforts to make 3-strikes illegal are being thwarted by the European bureaucracy in the EC.
The Pirate Party, which holds a seat in the European Parliament, proposed legislation that said, essentially, that no one could be disconnected from the Internet without a fair trial. When the proposal when to the European Commission (a group of powerful, unelected bureaucrats who have been heavily lobbied by the entertainment industry), they rewrote it so that disconnection can take place without trial or other due process.
On the national level, France's Constitutional Court have approved the latest version of the French 3-strikes rule, HADOPI, which has created a kind of grudging, joke oversight by the courts (before your family's Internet connection is taken away, a judge gives the order 1-2 minutes' worth of review, and you aren't entitled to counsel and the rules of evidence don't apply -- the NYT called it similar to "traffic court"). Under this rule, there is now a national list of French people who are not allowed to be connected to the Internet; providing them with connectivity is a crime.
The only bright light is that this will play very badly in the national elections coming up in many European jurisdictions; the Swedes, in particular, are likely to kick the hell out of the MPs who voted for criminal sanctions for downloading and replace them with Pirate Party candidates, Greens, and members of other parties with a liberal stance on copyright."
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/23/european-internet-si.html
Canadian Musicians vs. Canadian Recording Industry Spokesperson; Michael Geist Blog, 10/25/09
Michael Geist, Michael Geist Blog; Canadian Musicians vs. Canadian Recording Industry Spokesperson:
"The government continues to play catch-up with the copyright consultation submissions (my submission appeared on Friday). It has just posted two interesting contrasting submissions: the Canadian Music Creators Coalition, actual Canadian musicians who warn against DMCA-style reforms and Don Hogarth, CRIA's communication person, who warns against people who warn against DMCA-style reforms."
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4483/196/
"The government continues to play catch-up with the copyright consultation submissions (my submission appeared on Friday). It has just posted two interesting contrasting submissions: the Canadian Music Creators Coalition, actual Canadian musicians who warn against DMCA-style reforms and Don Hogarth, CRIA's communication person, who warns against people who warn against DMCA-style reforms."
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4483/196/
New US Ambassador To Canada Kicks Things Off By Pushing For Bad Copyright Laws; TechDirt, 10/23/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; New US Ambassador To Canada Kicks Things Off By Pushing For Bad Copyright Laws:
"So it looks like the "timing" on Barrie McKenna's ridiculous Globe & Mail column spewing a bunch of recording industry propaganda wasn't so random after all. Just after it came out, the new US ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson, made a point of scolding Canada for its copyright laws, and sticking by the decision to put Canada on the "watch list" in the USTR special 301 report. Once again, despite early suggestions that the new administration might actually take an evidence-based approach to intellectual property, it looks it's instead decided to simply act as an enforcer for Hollywood make believe. Too bad."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/0233316649.shtml
"So it looks like the "timing" on Barrie McKenna's ridiculous Globe & Mail column spewing a bunch of recording industry propaganda wasn't so random after all. Just after it came out, the new US ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson, made a point of scolding Canada for its copyright laws, and sticking by the decision to put Canada on the "watch list" in the USTR special 301 report. Once again, despite early suggestions that the new administration might actually take an evidence-based approach to intellectual property, it looks it's instead decided to simply act as an enforcer for Hollywood make believe. Too bad."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091023/0233316649.shtml
Pro-Stronger Copyright Propaganda Shows Up In Canadian Press; TechDirt, 10/21/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Pro-Stronger Copyright Propaganda Shows Up In Canadian Press:
"Rob Hyndman points us to a column in Toronto's Globe & Mail by Barrie McKenna that is basically all of the recording industry's talking points on copyright, without even a nod to the views of the other side. It appears that most of the info is (surprise, surprise) based on a recording industry lawyer. It starts with a nice little moral panic about how file sharing sites are rushing to base themselves in Canada due to the country's supposedly lax copyright laws. Of course, that's ridiculous. Canada has very strong copyright laws already. What they don't have is a DMCA. That's what the industry wants. McKenna tries to bolster his claim that Canada has weak copyright laws with the following:
"Earlier this year, the Obama administration put Canada on its blacklist of shame - a "priority watch list" of intellectual property laggards, joining the likes of China, Russia and Venezuela."
Sounds nice, but incredibly misleading. The "blacklist of shame" that McKenna mentions, but does not explain, is actually the US Trade Rep's special "301 Report." Mention it to just about any policy maker (excluding those pushing for protectionist policies for a specific industry, of course), and you get an eye roll. It's not so much "the Obama administration" but industries with wishlists attempting to restrain trade in foreign countries by putting forth scary stories about what's happening in those countries. The USTR basically takes those industry-submitted reports and wraps them up into the 301 report. It's a joke. Most of the complaints in the report concern countries that actually are in perfect compliance with international treaties -- but which the industry still wants to go further.
Of course, given that McKenna's source is an industry lawyer, perhaps it's not surprising that such info wasn't shared. But, the next claims go from the just uninformed to the unbelievable:
"Canada, which has repeatedly promised but so far failed to deliver on copyright reform, isn't just out of step with the United States, but with much of the Western world."
This is simply untrue. Canada's copyright law is actually quite in line with most of the Western world, no matter what the entertainment industry suggests (and, you might think that McKenna would ask someone other than the person representing the industry that benefits from this). Furthermore, the line that Canada has "so far failed to deliver on copyright reform" is either blatantly misleading or simply ignorant of rather recent history. Canadian politicians have tried to push forth copyright reform, but due to a massive public outcry from people who actually understand how things like the DMCA cause all sorts of problems -- especially concerning free speech and consumer rights -- those politicians were forced to back down.
That's called informed democracy in action. Oh, McKenna also claims that the last time the Canadian government tried copyright reform was in 2007. According to his bio, McKenna is based in DC, not Canada, but even down here in the States plenty of us were aware that Jim Prentice introduced copyright reform in 2008.
So, McKenna makes it out like Canada has no strong copyright laws (false), that it's laws are different from most of the western world (false) and that it hasn't tried to add more draconian copyright laws (false again). From there, he comes up with this bizarre justification for more draconian copyright law:
"The world has gone digital. And there's now an explosion of legitimate download sites in the U.S. and Europe, including ground-breaking music sites Pandora.com and Lala.com. But you can't use them in Canada.
These and other businesses are choosing to bypass the market entirely, in part because of licensing problems.
And the creative industries that produce music, software and the like - industries that contribute significantly more to the economy than BitTorrent sites - may also shun Canada if nothing is done."
Actually, you have Canadian record labels like Nettwerk, that are doing quite well, even as its CEO has declared that copyright is obsolete and should be done away with entirely within a decade. And the reason that those services can't be used in Canada isn't because the law is too lax, but because the laws are too strict, in terms of figuring out special licensing setups in each country. It's such a pain to get them licensed in a single country that the services have been forced -- against their will in many cases -- to block access in other countries like Canada."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/0252526618.shtml
"Rob Hyndman points us to a column in Toronto's Globe & Mail by Barrie McKenna that is basically all of the recording industry's talking points on copyright, without even a nod to the views of the other side. It appears that most of the info is (surprise, surprise) based on a recording industry lawyer. It starts with a nice little moral panic about how file sharing sites are rushing to base themselves in Canada due to the country's supposedly lax copyright laws. Of course, that's ridiculous. Canada has very strong copyright laws already. What they don't have is a DMCA. That's what the industry wants. McKenna tries to bolster his claim that Canada has weak copyright laws with the following:
"Earlier this year, the Obama administration put Canada on its blacklist of shame - a "priority watch list" of intellectual property laggards, joining the likes of China, Russia and Venezuela."
Sounds nice, but incredibly misleading. The "blacklist of shame" that McKenna mentions, but does not explain, is actually the US Trade Rep's special "301 Report." Mention it to just about any policy maker (excluding those pushing for protectionist policies for a specific industry, of course), and you get an eye roll. It's not so much "the Obama administration" but industries with wishlists attempting to restrain trade in foreign countries by putting forth scary stories about what's happening in those countries. The USTR basically takes those industry-submitted reports and wraps them up into the 301 report. It's a joke. Most of the complaints in the report concern countries that actually are in perfect compliance with international treaties -- but which the industry still wants to go further.
Of course, given that McKenna's source is an industry lawyer, perhaps it's not surprising that such info wasn't shared. But, the next claims go from the just uninformed to the unbelievable:
"Canada, which has repeatedly promised but so far failed to deliver on copyright reform, isn't just out of step with the United States, but with much of the Western world."
This is simply untrue. Canada's copyright law is actually quite in line with most of the Western world, no matter what the entertainment industry suggests (and, you might think that McKenna would ask someone other than the person representing the industry that benefits from this). Furthermore, the line that Canada has "so far failed to deliver on copyright reform" is either blatantly misleading or simply ignorant of rather recent history. Canadian politicians have tried to push forth copyright reform, but due to a massive public outcry from people who actually understand how things like the DMCA cause all sorts of problems -- especially concerning free speech and consumer rights -- those politicians were forced to back down.
That's called informed democracy in action. Oh, McKenna also claims that the last time the Canadian government tried copyright reform was in 2007. According to his bio, McKenna is based in DC, not Canada, but even down here in the States plenty of us were aware that Jim Prentice introduced copyright reform in 2008.
So, McKenna makes it out like Canada has no strong copyright laws (false), that it's laws are different from most of the western world (false) and that it hasn't tried to add more draconian copyright laws (false again). From there, he comes up with this bizarre justification for more draconian copyright law:
"The world has gone digital. And there's now an explosion of legitimate download sites in the U.S. and Europe, including ground-breaking music sites Pandora.com and Lala.com. But you can't use them in Canada.
These and other businesses are choosing to bypass the market entirely, in part because of licensing problems.
And the creative industries that produce music, software and the like - industries that contribute significantly more to the economy than BitTorrent sites - may also shun Canada if nothing is done."
Actually, you have Canadian record labels like Nettwerk, that are doing quite well, even as its CEO has declared that copyright is obsolete and should be done away with entirely within a decade. And the reason that those services can't be used in Canada isn't because the law is too lax, but because the laws are too strict, in terms of figuring out special licensing setups in each country. It's such a pain to get them licensed in a single country that the services have been forced -- against their will in many cases -- to block access in other countries like Canada."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/0252526618.shtml
The (legal) music fades out for Canadians; Globe and Mail, 10/20/09
Barrie McKenna, Globe and Mail; The (legal) music fades out for Canadians:
The world has gone digital but legitimate download sites shun Canada in part because of licensing problems
"There are good reasons for Canada to embrace reform - and not only because the Americans and Europeans are pushing Ottawa to do it.
The world has gone digital. And there's now an explosion of legitimate download sites in the U.S. and Europe, including ground-breaking music sites Pandora.com and Lala.com. But you can't use them in Canada.
These and other businesses are choosing to bypass the market entirely, in part because of licensing problems.
And the creative industries that produce music, software and the like - industries that contribute significantly more to the economy than BitTorrent sites - may also shun Canada if nothing is done.
That hurts Canadians, and most people don't even know it's happening."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/the-legal-music-fades-out-for-canadians/article1330240/
The world has gone digital but legitimate download sites shun Canada in part because of licensing problems
"There are good reasons for Canada to embrace reform - and not only because the Americans and Europeans are pushing Ottawa to do it.
The world has gone digital. And there's now an explosion of legitimate download sites in the U.S. and Europe, including ground-breaking music sites Pandora.com and Lala.com. But you can't use them in Canada.
These and other businesses are choosing to bypass the market entirely, in part because of licensing problems.
And the creative industries that produce music, software and the like - industries that contribute significantly more to the economy than BitTorrent sites - may also shun Canada if nothing is done.
That hurts Canadians, and most people don't even know it's happening."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/the-legal-music-fades-out-for-canadians/article1330240/
Canada deserves spot on U.S. naughty list due to lax copyright laws; Canadian Press, 10/22/09
Canadian Press; Canada deserves spot on U.S. naughty list due to lax copyright laws:
"The new U.S. ambassador won't apologize for his country's decision to scold Canada for its lax copyright laws by placing it on a priority watch list.
David Jacobson says Canada may be America's closest friend and neighbour, but that shouldn't exempt it from respecting copyright laws that protect artists, entertainers, authors and software developers.
He suggests stronger legislation would be mutually beneficial as it will encourage innovation in both countries.
Jacobson made the comments at a Montreal conference on Canada-U.S. relations.
Wendy Noss of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association says Canada sticks out in a bad way on this naughty list which includes countries like China, Algeria, Pakistan and Russia.
She says Canada has failed for more than a decade to amend copyright laws to deal with the digital age, leaving creative industries at a loss when it comes to fighting piracy."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hKHhpEtc-DndLRhdv6OVaN8zupJw
"The new U.S. ambassador won't apologize for his country's decision to scold Canada for its lax copyright laws by placing it on a priority watch list.
David Jacobson says Canada may be America's closest friend and neighbour, but that shouldn't exempt it from respecting copyright laws that protect artists, entertainers, authors and software developers.
He suggests stronger legislation would be mutually beneficial as it will encourage innovation in both countries.
Jacobson made the comments at a Montreal conference on Canada-U.S. relations.
Wendy Noss of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association says Canada sticks out in a bad way on this naughty list which includes countries like China, Algeria, Pakistan and Russia.
She says Canada has failed for more than a decade to amend copyright laws to deal with the digital age, leaving creative industries at a loss when it comes to fighting piracy."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hKHhpEtc-DndLRhdv6OVaN8zupJw
European laws present challenges for Google Books; CNet, 10/23/09
Tom Krazit, CNet; European laws present challenges for Google Books:
"Even the hardiest Google opponents agree that a digital library of the scope Google is proposing will have tangible benefits for the world. This is especially true for the European libraries, which store books dating as far as the 17th century that are crumbling with the advance of age. Few people are able to see those books because of their value and the remoteness of their location, but putting them online could allow the world to read books they would have once traveled thousands of miles to see, allow researchers from around the world to study their contents, and preserve the knowledge for future generations.
But some, such as German Prime Minister Angela Merkel, are wary about a single company controlling such a library. "The German government has a clear position: copyrights have to be protected on the Internet," The Guardian quoted her as saying last week.
In any event, at the moment European libraries are on the outside when it comes to unlocking the knowledge stored in the millions of out-of-print but copyright-protected books on their shelves. Google's argument all along in the U.S. has been that it was allowed to scan those types of books under fair-use laws, which was disputed by authors and publishers in 2005 but authorization to do so is a key part of the proposed settlement.
Copyright laws vary across Europe, but the concept of fair use generally does not exist, and most books are protected by copyright for 70 to 80 years after the death of the author, the librarians said. Historical works are in the public domain, but that's just a fraction of the overall number of books stored in libraries throughout the world...
Manuela Palafox, head of digital editions at the University of Complutense of Madrid, Spain, took it a step further. "The most important thing in Europe is to review our copyright laws. We need to adapt it to the digital age."
This, of course, is part of the opposition to Google's settlement in the U.S. Instead of leaving it up to Congress to reform U.S. copyright laws to settle once and for all whether digitizing out-of print but copyright-protected books should be allowed, the settlement is granting that unique sweeping right to a single corporation, and forcing others who may want to digitize these books to cut licensing deals with an organization funded by Google and staffed by directors picked by the groups representing authors and publishers.
So while Google works feverishly on a new settlement in the U.S. ahead of a November 9th deadline, its legal battles may be just beginning. Chinese authors are reportedly gearing up to oppose Google's efforts, and its mission of organizing the world's information may be stymied if European copyright laws forbid the digitization of a huge swath of books published in the last century."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10381693-265.html?tag=mncol
"Even the hardiest Google opponents agree that a digital library of the scope Google is proposing will have tangible benefits for the world. This is especially true for the European libraries, which store books dating as far as the 17th century that are crumbling with the advance of age. Few people are able to see those books because of their value and the remoteness of their location, but putting them online could allow the world to read books they would have once traveled thousands of miles to see, allow researchers from around the world to study their contents, and preserve the knowledge for future generations.
But some, such as German Prime Minister Angela Merkel, are wary about a single company controlling such a library. "The German government has a clear position: copyrights have to be protected on the Internet," The Guardian quoted her as saying last week.
In any event, at the moment European libraries are on the outside when it comes to unlocking the knowledge stored in the millions of out-of-print but copyright-protected books on their shelves. Google's argument all along in the U.S. has been that it was allowed to scan those types of books under fair-use laws, which was disputed by authors and publishers in 2005 but authorization to do so is a key part of the proposed settlement.
Copyright laws vary across Europe, but the concept of fair use generally does not exist, and most books are protected by copyright for 70 to 80 years after the death of the author, the librarians said. Historical works are in the public domain, but that's just a fraction of the overall number of books stored in libraries throughout the world...
Manuela Palafox, head of digital editions at the University of Complutense of Madrid, Spain, took it a step further. "The most important thing in Europe is to review our copyright laws. We need to adapt it to the digital age."
This, of course, is part of the opposition to Google's settlement in the U.S. Instead of leaving it up to Congress to reform U.S. copyright laws to settle once and for all whether digitizing out-of print but copyright-protected books should be allowed, the settlement is granting that unique sweeping right to a single corporation, and forcing others who may want to digitize these books to cut licensing deals with an organization funded by Google and staffed by directors picked by the groups representing authors and publishers.
So while Google works feverishly on a new settlement in the U.S. ahead of a November 9th deadline, its legal battles may be just beginning. Chinese authors are reportedly gearing up to oppose Google's efforts, and its mission of organizing the world's information may be stymied if European copyright laws forbid the digitization of a huge swath of books published in the last century."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10381693-265.html?tag=mncol
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Muggle lawyers ban Harry Potter feast; Guardian, 10/25/09
Anushka Asthana, Guardian; Muggle lawyers ban Harry Potter feast:
"Warner Bros has banned a woman who runs a restaurant at her home in west London from hosting a Harry Potter Night to celebrate Hallowe'en.
The owner of The Underground Restaurant, who uses the pseudonym Ms Marmite Lover, regularly holds themed evenings and for her latest event she had planned a menu of food and drink enjoyed by Harry Potter and his friends in the JK Rowling stories: from dandelion wine and pumpkin soup to Dumbledore's favourite sweets, such as mint humbugs. Guests were to be taken down Diagon Alley (the side of the house) before entering and would be met by a portrait of the "Fat Lady" to whom they would have to give a password.
However, Warner Bros has written to her warning that it owns all things Harry Potter: the "name, stylised logo, the name of the characters, themes, incidents and other associated indicia from the series of... books and films".
The letter from the company's legal and business department says: "Dear Ms Marmite Lover. While we are delighted you are such a fan of the Harry Potter series, unfortunately your proposed use of the Harry Potter properties... without our consent would amount to an infringement of Warner's rights."
Ms Marmite Lover has now renamed the event, as Warner Bros suggested, "Generic Wizard Night".
The Underground restaurant is one of the first of a new trend of "pop-up restaurants" – dining experiences operated out of people's homes and advertised via Facebook and word-of-mouth. However, the publicity it has generated also brought it to the attention of Warner Bros.
Ms Marmite said: "I understand that you need to protect the rights but this is two dinners, one-offs, from which I am not making a profit, inspired by the books and the mentions of food in them. My daughter is a huge fan, even an obsessive."
Feeling the corporate might of Warner Bros is quite a surprise for the new chef. When she hosted a Marmite night at The Underground Restaurant, with the spread included in every dish, the company was more than a little pleased. Instead of warning her about its copyright position, it made sure she was stocked up with plenty of marmite – and all for free."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/25/harry-potter-lawyers-ban-restaurant
"Warner Bros has banned a woman who runs a restaurant at her home in west London from hosting a Harry Potter Night to celebrate Hallowe'en.
The owner of The Underground Restaurant, who uses the pseudonym Ms Marmite Lover, regularly holds themed evenings and for her latest event she had planned a menu of food and drink enjoyed by Harry Potter and his friends in the JK Rowling stories: from dandelion wine and pumpkin soup to Dumbledore's favourite sweets, such as mint humbugs. Guests were to be taken down Diagon Alley (the side of the house) before entering and would be met by a portrait of the "Fat Lady" to whom they would have to give a password.
However, Warner Bros has written to her warning that it owns all things Harry Potter: the "name, stylised logo, the name of the characters, themes, incidents and other associated indicia from the series of... books and films".
The letter from the company's legal and business department says: "Dear Ms Marmite Lover. While we are delighted you are such a fan of the Harry Potter series, unfortunately your proposed use of the Harry Potter properties... without our consent would amount to an infringement of Warner's rights."
Ms Marmite Lover has now renamed the event, as Warner Bros suggested, "Generic Wizard Night".
The Underground restaurant is one of the first of a new trend of "pop-up restaurants" – dining experiences operated out of people's homes and advertised via Facebook and word-of-mouth. However, the publicity it has generated also brought it to the attention of Warner Bros.
Ms Marmite said: "I understand that you need to protect the rights but this is two dinners, one-offs, from which I am not making a profit, inspired by the books and the mentions of food in them. My daughter is a huge fan, even an obsessive."
Feeling the corporate might of Warner Bros is quite a surprise for the new chef. When she hosted a Marmite night at The Underground Restaurant, with the spread included in every dish, the company was more than a little pleased. Instead of warning her about its copyright position, it made sure she was stocked up with plenty of marmite – and all for free."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/25/harry-potter-lawyers-ban-restaurant
Behind the music: Parley with the Pirate party; Guardian, 10/23/09
Helienne Lindvall, Guardian; Behind the music: Parley with the Pirate party:
Nick Griffin wasn't the only one to stir up controversy this week. Sweden's Pirate party were in Manchester to debate their ultra-laissez-faire ideas on copyright
"Nick Griffin isn't the only controversial party leader to head into a debate this week. This past Sunday I was on a panel debating with Rick Falkvinge, the leader of the Swedish Pirate party. The event was part of the In the City music conference in Manchester, and with me on the panel were Jon Webster (chief executive of the Music Managers Forum), Paul Saunders (ISP Playlouder), Patrick Rackow (CEO of the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors) and Andrew Orlowski (the Register).
As with Griffin, many people didn't agree with Falkvinge being included in the debate, nor getting a platform to peddle his agenda. Though I believe in free speech and problem solving by engaging in dialogue, I admit that the difficulty in challenging extremist views is that you have to come way over to their side of the pitch. Still, I'm convinced that you have to face these people head-on to be able to expose the huge gaps in their reasoning.
Key issues for the Pirate party are civil liberties, privacy laws, getting rid of copyright for all non-commercial use and limiting copyright for commercial use to five years...
It may surprise some people that the debate did not end up becoming a screaming match. In fact, most of the panel focused on finding a solution to how creators would survive in the future. Incidentally, I told Falkvinge that I was thinking of starting a political party that would protect the livelihood of creators. When I said I was going to call it the Pirate party, he said I couldn't – since the name is trademarked. I guess the Pirate party cherry-picks rights according to their own agenda."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/oct/23/pirate-party-rick-falkvinge
Nick Griffin wasn't the only one to stir up controversy this week. Sweden's Pirate party were in Manchester to debate their ultra-laissez-faire ideas on copyright
"Nick Griffin isn't the only controversial party leader to head into a debate this week. This past Sunday I was on a panel debating with Rick Falkvinge, the leader of the Swedish Pirate party. The event was part of the In the City music conference in Manchester, and with me on the panel were Jon Webster (chief executive of the Music Managers Forum), Paul Saunders (ISP Playlouder), Patrick Rackow (CEO of the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors) and Andrew Orlowski (the Register).
As with Griffin, many people didn't agree with Falkvinge being included in the debate, nor getting a platform to peddle his agenda. Though I believe in free speech and problem solving by engaging in dialogue, I admit that the difficulty in challenging extremist views is that you have to come way over to their side of the pitch. Still, I'm convinced that you have to face these people head-on to be able to expose the huge gaps in their reasoning.
Key issues for the Pirate party are civil liberties, privacy laws, getting rid of copyright for all non-commercial use and limiting copyright for commercial use to five years...
It may surprise some people that the debate did not end up becoming a screaming match. In fact, most of the panel focused on finding a solution to how creators would survive in the future. Incidentally, I told Falkvinge that I was thinking of starting a political party that would protect the livelihood of creators. When I said I was going to call it the Pirate party, he said I couldn't – since the name is trademarked. I guess the Pirate party cherry-picks rights according to their own agenda."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/oct/23/pirate-party-rick-falkvinge
Dutch court orders Pirate Bay to remove links; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/23/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Dutch court orders Pirate Bay to remove links:
"The three founders -- Frederik Neij, Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Svartholmmen -- and a fourth defendant were found guilty on April 17 by a Swedish court of having promoted copyright infringement through their filesharing site.
They were sentenced to a year in jail and ordered to pay 30 million kronor (2.72 million euros, 3.56 million US dollars) to the movie and recording industry.
They are currently appealing the verdict.
The verdict against them did not concern the website itself, which continues to function.
Founded in 2003, The Pirate Bay makes it possible to skirt copyright fees and share music, film and computer game files using bit torrent technology, or peer-to-peer links offered on the site.
None of the material can be found on The Pirate Bay server itself.
The Pirate Bay claims to have some 22 million users worldwide."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/dutch-court-orders-pirate-bay-to-remove-links-20091023-hbne.html
"The three founders -- Frederik Neij, Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Svartholmmen -- and a fourth defendant were found guilty on April 17 by a Swedish court of having promoted copyright infringement through their filesharing site.
They were sentenced to a year in jail and ordered to pay 30 million kronor (2.72 million euros, 3.56 million US dollars) to the movie and recording industry.
They are currently appealing the verdict.
The verdict against them did not concern the website itself, which continues to function.
Founded in 2003, The Pirate Bay makes it possible to skirt copyright fees and share music, film and computer game files using bit torrent technology, or peer-to-peer links offered on the site.
None of the material can be found on The Pirate Bay server itself.
The Pirate Bay claims to have some 22 million users worldwide."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/dutch-court-orders-pirate-bay-to-remove-links-20091023-hbne.html
OpEd: Proposed Google book settlement leaves libraries' rights in question; San Jose Mercury News, 10/22/09
OpEd: Melinda Cervantes and Jane Light, San Jose Mercury News; Proposed Google book settlement leaves libraries' rights in question:
"The problem with the initial proposed settlement is a lack of specificity about how public libraries throughout the United States would be able to provide access to Google Book Search for millions of citizens. Would each library, regardless of its size and number of users, only be allowed to have one computer that could be used to access the Google Book Search?
What about access for the many library cardholders who use their home or work computers to "visit" the library's online resources? Would they be shut out?
Would the public be required to give up anonymity and privacy in order to explore Google's digitized library? Who would hold this information, and what assurance would library users have that the data would not be used for commercial purposes?
What would be the cost to libraries to access Google's Book Search — and should they have to pay anything at all, considering that much of Google's collection is material already in the public domain, and many of the books they are scanning come from publicly funded libraries?
These are troubling questions, and not just for librarians. They get to the heart and soul of what libraries are all about: equal access to information for everyone and a guarantee of privacy.
More people than ever are coming to their local libraries for resources. Some are budding inventors and entrepreneurs who are seeking inspiration for the next great innovation. Some are self-motivated independent learners who want to read, research and learn just for the fun of it. And, of course, many are students who rely as much on the public library as their school library for access to the world of information. The needs of the public are equally important as the intellectual property rights of authors.
So far, the Google settlement is being treated as if it were just another private litigation. It's not. Google's digitized library represents a huge worldwide public policy issue with complex, significant impacts that need further exploration."
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13619997#
"The problem with the initial proposed settlement is a lack of specificity about how public libraries throughout the United States would be able to provide access to Google Book Search for millions of citizens. Would each library, regardless of its size and number of users, only be allowed to have one computer that could be used to access the Google Book Search?
What about access for the many library cardholders who use their home or work computers to "visit" the library's online resources? Would they be shut out?
Would the public be required to give up anonymity and privacy in order to explore Google's digitized library? Who would hold this information, and what assurance would library users have that the data would not be used for commercial purposes?
What would be the cost to libraries to access Google's Book Search — and should they have to pay anything at all, considering that much of Google's collection is material already in the public domain, and many of the books they are scanning come from publicly funded libraries?
These are troubling questions, and not just for librarians. They get to the heart and soul of what libraries are all about: equal access to information for everyone and a guarantee of privacy.
More people than ever are coming to their local libraries for resources. Some are budding inventors and entrepreneurs who are seeking inspiration for the next great innovation. Some are self-motivated independent learners who want to read, research and learn just for the fun of it. And, of course, many are students who rely as much on the public library as their school library for access to the world of information. The needs of the public are equally important as the intellectual property rights of authors.
So far, the Google settlement is being treated as if it were just another private litigation. It's not. Google's digitized library represents a huge worldwide public policy issue with complex, significant impacts that need further exploration."
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13619997#
Friday, October 23, 2009
France Approves Wide Crackdown on Net Piracy; New York Times, 10/23/09
Eric Pfanner, New York Times; France Approves Wide Crackdown on Net Piracy:
"France thrust itself into the vanguard of the global battle against digital piracy on Thursday, approving a plan to deny Internet access to people who illegally copy music and movies.
The country’s highest constitutional court approved a so-called three-strikes law after rejecting the key portions of an earlier version last spring. Supporters say they hope that France, by imposing the toughest measures yet in the battle against copyright theft, will set a precedent for other countries to follow.
Britain appears set to introduce similar legislation next month.
“France is acting as a spearhead,” said David El Sayegh, director general of the Syndicat National de l’Édition Phonographique, the French music industry association. “Piracy is not just a French problem, it is a global problem.”
Critics of the legislation call the sanctions draconian and say they will be ineffective in curbing file-sharing, or in converting pirates into customers of legitimate digital media businesses. They argue that disconnecting Internet accounts is unfair because of the increasing importance of the Web as a venue for commerce and political expression.
“It is a very sad day for Internet freedom in France,” said Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesman for La Quadrature du Net, a group that had campaigned against the law. He said opponents of the law would seek new ways to subvert it.
The law creates a new agency that will send out warning letters to people accused of copying music, movies or other media content illegally via the Internet. Those who ignore a second warning and copy files illegally a third time could face yearlong suspensions of their Internet access, as well as fines.
Mr. El Sayegh said that members of the agency would be appointed in November and that the first letters could go out as soon as January. Suspensions could occur as soon as the middle of next year, he added.
The court reviewed the proposal because of a challenge by the opposition Socialist Party following parliamentary approval in September. The reversal is a big victory for President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose wife, Carla Bruni, a singer and model, had championed the measure.
The main difference between the initial proposal blocked by the constitutional court and the version approved Thursday is that a judge, rather than the new agency itself, will be required to sign off on any account suspensions. Without that protection, the court had said, the law would have violated free-speech protections.
Campaigners against the plan complained that even the new version will deny the accused the right to due process because the procedures will follow a fast-track procedure similar to that employed for traffic violations.
Approval of the law in France comes as the European Parliament, which last spring sought to enshrine Internet access as a fundamental human right, potentially blocking any government-imposed cutoffs, appears to be softening its opposition to such penalties. New provisions included in a proposed telecommunications law would permit account suspensions, analysts say.
Across Europe, policy makers have been wary about embracing “three strikes” solutions. Critics say disconnecting people’s Internet access is inconsistent with many governments’ stated objective of increasing broadband penetration.
But Britain, which had consistently ruled out account suspensions, reversed course last month, saying that it would consider such measures as a last resort in the battle against file-sharing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/technology/23net.html?scp=9&sq=copyright&st=cse
"France thrust itself into the vanguard of the global battle against digital piracy on Thursday, approving a plan to deny Internet access to people who illegally copy music and movies.
The country’s highest constitutional court approved a so-called three-strikes law after rejecting the key portions of an earlier version last spring. Supporters say they hope that France, by imposing the toughest measures yet in the battle against copyright theft, will set a precedent for other countries to follow.
Britain appears set to introduce similar legislation next month.
“France is acting as a spearhead,” said David El Sayegh, director general of the Syndicat National de l’Édition Phonographique, the French music industry association. “Piracy is not just a French problem, it is a global problem.”
Critics of the legislation call the sanctions draconian and say they will be ineffective in curbing file-sharing, or in converting pirates into customers of legitimate digital media businesses. They argue that disconnecting Internet accounts is unfair because of the increasing importance of the Web as a venue for commerce and political expression.
“It is a very sad day for Internet freedom in France,” said Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesman for La Quadrature du Net, a group that had campaigned against the law. He said opponents of the law would seek new ways to subvert it.
The law creates a new agency that will send out warning letters to people accused of copying music, movies or other media content illegally via the Internet. Those who ignore a second warning and copy files illegally a third time could face yearlong suspensions of their Internet access, as well as fines.
Mr. El Sayegh said that members of the agency would be appointed in November and that the first letters could go out as soon as January. Suspensions could occur as soon as the middle of next year, he added.
The court reviewed the proposal because of a challenge by the opposition Socialist Party following parliamentary approval in September. The reversal is a big victory for President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose wife, Carla Bruni, a singer and model, had championed the measure.
The main difference between the initial proposal blocked by the constitutional court and the version approved Thursday is that a judge, rather than the new agency itself, will be required to sign off on any account suspensions. Without that protection, the court had said, the law would have violated free-speech protections.
Campaigners against the plan complained that even the new version will deny the accused the right to due process because the procedures will follow a fast-track procedure similar to that employed for traffic violations.
Approval of the law in France comes as the European Parliament, which last spring sought to enshrine Internet access as a fundamental human right, potentially blocking any government-imposed cutoffs, appears to be softening its opposition to such penalties. New provisions included in a proposed telecommunications law would permit account suspensions, analysts say.
Across Europe, policy makers have been wary about embracing “three strikes” solutions. Critics say disconnecting people’s Internet access is inconsistent with many governments’ stated objective of increasing broadband penetration.
But Britain, which had consistently ruled out account suspensions, reversed course last month, saying that it would consider such measures as a last resort in the battle against file-sharing."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/technology/23net.html?scp=9&sq=copyright&st=cse
McSteamy Vid Lawsuit? It’s a Copyright Beef; New York Times, 9/25/09
David Carr, New York Times; McSteamy Vid Lawsuit? It’s a Copyright Beef:
"As we wrote about on Thursday, Eric Dane, an actor from “Grey’s Anatomy” - aka “Dr. McSteamy” - and his wife Rebecca Gayheart had their attorney Marty Singer file a $1 million suit against Gawker Media for its role in publishing a video of them romping in the altogether. The little imps at Gawker, not ones to let a lawsuit cramp their style, posted the complaint in its entirety. And as it turns out, the actors are not alleging libel, slander or invasion of privacy as a primary cause of the action, but rather that Gawker violated their copyright on the salacious video. The complaint states that “Plaintiffs timely (sic) registered with the United States Copyright Office their rights as authors and owners of the video. The copyright registration number is PAu 3-404-881.”
In a copyright the pair registered two days after the video went public — you can see it here at The Smoking Gun — the work is entitled “ED-RG-KAP Video by ED & RG.” While that title may be lack in lyricism, it does contain all the relevant initials. In the application claiming dominion over the 12-minute film, which brings to mind the Mumblecore movement at its edgiest, Mr. Dane and Ms. Gayheart share credits for direction and cinematography. No costume credits are listed for reasons that are probably obvious.
By disseminating the tape, Gawker allegedly violated the plaintiff’s exclusive rights to “PAu 3-404-881″ aka “ED-RG-KAP Video by ED & RG.” hearafter and forthwith known as the McSteamy video."
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/mcsteamy-vid-lawsuit-its-a-copyright-beef/?scp=4&sq=copyright&st=cse
"As we wrote about on Thursday, Eric Dane, an actor from “Grey’s Anatomy” - aka “Dr. McSteamy” - and his wife Rebecca Gayheart had their attorney Marty Singer file a $1 million suit against Gawker Media for its role in publishing a video of them romping in the altogether. The little imps at Gawker, not ones to let a lawsuit cramp their style, posted the complaint in its entirety. And as it turns out, the actors are not alleging libel, slander or invasion of privacy as a primary cause of the action, but rather that Gawker violated their copyright on the salacious video. The complaint states that “Plaintiffs timely (sic) registered with the United States Copyright Office their rights as authors and owners of the video. The copyright registration number is PAu 3-404-881.”
In a copyright the pair registered two days after the video went public — you can see it here at The Smoking Gun — the work is entitled “ED-RG-KAP Video by ED & RG.” While that title may be lack in lyricism, it does contain all the relevant initials. In the application claiming dominion over the 12-minute film, which brings to mind the Mumblecore movement at its edgiest, Mr. Dane and Ms. Gayheart share credits for direction and cinematography. No costume credits are listed for reasons that are probably obvious.
By disseminating the tape, Gawker allegedly violated the plaintiff’s exclusive rights to “PAu 3-404-881″ aka “ED-RG-KAP Video by ED & RG.” hearafter and forthwith known as the McSteamy video."
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/mcsteamy-vid-lawsuit-its-a-copyright-beef/?scp=4&sq=copyright&st=cse
Book Scanning Prompts Review of EU Copyright Laws; New York Times, 10/19/09
AP via New York Times; Book Scanning Prompts Review of EU Copyright Laws:
"The European Commission said Monday it may revise copyright law to make it easier for companies like Google Inc. to scan printed books and distribute digital copies over the Internet.
Such changes would likely include ways to more easily compensate authors and publishers, possibly through a statutory license in which a company would automatically get rights to scanning and would pay royalties to a collective pool. Money from that pool would then get distributed to copyright holders.
Under Europe's current patchwork of copyright laws, rights are now managed separately in each of the European Union's 27 nations, making it difficult to seek permission to republish or digitize content, especially when the rights holder is hard to find.
The European Commission said it would start work next year, with the goal of encouraging mass-scale digitization and suggesting ways for compensating copyright holders. Any suggested changes to European law would have to be approved by EU governments and lawmakers.
The commission said the move was partly triggered by a hearing it held in September where European authors, publishers, libraries and technology companies spoke out about how they would be affected by a deal Google is negotiating in the U.S."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/19/business/AP-EU-EU-Digital-Books.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=copyright&st=cse
"The European Commission said Monday it may revise copyright law to make it easier for companies like Google Inc. to scan printed books and distribute digital copies over the Internet.
Such changes would likely include ways to more easily compensate authors and publishers, possibly through a statutory license in which a company would automatically get rights to scanning and would pay royalties to a collective pool. Money from that pool would then get distributed to copyright holders.
Under Europe's current patchwork of copyright laws, rights are now managed separately in each of the European Union's 27 nations, making it difficult to seek permission to republish or digitize content, especially when the rights holder is hard to find.
The European Commission said it would start work next year, with the goal of encouraging mass-scale digitization and suggesting ways for compensating copyright holders. Any suggested changes to European law would have to be approved by EU governments and lawmakers.
The commission said the move was partly triggered by a hearing it held in September where European authors, publishers, libraries and technology companies spoke out about how they would be affected by a deal Google is negotiating in the U.S."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/19/business/AP-EU-EU-Digital-Books.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=copyright&st=cse
Corporate bullying on the net must be resisted; Guardian, 10/20/09
Cory Doctorow, Guardian; Corporate bullying on the net must be resisted:
The entertainment industry's plans to attack copyright violators is plain embarrassing – and ignorant of real-world implications
"Back in September, my Boing Boing co-editor Xeni Jardin blogged a photo of a Japanese Ralph Lauren store display featuring model Filippa Hamilton with her proportions digitally altered so that "her pelvis was bigger than her head." Xeni posted the image as a brief and pithy comment on the unrealistic body image conveyed by couture advertising – in other words, she posted it as commentary, and thus fell into one of the copyright exemptions that Americans call "fair use" and others call "fair dealing".
Ralph Lauren – as with many corporate giants – would prefer not to be criticised in public, so his lawyers sent our internet service provider (the Canadian company Priority CoLo) a legal threat, averring that our use was a violation of copyright law and demanding that Priority CoLo remove our post forthwith.
The story has a happy ending: Priority CoLo is a wonderful ISP and don't take these legal notices at face value. Instead, they talk them over with us, and since we all agreed that Lauren's legal analysis didn't pass the giggle test, we decided to respond by posting the notice and making fun of Lauren's insecurity and legal bullying. The story resonated with the public – who are tired of legal bullying from the corporate world – and was picked up by major news outlets around the world. Lauren apologised for his photoshoppery (but not for the spurious legal threat – and the model was fired for not being skeletal enough to appear in Lauren's campaigns). Lauren learned a thing or two about the Streisand Effect, wherein an attempt to suppress information makes the information spread more widely...
So, the notice-and-takedown system – a feature of copyright law the world round, thanks to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties that require it – has become an easily abused, cheap, and virtually risk-free way of effecting mass censorship on the flimsiest pretence. Everyone from the Church of Scientology to major fashion companies avail themselves of this convenient system for making critics vanish.
Of course, we predicted this outcome in 1995, when the treaties were being negotiated. A system that removes checks and balances, that requires no proof before action, that replaces judges and laws with a deepest-pockets-always-wins "begs" to be abused. As Anton Chekhov wrote: "If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off." Leaving naked power without consequence lying around where anyone can find it and use it is an invitation to an abuse of that power.
It's been 13 years since the WIPO treaties passed in 1996, and we have an abundance of evidence to support Chekhov, and yet we continue to repeat the notice-and-takedown mistake. Today, the entertainment industry is bent on establishing a "three strikes" system, with the enthusiastic support of Peter Mandelson, whereby someone who is accused of three copyright violations would lose his internet connection (as would all the household members who shared that connection). Even if we accept the entertainment industry's assurances that "they" would never abuse this power (admittedly, you'd have to be a fool to believe this), what about "everyone else"? What about the Ralph Laurens of this world, or the mad-dog racists who'd love to have their critics vanish from the debate, or the school bullies who want to add new torments to their victims' lives?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/20/corporate-bullying-internet-users-resist
The entertainment industry's plans to attack copyright violators is plain embarrassing – and ignorant of real-world implications
"Back in September, my Boing Boing co-editor Xeni Jardin blogged a photo of a Japanese Ralph Lauren store display featuring model Filippa Hamilton with her proportions digitally altered so that "her pelvis was bigger than her head." Xeni posted the image as a brief and pithy comment on the unrealistic body image conveyed by couture advertising – in other words, she posted it as commentary, and thus fell into one of the copyright exemptions that Americans call "fair use" and others call "fair dealing".
Ralph Lauren – as with many corporate giants – would prefer not to be criticised in public, so his lawyers sent our internet service provider (the Canadian company Priority CoLo) a legal threat, averring that our use was a violation of copyright law and demanding that Priority CoLo remove our post forthwith.
The story has a happy ending: Priority CoLo is a wonderful ISP and don't take these legal notices at face value. Instead, they talk them over with us, and since we all agreed that Lauren's legal analysis didn't pass the giggle test, we decided to respond by posting the notice and making fun of Lauren's insecurity and legal bullying. The story resonated with the public – who are tired of legal bullying from the corporate world – and was picked up by major news outlets around the world. Lauren apologised for his photoshoppery (but not for the spurious legal threat – and the model was fired for not being skeletal enough to appear in Lauren's campaigns). Lauren learned a thing or two about the Streisand Effect, wherein an attempt to suppress information makes the information spread more widely...
So, the notice-and-takedown system – a feature of copyright law the world round, thanks to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties that require it – has become an easily abused, cheap, and virtually risk-free way of effecting mass censorship on the flimsiest pretence. Everyone from the Church of Scientology to major fashion companies avail themselves of this convenient system for making critics vanish.
Of course, we predicted this outcome in 1995, when the treaties were being negotiated. A system that removes checks and balances, that requires no proof before action, that replaces judges and laws with a deepest-pockets-always-wins "begs" to be abused. As Anton Chekhov wrote: "If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off." Leaving naked power without consequence lying around where anyone can find it and use it is an invitation to an abuse of that power.
It's been 13 years since the WIPO treaties passed in 1996, and we have an abundance of evidence to support Chekhov, and yet we continue to repeat the notice-and-takedown mistake. Today, the entertainment industry is bent on establishing a "three strikes" system, with the enthusiastic support of Peter Mandelson, whereby someone who is accused of three copyright violations would lose his internet connection (as would all the household members who shared that connection). Even if we accept the entertainment industry's assurances that "they" would never abuse this power (admittedly, you'd have to be a fool to believe this), what about "everyone else"? What about the Ralph Laurens of this world, or the mad-dog racists who'd love to have their critics vanish from the debate, or the school bullies who want to add new torments to their victims' lives?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/20/corporate-bullying-internet-users-resist
Google Books in China; Chapter Two; Wall Street Journal, 10/22/09
Loretta Chao, Wall Street Journal; Google Books in China; Chapter Two:
"In response to the recent uproar over Google’s (GOOG) digital library in China, Google initially gave a boilerplate response about its U.S. book settlement applying only to U.S. books, and that the company will “of course” listen carefully to concerns and work hard to address them.
Thursday, journalists received an updated statement from the company saying the Chinese books in its library are available only in snippets, unless use of the full texts is approved by rights holders. Yet somehow, state-run newspaper China Daily seems to have taken this to mean Google plans to make a new settlement with Chinese authors. Today’s headline read, “Oodles of woe for Google,” and the lead paragraph says the company “may draw up a new statement to put out its copyright fire in China, according to a statement.”
Is it possible that China Daily got a different statement than other media, or is it merely putting another spin on Google’s comments? In its article, the paper uses quotes that were in Google’s initial, boilerplate statement, which certainly did not seem to imply any new settlement. Here is the latest from Google:
“Today we have more than 50 Chinese publishers participating in Google Book Search, who together have authorized more than 30,000 books to be found through Google web search–and made available through a short preview. We also have some Chinese books that have been scanned by our Book Search library partners; in those cases, we only make the books available as a short snippet of text–as we do with web search–unless the rightsholder authorizes a greater use. We also honor rightsholders’ preferences if they ask not to be included.”
“Like all rightsholders, Chinese authors and publishers will be able to tell Google whether or not to display their books, and will be paid if the books are included in sales or subscriptions authorized under the settlement.”
Either way, according to the China Daily story, Google’s new tack is still unacceptable to the China Written Works Copyright Society.
“We want Google to admit its infringement, apologize, and authorize a formal negotiator to discuss specific compensation with Chinese authors,” Zhang Hongbo, CWWCS deputy director-general, told China Daily."
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2009/10/22/google-books-in-china-chapter-two/
"In response to the recent uproar over Google’s (GOOG) digital library in China, Google initially gave a boilerplate response about its U.S. book settlement applying only to U.S. books, and that the company will “of course” listen carefully to concerns and work hard to address them.
Thursday, journalists received an updated statement from the company saying the Chinese books in its library are available only in snippets, unless use of the full texts is approved by rights holders. Yet somehow, state-run newspaper China Daily seems to have taken this to mean Google plans to make a new settlement with Chinese authors. Today’s headline read, “Oodles of woe for Google,” and the lead paragraph says the company “may draw up a new statement to put out its copyright fire in China, according to a statement.”
Is it possible that China Daily got a different statement than other media, or is it merely putting another spin on Google’s comments? In its article, the paper uses quotes that were in Google’s initial, boilerplate statement, which certainly did not seem to imply any new settlement. Here is the latest from Google:
“Today we have more than 50 Chinese publishers participating in Google Book Search, who together have authorized more than 30,000 books to be found through Google web search–and made available through a short preview. We also have some Chinese books that have been scanned by our Book Search library partners; in those cases, we only make the books available as a short snippet of text–as we do with web search–unless the rightsholder authorizes a greater use. We also honor rightsholders’ preferences if they ask not to be included.”
“Like all rightsholders, Chinese authors and publishers will be able to tell Google whether or not to display their books, and will be paid if the books are included in sales or subscriptions authorized under the settlement.”
Either way, according to the China Daily story, Google’s new tack is still unacceptable to the China Written Works Copyright Society.
“We want Google to admit its infringement, apologize, and authorize a formal negotiator to discuss specific compensation with Chinese authors,” Zhang Hongbo, CWWCS deputy director-general, told China Daily."
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2009/10/22/google-books-in-china-chapter-two/
EFF Urges Court to Ensure Fairness in Google Book Search Amendment Process; Electronic Frontier Foundation, 10/22/09
Cindy Cohn, Electronic Frontier Foundation; EFF Urges Court to Ensure Fairness in Google Book Search Amendment Process:
"EFF today led a coalition of authors, publishers, companies and nonprofit organizations in sending a letter to the judge overseeing the Google Book Search settlement urging the Court to ensure that those concerned about the settlement receive adequate notice of, and have sufficient time to study and comment on, any amended settlement agreement that Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers present.
Those following the twists and turns of the Google Book Search settlement will recall that the original Fairness Hearing scheduled for October 7, 2009, was put off because of what the Court called: "significant issues, as demonstrated not only by the number of objections, but also by the fact that the objectors include countries, states, non-profit organizations, and prominent authors and law professors." The Court received over 400 submissions about the settlement, including the EFF-led coalition of authors and publishers concerned about reader privacy, as well as significant concerns raised by the Department of Justice.
As a result, the parties have promised the Court that they will submit an amended settlement on November 9, 2009. Today's letter arises from the parties' discussions with the Court in which they have suggested that the amendments to the already complex agreement be subject to limited notice and ability to comment and a truncated schedule ending with a Fairness Hearing in late December or early November. It states: "We signatories raised different specific concerns and issues about this settlement from a number of different vantage points. We are united, however, in our concern that the parties' requests to limit notice and the time and scope of objections will be unfair to us and to other class members."
The Google Book Settlement is simply too important -- and too complex -- to be rushed through the court approval processes without sufficient opportunity for analysis and comment."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/eff-urges-court-ensure-fairness-google-book-search
"EFF today led a coalition of authors, publishers, companies and nonprofit organizations in sending a letter to the judge overseeing the Google Book Search settlement urging the Court to ensure that those concerned about the settlement receive adequate notice of, and have sufficient time to study and comment on, any amended settlement agreement that Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers present.
Those following the twists and turns of the Google Book Search settlement will recall that the original Fairness Hearing scheduled for October 7, 2009, was put off because of what the Court called: "significant issues, as demonstrated not only by the number of objections, but also by the fact that the objectors include countries, states, non-profit organizations, and prominent authors and law professors." The Court received over 400 submissions about the settlement, including the EFF-led coalition of authors and publishers concerned about reader privacy, as well as significant concerns raised by the Department of Justice.
As a result, the parties have promised the Court that they will submit an amended settlement on November 9, 2009. Today's letter arises from the parties' discussions with the Court in which they have suggested that the amendments to the already complex agreement be subject to limited notice and ability to comment and a truncated schedule ending with a Fairness Hearing in late December or early November. It states: "We signatories raised different specific concerns and issues about this settlement from a number of different vantage points. We are united, however, in our concern that the parties' requests to limit notice and the time and scope of objections will be unfair to us and to other class members."
The Google Book Settlement is simply too important -- and too complex -- to be rushed through the court approval processes without sufficient opportunity for analysis and comment."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/eff-urges-court-ensure-fairness-google-book-search
Thursday, October 22, 2009
HathiTrust Launching Full-Text Library of Books; Information Today, 10/22/09
Barbara Quint, Information Today; HathiTrust Launching Full-Text Library of Books:
"With all the controversy still swirling around Google Books and its post-settlement offerings, an alternative route to the millions of digitized books and journals supplied by leading Google Book Search library partners has arrived. The HathiTrust (www.hathitrust.org) is a collaboration of 25 research libraries already participating in Google Book Search to produce a shared digital repository for preservation and access to a curated collection. By mid-November, the HathiTrust Digital Library will have a full-featured, full-text search service for 4.3-5 million items. The searches will retrieve bibliographic citations and page references, including those for in-copyright books. Content will extend beyond the digitized copies of books returned to early library partners by Google. HathiTrust is pushing to acquire other digitized special collections from its members, as well as making arrangements for opening access to university press books.
Begun in October 2008, HathiTrust members currently include the 10 University of California system libraries, plus the California Digital Library, Indiana University, Michigan State University, Northwestern University, The Ohio State University, Penn State University, Purdue University, The University of Chicago, University of Illinois, University of Illinois at Chicago, The University of Iowa, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the University of Virginia. The depository currently includes digitized volumes from the University of Michigan, University of California, Indiana University, and the University of Wisconsin."
http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/NewsBreaks/HathiTrust-Launching-FullText-Library-of-Books-57575.asp
"With all the controversy still swirling around Google Books and its post-settlement offerings, an alternative route to the millions of digitized books and journals supplied by leading Google Book Search library partners has arrived. The HathiTrust (www.hathitrust.org) is a collaboration of 25 research libraries already participating in Google Book Search to produce a shared digital repository for preservation and access to a curated collection. By mid-November, the HathiTrust Digital Library will have a full-featured, full-text search service for 4.3-5 million items. The searches will retrieve bibliographic citations and page references, including those for in-copyright books. Content will extend beyond the digitized copies of books returned to early library partners by Google. HathiTrust is pushing to acquire other digitized special collections from its members, as well as making arrangements for opening access to university press books.
Begun in October 2008, HathiTrust members currently include the 10 University of California system libraries, plus the California Digital Library, Indiana University, Michigan State University, Northwestern University, The Ohio State University, Penn State University, Purdue University, The University of Chicago, University of Illinois, University of Illinois at Chicago, The University of Iowa, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the University of Virginia. The depository currently includes digitized volumes from the University of Michigan, University of California, Indiana University, and the University of Wisconsin."
http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/NewsBreaks/HathiTrust-Launching-FullText-Library-of-Books-57575.asp
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
A New Electronic Reader, the Nook, Enters the Market; New York Times, 10/21/09
Motoko Rich, New York Times; A New Electronic Reader, the Nook, Enters the Market:
"As widely expected, Barnes & Noble unveiled its Nook electronic reading device at a splashy news conference on Tuesday to generally positive views from the publishing community, and offered some details about its whispered-about lending capabilities.
The Nook electronic reading device from Barnes & Noble was unveiled Tuesday, offering a competitor to the Kindle.
As much as anything, publishers seemed relieved that Barnes & Noble, which operates the nation’s largest chain of bookstores, had produced a credible alternative to Amazon’s Kindle. The Nook, priced at $259, went on sale Tuesday afternoon at nook.com, at a price that matched the latest edition of the Kindle. The Nook will ship starting in late November.
Amazon currently dominates the market for electronic readers. Estimates vary, but according to the Codex Group, a consultant to the publishing industry, Amazon has sold about 945,000 units, compared with 525,000 units of the Sony Reader...
One of the differentiating factors of the Nook is that customers can “lend” books to friends. But customers may lend out any given title only one time for a total of 14 days and they cannot read it on their own Nook while it is lent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/technology/21nook.html?scp=1&sq=nook&st=cse
"As widely expected, Barnes & Noble unveiled its Nook electronic reading device at a splashy news conference on Tuesday to generally positive views from the publishing community, and offered some details about its whispered-about lending capabilities.
The Nook electronic reading device from Barnes & Noble was unveiled Tuesday, offering a competitor to the Kindle.
As much as anything, publishers seemed relieved that Barnes & Noble, which operates the nation’s largest chain of bookstores, had produced a credible alternative to Amazon’s Kindle. The Nook, priced at $259, went on sale Tuesday afternoon at nook.com, at a price that matched the latest edition of the Kindle. The Nook will ship starting in late November.
Amazon currently dominates the market for electronic readers. Estimates vary, but according to the Codex Group, a consultant to the publishing industry, Amazon has sold about 945,000 units, compared with 525,000 units of the Sony Reader...
One of the differentiating factors of the Nook is that customers can “lend” books to friends. But customers may lend out any given title only one time for a total of 14 days and they cannot read it on their own Nook while it is lent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/technology/21nook.html?scp=1&sq=nook&st=cse
E-Book Fans Keep Format in Spotlight; New York Times, 10/21/09
Brad Stone, New York Times; E-Book Fans Keep Format in Spotlight:
"The publishing industry has been under a dark cloud recently.
Sales are down this year, despite prominent books by Dan Brown and Edward M. Kennedy. Wal-Mart and Amazon are locked in a war for e-commerce dominance, creating new worries among publishers and authors about dwindling profits.
But amid the gloom, some sellers and owners of electronic reading devices are making the case that people are reading more because of e-books.
Amazon for example, says that people with Kindles now buy 3.1 times as many books as they did before owning the device. That factor is up from 2.7 in December 2008. So a reader who had previously bought eight books from Amazon would now purchase, on average, 24.8 books, a rise from 21.6 books.
“You are going to see very significant industry growth rates as a result of the convenience of this kind of reading,” said Jeffrey P. Bezos, chief executive of Amazon."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/technology/21books.html?scp=1&sq=e-books&st=cse
"The publishing industry has been under a dark cloud recently.
Sales are down this year, despite prominent books by Dan Brown and Edward M. Kennedy. Wal-Mart and Amazon are locked in a war for e-commerce dominance, creating new worries among publishers and authors about dwindling profits.
But amid the gloom, some sellers and owners of electronic reading devices are making the case that people are reading more because of e-books.
Amazon for example, says that people with Kindles now buy 3.1 times as many books as they did before owning the device. That factor is up from 2.7 in December 2008. So a reader who had previously bought eight books from Amazon would now purchase, on average, 24.8 books, a rise from 21.6 books.
“You are going to see very significant industry growth rates as a result of the convenience of this kind of reading,” said Jeffrey P. Bezos, chief executive of Amazon."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/technology/21books.html?scp=1&sq=e-books&st=cse
In Book-Pricing Battle, How Low Can They Go?; New York Times, 10/21/09
Motoko Rich, New York Times; In Book-Pricing Battle, How Low Can They Go?:
"On Monday Target began offering customers who ordered any of six soon-to-be published books on its Web site the same $8.99 price that Wal-Mart has been offering since Friday for 10 titles on its Web site.
Wal-Mart.com had originally offered the books for $10, then dropped to $9 on Friday after Amazon.com had matched its $10 price. When Amazon also went to $9, Wal-Mart cut its price by just a penny. And sure enough, when Target.com, the newcomer to the price war, matched that $8.99 on six of the books, Wal-Mart responded on Tuesday by dropping its price on those books to $8.98."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/books/21price.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=motoko%20rich%20penny%20war&st=cse
"On Monday Target began offering customers who ordered any of six soon-to-be published books on its Web site the same $8.99 price that Wal-Mart has been offering since Friday for 10 titles on its Web site.
Wal-Mart.com had originally offered the books for $10, then dropped to $9 on Friday after Amazon.com had matched its $10 price. When Amazon also went to $9, Wal-Mart cut its price by just a penny. And sure enough, when Target.com, the newcomer to the price war, matched that $8.99 on six of the books, Wal-Mart responded on Tuesday by dropping its price on those books to $8.98."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/books/21price.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=motoko%20rich%20penny%20war&st=cse
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Google book digitization prompts the EU to rethink copyright; Ars Technica, 10/19/09
John Timmer, Ars Technica; Google book digitization prompts the EU to rethink copyright:
"The legal settlement that would sanctify Google's book digitization efforts may be on hold, but that hasn't stopped the sniping over digitization in general, and Google's specific role in vending e-books. The Frankfurt Book Fair, a major publishing event, is playing host to the latest skirmishes over what role Google and other organizations should play in controlling access to digitized material. Google continues to insist that it's doing the world a favor by preserving knowledge and bringing lost books back to the public, but at least some European academics are blasting the company's statements as propaganda. In the meantime, however, the EU itself has used the Fair to announce an effort to update its copyright laws and launch its own pan-European digital library.
The Google book settlement was not well received within the EU, in part because of the same sorts of competition concerns that caused the US Department of Justice to weigh in against it. But Europeans had some distinct concerns, as Google has scanned copies of European works that reside in US Libraries, even though these were never licensed for US distribution. This unlicensed content was especially problematic given the settlement's structure, which would allow Google to distribute the works unless their owners explicitly opted out.
Google eventually made some concessions in an attempt to mollify its European critics, and these seem to have at least produced some fruitful discussions. Today, the European Commission released a statement entitled "Copyright in the Knowledge Economy" that suggests that the EU may be ready to tackle copyright reform for digital works.
The document describes extensive consultations with stakeholders, including libraries and publishers, and discusses the impact that digitization could have on improving access to orphaned works, preserving content, and making works accessible to the disabled. Although all of these are presented as a public good, the documents and statements by Commissioners that accompanied its release make it clear that Google was a major impetus for this effort. The company is mentioned by name several times, and Commissioner Viviane Reding said that updating the rules governing books had acquired a degree of urgency due to Google's actions: "If we act swiftly, pro-competitive European solutions on books digitisation may well be sooner operational than the solutions presently envisaged under the Google Books Settlement in the United States."
Of course, acting swiftly may be a relative thing, given that the EU has yet to even harmonize the rules governing copyrighted books among its member states...
[T]he EU government also had an open access announcement to make at the meeting. It's gone back and digitized all 50 years of its own documents, and has placed all 12 million pages online at the EU Bookshop. The documents are available to the public for free in PDF form, and will eventually appear in the Europeana digital archive."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/google-book-digitization-prompts-the-eu-to-rethink-copyright.ars
"The legal settlement that would sanctify Google's book digitization efforts may be on hold, but that hasn't stopped the sniping over digitization in general, and Google's specific role in vending e-books. The Frankfurt Book Fair, a major publishing event, is playing host to the latest skirmishes over what role Google and other organizations should play in controlling access to digitized material. Google continues to insist that it's doing the world a favor by preserving knowledge and bringing lost books back to the public, but at least some European academics are blasting the company's statements as propaganda. In the meantime, however, the EU itself has used the Fair to announce an effort to update its copyright laws and launch its own pan-European digital library.
The Google book settlement was not well received within the EU, in part because of the same sorts of competition concerns that caused the US Department of Justice to weigh in against it. But Europeans had some distinct concerns, as Google has scanned copies of European works that reside in US Libraries, even though these were never licensed for US distribution. This unlicensed content was especially problematic given the settlement's structure, which would allow Google to distribute the works unless their owners explicitly opted out.
Google eventually made some concessions in an attempt to mollify its European critics, and these seem to have at least produced some fruitful discussions. Today, the European Commission released a statement entitled "Copyright in the Knowledge Economy" that suggests that the EU may be ready to tackle copyright reform for digital works.
The document describes extensive consultations with stakeholders, including libraries and publishers, and discusses the impact that digitization could have on improving access to orphaned works, preserving content, and making works accessible to the disabled. Although all of these are presented as a public good, the documents and statements by Commissioners that accompanied its release make it clear that Google was a major impetus for this effort. The company is mentioned by name several times, and Commissioner Viviane Reding said that updating the rules governing books had acquired a degree of urgency due to Google's actions: "If we act swiftly, pro-competitive European solutions on books digitisation may well be sooner operational than the solutions presently envisaged under the Google Books Settlement in the United States."
Of course, acting swiftly may be a relative thing, given that the EU has yet to even harmonize the rules governing copyrighted books among its member states...
[T]he EU government also had an open access announcement to make at the meeting. It's gone back and digitized all 50 years of its own documents, and has placed all 12 million pages online at the EU Bookshop. The documents are available to the public for free in PDF form, and will eventually appear in the Europeana digital archive."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/google-book-digitization-prompts-the-eu-to-rethink-copyright.ars
Google Books Settlement: The Chinese Chapter; Wall Street Journal, 10/20/09
Juliet Ye, Wall Street Journal; Google Books Settlement: The Chinese Chapter:
"Google’s troubles in China seem to have taken a new turn as a result of the company’s plan to create a vast digital library of books.
The China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS) has called on Chinese writers to stand up for their legal rights in the face of Web search giant Google’s proposed book settlement, according to a post published on the official Web site of Chinese Writers’ Association (CWA).
CWWCS claimed to have found copyrighted works written by a number of Chinese writers scanned and posted to Google’s digital library, Google Books."
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/10/20/google-books-settlement-the-chinese-chapter/
"Google’s troubles in China seem to have taken a new turn as a result of the company’s plan to create a vast digital library of books.
The China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS) has called on Chinese writers to stand up for their legal rights in the face of Web search giant Google’s proposed book settlement, according to a post published on the official Web site of Chinese Writers’ Association (CWA).
CWWCS claimed to have found copyrighted works written by a number of Chinese writers scanned and posted to Google’s digital library, Google Books."
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/10/20/google-books-settlement-the-chinese-chapter/
Monday, October 19, 2009
Google's e-book plan slammed as 'hysterical garbage'; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/19/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Google's e-book plan slammed as 'hysterical garbage':
""Garbage" and "hysterical propaganda" was one angry reaction at the world's biggest book fair this year when Google, the world's biggest internet search service, defended plans to turn millions of books into electronic literature available online.
The row erupted at the 61st international Frankfurt Book Fair, a major annual literary event.
A literature professor from Germany's Heidelberg University responded sharply to Google Books, a massive project to give the world access to books otherwise hard or impossible to obtain.
Describing Google's claims as "just a whole garbage of hysterical propaganda," Professor Roland Reuss warned of a threat to traditional publishing, saying at a forum on the issue: "You revolutionize the market but the cost is that the producers of goods in this market will be demolished."
Google's head of Print Content Partnerships in Britain, Santiago de la Mora, responded: "We're solving one of the big problems in the world, that is books are pretty much dead in the sense that they are not being found."
"We're bringing these books back to life, making them more visible to 1.8 billion internet users in a very controlled way," de la Mora said.
Google Books is facing big legal problems in the United States, Europe and elsewhere around the globe over the key issue of copyright laws."
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/googles-ebook-plan-slammed-as-hysterical-garbage-20091019-h3ha.html
""Garbage" and "hysterical propaganda" was one angry reaction at the world's biggest book fair this year when Google, the world's biggest internet search service, defended plans to turn millions of books into electronic literature available online.
The row erupted at the 61st international Frankfurt Book Fair, a major annual literary event.
A literature professor from Germany's Heidelberg University responded sharply to Google Books, a massive project to give the world access to books otherwise hard or impossible to obtain.
Describing Google's claims as "just a whole garbage of hysterical propaganda," Professor Roland Reuss warned of a threat to traditional publishing, saying at a forum on the issue: "You revolutionize the market but the cost is that the producers of goods in this market will be demolished."
Google's head of Print Content Partnerships in Britain, Santiago de la Mora, responded: "We're solving one of the big problems in the world, that is books are pretty much dead in the sense that they are not being found."
"We're bringing these books back to life, making them more visible to 1.8 billion internet users in a very controlled way," de la Mora said.
Google Books is facing big legal problems in the United States, Europe and elsewhere around the globe over the key issue of copyright laws."
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/googles-ebook-plan-slammed-as-hysterical-garbage-20091019-h3ha.html
The Copyright Wars; Letters to Editor, New York Times, 10/16/09
Letters to Editor, New York Times re Lewis Hyde 10/4/09 NYTimes essay "Advantage Google"; The Copyright Wars:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Letters-t-THECOPYRIGHT_LETTERS.html?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Letters-t-THECOPYRIGHT_LETTERS.html?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
ACTA Text Revealed To 42 Select Insiders; Intellectual Property Watch, 10/15/09
Intellectual Property Watch; ACTA Text Revealed To 42 Select Insiders:
"In the weeks leading up to the next negotiating session (first week of November in Seoul) of the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, 42 Washington, DC-area insiders, mostly from industry, were invited by the United States Trade Representatives to see copies of its text on the internet, according to a new report.
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request to the USTR, think-tank Knowledge Ecology International received copies [pdf] of the non-disclosure agreements the insiders signed prior to viewing the ACTA text.
The list included several members of software industry group the Business Software Alliance, online auction site eBay, internet media giant Google, conservative media conglomerate News Corporation, and nongovernmental group Public Knowledge, among others.
A full list of names of those who saw the draft, and their affiliations, is available on the KEI website here."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/10/15/acta-text-revealed-to-42-select-insiders/
"In the weeks leading up to the next negotiating session (first week of November in Seoul) of the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, 42 Washington, DC-area insiders, mostly from industry, were invited by the United States Trade Representatives to see copies of its text on the internet, according to a new report.
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request to the USTR, think-tank Knowledge Ecology International received copies [pdf] of the non-disclosure agreements the insiders signed prior to viewing the ACTA text.
The list included several members of software industry group the Business Software Alliance, online auction site eBay, internet media giant Google, conservative media conglomerate News Corporation, and nongovernmental group Public Knowledge, among others.
A full list of names of those who saw the draft, and their affiliations, is available on the KEI website here."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/10/15/acta-text-revealed-to-42-select-insiders/
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Burberry sues Pets At Home over designs for dog accessories; Guardian, 10/18/09
Simon Bowers, Guardian; Burberry sues Pets At Home over designs for dog accessories:
"The famous Burberry check, which made a triumphant return to London Fashion Week last month, is the subject of a legal row between the high fashion house and pet accessories chain Pets At Home.
Burberry is suing the retail chain claiming material used on items such as dog coats and baskets sold in the retailers' 250 stores had used a plaid design amounting to a copyright infringement. Products are understood to have been pulled from shops, but the dispute has yet to be resolved."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/18/burberry-sues-pets-at-home
"The famous Burberry check, which made a triumphant return to London Fashion Week last month, is the subject of a legal row between the high fashion house and pet accessories chain Pets At Home.
Burberry is suing the retail chain claiming material used on items such as dog coats and baskets sold in the retailers' 250 stores had used a plaid design amounting to a copyright infringement. Products are understood to have been pulled from shops, but the dispute has yet to be resolved."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/18/burberry-sues-pets-at-home
Texas Instruments: Don't hack your calculators, or else; Guardian, 10/15/09
Bobbie Johnson, Guardian; Texas Instruments: Don't hack your calculators, or else:
""This is not about copyright infringement. This is about running your own software on your own device - a calculator you legally bought," said EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick. "Yet TI still issued empty legal threats in an attempt to shut down discussion of this legitimate tinkering. Hobbyists are taking their own tools and making them better, in the best tradition of American innovation.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/15/texas-instruments-calculator
""This is not about copyright infringement. This is about running your own software on your own device - a calculator you legally bought," said EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick. "Yet TI still issued empty legal threats in an attempt to shut down discussion of this legitimate tinkering. Hobbyists are taking their own tools and making them better, in the best tradition of American innovation.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/15/texas-instruments-calculator
Do Libraries Need Permission To Lend Out Ebooks?; Techdirt, 10/16/09
Mike Masnick, Techdirt; Do Libraries Need Permission To Lend Out Ebooks?:
"Some publishers are refusing to allow libraries to lend out their ebooks...which makes me wonder why the publishers have any say in the matter. Thanks to the right of first sale, a library should be able to lend out an ebook if it's legally purchased it without having to get the publisher's permission."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091015/1511426550.shtml
"Some publishers are refusing to allow libraries to lend out their ebooks...which makes me wonder why the publishers have any say in the matter. Thanks to the right of first sale, a library should be able to lend out an ebook if it's legally purchased it without having to get the publisher's permission."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091015/1511426550.shtml
Google starts new chapter in the battle for e-books; Independent, 10/17/09
Independent; Google starts new chapter in the battle for e-books:
"Google has opened a new flank in the war for the e-book market as executives this week flew to Germany to sweet-talk publishers into joining their imminent online book store.
The latest drive to dominate digital titles could set it up for a bitter battle with Amazon. Some, however, believe the announcement was little than a political manoeuvre by the web giant, which is also embroiled with publishers in court battles over its Google Book Search project to digitally archive the world's libraries.
The rise of the e-book has dominated talk at the Frankfurt Book Fair this week, and it hit fever pitch when the technology giant revealed its plans for Google Editions next year.
A spokesman for the web giant said: "Google's whole business is based around helping people find the information they need. A large amount of information is not on websites, it is in books, and we want to make sure that these books are not forgotten."
The plan is to launch an online bookstore with about 500,000 titles available to anyone with a web browser in the first half of next year. Google will sell the books itself – taking 37 per cent of the revenues and handing the rest to the publishers – or act as an access point for users to buy through another online retailer with Google keeping a small share of the sales. It wants to create partnerships with thousands of publishers around the world, and paved the way with its pitch in Frankfurt."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/google-starts-new-chapter-in-the-battle-for-ebooks-1804446.html
"Google has opened a new flank in the war for the e-book market as executives this week flew to Germany to sweet-talk publishers into joining their imminent online book store.
The latest drive to dominate digital titles could set it up for a bitter battle with Amazon. Some, however, believe the announcement was little than a political manoeuvre by the web giant, which is also embroiled with publishers in court battles over its Google Book Search project to digitally archive the world's libraries.
The rise of the e-book has dominated talk at the Frankfurt Book Fair this week, and it hit fever pitch when the technology giant revealed its plans for Google Editions next year.
A spokesman for the web giant said: "Google's whole business is based around helping people find the information they need. A large amount of information is not on websites, it is in books, and we want to make sure that these books are not forgotten."
The plan is to launch an online bookstore with about 500,000 titles available to anyone with a web browser in the first half of next year. Google will sell the books itself – taking 37 per cent of the revenues and handing the rest to the publishers – or act as an access point for users to buy through another online retailer with Google keeping a small share of the sales. It wants to create partnerships with thousands of publishers around the world, and paved the way with its pitch in Frankfurt."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/google-starts-new-chapter-in-the-battle-for-ebooks-1804446.html
Google Editions Embraces Universal E-book Format; PC World, 10/16/09
Ian Paul, PC World; Google Editions Embraces Universal E-book Format:
"Google will launch an e-book store called Google Editions with a "don't be evil" twist. Unlike Google's biggest competitors, Amazon and Barnes & Noble, which rely heavily on restrictive DRM, Google's store will not be device-specific--allowing for e-books purchased through Google Editions to be read on the far greater number of e-book readers that will flood the market in 2010.
Google's e-books will be accessible through any Web-enabled computer, e-reader, or mobile phone instead of a dedicated device. This will allow content to be unchained from expensive devices such as Amazon's Kindle e-book reader. However, as democratizing as this sounds, it's still unclear how many people are ready to curl up with a Google Editions title on their laptop or smartphone, instead of the traditional paper format.
Google Editions: The Basics
The new e-book store will launch sometime during the first half of 2010, and will have about 500,000 titles at launch. Under Google's payment scheme, publishers will receive about 63 percent of the gross sales, and Google will keep the remaining 37 percent."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/173789/google_editions_embraces_universal_ebook_format.html
"Google will launch an e-book store called Google Editions with a "don't be evil" twist. Unlike Google's biggest competitors, Amazon and Barnes & Noble, which rely heavily on restrictive DRM, Google's store will not be device-specific--allowing for e-books purchased through Google Editions to be read on the far greater number of e-book readers that will flood the market in 2010.
Google's e-books will be accessible through any Web-enabled computer, e-reader, or mobile phone instead of a dedicated device. This will allow content to be unchained from expensive devices such as Amazon's Kindle e-book reader. However, as democratizing as this sounds, it's still unclear how many people are ready to curl up with a Google Editions title on their laptop or smartphone, instead of the traditional paper format.
Google Editions: The Basics
The new e-book store will launch sometime during the first half of 2010, and will have about 500,000 titles at launch. Under Google's payment scheme, publishers will receive about 63 percent of the gross sales, and Google will keep the remaining 37 percent."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/173789/google_editions_embraces_universal_ebook_format.html
‘Hope’ Poster Artist Admits Error; New York Times, 10/17/09
Associated Press via New York Times; ‘Hope’ Poster Artist Admits Error:
"The artist who designed the famous Barack Obama ''HOPE'' poster has admitted he didn't use the Associated Press photo he originally said his work was based on but instead used a picture the news organization has claimed was his source.
Shepard Fairey, a Los Angeles-based street artist with a long, often proud history of breaking rules, said in a statement Friday that he was wrong about which photo he used and that he tried to hide his error. It was not immediately clear whether he would drop his lawsuit against the AP over the use of the photo.
''In an attempt to conceal my mistake, I submitted false images and deleted other images,'' said Fairey, who has been involved in countersuits with the AP, which has alleged copyright infringement. ''I sincerely apologize for my lapse in judgment, and I take full responsibility for my actions, which were mine alone.''
He said he was taking steps to correct the information and regretted that he didn't come forward sooner."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/17/arts/AP-US-AP-Poster-Artist.html
"The artist who designed the famous Barack Obama ''HOPE'' poster has admitted he didn't use the Associated Press photo he originally said his work was based on but instead used a picture the news organization has claimed was his source.
Shepard Fairey, a Los Angeles-based street artist with a long, often proud history of breaking rules, said in a statement Friday that he was wrong about which photo he used and that he tried to hide his error. It was not immediately clear whether he would drop his lawsuit against the AP over the use of the photo.
''In an attempt to conceal my mistake, I submitted false images and deleted other images,'' said Fairey, who has been involved in countersuits with the AP, which has alleged copyright infringement. ''I sincerely apologize for my lapse in judgment, and I take full responsibility for my actions, which were mine alone.''
He said he was taking steps to correct the information and regretted that he didn't come forward sooner."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/17/arts/AP-US-AP-Poster-Artist.html
A.P. Says Shepard Fairey Lied About ‘Hope’ Poster; New York Times, 10/16/09
Anahad O'Connor, New York Times; A.P. Says Shepard Fairey Lied About ‘Hope’ Poster:
"Lawyers for the visual artist who created the famous “Hope” poster of Barack Obama have acknowledged that he lied about which photograph he based the poster on and that he fabricated evidence in an effort to bolster his lawsuit against The Associated Press, according to a statement released by The A.P. on Friday night.
The artist, Shepard Fairey, is best known for his iconic poster of Mr. Obama — head cocked to one side, eyes pointed skyward — that gained international recognition during the presidential election. The A.P. sought credit and compensation from Mr. Fairey earlier this year, claiming that the poster was based on one of its photographs and that Mr. Fairey needed permission to use it. Mr. Fairey then filed suit against The A.P. in February, citing fair-use exceptions to copyright law, which prompted The A.P. to file a countersuit in March, claiming “misappropriation.”
But in a statement released Friday night, Srinandan R. Kasi, The A.P.’s general counsel, said that Mr. Fairey’s lawyers had acknowledged he lied when he claimed in court papers that he used a different photograph of Mr. Obama than the one The A.P. has alleged.
“Fairey’s lies about which photo was the source image were discovered after the AP had spent months asking Fairey’s counsel for documents regarding the creation of the posters, including copies of any source images that Fairey used,” Mr. Kasi said. “Fairey’s counsel has now admitted that Fairey tried to destroy documents that would have revealed which image he actually used.”
Lawyers for Mr. Fairey also acknowledged that he created fake documents to conceal which image he used and fake stencil patterns of the “Hope” and “Progress” posters, Mr. Kasi said. The statement hinted at turmoil between Mr. Fairey and his lawyers, and suggested The A.P. would continue its battle with the artist.
“Fairey’s counsel informed the AP that they intended to seek the Courts permission to withdraw as counsel for Fairey and his related entities,” Mr. Kasi said. “The AP intends to vigorously pursue its countersuit alleging that Fairey willfully infringed the AP’s copyright in the close-up photo of then-Sen. Obama by using it without permission to create the Hope and Progress posters and related products, including T-shirts and sweatshirts that have led to substantial revenue.”
Update 12:55 a.m. A lawyer for Mr. Fairey, Anthony Falzone, wrote in an e-mail message early Saturday morning: “This is a very unfortunate situation. I hope it does not obscure the underlying issues of fair use and free expression at the center of this case. But as Mr. Fairey’s attorney, it would not be appropriate for me to comment beyond that.”"
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/ap-says-shepard-fairey-lied-about-hope-poster/?scp=6&sq=copyright&st=cse
"Lawyers for the visual artist who created the famous “Hope” poster of Barack Obama have acknowledged that he lied about which photograph he based the poster on and that he fabricated evidence in an effort to bolster his lawsuit against The Associated Press, according to a statement released by The A.P. on Friday night.
The artist, Shepard Fairey, is best known for his iconic poster of Mr. Obama — head cocked to one side, eyes pointed skyward — that gained international recognition during the presidential election. The A.P. sought credit and compensation from Mr. Fairey earlier this year, claiming that the poster was based on one of its photographs and that Mr. Fairey needed permission to use it. Mr. Fairey then filed suit against The A.P. in February, citing fair-use exceptions to copyright law, which prompted The A.P. to file a countersuit in March, claiming “misappropriation.”
But in a statement released Friday night, Srinandan R. Kasi, The A.P.’s general counsel, said that Mr. Fairey’s lawyers had acknowledged he lied when he claimed in court papers that he used a different photograph of Mr. Obama than the one The A.P. has alleged.
“Fairey’s lies about which photo was the source image were discovered after the AP had spent months asking Fairey’s counsel for documents regarding the creation of the posters, including copies of any source images that Fairey used,” Mr. Kasi said. “Fairey’s counsel has now admitted that Fairey tried to destroy documents that would have revealed which image he actually used.”
Lawyers for Mr. Fairey also acknowledged that he created fake documents to conceal which image he used and fake stencil patterns of the “Hope” and “Progress” posters, Mr. Kasi said. The statement hinted at turmoil between Mr. Fairey and his lawyers, and suggested The A.P. would continue its battle with the artist.
“Fairey’s counsel informed the AP that they intended to seek the Courts permission to withdraw as counsel for Fairey and his related entities,” Mr. Kasi said. “The AP intends to vigorously pursue its countersuit alleging that Fairey willfully infringed the AP’s copyright in the close-up photo of then-Sen. Obama by using it without permission to create the Hope and Progress posters and related products, including T-shirts and sweatshirts that have led to substantial revenue.”
Update 12:55 a.m. A lawyer for Mr. Fairey, Anthony Falzone, wrote in an e-mail message early Saturday morning: “This is a very unfortunate situation. I hope it does not obscure the underlying issues of fair use and free expression at the center of this case. But as Mr. Fairey’s attorney, it would not be appropriate for me to comment beyond that.”"
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/ap-says-shepard-fairey-lied-about-hope-poster/?scp=6&sq=copyright&st=cse
Friday, October 16, 2009
A Legal Blast From the Past: Course-Pack Company Loses Copyright Lawsuit; Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/15/09
Eric Kelderman, Chronicle of Higher Education; A Legal Blast From the Past: Course-Pack Company Loses Copyright Lawsuit:
"Norman Miller, who owns the company Excel Test Preparation, Coursepacks & Copies, in Ann Arbor, Mich., might have benefited from knowing more about James M. Smith and his company, Michigan Document Services, which also operated in Ann Arbor.
In 1996 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against Mr. Smith's company, saying it had infringed on publishers' copyrights by providing course packs and anthologies of excerpted materials to students at his copy shop.
The ruling affirmed a 1991 federal-court decision against Kinko's Copy Centers for similar infractions and seemed to settle the matter, legally, that a for-profit entity could not reproduce such material under the "fair use" provision of the law without getting permission or paying copyright fees to the publishers.
The U.S. District Court in Ann Arbor referred to that decision in its ruling Wednesday against Mr. Miller, who was being sued by a group of five publishing companies: Blackwell Publishing, Elsevier, Oxford University Press, Sage Publications, and John Wiley & Sons."
http://chronicle.com/article/A-Legal-Blast-From-the-Past-/48824/
"Norman Miller, who owns the company Excel Test Preparation, Coursepacks & Copies, in Ann Arbor, Mich., might have benefited from knowing more about James M. Smith and his company, Michigan Document Services, which also operated in Ann Arbor.
In 1996 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against Mr. Smith's company, saying it had infringed on publishers' copyrights by providing course packs and anthologies of excerpted materials to students at his copy shop.
The ruling affirmed a 1991 federal-court decision against Kinko's Copy Centers for similar infractions and seemed to settle the matter, legally, that a for-profit entity could not reproduce such material under the "fair use" provision of the law without getting permission or paying copyright fees to the publishers.
The U.S. District Court in Ann Arbor referred to that decision in its ruling Wednesday against Mr. Miller, who was being sued by a group of five publishing companies: Blackwell Publishing, Elsevier, Oxford University Press, Sage Publications, and John Wiley & Sons."
http://chronicle.com/article/A-Legal-Blast-From-the-Past-/48824/
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Google Books Is Not a Library; Huffington Post, 10/13/09
Pamela Samuelson, Huffington Post; Google Books Is Not a Library:
"Sergey Brin published an op-ed in the New York Times last Friday likening the Google Book initiative to the famous ancient library of Alexandria. Brin suggested that Google Books would be "a library to last forever," unlike its Alexandrian counterpart that was ravaged by fire...
Unlike the Alexandria library or modern public libraries, the Google Book Search (GBS) initiative is a commercial venture that aims to monetize millions of out-of-print books, many of which are "orphans," that is, books whose rights holders cannot readily be found after a diligent search...
If Google Books was just a library, as Brin claims, library associations would not have submitted briefs expressing reservations about the GBS settlement to the federal judge who will be deciding whether to approve the deal. Libraries everywhere are terrified that Google will engage in price-gouging when setting prices for institutional subscriptions to GBS contents. Google is obliged to set prices in conjunction with a newly created Registry that will represent commercial publishers and authors. Prices for these subscriptions are to be set based on the number of books in the corpus, the services available, and prices of comparable products and services (of which there are none). Given that major research libraries today often pay in excess of $4 million a year for access to several thousand journals, they have good reason to be concerned that Google will eventually seek annual fees in excess of this for subscriptions to millions of GBS books. This is because Google will have a de facto monopoly on out-of-print books. The DOJ has raised concerns that price-setting terms of the GBS deal are anti-competitive.
Besides, Google can sell the GBS corpus to anyone without anyone's consent at any time once the settlement is approved...
Brin and Google's CEO Eric Schmidt have also been saying publicly that anyone can do what Google did--scanning millions of books to make a corpus of digitized books. They perceive Google to have just been bolder and more forward-looking than its rivals in this respect. But this claim is preposterous: By settling a lawsuit about whether scanning books to index them is copyright infringement or fair use, Google is putting at risk the next guy's fair use defense for doing the same...
Brin forgot to mention another significant difference between GBS and traditional libraries: their policies on patron privacy. The proposed settlement agreement contains numerous provisions that anticipate monitoring of uses of GBS content; so far, though, Google has been unwilling to make meaningful commitments to protect user privacy. Traditional libraries, by contrast, have been important guardians of patron privacy...
Anyone aspiring to create a modern equivalent of the Alexandrian library would not have designed it to transform research libraries into shopping malls, but that is just what Google will be doing if the GBS deal is approved as is."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not-a-lib_b_317518.html
"Sergey Brin published an op-ed in the New York Times last Friday likening the Google Book initiative to the famous ancient library of Alexandria. Brin suggested that Google Books would be "a library to last forever," unlike its Alexandrian counterpart that was ravaged by fire...
Unlike the Alexandria library or modern public libraries, the Google Book Search (GBS) initiative is a commercial venture that aims to monetize millions of out-of-print books, many of which are "orphans," that is, books whose rights holders cannot readily be found after a diligent search...
If Google Books was just a library, as Brin claims, library associations would not have submitted briefs expressing reservations about the GBS settlement to the federal judge who will be deciding whether to approve the deal. Libraries everywhere are terrified that Google will engage in price-gouging when setting prices for institutional subscriptions to GBS contents. Google is obliged to set prices in conjunction with a newly created Registry that will represent commercial publishers and authors. Prices for these subscriptions are to be set based on the number of books in the corpus, the services available, and prices of comparable products and services (of which there are none). Given that major research libraries today often pay in excess of $4 million a year for access to several thousand journals, they have good reason to be concerned that Google will eventually seek annual fees in excess of this for subscriptions to millions of GBS books. This is because Google will have a de facto monopoly on out-of-print books. The DOJ has raised concerns that price-setting terms of the GBS deal are anti-competitive.
Besides, Google can sell the GBS corpus to anyone without anyone's consent at any time once the settlement is approved...
Brin and Google's CEO Eric Schmidt have also been saying publicly that anyone can do what Google did--scanning millions of books to make a corpus of digitized books. They perceive Google to have just been bolder and more forward-looking than its rivals in this respect. But this claim is preposterous: By settling a lawsuit about whether scanning books to index them is copyright infringement or fair use, Google is putting at risk the next guy's fair use defense for doing the same...
Brin forgot to mention another significant difference between GBS and traditional libraries: their policies on patron privacy. The proposed settlement agreement contains numerous provisions that anticipate monitoring of uses of GBS content; so far, though, Google has been unwilling to make meaningful commitments to protect user privacy. Traditional libraries, by contrast, have been important guardians of patron privacy...
Anyone aspiring to create a modern equivalent of the Alexandrian library would not have designed it to transform research libraries into shopping malls, but that is just what Google will be doing if the GBS deal is approved as is."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not-a-lib_b_317518.html
Libraries and Readers Wade Into Digital Lending; New York Times, 10/15/09
Motoko Rich, New York Times; Libraries and Readers Wade Into Digital Lending:
"Pam Sandlian Smith, library director of the Rangeview Library District, which serves a suburban community north of Denver, said that instead of purchasing a set number of digital copies of a book, she would prefer to buy one copy and pay a nominal licensing fee each time a patron downloaded it.
Publishers, inevitably, are nervous about allowing too much of their intellectual property to be offered free. Brian Murray, the chief executive of HarperCollins Publishers Worldwide, said Ms. Smith’s proposal was “not a sustainable model for publishers or authors.”
Some librarians object to the current pricing model because they often pay more for e-books than do consumers who buy them on Amazon or in Sony’s online store. Publishers generally charge the same price for e-books as they do for print editions, but online retailers subsidize the sale price of best sellers by marking them down to $9.99."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/books/15libraries.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=libraries%20rich&st=cse
"Pam Sandlian Smith, library director of the Rangeview Library District, which serves a suburban community north of Denver, said that instead of purchasing a set number of digital copies of a book, she would prefer to buy one copy and pay a nominal licensing fee each time a patron downloaded it.
Publishers, inevitably, are nervous about allowing too much of their intellectual property to be offered free. Brian Murray, the chief executive of HarperCollins Publishers Worldwide, said Ms. Smith’s proposal was “not a sustainable model for publishers or authors.”
Some librarians object to the current pricing model because they often pay more for e-books than do consumers who buy them on Amazon or in Sony’s online store. Publishers generally charge the same price for e-books as they do for print editions, but online retailers subsidize the sale price of best sellers by marking them down to $9.99."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/books/15libraries.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=libraries%20rich&st=cse
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Pioneers to publish 'personalised papers'; Guardian, 10/14/09
Roy Gleenslade, Guardian; Pioneers to publish 'personalised papers':
"Despite the advance of the net, newsprint newspaper innovation continues apace. Here's a zany idea, for example, dreamed up by two young German entrepreneurs.
They plan to publish papers tailored to readers' individual wishes, and then have them delivered to their doors before 8am.
Customers will choose what topics they want to read about - be it sport, politics, fashion, whatever - and receive news only on their chosen subjects.
The articles will be selected from major German papers, such as Handelsblatt, Bild and Tagesspiegel, foreign titles such as the International Herald Tribune or the New York Times, as well as major blogs and a variety of internet news sources.
The newspaper, called niiu, will carry articles in both English and German and is aimed primarily at students, say newsprint pioneers Hendrik Tiedemann, 27, and Wanja Soeren Oberhof, 23...
But what about the copyright problem? AFP doesn't report on that. Did their reporter even ask? And what realistic chances has it of succeeding? My hunch: virtually none."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/14/newspapers-germany
"Despite the advance of the net, newsprint newspaper innovation continues apace. Here's a zany idea, for example, dreamed up by two young German entrepreneurs.
They plan to publish papers tailored to readers' individual wishes, and then have them delivered to their doors before 8am.
Customers will choose what topics they want to read about - be it sport, politics, fashion, whatever - and receive news only on their chosen subjects.
The articles will be selected from major German papers, such as Handelsblatt, Bild and Tagesspiegel, foreign titles such as the International Herald Tribune or the New York Times, as well as major blogs and a variety of internet news sources.
The newspaper, called niiu, will carry articles in both English and German and is aimed primarily at students, say newsprint pioneers Hendrik Tiedemann, 27, and Wanja Soeren Oberhof, 23...
But what about the copyright problem? AFP doesn't report on that. Did their reporter even ask? And what realistic chances has it of succeeding? My hunch: virtually none."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/14/newspapers-germany
Still Hoping to Sell Music by the Month; New York Times, 10/14/09
Brad Stone, New York Times; Still Hoping to Sell Music by the Month:
"The idea of selling monthly subscriptions to a vast catalog of online music has met with only limited success. That isn’t stopping a new batch of entrepreneurs from trying to make it work.
The latest and perhaps most surprising entrants to the field are the European entrepreneurs Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis. In 2001, they created and financed Kazaa, one of the original peer-to-peer file-sharing services that hurt the music industry. The two have created and financed a secretive start-up called Rdio, with offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/technology/internet/14music.html?_r=1
"The idea of selling monthly subscriptions to a vast catalog of online music has met with only limited success. That isn’t stopping a new batch of entrepreneurs from trying to make it work.
The latest and perhaps most surprising entrants to the field are the European entrepreneurs Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis. In 2001, they created and financed Kazaa, one of the original peer-to-peer file-sharing services that hurt the music industry. The two have created and financed a secretive start-up called Rdio, with offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/technology/internet/14music.html?_r=1
Sex Pistols threaten ice-cream firm over 'God Save the Cream' strapline; Guardian, 10/14/09
Mark Sweney, Guardian; Sex Pistols threaten ice-cream firm over 'God Save the Cream' strapline:
Lawyers demand that company stops using Sex Pistols-related imagery on T-shirts, deck chairs and online material
"The company launched its "guerilla ice-cream installation" in Selfridges in September and also uses the phrase "God Save the Cream" in advertising online, on a Facebook profile and the official company website, and in an ad campaign at the Oxford Street department store.
The company also uses a guitar instrumental featuring parts of the national anthem. Promotional material by Selfridges describes the company as "More Sid & Nancy than Ben & Jerry".
Lawyers representing the band are understood to have written a letter to the company demanding that it stop using the Sex Pistols-related strapline and imagery on T-shirts, deck chairs and promotional material online – including the snippet of a guitar version of the national anthem.
There is also understood to be a demand for damages for allegedly "passing off and copyright infringement" based on the fees the band is able to get for licensing its imagery.
"We are a bit dumbfounded that a group that made its reputation for being banned is trying to ban one of our ice creams and claim copyright over the national anthem and the Queen," said Matt O'Connor, founder of the Icecreamists."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/14/sex-pistols-ice-cream
Lawyers demand that company stops using Sex Pistols-related imagery on T-shirts, deck chairs and online material
"The company launched its "guerilla ice-cream installation" in Selfridges in September and also uses the phrase "God Save the Cream" in advertising online, on a Facebook profile and the official company website, and in an ad campaign at the Oxford Street department store.
The company also uses a guitar instrumental featuring parts of the national anthem. Promotional material by Selfridges describes the company as "More Sid & Nancy than Ben & Jerry".
Lawyers representing the band are understood to have written a letter to the company demanding that it stop using the Sex Pistols-related strapline and imagery on T-shirts, deck chairs and promotional material online – including the snippet of a guitar version of the national anthem.
There is also understood to be a demand for damages for allegedly "passing off and copyright infringement" based on the fees the band is able to get for licensing its imagery.
"We are a bit dumbfounded that a group that made its reputation for being banned is trying to ban one of our ice creams and claim copyright over the national anthem and the Queen," said Matt O'Connor, founder of the Icecreamists."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/14/sex-pistols-ice-cream
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Samuelson Says Google Book Search Settlement Doesn’t Fully Reflect “Public Trust Responsibilities”; New York Times, 10/13/09
Norman Oder, New York Times; Samuelson Says Google Book Search Settlement Doesn’t Fully Reflect “Public Trust Responsibilities”:
"“You create a public good this substantial, guess what: public trust responsibilities come with it.” So said University of California law professor Pamela Samuelson Friday during a keynote lunch at the D is for Digitize conference, held at New York Law School.
And Google and the plaintiffs, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, have not responded sufficiently, she said, noting concerns about price-gouging for institutional subscriptions and user privacy. With Samuelson on the dais was Paul Courant, the University of Michigan library dean, a Ph.D economist and self-described “faux librarian,”whose library was the first to agree to have its works scanned by Google and supports the project.
“I think the public trust responsibilities are and ought to be widely shared,” Courant said. His bottom line: the benefits of the deal are worth the costs."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6701727.html?desc=topstory
"“You create a public good this substantial, guess what: public trust responsibilities come with it.” So said University of California law professor Pamela Samuelson Friday during a keynote lunch at the D is for Digitize conference, held at New York Law School.
And Google and the plaintiffs, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, have not responded sufficiently, she said, noting concerns about price-gouging for institutional subscriptions and user privacy. With Samuelson on the dais was Paul Courant, the University of Michigan library dean, a Ph.D economist and self-described “faux librarian,”whose library was the first to agree to have its works scanned by Google and supports the project.
“I think the public trust responsibilities are and ought to be widely shared,” Courant said. His bottom line: the benefits of the deal are worth the costs."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6701727.html?desc=topstory
Anka Given Credit for Jackson Song; New York Times, 10/13/09
Ben Sisario, New York Times; Anka Given Credit for Jackson Song:
"When Michael Jackson’s new single, “This Is It,” was released on Sunday night, many listeners were surprised by its resemblance to “I Never Heard,” a 1991 track by the R&B singer Safire, which gave songwriting credit to Mr. Jackson and Paul Anka.
But no one was more surprised than Mr. Anka, who said in an interview on early in the day on Monday that he had not been contacted about the use of the song and that he was not given proper writing credit for the single, which now credits only Mr. Jackson as a writer.
“They have a major, major problem on their hands,” he said. “They will be sued if they don’t correct it."
For Mr. Anka, the song has a long and painful history. He said in an interview that he and Mr. Jackson wrote and recorded it in 1983 in Mr. Anka’s studio in Carmel, Calif., and that it was intended as a duet for Mr. Anka’s album “Walk a Fine Line.” But shortly after it was recorded, Mr. Jackson took the tapes, Mr. Anka said. He threatened to sue to get them back, he said, and now has the original multitrack tapes in his possession, along with documentation that the copyright for the song was held by both."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/arts/music/13anka.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=anka&st=cse
"When Michael Jackson’s new single, “This Is It,” was released on Sunday night, many listeners were surprised by its resemblance to “I Never Heard,” a 1991 track by the R&B singer Safire, which gave songwriting credit to Mr. Jackson and Paul Anka.
But no one was more surprised than Mr. Anka, who said in an interview on early in the day on Monday that he had not been contacted about the use of the song and that he was not given proper writing credit for the single, which now credits only Mr. Jackson as a writer.
“They have a major, major problem on their hands,” he said. “They will be sued if they don’t correct it."
For Mr. Anka, the song has a long and painful history. He said in an interview that he and Mr. Jackson wrote and recorded it in 1983 in Mr. Anka’s studio in Carmel, Calif., and that it was intended as a duet for Mr. Anka’s album “Walk a Fine Line.” But shortly after it was recorded, Mr. Jackson took the tapes, Mr. Anka said. He threatened to sue to get them back, he said, and now has the original multitrack tapes in his possession, along with documentation that the copyright for the song was held by both."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/arts/music/13anka.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=anka&st=cse
Monday, October 12, 2009
Press Release re Orphan Works Best Practices; Society of American Archivists (SAA), 10/12/09
Peter Hirtle, Press Release re Orphan Works Best Practices:
"The Society of American Archivists (SAA) has issued Orphan Works: Statement of Best Practices, a 16-page report that provides what professional archivists consider the best methods to use when attempting to identify and locate copyright holders. The statement, which primarily focuses on unpublished materials because they are usually found in archives, is available on the association's website as a PDF at http://www.archivists.org/standards/"
"The Society of American Archivists (SAA) has issued Orphan Works: Statement of Best Practices, a 16-page report that provides what professional archivists consider the best methods to use when attempting to identify and locate copyright holders. The statement, which primarily focuses on unpublished materials because they are usually found in archives, is available on the association's website as a PDF at http://www.archivists.org/standards/"
Google Co-Founder Defends Book Search Settlement, Draws Criticism; Library Journal, 10/12/09
Norman Oder, Library Journal; Google Co-Founder Defends Book Search Settlement, Draws Criticism:
Says "agreement limits consumer choice in out-of-print books...as much as it limits consumer choice in unicorns."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6701481.html
Says "agreement limits consumer choice in out-of-print books...as much as it limits consumer choice in unicorns."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6701481.html
From ‘Cabaret’ to Kanye, Songs of ‘Glee’ Are a Hit; New York Times, 10/12/09
Edward Wyatt, New York Times; From ‘Cabaret’ to Kanye, Songs of ‘Glee’ Are a Hit:
"Ryan Murphy, the creator of the series, said in an interview in May that the search for music has been an integral part of the script development. “Each episode has a theme at its core,” he said. “After I write the script, I will choose songs that help to move the story along.”
Clearing the rights to the music for the series has not been a problem, he added. “I can’t think of one artist we’ve gone after or a song I wanted that has been denied.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12glee.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=glee&st=cse
"Ryan Murphy, the creator of the series, said in an interview in May that the search for music has been an integral part of the script development. “Each episode has a theme at its core,” he said. “After I write the script, I will choose songs that help to move the story along.”
Clearing the rights to the music for the series has not been a problem, he added. “I can’t think of one artist we’ve gone after or a song I wanted that has been denied.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12glee.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=glee&st=cse
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Musicians Starting To Assert Copyright Termination Rights Against Record Labels; Techdirt, 10/9/09
Mike Masnick, Techdirt; Musicians Starting To Assert Copyright Termination Rights Against Record Labels:
"There's been a lot of attention recently to the news that the heirs of comic book artist Jack Kirby are alerting companies of plans to take back the copyright on various Kirby characters, using the termination rights in the Copyright Act. This followed a very long and drawn out lawsuit involving a similar attempt over Superman. The details are really complex, but copyright law allows the original creator (or heirs if that creator has passed away) certain opportunities to basically negate a deal that was signed early on to hand over the copyright on certain works. The idea was to help protect artists who signed bad deals, but in practice, it's just been a total mess.
Still, given the success of the Superman saga in getting at least some of the copyrights back, suddenly lots of people are looking to see what other copyrights can be reclaimed. Apparently, a bunch of musicians are now lining up to try to regain their rights from the labels starting in 2013 (the first year musical works are eligible). As the article notes, with record labels still too clueless to figure out how to successfully build business models around new acts, many still rely on sales of old music to bring in a lot of their revenue. If the labels lose the copyrights on much of that music... well... let's just say suddenly The Pirate Bay may be the least of their concerns."
http://www.techdirt.com/
"There's been a lot of attention recently to the news that the heirs of comic book artist Jack Kirby are alerting companies of plans to take back the copyright on various Kirby characters, using the termination rights in the Copyright Act. This followed a very long and drawn out lawsuit involving a similar attempt over Superman. The details are really complex, but copyright law allows the original creator (or heirs if that creator has passed away) certain opportunities to basically negate a deal that was signed early on to hand over the copyright on certain works. The idea was to help protect artists who signed bad deals, but in practice, it's just been a total mess.
Still, given the success of the Superman saga in getting at least some of the copyrights back, suddenly lots of people are looking to see what other copyrights can be reclaimed. Apparently, a bunch of musicians are now lining up to try to regain their rights from the labels starting in 2013 (the first year musical works are eligible). As the article notes, with record labels still too clueless to figure out how to successfully build business models around new acts, many still rely on sales of old music to bring in a lot of their revenue. If the labels lose the copyrights on much of that music... well... let's just say suddenly The Pirate Bay may be the least of their concerns."
http://www.techdirt.com/
Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?; TechDirt, 10/9/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?:
http://www.techdirt.com/
http://www.techdirt.com/
Music biz still in need of "radical overhaul" to thrive; Ars Technica, 9/30/09
Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica; Music biz still in need of "radical overhaul" to thrive:
The music industry is stuck in a rut and it needs to make some radical changes if it wants to stop bleeding money, according to Forrester. The firm has several suggestions for how to overhaul music products and insists that they must be consumer-friendly, not business-oriented.
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/09/music-biz-still-in-need-of-radical-overhaul-to-thrive.ars
The music industry is stuck in a rut and it needs to make some radical changes if it wants to stop bleeding money, according to Forrester. The firm has several suggestions for how to overhaul music products and insists that they must be consumer-friendly, not business-oriented.
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/09/music-biz-still-in-need-of-radical-overhaul-to-thrive.ars
Kindle now $259, available worldwide with wireless delivery; Ars Technica, 10/11/09
Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica; Kindle now $259, available worldwide with wireless delivery:
The Kindle 2 keeps having its price tag slashed this year, and Amazon has done it again in preparation for the holidays and to keep up with the competition. The company has also begun offering a global wireless feature, allowing users to buy e-books in more than 100 countries.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/10/kindle-now-259-available-worldwide-with-wireless-delivery.ars
The Kindle 2 keeps having its price tag slashed this year, and Amazon has done it again in preparation for the holidays and to keep up with the competition. The company has also begun offering a global wireless feature, allowing users to buy e-books in more than 100 countries.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/10/kindle-now-259-available-worldwide-with-wireless-delivery.ars
Amazon Kindle 2: Centuries of evolved beauty rinsed away; Guardian, 10/10/09
Nicholson Baker, Guardian; Amazon Kindle 2: Centuries of evolved beauty rinsed away:
This week Amazon announced the UK launch of its latest generation of e-reader. But don't all rush at once, warns one American writer – despite the hype, the Kindle 2 is still no match for the book
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/10/amazon-kindle-uk-launch-book
This week Amazon announced the UK launch of its latest generation of e-reader. But don't all rush at once, warns one American writer – despite the hype, the Kindle 2 is still no match for the book
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/10/amazon-kindle-uk-launch-book
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)