Mike Masnick, TechDirt; F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It:
"There have been an increasing number of questions raised about both the length of copyright and the fact that it passes on to heirs after the original creator passes on. The original purpose of copyright had nothing to do with creating a welfare system for the children of content creators, no matter how much some content creators would like it to work that way. Economist Greg Mankiw points out a "factoid" that drives home the oddity that comes from such long copyrights:
Royalties from The Great Gatsby totaled only $8,397 during Fitzgerald's lifetime. Today Gatsby is read in nearly every high school and college and regularly produces $500,000 a year in [F. Scott Fitzgerald's daughter] Scottie's trust for her children."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091028/0217246703.shtml
Thursday, October 29, 2009
TalkTalk threatens legal action over Mandelson's filesharing plan; Guardian, 10/29/09
Mark Sweney, Guardian; TalkTalk threatens legal action over Mandelson's filesharing plan:
Carphone Warehouse-owned internet service provider attacks plans to cut off connections of persistent filesharers
"TalkTalk, the second largest internet service provider in the UK, has threatened to launch legal action if business secretary Peter Mandelson follows through with his plan to cut off persistent illegal filesharers' internet connections.
Carphone Warehouse-owned TalkTalk, which has more than 4 million ISP customers and owns the Tiscali and AOL brands, claimed the government's plan was based on filesharers being "guilty until proven innocent" and constituted an infringement of human rights.
"The approach is based on the principle of 'guilty until proven innocent' and substitutes proper judicial process for a kangaroo court," said Andrew Heaney, the executive director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk. "We know this approach will lead to wrongful accusations."
The government plans to look at increased action against illegal downloaders, including potentially suspending the accounts of persistent offenders, from July 2011 if a 70% reduction in online piracy is not achieved by sending warning letters. Customers will have the right to appeal if they are targeted and their connection subjected to technical measures.
"If the government moves to stage two, we would consider that extra-judicial technical measures, and would look to appeal the decision [to the courts] because it infringes human rights," Heaney said. "TalkTalk will continue to resist any attempts to make it impose technical measures on its customers unless directed to do so by a court or recognised tribunal."
BT, the largest ISP in the UK, said it "remains concerned" about some of the government's proposals and is "interested to hear whether or not customers will have some form of fair legal hearing before their broadband supplier is required to take any action against them"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/29/talktalk-threatens-legal-action-mandelson
Carphone Warehouse-owned internet service provider attacks plans to cut off connections of persistent filesharers
"TalkTalk, the second largest internet service provider in the UK, has threatened to launch legal action if business secretary Peter Mandelson follows through with his plan to cut off persistent illegal filesharers' internet connections.
Carphone Warehouse-owned TalkTalk, which has more than 4 million ISP customers and owns the Tiscali and AOL brands, claimed the government's plan was based on filesharers being "guilty until proven innocent" and constituted an infringement of human rights.
"The approach is based on the principle of 'guilty until proven innocent' and substitutes proper judicial process for a kangaroo court," said Andrew Heaney, the executive director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk. "We know this approach will lead to wrongful accusations."
The government plans to look at increased action against illegal downloaders, including potentially suspending the accounts of persistent offenders, from July 2011 if a 70% reduction in online piracy is not achieved by sending warning letters. Customers will have the right to appeal if they are targeted and their connection subjected to technical measures.
"If the government moves to stage two, we would consider that extra-judicial technical measures, and would look to appeal the decision [to the courts] because it infringes human rights," Heaney said. "TalkTalk will continue to resist any attempts to make it impose technical measures on its customers unless directed to do so by a court or recognised tribunal."
BT, the largest ISP in the UK, said it "remains concerned" about some of the government's proposals and is "interested to hear whether or not customers will have some form of fair legal hearing before their broadband supplier is required to take any action against them"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/29/talktalk-threatens-legal-action-mandelson
Costs would exceed savings on Mandelson plan, ISPs say - and streaming companies not eager either; Guardian, 10/28/09
Charles Arthur, Guardian; Costs would exceed savings on Mandelson plan, ISPs say - and streaming companies not eager either:
Implementing "three strikes" rule would weigh down ISPs while bringing music industry no benefit - and streaming companies unhappy
"Lord Mandelson's proposals to cut off "persistent" file sharers do not make financial sense, according to estimates of its cost put forward by those who would have to implement it.
British Telecom and Carphone Warehouse estimate that running the enforcement system would cost about £2 per broadband line per month - a total of £24 per broadband line per year. With 17.6m broadband connections in the UK as of September, means it would cost £420m annually to run a system to defeat a problem the music industry complains costs it £200m per year.
Lord Mandelson said that "ISPs and rights-holders will share the costs, on the basis of a flat fee that will allow both sides to budget and plan."
If the costs of running the system are equally shared between rights-holders and ISPs, that means that ISPs will have to push up bills for the majority of law-abiding customers who do not download illegally, while the rights-holders spend as much as they claim they are losing.
Reactions from the music and music streaming industry to Lord Mandelson's reasserted determination to cut off "persistent" file-sharers has not been positive either."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/28/costs-piracy-filesharing-mandelson
Implementing "three strikes" rule would weigh down ISPs while bringing music industry no benefit - and streaming companies unhappy
"Lord Mandelson's proposals to cut off "persistent" file sharers do not make financial sense, according to estimates of its cost put forward by those who would have to implement it.
British Telecom and Carphone Warehouse estimate that running the enforcement system would cost about £2 per broadband line per month - a total of £24 per broadband line per year. With 17.6m broadband connections in the UK as of September, means it would cost £420m annually to run a system to defeat a problem the music industry complains costs it £200m per year.
Lord Mandelson said that "ISPs and rights-holders will share the costs, on the basis of a flat fee that will allow both sides to budget and plan."
If the costs of running the system are equally shared between rights-holders and ISPs, that means that ISPs will have to push up bills for the majority of law-abiding customers who do not download illegally, while the rights-holders spend as much as they claim they are losing.
Reactions from the music and music streaming industry to Lord Mandelson's reasserted determination to cut off "persistent" file-sharers has not been positive either."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/28/costs-piracy-filesharing-mandelson
Google Accused of 'malicious Revenge' in China; PC World, 10/28/09
Owen Fletcher, PC World; Google Accused of 'malicious Revenge' in China:
"The official newspaper of China's ruling communist party has accused Google of seeking "malicious revenge" after a malware warning appeared by one of its Web sites in Google's search results.
The Google notice, which said the books section of the People's Daily site could contain malware, appeared last week and prevented some visits to the Web page because its link redirected to a Google warning, according to a local media report also posted by the People's Daily. A site representative was cited in the report as blaming "malicious revenge from Google" and saying the paper would take actions against such "vile behavior" by the company. The paper would not rule out legal action, the representative was cited as saying.
The paper's statements are the latest negative press Google has received this year in China, where its share of the user search market began slipping in recent months. Chinese authorities and state media earlier this year slammed Google for allowing pornographic links to appear in its search results. Google's book scanning project has also come under fire in China in recent weeks as local authors have begun voicing concerns about copyright violation by the search engine...
The top headline on the book news site on Wednesday led to a collection of stories about local opposition to Google's book scanning program. "Is the Google library an angel or a devil?" read one headline near the top of the page."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/174549/google_accused_of_malicious_revenge_in_china.html
"The official newspaper of China's ruling communist party has accused Google of seeking "malicious revenge" after a malware warning appeared by one of its Web sites in Google's search results.
The Google notice, which said the books section of the People's Daily site could contain malware, appeared last week and prevented some visits to the Web page because its link redirected to a Google warning, according to a local media report also posted by the People's Daily. A site representative was cited in the report as blaming "malicious revenge from Google" and saying the paper would take actions against such "vile behavior" by the company. The paper would not rule out legal action, the representative was cited as saying.
The paper's statements are the latest negative press Google has received this year in China, where its share of the user search market began slipping in recent months. Chinese authorities and state media earlier this year slammed Google for allowing pornographic links to appear in its search results. Google's book scanning project has also come under fire in China in recent weeks as local authors have begun voicing concerns about copyright violation by the search engine...
The top headline on the book news site on Wednesday led to a collection of stories about local opposition to Google's book scanning program. "Is the Google library an angel or a devil?" read one headline near the top of the page."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/174549/google_accused_of_malicious_revenge_in_china.html
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
EFF opens the "Takedown Hall of Shame"; Ars Technica, 10/28/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; EFF opens the "Takedown Hall of Shame":
Missing that wonderful surge of anger that comes from hearing about some bogus attempt at shutting down free speech with a DMCA takedown notice? The EFF has you covered, opening a new "Hall of Shame" to highlight the worst of the worst.
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a big fan of naming and shaming. When it launched its patent-busting project a few years back, the activist group put up a "Wanted by EFF marshals" poster; eight of the ten patents on the list have already been narrowed, invalidated, or reexamined.
So when it wanted to highlight the overzealous use of DMCA takedown notices on the Web, the EFF went a similar route with its new "Takedown Hall of Shame."
Initially, eight items have been granted the coveted laurel wreath of infamy:
NPR's takedown request of some All Things Considered audio used in a recent same-sex marriage ad
The National Organization for Marriage's takedown request on audition footage for its anti-gay marriage ad
Nativist radio host Michael Savage's takedown request against the Council on Islamic-American Relations for posting clips of the rhetoric found on Savage's show
Polo Ralph Lauren's takedown request against Boing Boing and the Photoshop Disasters blog over a ridiculously photoshopped model whose head looked like a pumpkin on a toothpick
Warner Music Group's YouTube takedowns against "literal videos" and teens singing Warner songs a cappella for friends
Diamond giant DeBeers' attempt to shutter a parody site that looked like the New York Times and contained a fake DeBeers ad reading: "Your purchase of a diamond will enable us to donate a prosthetic for an African whose hand was lost in diamond conflicts. DeBeers: from her fingers to his."
Diebold's 2003 takedown attempt against internal e-mails revealing problems with the company's voting machines
NBC's takedown request of an Obama campaign video in which Tom Brokaw calls the election for John McCain...
One other item of interest: Big Content is represented less than one might think. The complete list does mention NBC, NPR, Warner Music, CBS News, and Universal Music, but it's dominated by smaller, non-media players like Union Square Partnership, Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, Uri Geller, Diebold, and DeBeers.
If you talk to lawyers for the big content providers (which we do so you don't have to! I kid, they're nice people), they will point out that the flood of DMCA takedown notices they issue results only in a handful of problem cases. These are then—unfairly, in their view—harped on repeatedly to suggest that they care nothing for fair use, have no sense of proportion, and probably nibble on succulent children for breakfast."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/eff-opens-the-takedown-hall-of-shame.ars
Missing that wonderful surge of anger that comes from hearing about some bogus attempt at shutting down free speech with a DMCA takedown notice? The EFF has you covered, opening a new "Hall of Shame" to highlight the worst of the worst.
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a big fan of naming and shaming. When it launched its patent-busting project a few years back, the activist group put up a "Wanted by EFF marshals" poster; eight of the ten patents on the list have already been narrowed, invalidated, or reexamined.
So when it wanted to highlight the overzealous use of DMCA takedown notices on the Web, the EFF went a similar route with its new "Takedown Hall of Shame."
Initially, eight items have been granted the coveted laurel wreath of infamy:
NPR's takedown request of some All Things Considered audio used in a recent same-sex marriage ad
The National Organization for Marriage's takedown request on audition footage for its anti-gay marriage ad
Nativist radio host Michael Savage's takedown request against the Council on Islamic-American Relations for posting clips of the rhetoric found on Savage's show
Polo Ralph Lauren's takedown request against Boing Boing and the Photoshop Disasters blog over a ridiculously photoshopped model whose head looked like a pumpkin on a toothpick
Warner Music Group's YouTube takedowns against "literal videos" and teens singing Warner songs a cappella for friends
Diamond giant DeBeers' attempt to shutter a parody site that looked like the New York Times and contained a fake DeBeers ad reading: "Your purchase of a diamond will enable us to donate a prosthetic for an African whose hand was lost in diamond conflicts. DeBeers: from her fingers to his."
Diebold's 2003 takedown attempt against internal e-mails revealing problems with the company's voting machines
NBC's takedown request of an Obama campaign video in which Tom Brokaw calls the election for John McCain...
One other item of interest: Big Content is represented less than one might think. The complete list does mention NBC, NPR, Warner Music, CBS News, and Universal Music, but it's dominated by smaller, non-media players like Union Square Partnership, Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, Uri Geller, Diebold, and DeBeers.
If you talk to lawyers for the big content providers (which we do so you don't have to! I kid, they're nice people), they will point out that the flood of DMCA takedown notices they issue results only in a handful of problem cases. These are then—unfairly, in their view—harped on repeatedly to suggest that they care nothing for fair use, have no sense of proportion, and probably nibble on succulent children for breakfast."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/eff-opens-the-takedown-hall-of-shame.ars
Internet Hating Sony Pictures CEO Insists Piracy Is Killing Movie Business; But Facts Show Otherwise; TechDirt, 10/28/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Internet Hating Sony Pictures CEO Insists Piracy Is Killing Movie Business; But Facts Show Otherwise:
"Ah, remember Michael Lynton? The Sony Pictures CEO who earlier this year insisted that nothing good had come from the internet at all. When everyone started mocking him for this statement, rather than back off, he doubled down and insisted it was true, using examples that were easily debunked. Apparently, he hasn't learned his lesson. He's back at it, pushing for the UK (and others) to pass laws kicking people off the internet (so-called "three strikes" laws) while insisting that due to piracy there's less money to make movies and fewer movies being made. Of course, those are things that can be fact checked, and the folks over at TorrentFreak did exactly that, pointing out that more movies are coming out each year and more money is being made. Oops."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/1255556697.shtml
"Ah, remember Michael Lynton? The Sony Pictures CEO who earlier this year insisted that nothing good had come from the internet at all. When everyone started mocking him for this statement, rather than back off, he doubled down and insisted it was true, using examples that were easily debunked. Apparently, he hasn't learned his lesson. He's back at it, pushing for the UK (and others) to pass laws kicking people off the internet (so-called "three strikes" laws) while insisting that due to piracy there's less money to make movies and fewer movies being made. Of course, those are things that can be fact checked, and the folks over at TorrentFreak did exactly that, pointing out that more movies are coming out each year and more money is being made. Oops."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/1255556697.shtml
Japanese Prosecutors Still Want To Blame Developer Of File Sharing Program For Copyright Infringement By Users; TechDirt, 10/28/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Japanese Prosecutors Still Want To Blame Developer Of File Sharing Program For Copyright Infringement By Users:
"We were happy earlier this month to learn that the Osaka High Court had overturned a lower court ruling, against the creator of the popular Japanese file sharing service, Winny...Unfortunately, Japanese prosecutors didn't recognize the common sense and basic logic of such a ruling and are now appealing the case to the Supreme Court in Japan."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/1302086698.shtml
"We were happy earlier this month to learn that the Osaka High Court had overturned a lower court ruling, against the creator of the popular Japanese file sharing service, Winny...Unfortunately, Japanese prosecutors didn't recognize the common sense and basic logic of such a ruling and are now appealing the case to the Supreme Court in Japan."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/1302086698.shtml
French Papers Aim at Younger Readers; New York Times, 10/28/09
Eric Pfanner, New York Times; French Papers Aim at Younger Readers:
"Newspapers have tried many things to stave off a seemingly relentless decline in readers. Now France is pushing forward with a novel approach: giving away papers to young readers in an effort to turn them into regular customers.
The government Tuesday detailed plans of a project called “My Free Newspaper,” under which 18- to 24-year-olds will be offered a free, yearlong subscription to a newspaper of their choice.
“Winning back young readers is essential for the financial survival of the press, and for its civic dimension,” the culture minister, Frédéric Mitterrand, said...
While newspapers nearly everywhere in the developed world are in crisis, hurt by an advertising slump and readers’ defection to the Internet, the problems are particularly pronounced in France. On a per-capita basis, only about half as many papers are sold as in Britain or Germany, according to the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers in Paris.
Readership in France is especially low among young people. According to a government study, only 10 percent of those aged 15 to 24 read a paid-for newspaper daily in 2007, down from 20 percent a decade earlier."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/business/media/28papers.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=free%20newspapers%20france&st=cse
"Newspapers have tried many things to stave off a seemingly relentless decline in readers. Now France is pushing forward with a novel approach: giving away papers to young readers in an effort to turn them into regular customers.
The government Tuesday detailed plans of a project called “My Free Newspaper,” under which 18- to 24-year-olds will be offered a free, yearlong subscription to a newspaper of their choice.
“Winning back young readers is essential for the financial survival of the press, and for its civic dimension,” the culture minister, Frédéric Mitterrand, said...
While newspapers nearly everywhere in the developed world are in crisis, hurt by an advertising slump and readers’ defection to the Internet, the problems are particularly pronounced in France. On a per-capita basis, only about half as many papers are sold as in Britain or Germany, according to the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers in Paris.
Readership in France is especially low among young people. According to a government study, only 10 percent of those aged 15 to 24 read a paid-for newspaper daily in 2007, down from 20 percent a decade earlier."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/business/media/28papers.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=free%20newspapers%20france&st=cse
Labour's plans to block filesharers take shape; Guardian, 10/28/09
Jack Schofield, Guardian; Labour's plans to block filesharers take shape:
"The government has proposed a complicated and expensive system of letters, independent bodies and First Tier Tribunals as a way to stop the sharing of copyright content, but it seems unlikely to work
"Lord Mandelson has "warned internet users today that the days of 'consequence-free' illegal filesharing are over," according to my colleague Mark Sweney. This will no doubt give most of the large copyright owners a warm glow, but whether it will make any practical difference is another matter. I suspect it won't.
The government plan has two stages....In stage 1, a "rights holder" is going to identify the IP address of an illegal uploader by "phishing" on a file-sharing site, then get the ISP to send that user a warning letter. After sending more than one warning, the rights-holder takes legal action.
In stage 2, the ISP takes "technical measures" against the "serious infringer", who can then appeal to "an independent body established by Ofcom". (These "technical measures" may include the not-very-technical suspension of the user's account.) If that appeal is unsuccessful, the "serous infringer" can appeal to a "First Tier Tribunal", following which the "technical measures" are either re-implemented or dropped.
It sounds like an expensive and extremely bureaucratic plan where the cost of implementation will be far higher than the cost of the content. Mandy's thinking is presumably that making a public example of a small number of "serous infringers" will discourage others. It should certainly discourage peer-to-peer file-sharing, at least among those smart enough to realise that if they are downloading something, they are probably uploading it as well."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/28/mandelson-blocking-filesharing
"The government has proposed a complicated and expensive system of letters, independent bodies and First Tier Tribunals as a way to stop the sharing of copyright content, but it seems unlikely to work
"Lord Mandelson has "warned internet users today that the days of 'consequence-free' illegal filesharing are over," according to my colleague Mark Sweney. This will no doubt give most of the large copyright owners a warm glow, but whether it will make any practical difference is another matter. I suspect it won't.
The government plan has two stages....In stage 1, a "rights holder" is going to identify the IP address of an illegal uploader by "phishing" on a file-sharing site, then get the ISP to send that user a warning letter. After sending more than one warning, the rights-holder takes legal action.
In stage 2, the ISP takes "technical measures" against the "serious infringer", who can then appeal to "an independent body established by Ofcom". (These "technical measures" may include the not-very-technical suspension of the user's account.) If that appeal is unsuccessful, the "serous infringer" can appeal to a "First Tier Tribunal", following which the "technical measures" are either re-implemented or dropped.
It sounds like an expensive and extremely bureaucratic plan where the cost of implementation will be far higher than the cost of the content. Mandy's thinking is presumably that making a public example of a small number of "serous infringers" will discourage others. It should certainly discourage peer-to-peer file-sharing, at least among those smart enough to realise that if they are downloading something, they are probably uploading it as well."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/28/mandelson-blocking-filesharing
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Down Under riff based on folk song, court hears; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/27/09
Joel Gibson, Sydney Morning Herald; Down Under riff based on folk song, court hears:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/music/down-under-riff-based-on-folk-song-court-hears/2009/10/27/1256405382225.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/music/down-under-riff-based-on-folk-song-court-hears/2009/10/27/1256405382225.html
UK Law Enforcement Tells UK Gov't: Please Don't Kick File Sharers Offline; TechDirt, 10/27/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; UK Law Enforcement Tells UK Gov't: Please Don't Kick File Sharers Offline:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0254326689.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0254326689.shtml
Medical Researchers Resort To File Sharing To Get Access To Journal Research; TechDirt, 10/27/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Medical Researchers Resort to File Sharing to Get Access to Journal Research:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0044576687.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0044576687.shtml
Vivendi head calls for 'three-strikes' rule to tackle UK filesharers; Guardian, 10/27/09
Mark Sweney, Guardian; Vivendi head calls for 'three-strikes' rule to tackle UK filesharers:
Jean-Bernard Levy tells the C&binet [sic] Forum that UK should follow France's lead by cutting off internet access for persistent illegal downloaders
"Jean-Bernard Levy, the chief executive of Vivendi, the French owner of the world's largest record company, Universal Music, said the UK government needs to bring in a "three-strikes" policy that would ultimately cut off persistent illegal filesharers.
Levy, speaking at the UK government's Creativity & Business International Network conference (C&binet) today on the issues facing the creative industries as they move to digital production and distribution, said that while it was too soon to gauge the results of the introduction of the "three-strikes" policy in France, it was a necessary step to protect content owners.
"Britain should be more in favour of developing the media industries and even if France is ahead in legislation it should be obvious [that the UK should] be doing something like three strikes," he added.
Levy said Vivendi, despite owning one of France's largest internet service providers (ISPs), telecoms operator SFR, was convinced the tough legislative strategy would not harm internet use. He added that he expected no real reduction in legal web traffic.
"ISPs should be in favour of legislation," he argued, because a lot of the massive investment to increase broadband capacity was going into supplying bandwidth used by illegal net users...
Gail Rebuck, the chief executive of publisher Random House, told the C&binet conference today that the fact that more than 70 illegal filesharing websites were online within 24 hours of the launch of bestselling author Dan Brown's new novel, The Lost Symbol, showed the urgency with which the government must crack down on digital piracy. This number has since jumped to more than 170 unauthorised websites capitalising on the novel, she added.
Rebuck said measures with strong legal backing needed to be introduced to curb digital copyright abuse. She said: "From where I sit, protecting our copyright is the single most important thing we can debate here. We must protect our authors' work."
"I'm very much for the carrot and stick approach," she added, referring to the need for a combination of promoting the benefits of legal content downloading alongside measures such as letters warning persistent filesharers they are breaking the law.
"As a content owner, I am all for the ultimate sanction," she said, indicating support for measures such as cutting off the worst infringers. "Surely the response is not to say goodbye to copyright.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/27/vivendi-file-sharing-levy
Jean-Bernard Levy tells the C&binet [sic] Forum that UK should follow France's lead by cutting off internet access for persistent illegal downloaders
"Jean-Bernard Levy, the chief executive of Vivendi, the French owner of the world's largest record company, Universal Music, said the UK government needs to bring in a "three-strikes" policy that would ultimately cut off persistent illegal filesharers.
Levy, speaking at the UK government's Creativity & Business International Network conference (C&binet) today on the issues facing the creative industries as they move to digital production and distribution, said that while it was too soon to gauge the results of the introduction of the "three-strikes" policy in France, it was a necessary step to protect content owners.
"Britain should be more in favour of developing the media industries and even if France is ahead in legislation it should be obvious [that the UK should] be doing something like three strikes," he added.
Levy said Vivendi, despite owning one of France's largest internet service providers (ISPs), telecoms operator SFR, was convinced the tough legislative strategy would not harm internet use. He added that he expected no real reduction in legal web traffic.
"ISPs should be in favour of legislation," he argued, because a lot of the massive investment to increase broadband capacity was going into supplying bandwidth used by illegal net users...
Gail Rebuck, the chief executive of publisher Random House, told the C&binet conference today that the fact that more than 70 illegal filesharing websites were online within 24 hours of the launch of bestselling author Dan Brown's new novel, The Lost Symbol, showed the urgency with which the government must crack down on digital piracy. This number has since jumped to more than 170 unauthorised websites capitalising on the novel, she added.
Rebuck said measures with strong legal backing needed to be introduced to curb digital copyright abuse. She said: "From where I sit, protecting our copyright is the single most important thing we can debate here. We must protect our authors' work."
"I'm very much for the carrot and stick approach," she added, referring to the need for a combination of promoting the benefits of legal content downloading alongside measures such as letters warning persistent filesharers they are breaking the law.
"As a content owner, I am all for the ultimate sanction," she said, indicating support for measures such as cutting off the worst infringers. "Surely the response is not to say goodbye to copyright.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/27/vivendi-file-sharing-levy
Photographer wins copyright ruling; Guardian, 10/26/09
Roy Greenslade, Guardian; Photographer wins copyright ruling:
"The high court made a ruling on 16 October that has important ramifications for newspaper and magazine publishers and photographers, but it appears to have slipped under the mainstream media radar.
Judges found in favour of a freelance photographer Alan Grisbrook who had sued Mirror Group Newspapers for infringing his copyright in archived images.
In a 2002 consent order, following a previous legal action taken by Grisbrook against MGN over unpaid licence fees, MGN agreed to delete all electronic copies of his photos from its systems.
So when Grisbrook discovered last year that MGN were making available back copies of their titles to paying customers through websites, and that these contained some of his images, he believed MGN were infringing his copyright and breaching the previous consent order.
He said that he had never consented to the inclusion of his images in the group's back numbers database nor on their websites.
MGN argued that the use of the images was in the public interest, and that Grisbrook's licence extended to back copy editions archived electronically.
Following the ruling, technology lawyer Tom Cowling said that photographers should look at their licences.
If they have licensed images to a newspaper which, like MGN, is making back copies of their editions available online to paid subscribers, they may well have a claim in copyright infringement if their licence agreement did not clearly allow such use."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/26/trinity-mirror-medialaw
"The high court made a ruling on 16 October that has important ramifications for newspaper and magazine publishers and photographers, but it appears to have slipped under the mainstream media radar.
Judges found in favour of a freelance photographer Alan Grisbrook who had sued Mirror Group Newspapers for infringing his copyright in archived images.
In a 2002 consent order, following a previous legal action taken by Grisbrook against MGN over unpaid licence fees, MGN agreed to delete all electronic copies of his photos from its systems.
So when Grisbrook discovered last year that MGN were making available back copies of their titles to paying customers through websites, and that these contained some of his images, he believed MGN were infringing his copyright and breaching the previous consent order.
He said that he had never consented to the inclusion of his images in the group's back numbers database nor on their websites.
MGN argued that the use of the images was in the public interest, and that Grisbrook's licence extended to back copy editions archived electronically.
Following the ruling, technology lawyer Tom Cowling said that photographers should look at their licences.
If they have licensed images to a newspaper which, like MGN, is making back copies of their editions available online to paid subscribers, they may well have a claim in copyright infringement if their licence agreement did not clearly allow such use."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/26/trinity-mirror-medialaw
Harry Potter and the chamber of lawyers; Guardian, 10/26/09
Marmite Lover, Guardian; Harry Potter and the chamber of lawyers:
Warner Bros' lawyers have asked Ms Marmite Lover to rename a 'Harry Potter Dinner' at her Underground Restaurant. What alternative dishes can you suggest for 'Generic Wizard Night'?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2009/oct/26/harry-potter-halloween-warner-lawyers
Warner Bros' lawyers have asked Ms Marmite Lover to rename a 'Harry Potter Dinner' at her Underground Restaurant. What alternative dishes can you suggest for 'Generic Wizard Night'?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2009/oct/26/harry-potter-halloween-warner-lawyers
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Perpetual Protection Of Traditional Knowledge “Not On Table” At WIPO; Intellectual Property Watch, 10/22/09
Kaitlin Mara, Intellectual Property Watch; Perpetual Protection Of Traditional Knowledge “Not On Table” At WIPO:
"The director general also weighed in on issues of copyright.
On the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, Gurry said that WIPO too did not know a great deal about the talks.
“Naturally we prefer open, transparent international processes to arrive at conclusions that are of concern to the whole world,” he said, citing WIPO’s role as an international, United Nations agency. And, he added, “IP is of concern to the whole world.”
On copyright protection in the internet age, the “problem we have is massive,” he said, citing the example of the newspaper industry and the music industry, both suffering as new technology necessitates changes in old business models."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/10/22/perpetual-protection-of-traditional-knowledge-%e2%80%9cnot-on-table%e2%80%9d-at-wipo/
"The director general also weighed in on issues of copyright.
On the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, Gurry said that WIPO too did not know a great deal about the talks.
“Naturally we prefer open, transparent international processes to arrive at conclusions that are of concern to the whole world,” he said, citing WIPO’s role as an international, United Nations agency. And, he added, “IP is of concern to the whole world.”
On copyright protection in the internet age, the “problem we have is massive,” he said, citing the example of the newspaper industry and the music industry, both suffering as new technology necessitates changes in old business models."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/10/22/perpetual-protection-of-traditional-knowledge-%e2%80%9cnot-on-table%e2%80%9d-at-wipo/
Hulu to charge for content, but needs to sweeten the deal; Ars Technica, 10/23/09
Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica; Hulu to charge for content, but needs to sweeten the deal:
Would you start paying Hulu for content that you previously got for free? The company's backers sure hope so, and they want to stick some content behind a paywall as early as 2010. "It's time to start getting paid for broadcast content online," said one exec.
"The free-for-all days of Hulu may soon be over. News Corp. executives indicated (again) this week that the free, ad-supported model wasn't bringing home enough bacon and that the company was preparing to start charging users for content as soon as 2010. This news comes as a harsh reality check to dedicated Hulu fans, and Hulu will have to offer them more than just a browser-based stream if the company wants people to start forking over money.
"I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value," News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey said at the B&C OnScreen summit this week. "Hulu concurs with that; it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.""
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/10/hulu-will-have-to-add-benefits-if-it-wants-to-start-charging.ars
Would you start paying Hulu for content that you previously got for free? The company's backers sure hope so, and they want to stick some content behind a paywall as early as 2010. "It's time to start getting paid for broadcast content online," said one exec.
"The free-for-all days of Hulu may soon be over. News Corp. executives indicated (again) this week that the free, ad-supported model wasn't bringing home enough bacon and that the company was preparing to start charging users for content as soon as 2010. This news comes as a harsh reality check to dedicated Hulu fans, and Hulu will have to offer them more than just a browser-based stream if the company wants people to start forking over money.
"I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value," News Corp. Deputy Chairman Chase Carey said at the B&C OnScreen summit this week. "Hulu concurs with that; it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.""
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/10/hulu-will-have-to-add-benefits-if-it-wants-to-start-charging.ars
EFF defends Yes Men from business rage over climate hoax; Ars Technica, 10/23/09
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)