Mike Masnick, TechDirt; An 'Aha Moment' About Ridiculous Trademarks, As Oprah And Mutual Of Omaha Fight Over 'Aha Moment':
"Reader Trails writes in with news of the latest ridiculousness from the world of trademark law, where Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions and insurance giant Mutual of Omaha got into a bit of a spat over the term "aha moment," with both companies claiming rights over the phrase. Apparently Winfrey regularly uses the phrase "an aha moment" on her television program. Mutual of Omaha came up with a marketing campaign around "official sponsor of the aha moment" and attempted to trademark the phrase. Oprah/Harpo didn't object to the original trademark application, though they later found out about it and legal proceedings began. While none of the press reports seem to point this out, it appears that Oprah had not trademarked the phrase herself, though, she did finally apply for the trademark on "aha moment" in June of this year (nearly a year after Mutual of Omaha's application. The two sides have now "settled," but this conceivably means that anyone else who uses the phrase in areas that potentially compete with Oprah or Mutual of Omaha might find themselves in trouble as well."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091110/0741356873.shtml
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Murdoch threatens to sue BBC; Guardian, 11/10/09
Roy Greenslade, Guardian; Murdoch threatens to sue BBC:
"Further to yesterday's story about Rupert Murdoch's search engine sabre-rattling, Murdoch could block Google searches entirely, he also launched yet another assault on the BBC.
During the Sky News Australia interview, Murdoch was asked how he will be able to make his plan work to charge for all News Corporation-owned news websites when the likes of the BBC and others internationally provided free news content on its website.
"But we are better," he replied. "If you look at them, most of their stuff is stolen from the newspapers now, and we'll be suing them for copyright.
"They will have to spend a lot more money on a lot more reporters to cover the world when they can't steal from newspapers.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-bbc
"Further to yesterday's story about Rupert Murdoch's search engine sabre-rattling, Murdoch could block Google searches entirely, he also launched yet another assault on the BBC.
During the Sky News Australia interview, Murdoch was asked how he will be able to make his plan work to charge for all News Corporation-owned news websites when the likes of the BBC and others internationally provided free news content on its website.
"But we are better," he replied. "If you look at them, most of their stuff is stolen from the newspapers now, and we'll be suing them for copyright.
"They will have to spend a lot more money on a lot more reporters to cover the world when they can't steal from newspapers.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-bbc
For whom the net tolls; Guardian, 11/10/09
Cory Doctorow, Guardian; For whom the net tolls:
Rupert Murdoch wants to remake the web as a toll both, with him in the collector's seat, but the net won't shift to his will
"What, exactly, is Rupert Murdoch thinking? First, he announces that all of Newscorp's websites will erect paywalls like the one employed by the Wall Street Journal (however, Rupert managed to get the details of the WSJ's wall wrong – no matter, he's a "big picture" guy). Then, he announced that Google and other search engines were "plagiarists" who "rip off" Newscorp's content, and that once the paywalls are up (a date that keeps slipping farther into the future, almost as though the best IT people work for someone who's not Rupert "I Hate the Net" Murdoch!) he'll be blocking Google and the other "parasites" from his sites, making all of Newscorp's properties invisible to search engines. Then, as a kind of loonie cherry atop a banana split with extra crazy sauce, Rupert announces that "fair use is illegal" and he'll be abolishing it shortly.
What is he thinking? We'll never know, of course, but I have a theory...
Now, what about fair use being illegal? At a guess, I'd say that some Richelieu figure in Newscorp's legal department has been passing some evil whispers to Rupert about international copyright law. Specifically, about the Berne Convention – a centuries-old copyright accord that's been integrated into many other trade agreements, including the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and its "three-step test" for whether a copyright exemption is legal.
Copyright exemptions are all the rights that copyright gives to the public, not to creators or publishers, and "three-steps" describes the principles that Berne signatory countries must look to when crafting their own copyright exemptions.
Three steps limits copyright exemptions to:
1. certain special cases …
2. which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work; and …
3. do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.
Now, arguably, many countries fair dealing or fair use rules don't meet these criteria (the US rules on VCRs, book lending, cable TV, jukeboxes, radio plays, and a hundred other cases are favourite villains in these discussions; but many European rules are also difficult to cram into the three-steps frame). And I've certainly heard many corporate law mover-shakers announce that with the right lawsuit, you could get trade courts to force this country or that country to get rid of its fair dealing or fair use provisions.
But this view of international copyright lacks an appreciation of the subtleties of international trade, namely: big, powerful countries can ignore trade courts and treaty rules when it's in their interest to do so, because no one can afford to stop trading with them.
The US gets $1 trillion added to its GDP every year thanks to liberal fair use rules. If the WTO says that it has to ban video recorders or eliminate compulsory licenses on music compositions (or shut down search engines!), it will just ignore the WTO. The US is an old hand at ignoring the United Nations. The US owes billions to the UN in back-dues and shows no signs of repaying it. The fact that the WTO looks upon the US with disapproval will cause precisely nothing to happen in the American legislative branch.
And, if the WTO tries to get other countries to embargo the US, it will quickly learn that China and other factory states can't afford to stop shipping plastic gewgaws, pocket-sized electronics, and cheap textiles to America. And furthermore, other countries can't afford to boycott China – because those countries can't afford to allow a plastic gewgaw and cheap textile gap to emerge with America.
Of course, the elimination of fair use would present many problems to Newscorp – because, as with all media companies, Newscorp relies heavily on copyright exemptions to produce its own programming. I'm sure that if there's a lawyer who's put this idea into Rupert's head that she knows this, but I'm likewise sure that she's perfectly willing to expand the legal department to the thousands of lawyers it would take to negotiate permission for all those uses if fair use goes away. Especially if all those lawyers report to her.
That's my theory: Rupert isn't a technophobic loon who will send his empire to the bottom of the ocean while waging war on search engines. Instead, he's an out-of-touch moustache-twirler who's set his sights on remaking the web as a toll booth (with him in the collector's seat), and his plan hinges on a touchingly naive approach to geopolitics. Either way, old Rupert shows every sign of degenerating into a colourful Howard Hughes figure in a housecoat, demanding that reality shift to his will."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-charging-for-internet
Rupert Murdoch wants to remake the web as a toll both, with him in the collector's seat, but the net won't shift to his will
"What, exactly, is Rupert Murdoch thinking? First, he announces that all of Newscorp's websites will erect paywalls like the one employed by the Wall Street Journal (however, Rupert managed to get the details of the WSJ's wall wrong – no matter, he's a "big picture" guy). Then, he announced that Google and other search engines were "plagiarists" who "rip off" Newscorp's content, and that once the paywalls are up (a date that keeps slipping farther into the future, almost as though the best IT people work for someone who's not Rupert "I Hate the Net" Murdoch!) he'll be blocking Google and the other "parasites" from his sites, making all of Newscorp's properties invisible to search engines. Then, as a kind of loonie cherry atop a banana split with extra crazy sauce, Rupert announces that "fair use is illegal" and he'll be abolishing it shortly.
What is he thinking? We'll never know, of course, but I have a theory...
Now, what about fair use being illegal? At a guess, I'd say that some Richelieu figure in Newscorp's legal department has been passing some evil whispers to Rupert about international copyright law. Specifically, about the Berne Convention – a centuries-old copyright accord that's been integrated into many other trade agreements, including the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and its "three-step test" for whether a copyright exemption is legal.
Copyright exemptions are all the rights that copyright gives to the public, not to creators or publishers, and "three-steps" describes the principles that Berne signatory countries must look to when crafting their own copyright exemptions.
Three steps limits copyright exemptions to:
1. certain special cases …
2. which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work; and …
3. do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.
Now, arguably, many countries fair dealing or fair use rules don't meet these criteria (the US rules on VCRs, book lending, cable TV, jukeboxes, radio plays, and a hundred other cases are favourite villains in these discussions; but many European rules are also difficult to cram into the three-steps frame). And I've certainly heard many corporate law mover-shakers announce that with the right lawsuit, you could get trade courts to force this country or that country to get rid of its fair dealing or fair use provisions.
But this view of international copyright lacks an appreciation of the subtleties of international trade, namely: big, powerful countries can ignore trade courts and treaty rules when it's in their interest to do so, because no one can afford to stop trading with them.
The US gets $1 trillion added to its GDP every year thanks to liberal fair use rules. If the WTO says that it has to ban video recorders or eliminate compulsory licenses on music compositions (or shut down search engines!), it will just ignore the WTO. The US is an old hand at ignoring the United Nations. The US owes billions to the UN in back-dues and shows no signs of repaying it. The fact that the WTO looks upon the US with disapproval will cause precisely nothing to happen in the American legislative branch.
And, if the WTO tries to get other countries to embargo the US, it will quickly learn that China and other factory states can't afford to stop shipping plastic gewgaws, pocket-sized electronics, and cheap textiles to America. And furthermore, other countries can't afford to boycott China – because those countries can't afford to allow a plastic gewgaw and cheap textile gap to emerge with America.
Of course, the elimination of fair use would present many problems to Newscorp – because, as with all media companies, Newscorp relies heavily on copyright exemptions to produce its own programming. I'm sure that if there's a lawyer who's put this idea into Rupert's head that she knows this, but I'm likewise sure that she's perfectly willing to expand the legal department to the thousands of lawyers it would take to negotiate permission for all those uses if fair use goes away. Especially if all those lawyers report to her.
That's my theory: Rupert isn't a technophobic loon who will send his empire to the bottom of the ocean while waging war on search engines. Instead, he's an out-of-touch moustache-twirler who's set his sights on remaking the web as a toll booth (with him in the collector's seat), and his plan hinges on a touchingly naive approach to geopolitics. Either way, old Rupert shows every sign of degenerating into a colourful Howard Hughes figure in a housecoat, demanding that reality shift to his will."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-charging-for-internet
Monday, November 9, 2009
Google, Plaintiffs Blow Book Search Settlement Deadline; PC World, 11/09/09
Juan Carlos Perez, PC World; Google, Plaintiffs Blow Book Search Settlement Deadline:
"Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) need more time to revise the proposed settlement of the copyright infringement lawsuits the author and publisher organizations brought against Google over its Book Search program.
Google and the plaintiffs were supposed to file the revised agreement with the court on Monday, but instead they have asked the judge to give them until the end of the week.
"The parties have sent a letter to the court asking for an extension of time until this Friday, November 13 for the filing of the amended settlement agreement," said Judy Platt, an AAP spokeswoman, via e-mail.
At press time, Judge Denny Chin from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York hadn't decided whether to grant the extension requested today."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/181752/google_plaintiffs_blow_book_search_settlement_deadline.html
"Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) need more time to revise the proposed settlement of the copyright infringement lawsuits the author and publisher organizations brought against Google over its Book Search program.
Google and the plaintiffs were supposed to file the revised agreement with the court on Monday, but instead they have asked the judge to give them until the end of the week.
"The parties have sent a letter to the court asking for an extension of time until this Friday, November 13 for the filing of the amended settlement agreement," said Judy Platt, an AAP spokeswoman, via e-mail.
At press time, Judge Denny Chin from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York hadn't decided whether to grant the extension requested today."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/181752/google_plaintiffs_blow_book_search_settlement_deadline.html
Murdoch could block Google searches entirely; Guardian, 11/09/09
Bobbie Johnson, Guardian; Murdoch could block Google searches entirely:
"Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.
In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.
In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.
"I think we will, but that's when we start charging," he said...
Murdoch added that he did not agree with the idea that search engines fell under "fair use" rules - an argument many aggregator websites use as part of their legal justification for reproducing excerpts of news stories online.
"There's a doctrine called fair use, which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether... but we'll take that slowly.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/murdoch-google
"Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.
In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.
In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.
"I think we will, but that's when we start charging," he said...
Murdoch added that he did not agree with the idea that search engines fell under "fair use" rules - an argument many aggregator websites use as part of their legal justification for reproducing excerpts of news stories online.
"There's a doctrine called fair use, which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether... but we'll take that slowly.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/murdoch-google
Fears copyright trade agreement could criminalise the internet; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/10/09
Ari Sharp, Sydney Morning Herald; Fears copyright trade agreement could criminalise the internet:
"INTERNET companies warn that a secretive trade agreement being negotiated could lead to new criminal charges as part of a global effort to protect copyright and thwart piracy.
Australia is among more than a dozen countries that for more than two years have been formulating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which seeks to put pressure on internet service providers to take greater responsibility for cracking down on copyright breaches.
There has been little information about the progress of negotiations - a sixth round concluded last week in South Korea - prompting speculation there would be sweeping changes introduced to protect copyright holders by imposing penalties on users and internet service providers...
While Australia already has some of the strongest copyright protection laws in the world, the Internet Industry Association's chief executive, Peter Coroneos, said he had concerns over the potential consequences.
''There are many internet users that might be in a very grey area in terms of their own behaviour for want of alternatives they would prefer to have,'' he said, referring in particular to people illegally downloading music and movies...
The next round of negotiations will be in Mexico in January."
http://www.smh.com.au/national/fears-copyright-trade-agreement-could-criminalise-the-internet-20091109-i5gk.html
"INTERNET companies warn that a secretive trade agreement being negotiated could lead to new criminal charges as part of a global effort to protect copyright and thwart piracy.
Australia is among more than a dozen countries that for more than two years have been formulating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which seeks to put pressure on internet service providers to take greater responsibility for cracking down on copyright breaches.
There has been little information about the progress of negotiations - a sixth round concluded last week in South Korea - prompting speculation there would be sweeping changes introduced to protect copyright holders by imposing penalties on users and internet service providers...
While Australia already has some of the strongest copyright protection laws in the world, the Internet Industry Association's chief executive, Peter Coroneos, said he had concerns over the potential consequences.
''There are many internet users that might be in a very grey area in terms of their own behaviour for want of alternatives they would prefer to have,'' he said, referring in particular to people illegally downloading music and movies...
The next round of negotiations will be in Mexico in January."
http://www.smh.com.au/national/fears-copyright-trade-agreement-could-criminalise-the-internet-20091109-i5gk.html
French Publisher Sues Google Over Book Project; American Lawyer, via Law.com, 11/06/09
Richard Lloyd, American Lawyer, via Law.com; French Publisher Sues Google Over Book Project:
"Les Éditions de La Martinière filed suit in France in 2006 to stop Google's scanning operation, claiming that even though the vast majority of the scanning is done in the United States, the law being broken is French.
"It is an infernal machine, it never stops. It is a disgrace. It is cultural rape," huffed Serge Eyrolles, to the media, in the best tradition of French aesthetes, at a press conference in September. Eyrolles is the president of the Syndicat National de l'Edition, a group of French publishers that is also supporting the litigation. The publisher wants $25 million in damages, fines of around $150,000 for every reference to a La Martinière book on Google Book Search, and about $150,000 for every day that the books remain online after a judgment is handed down.
Google's lawyer, Herbert Smith partner Alexandra Neri, is having none of it. She describes Eyrolles's outburst as "a declaration from a Greek tragedy," adding prosaically, "New Internet services often draw passion."
The crux is whether French or U.S. copyright law should apply, says Yann Colin of Paris boutique Franklin, who represents La Martinière and writers group the Société des Gens de Lettres. Soon after Google started scanning books in the U.S. in 2004, chief executive officer Eric Schmidt announced that the company was taking advantage of the "fair use" doctrine, which enabled it to make available online an excerpt from every scanned book without the publishers' permission. Such a concept doesn't exist under French law."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435216020
"Les Éditions de La Martinière filed suit in France in 2006 to stop Google's scanning operation, claiming that even though the vast majority of the scanning is done in the United States, the law being broken is French.
"It is an infernal machine, it never stops. It is a disgrace. It is cultural rape," huffed Serge Eyrolles, to the media, in the best tradition of French aesthetes, at a press conference in September. Eyrolles is the president of the Syndicat National de l'Edition, a group of French publishers that is also supporting the litigation. The publisher wants $25 million in damages, fines of around $150,000 for every reference to a La Martinière book on Google Book Search, and about $150,000 for every day that the books remain online after a judgment is handed down.
Google's lawyer, Herbert Smith partner Alexandra Neri, is having none of it. She describes Eyrolles's outburst as "a declaration from a Greek tragedy," adding prosaically, "New Internet services often draw passion."
The crux is whether French or U.S. copyright law should apply, says Yann Colin of Paris boutique Franklin, who represents La Martinière and writers group the Société des Gens de Lettres. Soon after Google started scanning books in the U.S. in 2004, chief executive officer Eric Schmidt announced that the company was taking advantage of the "fair use" doctrine, which enabled it to make available online an excerpt from every scanned book without the publishers' permission. Such a concept doesn't exist under French law."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435216020
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Thinking About Real Copyright Reform; TechDirt, 11/06/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Thinking About Real Copyright Reform:
"Michael Scott alerts us to a recent paper by professor and copyright expert Jessica Litman about "Real Copyright Reform."...
Litman makes similar arguments that have been made recently by James Boyle and William Patry (among others), wondering why there is little investigation into the actual impact of changes in copyright law, rather than just assuming that "stronger protections" lead to better results, when so much of the evidence suggests otherwise. And, of course, all of this harkens back to the speeches by Thomas Macauley [sic] from over a century and a half ago, back when he was able to point to the lack of evidence from those who wished to extend copyright law...
Litman goes on to suggest that the fact that so many people out there don't have any respect for copyright law at all is pretty clearly the fault of the current copyright holders who have twisted and abused the law to the point that people just don't respect it. So, her ideas for copyright reform are based on bringing back "legitimacy" to copyright law by focusing on four principles:
1. Radically simplifying copyright law
2. Empowering content creators (rather than intermediaries and distributors)
3. Empowering readers, listeners and viewers (who, after all, are supposed to be part of the beneficiaries of copyright law)
4. Disintermediating copyright away from the middlemen who seem to control the law today
To then accomplish this, she suggests the following steps:
1. Focus on commercial exploitation (rather than personal use)
2. Simplify what copyright covers (rather than breaking out each separate exclusive right within copyright)
3. Reconnect creators to their copyright (via a termination right that lets them take copyrights back from third parties)
4. Clearly recognize readers' (or viewers', listeners', users', etc) rights
5. Get rid of existing compulsory license (and similar) intermediaries, such as ASCAP, BMI, SoundExchange and others
It's definitely an interesting proposal, though I think there are some serious problems with it."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0406366692.shtml
"Michael Scott alerts us to a recent paper by professor and copyright expert Jessica Litman about "Real Copyright Reform."...
Litman makes similar arguments that have been made recently by James Boyle and William Patry (among others), wondering why there is little investigation into the actual impact of changes in copyright law, rather than just assuming that "stronger protections" lead to better results, when so much of the evidence suggests otherwise. And, of course, all of this harkens back to the speeches by Thomas Macauley [sic] from over a century and a half ago, back when he was able to point to the lack of evidence from those who wished to extend copyright law...
Litman goes on to suggest that the fact that so many people out there don't have any respect for copyright law at all is pretty clearly the fault of the current copyright holders who have twisted and abused the law to the point that people just don't respect it. So, her ideas for copyright reform are based on bringing back "legitimacy" to copyright law by focusing on four principles:
1. Radically simplifying copyright law
2. Empowering content creators (rather than intermediaries and distributors)
3. Empowering readers, listeners and viewers (who, after all, are supposed to be part of the beneficiaries of copyright law)
4. Disintermediating copyright away from the middlemen who seem to control the law today
To then accomplish this, she suggests the following steps:
1. Focus on commercial exploitation (rather than personal use)
2. Simplify what copyright covers (rather than breaking out each separate exclusive right within copyright)
3. Reconnect creators to their copyright (via a termination right that lets them take copyrights back from third parties)
4. Clearly recognize readers' (or viewers', listeners', users', etc) rights
5. Get rid of existing compulsory license (and similar) intermediaries, such as ASCAP, BMI, SoundExchange and others
It's definitely an interesting proposal, though I think there are some serious problems with it."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0406366692.shtml
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Beatles catalog is temporarily banned from music website BlueBeat; LA Times,
Randy Lewis and Todd Martens, LA Times; Beatles catalog is temporarily banned from music website BlueBeat:
Capitol Records this week filed a suit against BlueBeat, which says that songs produced by digital regeneration are akin to songs performed by cover bands and do not run afoul of copyright law.
"A federal court in Los Angeles this week issued a temporary restraining order against a music website that recently had been offering the entire Beatles catalog for downloading at 25 cents per song. The Santa Cruz-based BlueBeat earlier in the week was hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit by EMI's Capitol Records, the group's U.S. label.
The order set back a novel legal argument by BlueBeat that songs produced through digital regeneration are akin to songs performed by cover bands and therefore do not run afoul of copyright law. BlueBeat had argued in court filings that its downloads were legal because the company had created entirely new versions by computer through a process called "psychoacoustic simulations" that makes the re-created songs sound just like the original recordings.
"We analyze them and then synthesize new songs, just as you would read a book and write an article," said BlueBeat Chief Executive Hank Risan. The site's "intention is to create a live performance, as if you are there listening to the actual performers doing the work as opposed to a copy or a phonorecord or CD of the work."
But the court didn't buy it. On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge John F. Walter sided with EMI. "Plaintiffs have . . . produced sufficient evidence demonstrating that [the] defendants copied protected elements of their recordings," the ruling said. "Indeed, screen shots from BlueBeat's website show track titles with the same names as the plaintiff's copyrighted works.""
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-bluebeat7-2009nov07,0,5668337.story
Capitol Records this week filed a suit against BlueBeat, which says that songs produced by digital regeneration are akin to songs performed by cover bands and do not run afoul of copyright law.
"A federal court in Los Angeles this week issued a temporary restraining order against a music website that recently had been offering the entire Beatles catalog for downloading at 25 cents per song. The Santa Cruz-based BlueBeat earlier in the week was hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit by EMI's Capitol Records, the group's U.S. label.
The order set back a novel legal argument by BlueBeat that songs produced through digital regeneration are akin to songs performed by cover bands and therefore do not run afoul of copyright law. BlueBeat had argued in court filings that its downloads were legal because the company had created entirely new versions by computer through a process called "psychoacoustic simulations" that makes the re-created songs sound just like the original recordings.
"We analyze them and then synthesize new songs, just as you would read a book and write an article," said BlueBeat Chief Executive Hank Risan. The site's "intention is to create a live performance, as if you are there listening to the actual performers doing the work as opposed to a copy or a phonorecord or CD of the work."
But the court didn't buy it. On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge John F. Walter sided with EMI. "Plaintiffs have . . . produced sufficient evidence demonstrating that [the] defendants copied protected elements of their recordings," the ruling said. "Indeed, screen shots from BlueBeat's website show track titles with the same names as the plaintiff's copyrighted works.""
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-bluebeat7-2009nov07,0,5668337.story
Friday, November 6, 2009
James Joyce Estate Agrees to Pay Plaintiff's Fees in Fair Use Dispute; National Law Journal, via Law.com, 9/30/09
Karen Sloan, National Law Journal, via Law.com; James Joyce Estate Agrees to Pay Plaintiff's Fees in Fair Use Dispute:
"The estate of author James Joyce has agreed to pay $240,000 in legal costs incurred by a Stanford University scholar following a fair use legal battle over a book about Joyce's daughter.
The settlement ends more than a decade of wrangling over Carol Shloss' book "Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake," which was to include copyrighted material from the celebrated author. Shloss was represented by attorneys from Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project; Keker & Van Nest; and Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin.
Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project, said the latest settlement brings to a close one of the more prominent academic fair use cases in recent years, which garnered interest in part because of the Joyce estate's aggressive approach to protecting copyrighted material. Other Joyce scholars for years have clashed with the estate -- controlled by the author's grandson Stephen James Joyce and trustee Sean Sweeney -- while attempting to excerpt his writing. Falzone said Shloss' legal success should give others the confidence to pursue their fair use rights.
"It really sends a message to people in Carol's position," Falzone said of the settlement. "Often what happens is that the mere threat of legal action is enough to scare [academics] off, and it leads to self-sensorship."
In a written statement, Shloss said that literary estates need to be cautious. "If they don't pay attention to the rights of scholars, authors and researchers, they may end up paying just as the Joyce estate did," she said.
Shloss' success won't create a legal precedent, however, since her ability to publish excepts of Joyce's letters and published works and her collection of legal fees from the Joyce estate were reached through settlements. "
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434181383&pos=ataglance
"The estate of author James Joyce has agreed to pay $240,000 in legal costs incurred by a Stanford University scholar following a fair use legal battle over a book about Joyce's daughter.
The settlement ends more than a decade of wrangling over Carol Shloss' book "Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake," which was to include copyrighted material from the celebrated author. Shloss was represented by attorneys from Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project; Keker & Van Nest; and Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin.
Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project, said the latest settlement brings to a close one of the more prominent academic fair use cases in recent years, which garnered interest in part because of the Joyce estate's aggressive approach to protecting copyrighted material. Other Joyce scholars for years have clashed with the estate -- controlled by the author's grandson Stephen James Joyce and trustee Sean Sweeney -- while attempting to excerpt his writing. Falzone said Shloss' legal success should give others the confidence to pursue their fair use rights.
"It really sends a message to people in Carol's position," Falzone said of the settlement. "Often what happens is that the mere threat of legal action is enough to scare [academics] off, and it leads to self-sensorship."
In a written statement, Shloss said that literary estates need to be cautious. "If they don't pay attention to the rights of scholars, authors and researchers, they may end up paying just as the Joyce estate did," she said.
Shloss' success won't create a legal precedent, however, since her ability to publish excepts of Joyce's letters and published works and her collection of legal fees from the Joyce estate were reached through settlements. "
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434181383&pos=ataglance
EU agrees on Internet, telecoms user rights; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/6/09
Sydney Morning Herald; EU agrees on Internet, telecoms user rights:
"The European parliament and EU nations have agreed new rules to improve the rights to European mobile phone and Internet users, and offer more protection against illegal Internet porn and copyright abuse.
EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding announced the compromise deal, reached late Thursday, after European governments agreed to EU parliament demands to balance a crackdown on illegal downloaders with broader rights for Internet users.
Following a "strong request" from the parliament, and after lengthy negotiations, the future rules state that any national measures regarding restrictions to access to Internet services and applications must be "appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society."
Reding welcomed the deal as "good news for Europe's citizens."...
Under the draft bill, authorities would no longer be able to cut off Internet services to users without providing evidence of illegal downloading or other activity.
The draft law will also boost privacy and consumer rights, make it easier for customers to switch telecoms providers and increase competition for Internet and phone services.
An earlier bill had been rejected by the parliament amid uproar over a draft French anti-piracy law which had suggested that Internet connections of users of peer-to-peer services could be cut without the prior intervention of judicial authorities.
The revised deal stresses that "citizens in the EU are entitled to a prior fair and impartial procedure, including the right to be heard, and they have a right to an effective and timely judicial review.""
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/eu-agrees-on-internet-telecoms-user-rights-20091106-i0pp.html
"The European parliament and EU nations have agreed new rules to improve the rights to European mobile phone and Internet users, and offer more protection against illegal Internet porn and copyright abuse.
EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding announced the compromise deal, reached late Thursday, after European governments agreed to EU parliament demands to balance a crackdown on illegal downloaders with broader rights for Internet users.
Following a "strong request" from the parliament, and after lengthy negotiations, the future rules state that any national measures regarding restrictions to access to Internet services and applications must be "appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society."
Reding welcomed the deal as "good news for Europe's citizens."...
Under the draft bill, authorities would no longer be able to cut off Internet services to users without providing evidence of illegal downloading or other activity.
The draft law will also boost privacy and consumer rights, make it easier for customers to switch telecoms providers and increase competition for Internet and phone services.
An earlier bill had been rejected by the parliament amid uproar over a draft French anti-piracy law which had suggested that Internet connections of users of peer-to-peer services could be cut without the prior intervention of judicial authorities.
The revised deal stresses that "citizens in the EU are entitled to a prior fair and impartial procedure, including the right to be heard, and they have a right to an effective and timely judicial review.""
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/eu-agrees-on-internet-telecoms-user-rights-20091106-i0pp.html
Judge orders US music website to drop Beatles songs; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/6/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Judge orders US music website to drop Beatles songs:
"A judge on Thursday ordered a California online music service to stop delivering Beatles songs to users, according to a copy of the ruling posted online.
US District Court Judge John Walter in Los Angeles sided with British music giant EMI, which filed suit this week accusing Bluebeat.com and its parent company Media Rights Technologies of infringing on its rights to Beatles songs.
Walter brushed aside Bluebeat's contention that it wasn't violating copyright laws because Beatles tunes at its website were re-recorded "audio visual performances with related sounds."
Bluebeat did not submit any reliable evidence to support its claim that it "independently developed their own original sounds," the judge said in his ruling.
Walter issued a restraining order barring Bluebeat from streaming or selling Beatles digital downloads of Beatles music and said he believed EMI was likely to win its legal case against the Internet firm."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/judge-orders-us-music-website-to-drop-beatles-songs-20091106-i1l9.html
"A judge on Thursday ordered a California online music service to stop delivering Beatles songs to users, according to a copy of the ruling posted online.
US District Court Judge John Walter in Los Angeles sided with British music giant EMI, which filed suit this week accusing Bluebeat.com and its parent company Media Rights Technologies of infringing on its rights to Beatles songs.
Walter brushed aside Bluebeat's contention that it wasn't violating copyright laws because Beatles tunes at its website were re-recorded "audio visual performances with related sounds."
Bluebeat did not submit any reliable evidence to support its claim that it "independently developed their own original sounds," the judge said in his ruling.
Walter issued a restraining order barring Bluebeat from streaming or selling Beatles digital downloads of Beatles music and said he believed EMI was likely to win its legal case against the Internet firm."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/judge-orders-us-music-website-to-drop-beatles-songs-20091106-i1l9.html
Why Do Canada And Europe Copyright Money?; TechDirt, 11/5/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Why Do Canada And Europe Copyright Money?:
"We've discussed in the past the odd idea that any government should be able to copyright anything it produces, but plenty of governments still do maintain things like "crown copyright" or other similar concepts for content they create. Yet, it looks like some countries have gone one step further. They copyright their money. Yes, Michael Scott points us to a blog post from an American law professor, Eric E. Johnson, who was on a trip to Canada and was surprised to discover that they have copyright notices on their paper currency. Of course, this should make you wonder: if you counterfeit some Canadian money are you also on the hook for copyright infringement violations? Or is there some other reason for the copyright notice. Are they afraid other nations might copy the design without compensation?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/0418556762.shtml
"We've discussed in the past the odd idea that any government should be able to copyright anything it produces, but plenty of governments still do maintain things like "crown copyright" or other similar concepts for content they create. Yet, it looks like some countries have gone one step further. They copyright their money. Yes, Michael Scott points us to a blog post from an American law professor, Eric E. Johnson, who was on a trip to Canada and was surprised to discover that they have copyright notices on their paper currency. Of course, this should make you wonder: if you counterfeit some Canadian money are you also on the hook for copyright infringement violations? Or is there some other reason for the copyright notice. Are they afraid other nations might copy the design without compensation?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/0418556762.shtml
Meet the Beatles... re-recording? Bluebeat claims its downloads are legal; Guardian, 11/5/09
Charles Arthur, Guardian; Meet the Beatles... re-recording? Bluebeat claims its downloads are legal:
A US company is offering digital downloads of the Beatles' music, the first in the world, putting it in the crosshairs of a lawsuit by EMI
"The Beatles songs are available for digital download, apparently legitimately. You have to go to an American site called Bluebeat which has possibly one of the worst download systems ever (a weird Java applet that insists on getting access to your computer), but they're there. And they really sound like the Beatles. In fact, hell, it is the Beatles.
This is puzzling, because the Beatles songs haven't been licensed for digital download to other sites. And, if you read the very extensive coverage on Wired, it seems that Apple Corps, the Beatles' management company, probably hasn't either. (I contacted Apple Corps earlier today but have not received a response.) EMI (the Beatles' publishers) has filed a lawsuit, Wired explains.
According to Wired, Bluebeat is claiming - in a bizarre court document - that it has made "re-recordings" of the songs using "psycho-acoustic simulation"...
For Bluebeat, though, it's a precipitous route towards calamity for a company that had probably been doing OK on its own. The lawsuit looks indefensible, will cost millions that it probably doesn't have, and is only going to give it short-term attention. Possibly this is what the company behind it, the mysterious Media Rights Technologies, Inc. of "PO Box 8447, Santa Cruz" (to quote the domain registration) is after.
Last word back to a lawyer contacted by Wired:
"They're hosed. That just doesn't make any sense," said Scott Mackenzie, a Dallas copyright attorney. "I don't even see the basis of their theory.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/05/beatles-bluebeat-emi-lawsuit-puzzle
A US company is offering digital downloads of the Beatles' music, the first in the world, putting it in the crosshairs of a lawsuit by EMI
"The Beatles songs are available for digital download, apparently legitimately. You have to go to an American site called Bluebeat which has possibly one of the worst download systems ever (a weird Java applet that insists on getting access to your computer), but they're there. And they really sound like the Beatles. In fact, hell, it is the Beatles.
This is puzzling, because the Beatles songs haven't been licensed for digital download to other sites. And, if you read the very extensive coverage on Wired, it seems that Apple Corps, the Beatles' management company, probably hasn't either. (I contacted Apple Corps earlier today but have not received a response.) EMI (the Beatles' publishers) has filed a lawsuit, Wired explains.
According to Wired, Bluebeat is claiming - in a bizarre court document - that it has made "re-recordings" of the songs using "psycho-acoustic simulation"...
For Bluebeat, though, it's a precipitous route towards calamity for a company that had probably been doing OK on its own. The lawsuit looks indefensible, will cost millions that it probably doesn't have, and is only going to give it short-term attention. Possibly this is what the company behind it, the mysterious Media Rights Technologies, Inc. of "PO Box 8447, Santa Cruz" (to quote the domain registration) is after.
Last word back to a lawyer contacted by Wired:
"They're hosed. That just doesn't make any sense," said Scott Mackenzie, a Dallas copyright attorney. "I don't even see the basis of their theory.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/05/beatles-bluebeat-emi-lawsuit-puzzle
Seamstress takes on might of Chanel over crochet pattern; Guardian, 11/6/09
Lizzy Davies, Guardian; Seamstress takes on might of Chanel over crochet pattern:
"A 61-year-old woman from a small town in eastern France is taking on the might of one of world's greatest fashion houses in a case that threatens to shake up the way the industry treats its skilled workers.
Carmen Colle, a former social worker who founded an ethical clothing company to provide employment for refugees, is waging a legal battle against Chanel over a crochet pattern which she claims was copied by designers at Rue Cambon.
Arguing that the sample was created by her own tailors and not by her former client, she is pushing for €2.5m (£2.2m) of damages for alleged counterfeit and breach of contract. Chanel insists the design was its own.
The case, which has taken four and a half years to come to court, is being watched closely by observers of the high fashion industry, who believe it could empower the petits mains who work as tailors and seamstresses for powerful brands in France.
Although businesses such as Colle's World Tricot, which supply handmade haute couture to some of fashion's leading names, often suggest ideas for designs, they rarely – if ever – ask for copyright, preferring to be given a large order from the client.
If Colle, who claims Chanel used her pattern without placing an order, wins her fight, she believes it could have widespread repercussions."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/05/seamstress-takes-on-chanel
"A 61-year-old woman from a small town in eastern France is taking on the might of one of world's greatest fashion houses in a case that threatens to shake up the way the industry treats its skilled workers.
Carmen Colle, a former social worker who founded an ethical clothing company to provide employment for refugees, is waging a legal battle against Chanel over a crochet pattern which she claims was copied by designers at Rue Cambon.
Arguing that the sample was created by her own tailors and not by her former client, she is pushing for €2.5m (£2.2m) of damages for alleged counterfeit and breach of contract. Chanel insists the design was its own.
The case, which has taken four and a half years to come to court, is being watched closely by observers of the high fashion industry, who believe it could empower the petits mains who work as tailors and seamstresses for powerful brands in France.
Although businesses such as Colle's World Tricot, which supply handmade haute couture to some of fashion's leading names, often suggest ideas for designs, they rarely – if ever – ask for copyright, preferring to be given a large order from the client.
If Colle, who claims Chanel used her pattern without placing an order, wins her fight, she believes it could have widespread repercussions."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/05/seamstress-takes-on-chanel
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.; Boing Boing, 11/3/09
Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing; Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.:
"The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:
* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
* That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)"
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html
"The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:
* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
* That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)"
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html
The Global Antitrust Battle Over Google's Library; Time, 10/31/09
Theo Emery, Time; The Global Antitrust Battle Over Google's Library:
"Who knew there was so much fight in those dusty books? When Google announced plans in 2004 to scan millions of tomes tucked into library stacks across the country, admirers embraced the ambitious project as a digital undertaking as visionary as Magellan's setting sail around the world. The project would throw open musty archives everywhere, putting hidden works on the Internet for all to use.
How things change. The library project is now embroiled in a ferocious legal free-for-all spanning the globe. At the battle's heart is Google's year-old settlement with groups representing authors and publishers who sued the company over its plans to digitize and copy books. In response to complaints by the settlement's many opponents, a federal judge in New York has asked Google to revise the settlement by Nov. 9. After that, opponents and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will carefully scrutinize the new deal.
The case presents a tangle of issues: how to create new markets for old books without shortchanging authors; how to nurture new technology without stifling competition; and how to preserve all that when one company — in this case, Google — is pioneering the revolution and could profit handsomely. One commentator, who supports the original settlement, has called it "the World Series of antitrust."...
Pamela Samuelson, a faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology who has raised concerns about the deal, called it an "extremely significant case" for the future of digital publishing. "The logic of the agreement, I think, is going to put Google in a very privileged position in the digital book market."
The original settlement appeared to be a fait accompli until last summer, when a sleepy copyright case, Authors Guild et al. vs. Google Inc., erupted into an intercontinental brawl. Hundreds of authors and publishers from the Netherlands to New Zealand have written to U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin, some expressing astonishment and outrage. France and Germany have protested; German Chancellor Angela Merkel singled out Google for criticism in a podcast this month.
Authors are on both sides of the barricades. Opponents of the settlement include silver-maned folk singer Arlo Guthrie and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, author of the so-called torture memos for President George W. Bush. The settlement counts The Joy Luck Club author Amy Tan and noir crime novelist Elmore Leonard among its supporters. The deal has many other supporters as well, from disability rights groups to Dr. Seuss Enterprises and the National Grange.
Fueled by writers, the debate has plenty of rhetorical flourishes. One incensed objector called Google a "Dickensian street pickpocket." The Open Book Alliance, a coalition that includes goliath rival Microsoft as well as the National Writers Union, likened Google to industrialist John D. Rockefeller and compared the settlement to a monopoly cartel controlling the future of digital publishing. "They have worked very hard to create the impression that this is like a freight train, and if you want to stand in front of it, you'll get run over," Gary Reback, an antitrust attorney who penned the legal brief for the Open Book Alliance, told TIME.
Last month the DOJ dropped perhaps the biggest bombshell. While saying that the settlement could breathe life into millions of unavailable works, the government also said the deal raised "significant legal concerns," and was the target of an antitrust probe...
What to make of it all? With e-books poised to take off, the case raises thorny questions. Will the deal benefit the public along with authors and publishers, while providing only minimal profit to Google? Or will it chart the course for future digital publishing and nudge Google ahead of rivals in the infancy of an emerging and potentially lucrative business? It is suspense worthy of a legal thriller — and Scott Turow is among the settlement's supporters."
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1933055,00.html
"Who knew there was so much fight in those dusty books? When Google announced plans in 2004 to scan millions of tomes tucked into library stacks across the country, admirers embraced the ambitious project as a digital undertaking as visionary as Magellan's setting sail around the world. The project would throw open musty archives everywhere, putting hidden works on the Internet for all to use.
How things change. The library project is now embroiled in a ferocious legal free-for-all spanning the globe. At the battle's heart is Google's year-old settlement with groups representing authors and publishers who sued the company over its plans to digitize and copy books. In response to complaints by the settlement's many opponents, a federal judge in New York has asked Google to revise the settlement by Nov. 9. After that, opponents and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will carefully scrutinize the new deal.
The case presents a tangle of issues: how to create new markets for old books without shortchanging authors; how to nurture new technology without stifling competition; and how to preserve all that when one company — in this case, Google — is pioneering the revolution and could profit handsomely. One commentator, who supports the original settlement, has called it "the World Series of antitrust."...
Pamela Samuelson, a faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology who has raised concerns about the deal, called it an "extremely significant case" for the future of digital publishing. "The logic of the agreement, I think, is going to put Google in a very privileged position in the digital book market."
The original settlement appeared to be a fait accompli until last summer, when a sleepy copyright case, Authors Guild et al. vs. Google Inc., erupted into an intercontinental brawl. Hundreds of authors and publishers from the Netherlands to New Zealand have written to U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin, some expressing astonishment and outrage. France and Germany have protested; German Chancellor Angela Merkel singled out Google for criticism in a podcast this month.
Authors are on both sides of the barricades. Opponents of the settlement include silver-maned folk singer Arlo Guthrie and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, author of the so-called torture memos for President George W. Bush. The settlement counts The Joy Luck Club author Amy Tan and noir crime novelist Elmore Leonard among its supporters. The deal has many other supporters as well, from disability rights groups to Dr. Seuss Enterprises and the National Grange.
Fueled by writers, the debate has plenty of rhetorical flourishes. One incensed objector called Google a "Dickensian street pickpocket." The Open Book Alliance, a coalition that includes goliath rival Microsoft as well as the National Writers Union, likened Google to industrialist John D. Rockefeller and compared the settlement to a monopoly cartel controlling the future of digital publishing. "They have worked very hard to create the impression that this is like a freight train, and if you want to stand in front of it, you'll get run over," Gary Reback, an antitrust attorney who penned the legal brief for the Open Book Alliance, told TIME.
Last month the DOJ dropped perhaps the biggest bombshell. While saying that the settlement could breathe life into millions of unavailable works, the government also said the deal raised "significant legal concerns," and was the target of an antitrust probe...
What to make of it all? With e-books poised to take off, the case raises thorny questions. Will the deal benefit the public along with authors and publishers, while providing only minimal profit to Google? Or will it chart the course for future digital publishing and nudge Google ahead of rivals in the infancy of an emerging and potentially lucrative business? It is suspense worthy of a legal thriller — and Scott Turow is among the settlement's supporters."
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1933055,00.html
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
EMI sues US music website over Beatles tunes; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/5/09
Sydney Morning Herald; EMI sues US music website over Beatles tunes:
"British music giant EMI on Wednesday confirmed it is suing a California online music service that streams and digitally delivers Beatles songs to users.
EMI filed suit Tuesday in a US district court in Los Angeles, accusing Bluebeat.com of copyright infringement and demanding that Beatles music be removed from the website's playlists.
EMI owns the rights to Beatles recordings and collaborates with Apple Corps on distribution of the music.
EMI said that Bluebeat, which offers MP3 downloads of songs for 25 cents each, is not authorized sell Beatles tunes.
A visit to the Bluebeat website by AFP on Wednesday revealed a host of Beatles albums or individual songs that could be streamed for free listening or purchased as digital downloads.
Bluebeat did not return an AFP request for comment.
Apple Corps was the Beatles recording label and is controlled by surviving members of the legendary 1960s era band and spouses of the late John Lennon and George Harrison.
Apple Corps has been notoriously leery of making Beatles music available for digital download, eschewing even allowing songs to be delivered to iPod or iPhone devices through the globally popular iTunes online store.
Beatles music made a tentative step in September toward a digital future with the release of "The Beatles: Rock Band" videogame devoted to the group's music and performances."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/emi-sues-us-music-website-over-beatles-tunes-20091105-hyfw.html
"British music giant EMI on Wednesday confirmed it is suing a California online music service that streams and digitally delivers Beatles songs to users.
EMI filed suit Tuesday in a US district court in Los Angeles, accusing Bluebeat.com of copyright infringement and demanding that Beatles music be removed from the website's playlists.
EMI owns the rights to Beatles recordings and collaborates with Apple Corps on distribution of the music.
EMI said that Bluebeat, which offers MP3 downloads of songs for 25 cents each, is not authorized sell Beatles tunes.
A visit to the Bluebeat website by AFP on Wednesday revealed a host of Beatles albums or individual songs that could be streamed for free listening or purchased as digital downloads.
Bluebeat did not return an AFP request for comment.
Apple Corps was the Beatles recording label and is controlled by surviving members of the legendary 1960s era band and spouses of the late John Lennon and George Harrison.
Apple Corps has been notoriously leery of making Beatles music available for digital download, eschewing even allowing songs to be delivered to iPod or iPhone devices through the globally popular iTunes online store.
Beatles music made a tentative step in September toward a digital future with the release of "The Beatles: Rock Band" videogame devoted to the group's music and performances."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/emi-sues-us-music-website-over-beatles-tunes-20091105-hyfw.html
Lawyers sue, men plunder; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/2/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Lawyers sue, men plunder:
A throwaway line in a television quiz show was the prelude to a multimillion-dollar court battle that could change the way musicians go about creating music, writes Joel Gibson.
"The courts have been reluctant to interpret copyright law too heavily against new works, she said, for fear of stymying creativity - but the music industry will be anxiously awaiting the outcome of this case.
''It does create uncertainty about how people can reference other songs … It means you can never have a thought or write a song without looking over your shoulder. Musicians would have to start retro-fitting their songs with some kind of analysis.''
McKeough said the protection of creative works had to be balanced by the knowledge that ''nothing is truly original, there are so many songs in the world''.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/music/lawyers-sue-men-plunder/2009/11/01/1257010103921.html?page=4
A throwaway line in a television quiz show was the prelude to a multimillion-dollar court battle that could change the way musicians go about creating music, writes Joel Gibson.
"The courts have been reluctant to interpret copyright law too heavily against new works, she said, for fear of stymying creativity - but the music industry will be anxiously awaiting the outcome of this case.
''It does create uncertainty about how people can reference other songs … It means you can never have a thought or write a song without looking over your shoulder. Musicians would have to start retro-fitting their songs with some kind of analysis.''
McKeough said the protection of creative works had to be balanced by the knowledge that ''nothing is truly original, there are so many songs in the world''.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/music/lawyers-sue-men-plunder/2009/11/01/1257010103921.html?page=4
Stormtrooper battle returns to British courts; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/4/09
AP, via Sydney Morning Herald; Stormtrooper battle returns to British courts:
"The George Lucas empire struck back on Tuesday against a British prop designer who sold replicas of the Stormtrooper uniforms from the Star Wars movies.
Designer Andrew Ainsworth has fought a long legal battle against Lucasfilm Ltd, which sued him over the replica suits and helmets he sold through a website.
Ainsworth sculpted the Stormtrooper helmets for the first Star Wars movie in 1977 and later sold replicas of the moulded white uniforms, worn in the films by warriors of the evil Galactic Empire.
The case ended ambiguously at London's High Court last year. A judge ruled that Ainsworth had violated Lucas's US copyright, but rejected a copyright claim against him under British law, saying the costumes were not works of art."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/film/stormtrooper-battle-returns-to-british-courts/2009/11/04/1257247646143.html
"The George Lucas empire struck back on Tuesday against a British prop designer who sold replicas of the Stormtrooper uniforms from the Star Wars movies.
Designer Andrew Ainsworth has fought a long legal battle against Lucasfilm Ltd, which sued him over the replica suits and helmets he sold through a website.
Ainsworth sculpted the Stormtrooper helmets for the first Star Wars movie in 1977 and later sold replicas of the moulded white uniforms, worn in the films by warriors of the evil Galactic Empire.
The case ended ambiguously at London's High Court last year. A judge ruled that Ainsworth had violated Lucas's US copyright, but rejected a copyright claim against him under British law, saying the costumes were not works of art."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/film/stormtrooper-battle-returns-to-british-courts/2009/11/04/1257247646143.html
Google seeks to turn a profit from YouTube copyright clashes; Guardian, 11/1/09
Katie Allen, Guardian; Google seeks to turn a profit from YouTube copyright clashes:
Group is working to persuade music and video companies to cash in rather than clamp down when their content is uploaded
"Google is seeking to drag YouTube into profit by convincing music and film footage rights owners to make advertising revenue from their content rather than remove it from the video-sharing site for breach of copyright.
The company has been touting a fingerprinting system for rights holders that means YouTube can identify their material even when it has been altered and made part of user-generated content such as wedding videos or satirical clips.
First developed two years ago, the ContentID system is attracting record labels, TV producers and sports rights owners keen to make more money from the web. Google's computers compare all the material uploaded to YouTube – around 20 hours every minute – against "ID files" from a 100,000-hour library of reference material from the rights holders. The system creates reports of what is viewed where and how often.
Rights holders then have the choice to either block their content or make money from it. That means putting advertising alongside the video and sharing the revenues with YouTube, which takes a small cut. They can also make money by linking to sites selling DVDs, downloads and CDs of the original content.
Google declines to give a number but says the majority of rights holders choose to monetise their content. It points to Mr Bean as a recent beneficiary of the system."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/01/google-youtube-monetise-content
Group is working to persuade music and video companies to cash in rather than clamp down when their content is uploaded
"Google is seeking to drag YouTube into profit by convincing music and film footage rights owners to make advertising revenue from their content rather than remove it from the video-sharing site for breach of copyright.
The company has been touting a fingerprinting system for rights holders that means YouTube can identify their material even when it has been altered and made part of user-generated content such as wedding videos or satirical clips.
First developed two years ago, the ContentID system is attracting record labels, TV producers and sports rights owners keen to make more money from the web. Google's computers compare all the material uploaded to YouTube – around 20 hours every minute – against "ID files" from a 100,000-hour library of reference material from the rights holders. The system creates reports of what is viewed where and how often.
Rights holders then have the choice to either block their content or make money from it. That means putting advertising alongside the video and sharing the revenues with YouTube, which takes a small cut. They can also make money by linking to sites selling DVDs, downloads and CDs of the original content.
Google declines to give a number but says the majority of rights holders choose to monetise their content. It points to Mr Bean as a recent beneficiary of the system."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/01/google-youtube-monetise-content
Law Professor (?!?) Claims Copyright Infringement Because Blog Uses Faculty Photo In Blog Post; TechDirt, 11/4/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Law Professor (?!?) Claims Copyright Infringement Because Blog Uses Faculty Photo In Blog Post:
"Just because you're a law professor, it doesn't mean you really understand the law, apparently. Eric Goldman (a law professor who does understand the law) alerts us to a bizarre lawsuit involving University of Miami law professor D. Marvin Jones, who was the subject of a series of blog posts on the popular law blog, AboveTheLaw, concerning a 2007 attempt where Jones was detained by police for allegedly soliciting a prostitute -- something he vehemently claims was not true, and authorities did, in fact, drop the charges and expunge the record. Jones makes a few different claims against ATL, all of which seem frivolous and unlikely to stand, but the most ridiculous of all is the claim that his copyright was violated by ATL using his faculty photo."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091104/0139026792.shtml
"Just because you're a law professor, it doesn't mean you really understand the law, apparently. Eric Goldman (a law professor who does understand the law) alerts us to a bizarre lawsuit involving University of Miami law professor D. Marvin Jones, who was the subject of a series of blog posts on the popular law blog, AboveTheLaw, concerning a 2007 attempt where Jones was detained by police for allegedly soliciting a prostitute -- something he vehemently claims was not true, and authorities did, in fact, drop the charges and expunge the record. Jones makes a few different claims against ATL, all of which seem frivolous and unlikely to stand, but the most ridiculous of all is the claim that his copyright was violated by ATL using his faculty photo."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091104/0139026792.shtml
Australian Radio Program On 'Piracy' What 60 Minutes Should Have Done; TechDirt, 11/4/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Australian Radio Program On 'Piracy' What 60 Minutes Should Have Done:
"On Monday, we wrote about that that ridiculous attempt by 60 Minutes to do a story about movie piracy that was basically one long press release for the MPAA's position. Facts weren't checked, and the reporter, Leslie Stahl, didn't bother to push back on a single claim made by any of the (all industry insider) guests. However, Boing Boing points us to a "radio documentary" on piracy that was done on Australian radio the very same day as the 60 Minutes episode aired. You may notice a major difference in that the Australian radio folks actually looked at the facts, invited on people who could refute industry claims, and actually pushed back on claims by the industry".
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091103/0303386776.shtml
"On Monday, we wrote about that that ridiculous attempt by 60 Minutes to do a story about movie piracy that was basically one long press release for the MPAA's position. Facts weren't checked, and the reporter, Leslie Stahl, didn't bother to push back on a single claim made by any of the (all industry insider) guests. However, Boing Boing points us to a "radio documentary" on piracy that was done on Australian radio the very same day as the 60 Minutes episode aired. You may notice a major difference in that the Australian radio folks actually looked at the facts, invited on people who could refute industry claims, and actually pushed back on claims by the industry".
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091103/0303386776.shtml
Is There "Hope" for Shepard Fairey?; Slate, 10/21/09
Tim Wu, Slate; Is There "Hope" for Shepard Fairey? :
How does fair-use law work, anyway?
"Shepard Fairey may have hoped to teach something new about art and copyright with his iconic "Hope" poster of Barack Obama. Instead, he is accused of lying about which Associated Press photo he used. (He says he made a mistake.) But if Fairey's lying has probably made a hash of his case and lost him a lawyer, it has also raised that pesky question yet again: Just what is fair use? Was it legal for Fairey to take an AP photo and turn it into this piece of artwork?
Copyright lawyers, when asked about fair use, love to emphasize its complexity and opacity. I won't deny that fair use can be a little dense, yet I firmly believe the basics can be well-understood. My project is to demystify: a few details may be lost, but here goes."
http://www.slate.com/id/2233152/
How does fair-use law work, anyway?
"Shepard Fairey may have hoped to teach something new about art and copyright with his iconic "Hope" poster of Barack Obama. Instead, he is accused of lying about which Associated Press photo he used. (He says he made a mistake.) But if Fairey's lying has probably made a hash of his case and lost him a lawyer, it has also raised that pesky question yet again: Just what is fair use? Was it legal for Fairey to take an AP photo and turn it into this piece of artwork?
Copyright lawyers, when asked about fair use, love to emphasize its complexity and opacity. I won't deny that fair use can be a little dense, yet I firmly believe the basics can be well-understood. My project is to demystify: a few details may be lost, but here goes."
http://www.slate.com/id/2233152/
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Podcast: The role of fair use in a time of change; Lawrence Lessig, via Channels.com, 10/4/09
Podcast: [66 min. 22 sec.] The role of "fair use" in a time of change; Lawrence Lessig, speaking in Kyoto, Japan; Channels.com:
http://www.channels.com/episodes/show/7183210/The-role-of-fair-use-in-a-time-of-CHANGE#/episodes/show/7183210/The-role-of-fair-use-in-a-time-of-CHANGE
http://www.channels.com/episodes/show/7183210/The-role-of-fair-use-in-a-time-of-CHANGE#/episodes/show/7183210/The-role-of-fair-use-in-a-time-of-CHANGE
60 Minutes Puts Forth Laughable, Factually Incorrect MPAA Propaganda On Movie Piracy; TechDirt, 11/2/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; 60 Minutes Puts Forth Laughable, Factually Incorrect MPAA Propaganda On Movie Piracy:
"31 years ago, in 1978, the television program 60 Minutes put on an episode about the awful threat of "video piracy" to the movie industry. Featuring the MPAA's Jack Valenti, the episode focused on how the VCR was going to destroy the movie business because anyone could copy and watch a movie in the privacy of their own home. Of course, in retrospect, that episode is hilariously wrong. You would think that, given how wrong they got it thirty years ago on this particular subject, 60 Minutes would be a bit more careful taking on the same subject again.
No such luck.
CBS's 60 Minutes has made itself out to be more of a laughingstock than usual when it comes to "investigative reporting," putting on an episode about "video piracy" that is basically 100% MPAA propaganda, without any fact checking or any attempt to challenge the (all MPAA connected) speakers, or to include anyone (anyone!) who would present a counterpoint. The episode is funny in that it contradicts itself at times (with no one noticing it) and gets important (and easily checked) facts wrong. And, of course, it basically mimics that old episode that history has shown to have been totally (laughably) false."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091101/1818186751.shtml
"31 years ago, in 1978, the television program 60 Minutes put on an episode about the awful threat of "video piracy" to the movie industry. Featuring the MPAA's Jack Valenti, the episode focused on how the VCR was going to destroy the movie business because anyone could copy and watch a movie in the privacy of their own home. Of course, in retrospect, that episode is hilariously wrong. You would think that, given how wrong they got it thirty years ago on this particular subject, 60 Minutes would be a bit more careful taking on the same subject again.
No such luck.
CBS's 60 Minutes has made itself out to be more of a laughingstock than usual when it comes to "investigative reporting," putting on an episode about "video piracy" that is basically 100% MPAA propaganda, without any fact checking or any attempt to challenge the (all MPAA connected) speakers, or to include anyone (anyone!) who would present a counterpoint. The episode is funny in that it contradicts itself at times (with no one noticing it) and gets important (and easily checked) facts wrong. And, of course, it basically mimics that old episode that history has shown to have been totally (laughably) false."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091101/1818186751.shtml
Monday, November 2, 2009
Reading from the web: The joy of Google Books; Gleaner (Jamaica, West Indes), 11/1/09
Gleaner (Jamaica, West Indes); Reading from the web: The joy of Google Books:
"Google Books, the online phenomenon that has become something of a godsend to book addicts the world over is quickly gaining popularity among Jamaican readers.
Google Books is the creation of popular Web search engine, Google. It allows access to thousands of books, some of which can be downloaded and read in their entirety. Extensive sections of other books are available for browsing. You can read several pages of these book and even see photos and graphics.
Lots of Jamaicans have been turning to the site recently and it has become a favourite among tech-savvy readers who get a thrill from having access to so many books without having to pay a cent. There are lots of books on Jamaica and the history of the island on the Website and you can browse and learn to your heart's content."
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20091101/arts/arts2.html
"Google Books, the online phenomenon that has become something of a godsend to book addicts the world over is quickly gaining popularity among Jamaican readers.
Google Books is the creation of popular Web search engine, Google. It allows access to thousands of books, some of which can be downloaded and read in their entirety. Extensive sections of other books are available for browsing. You can read several pages of these book and even see photos and graphics.
Lots of Jamaicans have been turning to the site recently and it has become a favourite among tech-savvy readers who get a thrill from having access to so many books without having to pay a cent. There are lots of books on Jamaica and the history of the island on the Website and you can browse and learn to your heart's content."
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20091101/arts/arts2.html
Desire to scan old books has critics casting Google as Goliath; San Jose Mercury News, 11/1/09
Mike Swift, San Jose Mercury News; Desire to scan old books has critics casting Google as Goliath:
"Company co-founder Sergey Brin has said repeatedly in recent weeks that Google is primarily acting with the public good in mind to preserve the world's cultural heritage in old books.
"I've been surprised at the level of controversy there," Brin said at a recent Internet conference in San Francisco. "Because digitalizing the world's books to make them available, there's been nobody else who's attempted it at our scale."
Federal regulators didn't see it that way, with the U.S. Department of Justice asking a federal judge this fall to reject the proposed class action settlement. Department officials say Google's plans would potentially violate federal antitrust laws.
The issue has clearly become more prominent because of Google's vast ambitions — its dominant search index to more than a trillion of web pages, and its march into digital maps, mobile phones, online video and other sectors of the Internet.
The controversy has shown Google is not that different from other profit-driven corporations, said Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of media studies and law at the University of Virginia.
"It really took something this big and grand to show that Google does have problems, and does have vulnerabilities, and can be exploitative," Vaidhyanathan said. "I'm as surprised as anybody that this turned out to be the moment in which Google's true nature came to light."
Google says negotiations are on track to have a revamped proposal ready before the Nov. 9 court deadline. While the search giant also ran afoul of the Justice Department last year over a proposed advertising partnership with Yahoo, even Google acknowledges public scrutiny has grown.
"It's absolutely partially about Google's size," said Daniel Clancy, engineering director of Google Book Search and a lead negotiator with authors and publishers. "If this settlement came out three years ago, what would have been in the press would be very different."
After more than 500 years where most human knowledge was stored in books, the controversy about digital books also "is a big Rorschach test, if you will, for the concerns people have about a digital future," Clancy said.
Google has insisted that its digital books plans, however they ultimately emerge from the ongoing talks, will leave room for competitors.
In an op-ed article in The New York Times, Brin said Google hoped "to unlock the wisdom held in the enormous number of out-of-print books, while fairly compensating the rights holders."
Brin did not even mention the Justice Department's concerns about competitive disadvantage in the article.
The department's filing in the case argues that "other digital distributors may be effectively precluded from competing with Google in the sale of digital library products and other derivative products to come."
For opponents like Pam Samuelson, a copyright expert at the University of California, Berkeley, who helped organize opposition to the digital books plan, Brin's omissions rankle.
"To me that sounds like they don't care what the Department of Justice thinks. It sounds a little like hubris to me," Samuelson said. "Google has done a great job of shining the spotlight on things about the settlement that people would find attractive, but they don't tell you some of the stuff that would be most worrisome about it.""
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_13680481
"Company co-founder Sergey Brin has said repeatedly in recent weeks that Google is primarily acting with the public good in mind to preserve the world's cultural heritage in old books.
"I've been surprised at the level of controversy there," Brin said at a recent Internet conference in San Francisco. "Because digitalizing the world's books to make them available, there's been nobody else who's attempted it at our scale."
Federal regulators didn't see it that way, with the U.S. Department of Justice asking a federal judge this fall to reject the proposed class action settlement. Department officials say Google's plans would potentially violate federal antitrust laws.
The issue has clearly become more prominent because of Google's vast ambitions — its dominant search index to more than a trillion of web pages, and its march into digital maps, mobile phones, online video and other sectors of the Internet.
The controversy has shown Google is not that different from other profit-driven corporations, said Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor of media studies and law at the University of Virginia.
"It really took something this big and grand to show that Google does have problems, and does have vulnerabilities, and can be exploitative," Vaidhyanathan said. "I'm as surprised as anybody that this turned out to be the moment in which Google's true nature came to light."
Google says negotiations are on track to have a revamped proposal ready before the Nov. 9 court deadline. While the search giant also ran afoul of the Justice Department last year over a proposed advertising partnership with Yahoo, even Google acknowledges public scrutiny has grown.
"It's absolutely partially about Google's size," said Daniel Clancy, engineering director of Google Book Search and a lead negotiator with authors and publishers. "If this settlement came out three years ago, what would have been in the press would be very different."
After more than 500 years where most human knowledge was stored in books, the controversy about digital books also "is a big Rorschach test, if you will, for the concerns people have about a digital future," Clancy said.
Google has insisted that its digital books plans, however they ultimately emerge from the ongoing talks, will leave room for competitors.
In an op-ed article in The New York Times, Brin said Google hoped "to unlock the wisdom held in the enormous number of out-of-print books, while fairly compensating the rights holders."
Brin did not even mention the Justice Department's concerns about competitive disadvantage in the article.
The department's filing in the case argues that "other digital distributors may be effectively precluded from competing with Google in the sale of digital library products and other derivative products to come."
For opponents like Pam Samuelson, a copyright expert at the University of California, Berkeley, who helped organize opposition to the digital books plan, Brin's omissions rankle.
"To me that sounds like they don't care what the Department of Justice thinks. It sounds a little like hubris to me," Samuelson said. "Google has done a great job of shining the spotlight on things about the settlement that people would find attractive, but they don't tell you some of the stuff that would be most worrisome about it.""
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_13680481
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Chris Christie Rips Off Monty Python, Risks Copyright Infringement; Huffington Post, 11/1/09
Martin Lewis, Huffington Post; Chris Christie Rips Off Monty Python, Risks Copyright Infringement:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/chris-christie-rips-off-m_b_341598.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/chris-christie-rips-off-m_b_341598.html
Podcast: The Movie Pirates; 60 Minutes, 11/1/09
Podcast: [12 min. 31 sec.]; 60 Minutes; The Movie Pirates:
"They are the bane of Hollywood: criminals who copy films and distribute them illegally on the Internet, costing Hollywood billions in lost revenue. Lesley Stahl reports."
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=NceD3u9gWRu6gDUxN5DyCpDJBOj_RjhA
"They are the bane of Hollywood: criminals who copy films and distribute them illegally on the Internet, costing Hollywood billions in lost revenue. Lesley Stahl reports."
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=NceD3u9gWRu6gDUxN5DyCpDJBOj_RjhA
Illegal downloaders 'spend the most on music', says poll; Independent, 11/1/09
Rachel Shields, Independent; Illegal downloaders 'spend the most on music', says poll:
Crackdown on music piracy could further harm ailing industry
"People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else, according to a new study. The survey, published today, found that those who admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music – £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly.
The findings suggest that plans by the Secretary of State for Business, Peter Mandelson, to crack down on illegal downloaders by threatening to cut their internet connections with a "three strikes and you're out" rule could harm the music industry by punishing its core customers.
An estimated seven million UK users download files illegally every year. The record industry's trade association, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), believes this copyright infringement will cost the industry £200m this year.
The poll, which surveyed 1,000 16- to 50-year-olds with internet access, found that one in 10 people admit to downloading music illegally.
"The latest approach from the Government will not help prop up an ailing music industry. Politicians and music companies need to recognise that the nature of music consumption has changed, and consumers are demanding lower prices and easier access," said Peter Bradwell, from the think-tank Demos, which commissioned the new poll conducted by Ipsos Mori.
However, music industry figures insist the figures offer a skewed picture. The poll suggested the Government's plan to disconnect illegal downloaders if they ignore official warning letters could deter people from internet piracy, with 61 per cent of illegal downloaders surveyed admitting they would be put off downloading music illegally by the threat of having their internet service cut off for a month.
"The people who file-share are the ones who are interested in music," said Mark Mulligan of Forrester Research. "They use file-sharing as a discovery mechanism. We have a generation of young people who don't have any concept of music as a paid-for commodity," he continued. "You need to have it at a price point you won't notice."
The Digital Economy Bill, which will become law next April, sets out new measures to crack down on internet piracy. But these have generated criticism from internet service providers, who say they will be difficult to enforce.
Artists are also divided over the issue, with Lily Allen and James Blunt recently supporting the Government's stance, while the Latin pop star Shakira argues that illegal file sharing brings her closer to her fans.
This year Virgin Media and Universal Music plan to launch the first music subscription service allowing customers to download and keep unlimited tracks from Universal's catalogue for a fee of around £15."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html
Crackdown on music piracy could further harm ailing industry
"People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else, according to a new study. The survey, published today, found that those who admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music – £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly.
The findings suggest that plans by the Secretary of State for Business, Peter Mandelson, to crack down on illegal downloaders by threatening to cut their internet connections with a "three strikes and you're out" rule could harm the music industry by punishing its core customers.
An estimated seven million UK users download files illegally every year. The record industry's trade association, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), believes this copyright infringement will cost the industry £200m this year.
The poll, which surveyed 1,000 16- to 50-year-olds with internet access, found that one in 10 people admit to downloading music illegally.
"The latest approach from the Government will not help prop up an ailing music industry. Politicians and music companies need to recognise that the nature of music consumption has changed, and consumers are demanding lower prices and easier access," said Peter Bradwell, from the think-tank Demos, which commissioned the new poll conducted by Ipsos Mori.
However, music industry figures insist the figures offer a skewed picture. The poll suggested the Government's plan to disconnect illegal downloaders if they ignore official warning letters could deter people from internet piracy, with 61 per cent of illegal downloaders surveyed admitting they would be put off downloading music illegally by the threat of having their internet service cut off for a month.
"The people who file-share are the ones who are interested in music," said Mark Mulligan of Forrester Research. "They use file-sharing as a discovery mechanism. We have a generation of young people who don't have any concept of music as a paid-for commodity," he continued. "You need to have it at a price point you won't notice."
The Digital Economy Bill, which will become law next April, sets out new measures to crack down on internet piracy. But these have generated criticism from internet service providers, who say they will be difficult to enforce.
Artists are also divided over the issue, with Lily Allen and James Blunt recently supporting the Government's stance, while the Latin pop star Shakira argues that illegal file sharing brings her closer to her fans.
This year Virgin Media and Universal Music plan to launch the first music subscription service allowing customers to download and keep unlimited tracks from Universal's catalogue for a fee of around £15."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Lil Wayne, Birdman hit with copyright suit in NYC; AP, via Yahoo News, 10/30/09
Jennifer Peltz, AP, via Yahoo News; Lil Wayne, Birdman hit with copyright suit in NYC:
"A Florida man wants rappers Lil Wayne and Birdman to show him respect — for using his voice in an album track called just that.
Thomas Marasciullo filed a copyright infringement lawsuit Friday in a Manhattan federal court against the rappers, their record label and various music distribution outlets.
The lawsuit said Cash Money Records had him cut some "'Italian-styled' spoken word recordings" in 2006, then used them without pay or permission on "Respect" and other tracks from the rappers' joint 2006 album "Like Father, Like Son" and Birdman's 2007 "5 (Star) Stunna.""
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/ap_en_mu/us_people_lil_wayne
"A Florida man wants rappers Lil Wayne and Birdman to show him respect — for using his voice in an album track called just that.
Thomas Marasciullo filed a copyright infringement lawsuit Friday in a Manhattan federal court against the rappers, their record label and various music distribution outlets.
The lawsuit said Cash Money Records had him cut some "'Italian-styled' spoken word recordings" in 2006, then used them without pay or permission on "Respect" and other tracks from the rappers' joint 2006 album "Like Father, Like Son" and Birdman's 2007 "5 (Star) Stunna.""
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/ap_en_mu/us_people_lil_wayne
Firebowls, Copyright And Crowdfunding (Oh My); TechDirt, 10/30/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Firebowls, Copyright And Crowdfunding (Oh My):
"Here's the summary of the situation:
Unger makes "firebowls" -- decorative metal bowls that you light a fire in (I had no idea such things existed).
He copyrighted the design of his firebowls.
He then discovered that Rick Wittrig was making firebowls that look remarkably similar, but are a bit cheaper.
Unger got angry and sent a cease-and-desist
Wittrig filed a lawsuit to claim that Unger's registered copyrights are not legitimate, as there shouldn't be any copyright on utilitarian objects.
Unger writes up his side of the story (small artist being ripped off!) and asks people to fund his legal defense using popular crowdfunding site Kickstarter"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091030/0412566732.shtml
"Here's the summary of the situation:
Unger makes "firebowls" -- decorative metal bowls that you light a fire in (I had no idea such things existed).
He copyrighted the design of his firebowls.
He then discovered that Rick Wittrig was making firebowls that look remarkably similar, but are a bit cheaper.
Unger got angry and sent a cease-and-desist
Wittrig filed a lawsuit to claim that Unger's registered copyrights are not legitimate, as there shouldn't be any copyright on utilitarian objects.
Unger writes up his side of the story (small artist being ripped off!) and asks people to fund his legal defense using popular crowdfunding site Kickstarter"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091030/0412566732.shtml
Anti-File Sharing Lobbyists/Lawyers Shove Each Other Aside To Blame P2P Rather Than Dumb Guy For Congressional Leak; TechDirt, 10/30/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Anti-File Sharing Lobbyists/Lawyers Shove Each Other Aside To Blame P2P Rather Than Dumb Guy For Congressional Leak:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091030/1334356743.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091030/1334356743.shtml
Oregon Tries Claiming Copyright Over Gov't Materials Again; TechDirt, 10/30/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Oregon Tries Claiming Copyright Over Gov't Materials Again:
"You may recall last year that the state of Oregon tried to claim copyright in preventing others from republishing Oregon laws. Yes, that seems incredibly counterproductive, and eventually the state backed down. However, it looks like Oregon's Attorney General is now also claiming copyright on the Attorney General's Public Record and Public Meeting Manual. Yes. A government official claiming copyright over a document on the public record. Wonderful. Carl Malamud is trying to get the Attorney General to issue an opinion that such things will not be covered by copyright. But, again, can anyone provide any good reason why any government document should be covered by copyright?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091030/1537066744.shtml
"You may recall last year that the state of Oregon tried to claim copyright in preventing others from republishing Oregon laws. Yes, that seems incredibly counterproductive, and eventually the state backed down. However, it looks like Oregon's Attorney General is now also claiming copyright on the Attorney General's Public Record and Public Meeting Manual. Yes. A government official claiming copyright over a document on the public record. Wonderful. Carl Malamud is trying to get the Attorney General to issue an opinion that such things will not be covered by copyright. But, again, can anyone provide any good reason why any government document should be covered by copyright?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091030/1537066744.shtml
Licensing Agreements Now Covering 'The Universe' And Future Media Not Yet Developed; TechDirt, 10/30/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Licensing Agreements Now Covering 'The Universe' And Future Media Not Yet Developed:
"However, it looks like lawyers drafting such legal arrangements are beginning to recognize this as an issue and are trying to prepare for such eventual new media opportunities. Eric Goldman alerts us to a WSJ article, highlighting how phrases like "in all media, throughout the universe" are becoming increasingly common in licensing contract language. While some decry this as being imprecise and overly broad, I tend to fall on the other side of the fence."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091029/0151366712.shtml
"However, it looks like lawyers drafting such legal arrangements are beginning to recognize this as an issue and are trying to prepare for such eventual new media opportunities. Eric Goldman alerts us to a WSJ article, highlighting how phrases like "in all media, throughout the universe" are becoming increasingly common in licensing contract language. While some decry this as being imprecise and overly broad, I tend to fall on the other side of the fence."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091029/0151366712.shtml
Will Three Strikes Ever Really Get Implemented In The UK?; TechDirt, 10/30/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Will Three Strikes Ever Really Get Implemented In The UK?:
"With Peter Mandelson announcing this week (as everyone expected) that he's going to introduce a proposal to kick file sharers off the internet under a "three strikes" plan, it's been amusing watching defenders of this idea try and fail to answer the question "how will this make people buy more stuff." ...
But, perhaps an even bigger question is whether or not it will ever actually get implemented in the UK."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091030/0328096729.shtml
"With Peter Mandelson announcing this week (as everyone expected) that he's going to introduce a proposal to kick file sharers off the internet under a "three strikes" plan, it's been amusing watching defenders of this idea try and fail to answer the question "how will this make people buy more stuff." ...
But, perhaps an even bigger question is whether or not it will ever actually get implemented in the UK."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091030/0328096729.shtml
Brooklyn Law School No Fan Of Due Process; Apparently Handing Names Over To MPAA [Updated]; TechDirt, 10/30/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Brooklyn Law School No Fan Of Due Process; Apparently Handing Names Over To MPAA [Updated]:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091029/0409046717.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091029/0409046717.shtml
Vampire fever is biting hard; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/31/09
Jonathan Dart, Sydney Morning Herald; Vampire fever is biting hard:
"Hamish Fraser, a partner at Truman Hoyle law firm, warned people to not get too fired up by Halloween and start copying ideas that might belong to someone else.
It follows a case in Britain where a single mother was sent a warning letter by Warner Bros over potential copyright breaches, after she planned a Harry Potter themed dinner event.
"What probably went wrong in the United Kingdom in this case was that it might have looked, to Warner Brothers, that this woman was trying to earn money rather than having a fun night," Mr Fraser said.
"The problem is that the copyright law is what it is. If you copy the Harry Potter logo, for instance, you are almost certainly infringing copyright.''
But in a year when vampires are so popular, Mr Fraser said it will be harder for companies to suck the blood out of parties by protecting copyright - recent Twilight-themed parties have been held everywhere from Yass Valley Council Library to the Loft Bar in Darling Harbour."
http://www.smh.com.au/national/vampire-fever-is-biting-hard-20091030-hpqy.html
"Hamish Fraser, a partner at Truman Hoyle law firm, warned people to not get too fired up by Halloween and start copying ideas that might belong to someone else.
It follows a case in Britain where a single mother was sent a warning letter by Warner Bros over potential copyright breaches, after she planned a Harry Potter themed dinner event.
"What probably went wrong in the United Kingdom in this case was that it might have looked, to Warner Brothers, that this woman was trying to earn money rather than having a fun night," Mr Fraser said.
"The problem is that the copyright law is what it is. If you copy the Harry Potter logo, for instance, you are almost certainly infringing copyright.''
But in a year when vampires are so popular, Mr Fraser said it will be harder for companies to suck the blood out of parties by protecting copyright - recent Twilight-themed parties have been held everywhere from Yass Valley Council Library to the Loft Bar in Darling Harbour."
http://www.smh.com.au/national/vampire-fever-is-biting-hard-20091030-hpqy.html
Friday, October 30, 2009
MI5, an ISP lawsuit and an e-petition: More opposition to piracy cut-off plans; ZDNet, 10/30/09
Zack Whittaker, ZDNet; MI5, an ISP lawsuit and an e-petition: More opposition to piracy cut-off plans:
"There has been more controversy this week with a major Internet service provider, a petition set up to harness the power of democracy, but also the British Security Service, MI5, all opposing the cut-off laws which are being pushed through by a key figure in the British government’s cabinet."
http://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=3187&tag=post-3168;col2
"There has been more controversy this week with a major Internet service provider, a petition set up to harness the power of democracy, but also the British Security Service, MI5, all opposing the cut-off laws which are being pushed through by a key figure in the British government’s cabinet."
http://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=3187&tag=post-3168;col2
HP bets on paper books and magazines in digital age; San Jose Business Journal, 10/21/09
San Jose Business Journal; HP bets on paper books and magazines in digital age:
"Hewlett-Packard Co. is placing a big bet on paper magazines and paper books, even as electronic books and readers become more popular, with Barnes & Noble introducing its new Nook reader Tuesday.
HP is setting up projects to allow people to print their own magazines and to print old books that are out of copyright.
Palo Alto-based HP (NYSE: HPQ) is working with Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales, who started Wikipedia, on Mag Cloud, a service that lets people pay about 20 cents a page to create and print magazines from Wales’ for-profit Wikia business. Someone can put together content from various Wikia pages and print them out as a magazine.
People can print books if the copyright has expired using another HP service called BookPrep. To print a 250-page book will cost about $15, for example."
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2009/10/19/daily53.html
"Hewlett-Packard Co. is placing a big bet on paper magazines and paper books, even as electronic books and readers become more popular, with Barnes & Noble introducing its new Nook reader Tuesday.
HP is setting up projects to allow people to print their own magazines and to print old books that are out of copyright.
Palo Alto-based HP (NYSE: HPQ) is working with Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales, who started Wikipedia, on Mag Cloud, a service that lets people pay about 20 cents a page to create and print magazines from Wales’ for-profit Wikia business. Someone can put together content from various Wikia pages and print them out as a magazine.
People can print books if the copyright has expired using another HP service called BookPrep. To print a 250-page book will cost about $15, for example."
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2009/10/19/daily53.html
Yes on One Ad Rankles NPR; Maine Public Broadcasting Network, 10/21/09
Josie Huang, Maine Public Broadcasting Network; Yes on One Ad Rankles NPR:
The campaign to overturn Maine's same-sex marriage law is taking on an unlikely new adversary: National Public Radio. NPR wants the Yes on One/Stand for Marriage Maine campaign to stop airing television spots featuring audio from an NPR story because the organization does not want to be associated with a political issue. But the campaign says it is ignoring the cease-and-desist order from NPR and will keep airing the ads.
""This is a ridiculous and frivolous complaint," says Scott Fish, spokesman for the campaign to repeal the gay marriage law, reading from a prepared statement. "Stand For Marriage Maine has the absolute right to use news clips aired on NPR in our advertisement. This is a protected exercise of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and is expressly contemplated as 'fair use' in our nation's copyright laws."
"Fair use" describes a legal principle in which copyrighted materials can be used under certain conditions, such as how much of it is used, and whether it hurts the copyright holder in any way.The 30-second ad excerpts 20 seconds from a 2004 NPR story titled "Massachusetts Schools Grapple with Including Gay and Lesbian Relationships in Sex Education." The piece examined how teachers were approaching the issue of same-sex relationships following the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Of course, fair use, is all subjective, and NPR contends that this is not a case of fair use. "We've not had a potlicial organization use our content in this manner and, frankly, violate our copyright in this manner," says Dana Davis Rehm, a senior vice president at NPR overseeing communications.
She notes that two-thirds of the ad is comprised of audio from the NPR story. She further argues that the TV spots harm the reputation of NPR. "It may give people the impression that NPR permitted the use of the content in this manner, it may give people an impression that NPR has a position on this topic, either for or against the issue being discussed."
NPR has asked the Website YouTube, and other sites that were streaming the video, to stop, which they have. But Rehm says NPR has not yet approached television stations, and is still reviewing its legal options.
NPR could seek a court injunction to completely halt the ads, but it is running out of time. Voters will be asked to decide whether to repeal the same-sex marriage law in exactly two weeks.
Al Tompkins teaches broadcast ethics at the Poynter Institute. "In the two weeks that is going to pass between now and election time, it's highly unlikely that you'd be able to get a court to do much in a way of judgement on this, so the election will be over before you get much legal help."
But David Ardia, who directs the Citizen Media Law project at Harvard University, says that NPR may still be able to have an impact with its actions. "When you're talking about a political campaign, where time is of the essense, the fact that a video has been taken down during that time period can actually have the effect the copyright holder wants."
He notes that it is standard practice for a video to stay off YouTube for at least 10 days during which the copyright holder relents or decides to pursue legal action against the user. "And when you're talking about a 10-day window and only two weeks between the take down notice and the election, that can result in the video being down for most of the relevant time period."
Meanwhile, though, the ads are still running on television."
http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/9474/Default.aspx
The campaign to overturn Maine's same-sex marriage law is taking on an unlikely new adversary: National Public Radio. NPR wants the Yes on One/Stand for Marriage Maine campaign to stop airing television spots featuring audio from an NPR story because the organization does not want to be associated with a political issue. But the campaign says it is ignoring the cease-and-desist order from NPR and will keep airing the ads.
""This is a ridiculous and frivolous complaint," says Scott Fish, spokesman for the campaign to repeal the gay marriage law, reading from a prepared statement. "Stand For Marriage Maine has the absolute right to use news clips aired on NPR in our advertisement. This is a protected exercise of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and is expressly contemplated as 'fair use' in our nation's copyright laws."
"Fair use" describes a legal principle in which copyrighted materials can be used under certain conditions, such as how much of it is used, and whether it hurts the copyright holder in any way.The 30-second ad excerpts 20 seconds from a 2004 NPR story titled "Massachusetts Schools Grapple with Including Gay and Lesbian Relationships in Sex Education." The piece examined how teachers were approaching the issue of same-sex relationships following the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Of course, fair use, is all subjective, and NPR contends that this is not a case of fair use. "We've not had a potlicial organization use our content in this manner and, frankly, violate our copyright in this manner," says Dana Davis Rehm, a senior vice president at NPR overseeing communications.
She notes that two-thirds of the ad is comprised of audio from the NPR story. She further argues that the TV spots harm the reputation of NPR. "It may give people the impression that NPR permitted the use of the content in this manner, it may give people an impression that NPR has a position on this topic, either for or against the issue being discussed."
NPR has asked the Website YouTube, and other sites that were streaming the video, to stop, which they have. But Rehm says NPR has not yet approached television stations, and is still reviewing its legal options.
NPR could seek a court injunction to completely halt the ads, but it is running out of time. Voters will be asked to decide whether to repeal the same-sex marriage law in exactly two weeks.
Al Tompkins teaches broadcast ethics at the Poynter Institute. "In the two weeks that is going to pass between now and election time, it's highly unlikely that you'd be able to get a court to do much in a way of judgement on this, so the election will be over before you get much legal help."
But David Ardia, who directs the Citizen Media Law project at Harvard University, says that NPR may still be able to have an impact with its actions. "When you're talking about a political campaign, where time is of the essense, the fact that a video has been taken down during that time period can actually have the effect the copyright holder wants."
He notes that it is standard practice for a video to stay off YouTube for at least 10 days during which the copyright holder relents or decides to pursue legal action against the user. "And when you're talking about a 10-day window and only two weeks between the take down notice and the election, that can result in the video being down for most of the relevant time period."
Meanwhile, though, the ads are still running on television."
http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/9474/Default.aspx
ImageRights Launches to Help Protect Photographers and Stock-Photo Agencies from Copyright Infringement; Reuters, 10/22/09
Reuters; ImageRights Launches to Help Protect Photographers and Stock-Photo Agencies from Copyright Infringement:
New Service Enables Individuals and Agencies to Upload Photos and ReceiveReports Indicating Which Persons or Companies are Using Proprietary ImagesWithout Prior Consent or Payment
"ImageRights International, an Internet-based services company, today announcedthe availability of its first service-ImageRights-a low-cost, easy to usesolution designed to help protect the copyrights of photographers and stock-photo agencies. Targeted to the estimated three million worldwide commercial photographers, ImageRights is applying visual search and image recognition technology to track the use of photographs and illustrations across the Internet, enabling rights holders to discover and ultimately recover fees for the unlicensed use of their works."
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS133608+22-Oct-2009+BW20091022
New Service Enables Individuals and Agencies to Upload Photos and ReceiveReports Indicating Which Persons or Companies are Using Proprietary ImagesWithout Prior Consent or Payment
"ImageRights International, an Internet-based services company, today announcedthe availability of its first service-ImageRights-a low-cost, easy to usesolution designed to help protect the copyrights of photographers and stock-photo agencies. Targeted to the estimated three million worldwide commercial photographers, ImageRights is applying visual search and image recognition technology to track the use of photographs and illustrations across the Internet, enabling rights holders to discover and ultimately recover fees for the unlicensed use of their works."
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS133608+22-Oct-2009+BW20091022
British Copyright Org Threatens Singing Store Employee, Then Apologizes; DailyTech, 10/23/09
Jason Mick, DailyTech; British Copyright Org Threatens Singing Store Employee, Then Apologizes:
"The humorous tale involves the organization catching wind of a “heinous” offense -- an employee singing in public. Sandra Burt, 56, who works at A&T Food store (a British supermarket) in Clackmannanshire, UK was told by organization representatives that she would likely face fines for lost royalties for her "performance".
The debacle began earlier in the year when the PRS threatened the grocery store she worked at, telling them to ditch the radio that played in earshot of customers or pay royalty fees. Missing the music, Ms. Burt decided to start singing some of her favorite tunes. She describes, "I would start to sing to myself when I was stacking the shelves just to keep me happy because it was very quiet without the radio.
"Then came new threats from the PRS. Ms. Burt describes, "When I heard that the PRS said I would be prosecuted for not having a performance license, I thought it was a joke and started laughing. I was then told I could be fined thousands of pounds. But I couldn't stop myself singing."
http://www.dailytech.com/British+Copyright+Org+Threatens+Singing+Store+Employee+Then+Apologizes/article16592.htm
"The humorous tale involves the organization catching wind of a “heinous” offense -- an employee singing in public. Sandra Burt, 56, who works at A&T Food store (a British supermarket) in Clackmannanshire, UK was told by organization representatives that she would likely face fines for lost royalties for her "performance".
The debacle began earlier in the year when the PRS threatened the grocery store she worked at, telling them to ditch the radio that played in earshot of customers or pay royalty fees. Missing the music, Ms. Burt decided to start singing some of her favorite tunes. She describes, "I would start to sing to myself when I was stacking the shelves just to keep me happy because it was very quiet without the radio.
"Then came new threats from the PRS. Ms. Burt describes, "When I heard that the PRS said I would be prosecuted for not having a performance license, I thought it was a joke and started laughing. I was then told I could be fined thousands of pounds. But I couldn't stop myself singing."
http://www.dailytech.com/British+Copyright+Org+Threatens+Singing+Store+Employee+Then+Apologizes/article16592.htm
Book Review: 'Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars' by William Patry; LA Times, 10/23/09
Book Review: 'Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars' by William Patry; Reviewed by Jonathan Handel; LA Times:
"Into this copyright war walks William Patry. Extraordinarily well-credentialed, Patry has been a copyright lawyer for 27 years as a professor, practitioner and government attorney. Currently, he's Google's senior copyright counsel. Though Patry says he's in favor of "effective" copyright protection, he writes that "bad business models, failed economic ideologies, and acceptance of inapposite metaphors have led to an unjustified expansion" of those laws.
Patry's stature makes "Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars" an "important" book. Unfortunately, what the book delivers is a choppy and directionless narrative, sometimes illuminating but too often scattershot, unoriginal and strident. Unsupported claims abound...
This presentation is informative, but it's marred by Patry's habit of presenting arguments as though he were the first to devise them. An example is his claim that entertainment companies attack file sharing instead of innovating: Books by Lawrence Lessig, Tarleton Gillespie and others have made similar arguments more effectively. Patry discusses few of these works and adds little.
In fact, Patry has nothing good to say about copyright law. What do "effective" copyright laws look like? Read his book and you still won't know. The Constitution offers a hint: Copyright is intended to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Various scholars interpret that to mean a delicate balance of rights. Of course, the devil is in the details, but Patry offers none...
The author all but celebrates illegal file sharing, but would he be so sanguine if his own company's intellectual property -- its computer source code -- were shared in this fashion? One might imagine that what's good for the goose is good for the Google, but it's more likely the company would sue. Indeed, the entire technology industry is built on copyrights, patents and trade secrets, backed up by tough contracts and tougher lawyers. (By the way, Patry advocated copyright reform years before joining Google and says the book should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of his current employer.)
Certainly it's untenable for entertainment companies and copyright law itself to remain at war with millions of citizens. For better and worse, technology has unleashed new norms, and some accommodation must be found. Unfortunately, this book sheds little light on how that should happen."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-book23-2009oct23,0,6896339.story
"Into this copyright war walks William Patry. Extraordinarily well-credentialed, Patry has been a copyright lawyer for 27 years as a professor, practitioner and government attorney. Currently, he's Google's senior copyright counsel. Though Patry says he's in favor of "effective" copyright protection, he writes that "bad business models, failed economic ideologies, and acceptance of inapposite metaphors have led to an unjustified expansion" of those laws.
Patry's stature makes "Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars" an "important" book. Unfortunately, what the book delivers is a choppy and directionless narrative, sometimes illuminating but too often scattershot, unoriginal and strident. Unsupported claims abound...
This presentation is informative, but it's marred by Patry's habit of presenting arguments as though he were the first to devise them. An example is his claim that entertainment companies attack file sharing instead of innovating: Books by Lawrence Lessig, Tarleton Gillespie and others have made similar arguments more effectively. Patry discusses few of these works and adds little.
In fact, Patry has nothing good to say about copyright law. What do "effective" copyright laws look like? Read his book and you still won't know. The Constitution offers a hint: Copyright is intended to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Various scholars interpret that to mean a delicate balance of rights. Of course, the devil is in the details, but Patry offers none...
The author all but celebrates illegal file sharing, but would he be so sanguine if his own company's intellectual property -- its computer source code -- were shared in this fashion? One might imagine that what's good for the goose is good for the Google, but it's more likely the company would sue. Indeed, the entire technology industry is built on copyrights, patents and trade secrets, backed up by tough contracts and tougher lawyers. (By the way, Patry advocated copyright reform years before joining Google and says the book should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of his current employer.)
Certainly it's untenable for entertainment companies and copyright law itself to remain at war with millions of citizens. For better and worse, technology has unleashed new norms, and some accommodation must be found. Unfortunately, this book sheds little light on how that should happen."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-et-book23-2009oct23,0,6896339.story
Universities in hot water over students' peer-to-peer sharing; ZDNet, 10/25/09
Zack Whittaker, ZDNet; Universities in hot water over students' peer-to-peer sharing:
"The battle against online piracy is heating up: a new artist led initiative is taking on the diplomatic and negotiation approach whereas governments and legislators are hitting down punitive policies on their citizens.
Jon Newton of p2pnet, alongside Billy Bragg, musician and director of the Featured Artists Coalition, have begun work on a2f2a.com, a campaign started to discuss how artists can cut out the middleman - such as the suicide inducing RIAA - and ensure artists are fairly remunerated.
Along with their mission statement, the efforts seem to be focused towards not only admitting there is no technological solution to the problems artists already face, but that users would be “willing to pay for music if they can be sure that the money is going to the artists whose work they enjoy.”"
http://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=3168
"The battle against online piracy is heating up: a new artist led initiative is taking on the diplomatic and negotiation approach whereas governments and legislators are hitting down punitive policies on their citizens.
Jon Newton of p2pnet, alongside Billy Bragg, musician and director of the Featured Artists Coalition, have begun work on a2f2a.com, a campaign started to discuss how artists can cut out the middleman - such as the suicide inducing RIAA - and ensure artists are fairly remunerated.
Along with their mission statement, the efforts seem to be focused towards not only admitting there is no technological solution to the problems artists already face, but that users would be “willing to pay for music if they can be sure that the money is going to the artists whose work they enjoy.”"
http://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=3168
David Lammy calls for pan-European approach to copyright protection; Guardian, 10/27/09
Mark Sweney, Guardian; David Lammy calls for pan-European approach to copyright protection:
Intellectual property minister tells C&binet Forum delegates that progress on copyright piracy cannot be made without a 'European consensus'
"David Lammy, the intellectual property minister, has today warned that the UK cannot solve the problem of copyright piracy without the support of other European governments.
Lammy, speaking at the government's digital creative industries conference C&binet, said the UK has been stymied in its efforts to strengthen the enforcement of copyright because it is a "minority" player on the European stage.
"Some people tell me that content is national, they tell me the solutions lie in my backyard [but] this is not right, content is international," he added.
"Solutions lie internationally. For us, solutions lie in Europe. The UK must continue to encourage and support wider innovation and improve access to copyright works. But we can do relatively little domestically. A great deal of policy making is harmonised at European level and progress simply can't be made without a European consensus," Lammy said.
"The UK often finds itself in the minority in Europe when it comes to copyright issues. I want to see the UK play a greater role in influencing European action."
He added that while models needed to be developed to make legitimate content attractive to all, consumers needed to understand they had to pay to make the system work.
"If the world wants to continue to enjoy works that are protected by copyright, then the world must be a paying customer," he said. "Consumers have built a digital culture based on access, even if it cuts across the law. I want a world where rights holders will be paid for their efforts. For me, the balance must always tilt strongly in favour of freedom. But freedom to access material is not the same thing as access for free."
Lammy added that the current copyright system was out of step with the digital age and that government and businesses had "sleepwalked" into the piracy situation.
"The mechanisms by which copyright operates can be too complex. I don't want to see copyright, in the UK, or anywhere in the world, lagging so far behind technology that it loses relevance," he said. "I don't want to see a regime based on arbitrary rules. It must ensure that it allows limited copying for personal use of lawfully obtained material. I want to see this made possible rather than discouraged."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/27/david-lammy-copyright-piracy-europe
Intellectual property minister tells C&binet Forum delegates that progress on copyright piracy cannot be made without a 'European consensus'
"David Lammy, the intellectual property minister, has today warned that the UK cannot solve the problem of copyright piracy without the support of other European governments.
Lammy, speaking at the government's digital creative industries conference C&binet, said the UK has been stymied in its efforts to strengthen the enforcement of copyright because it is a "minority" player on the European stage.
"Some people tell me that content is national, they tell me the solutions lie in my backyard [but] this is not right, content is international," he added.
"Solutions lie internationally. For us, solutions lie in Europe. The UK must continue to encourage and support wider innovation and improve access to copyright works. But we can do relatively little domestically. A great deal of policy making is harmonised at European level and progress simply can't be made without a European consensus," Lammy said.
"The UK often finds itself in the minority in Europe when it comes to copyright issues. I want to see the UK play a greater role in influencing European action."
He added that while models needed to be developed to make legitimate content attractive to all, consumers needed to understand they had to pay to make the system work.
"If the world wants to continue to enjoy works that are protected by copyright, then the world must be a paying customer," he said. "Consumers have built a digital culture based on access, even if it cuts across the law. I want a world where rights holders will be paid for their efforts. For me, the balance must always tilt strongly in favour of freedom. But freedom to access material is not the same thing as access for free."
Lammy added that the current copyright system was out of step with the digital age and that government and businesses had "sleepwalked" into the piracy situation.
"The mechanisms by which copyright operates can be too complex. I don't want to see copyright, in the UK, or anywhere in the world, lagging so far behind technology that it loses relevance," he said. "I don't want to see a regime based on arbitrary rules. It must ensure that it allows limited copying for personal use of lawfully obtained material. I want to see this made possible rather than discouraged."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/27/david-lammy-copyright-piracy-europe
Chinese Authors Object to Google’s Book Scanning; New York Times, 10/30/09
Sharon LaFraniere, New York Times; Chinese Authors Object to Google’s Book Scanning:
"Two Chinese writers’ groups claim that Google has scanned Chinese works into an electronic database in violation of international copyright standards. The organizations are urging China’s authors to step forward and defend their rights.
“Google has seriously violated the copyrights of Chinese authors. That is an undeniable fact,” Chen Qirong, a spokesperson for the China Writers’ Association, said by telephone. The group says it represents nearly 9,000 writers.
Google has sent a representative to Beijing to meet on Monday with officials of the China Written Works Copyright Society, which manages Chinese copyrights. The company insists it has fully complied with copyright protections...
“We take the view, backed up by international copyright law, that no copyright is violated in this process since the amount of text displayed is so small and it’s purely for information,” said Courtney Hohne, a Google spokeswoman, in an phone interview from Singapore. “In fact, it’s comparable to a quotation from a book in a review or our Web search results, both of which are perfectly legal.” Ms. Hohne said it is virtually impossible for Google to discover who holds the rights to all of the millions of books on library shelves. Waiting for copyright holders to surface would doom any effort to create a comprehensive electronic index, she said. If a copyright holder does object, Google removes the snippets or even all reference to the book from the search engine, she said.
The Chinese groups see it differently. “It is as you have something nice in your living room and Google takes it and puts it in its living room,” said Zhang Hongbo, deputy director general of the Chinese copyright society. “We are definitely opposed to using our works without our permission.”...
Marybeth Peters, the top copyright official in the United States, told Congress in September that the settlement could put “diplomatic stress” on the government because it would affect foreign authors whose rights are protected by international treaties. The governments of France and Germany formally oppose the deal."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/technology/internet/31google.html
"Two Chinese writers’ groups claim that Google has scanned Chinese works into an electronic database in violation of international copyright standards. The organizations are urging China’s authors to step forward and defend their rights.
“Google has seriously violated the copyrights of Chinese authors. That is an undeniable fact,” Chen Qirong, a spokesperson for the China Writers’ Association, said by telephone. The group says it represents nearly 9,000 writers.
Google has sent a representative to Beijing to meet on Monday with officials of the China Written Works Copyright Society, which manages Chinese copyrights. The company insists it has fully complied with copyright protections...
“We take the view, backed up by international copyright law, that no copyright is violated in this process since the amount of text displayed is so small and it’s purely for information,” said Courtney Hohne, a Google spokeswoman, in an phone interview from Singapore. “In fact, it’s comparable to a quotation from a book in a review or our Web search results, both of which are perfectly legal.” Ms. Hohne said it is virtually impossible for Google to discover who holds the rights to all of the millions of books on library shelves. Waiting for copyright holders to surface would doom any effort to create a comprehensive electronic index, she said. If a copyright holder does object, Google removes the snippets or even all reference to the book from the search engine, she said.
The Chinese groups see it differently. “It is as you have something nice in your living room and Google takes it and puts it in its living room,” said Zhang Hongbo, deputy director general of the Chinese copyright society. “We are definitely opposed to using our works without our permission.”...
Marybeth Peters, the top copyright official in the United States, told Congress in September that the settlement could put “diplomatic stress” on the government because it would affect foreign authors whose rights are protected by international treaties. The governments of France and Germany formally oppose the deal."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/technology/internet/31google.html
Down Under musician says he's dinkum; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/30/09
Joel Gibson, Sydney Morning Herald; Down Under musician says he's dinkum:
"Larrikin Music Publishing, which owns the rights to Kookaburra, is suing Hay and Strykert and their publishing company, EMI, claiming they reproduced more than half of Kookaburra and made a small fortune from it in royalties, licences and sheet music sales.
Larrikin wants 40 to 60 per cent of income earned from Down Under in future and in the past six years, which is as far back as the law allows. But the authors and EMI say the use of the Kookaburra melody was unconscious, and is a fair adaptation under the Copyright Act.
Even if it was an infringement, they argue Larrikin is ''over-reaching'', saying many of the 20-plus versions of the song do not contain the flute riff."
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/down-under-musician-says-hes-dinkum-20091029-hnr1.html
"Larrikin Music Publishing, which owns the rights to Kookaburra, is suing Hay and Strykert and their publishing company, EMI, claiming they reproduced more than half of Kookaburra and made a small fortune from it in royalties, licences and sheet music sales.
Larrikin wants 40 to 60 per cent of income earned from Down Under in future and in the past six years, which is as far back as the law allows. But the authors and EMI say the use of the Kookaburra melody was unconscious, and is a fair adaptation under the Copyright Act.
Even if it was an infringement, they argue Larrikin is ''over-reaching'', saying many of the 20-plus versions of the song do not contain the flute riff."
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/down-under-musician-says-hes-dinkum-20091029-hnr1.html
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Med students hoist P2P Jolly Roger to get access to papers; TechDirt, 10/29/09
John Timmer, Ars Technica; Med students hoist P2P Jolly Roger to get access to papers:
Med students hoist P2P Jolly Roger to get access to papers
"The ease with which information can be spread through the Internet has exacerbated tensions among those who pay for, conduct, and publish scientific research. Many journals still require subscription or per-article payments for access to the research they publish, which often leaves the public, who funds a significant percentage of the research, on the wrong side of a pay wall. So far, however, there's been little evidence that the public has been interested enough in research to engage in the sort of widespread file-sharing that plague other content industries. But a new study suggests that may just be because nobody's looked very carefully.
The study, which was spotted by TechDirt, appears in an open-access journal, so anyone can read its entire contents. It describes the sharing of over 5,000 research papers on a site frequented by medical professionals, and the formal community rules that governed the exchange.
During the six months in 2008 that the author tracked the activity on the site, which was a discussion board focused on medical fields, it had over 125,000 registered users. Anyone could start an account, but many of the fora were focused on specific issues, such as those faced by nurses and residents. In addition to those, however, there was a section called the Electronic Library that contained a forum called "Databases & Journals—Requests and Enquiries."
Up to three times a day, users were allowed to submit a request for a published research article, accompanied by a link to the free abstract hosted at the journal's website. Other users would then download the full article and host it somewhere, providing a link in the discussion. If everything was set up properly, the site would track the number of downloads.
Over the course of six months, over 6,500 articles were requested, and over 80 percent of those requests were successfully filled."
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/10/med-students-hoist-p2p-jolly-roger-to-get-access-to-papers.ars
Med students hoist P2P Jolly Roger to get access to papers
"The ease with which information can be spread through the Internet has exacerbated tensions among those who pay for, conduct, and publish scientific research. Many journals still require subscription or per-article payments for access to the research they publish, which often leaves the public, who funds a significant percentage of the research, on the wrong side of a pay wall. So far, however, there's been little evidence that the public has been interested enough in research to engage in the sort of widespread file-sharing that plague other content industries. But a new study suggests that may just be because nobody's looked very carefully.
The study, which was spotted by TechDirt, appears in an open-access journal, so anyone can read its entire contents. It describes the sharing of over 5,000 research papers on a site frequented by medical professionals, and the formal community rules that governed the exchange.
During the six months in 2008 that the author tracked the activity on the site, which was a discussion board focused on medical fields, it had over 125,000 registered users. Anyone could start an account, but many of the fora were focused on specific issues, such as those faced by nurses and residents. In addition to those, however, there was a section called the Electronic Library that contained a forum called "Databases & Journals—Requests and Enquiries."
Up to three times a day, users were allowed to submit a request for a published research article, accompanied by a link to the free abstract hosted at the journal's website. Other users would then download the full article and host it somewhere, providing a link in the discussion. If everything was set up properly, the site would track the number of downloads.
Over the course of six months, over 6,500 articles were requested, and over 80 percent of those requests were successfully filled."
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/10/med-students-hoist-p2p-jolly-roger-to-get-access-to-papers.ars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)