Sara Eckel, New York Times; Is the Spirit of Competition in the Soul of Yoga?:
"The ultimate goal of the Choudhurys, who emigrated from India to Los Angeles, is to have yoga qualify as an Olympic sport. “It’s far away,” Mrs. Choudhury said in an interview. “A lot of work needs to be done before we really get into it, but this is our dream.”
One big obstacle may be the yoga community itself. To many people, the idea of competition goes against the philosophy of yoga, which emphasizes self-acceptance and inner growth. Although yoga does tend to attract people who are limber, the physical poses, or asanas, are only one aspect of the practice; others include chanting, meditation and reading Sanskrit.
“The initial reaction from most people is always the same thing: competition yoga? Those things don’t belong in the same sentence,” said John Philp, a filmmaker in New York who directed a documentary film, “Yoga, Inc.,” about the commercialization of Western yoga, and wrote a book with the same title.
Also in dispute is the extent to which the Choudhurys could benefit if Bikram yoga — also known as “hot” yoga, because it is usually practiced in a room heated to 105 degrees — were to become the accepted standard for competition yoga, which already takes place in India and more than a dozen other countries.
Mrs. Choudhury says that promoting Bikram yoga is not her intention. She said she had made a determined effort to keep the brand separate from the competition — for example, by forming the two nonprofits and encouraging event organizers to hold competitions in theaters and cultural centers rather than Bikram studios. She also noted that yoga competitions were not conducted in hot rooms.
“I don’t want the Bikram name on it,” she said. “I want something that is accessible to everyone.”
Her husband has a United States copyright on a sequence of 26 postures and 2 breathing exercises, and his efforts to use the legal system to protect his copyright have caused friction in the yoga community. Some people bristle at the notion that an ancient practice aimed at health and enlightenment can be governed by copyright and trademark laws.
Mrs. Choudhury notes that her husband has not copyrighted individual postures, only a very particular sequence, which is not used in the competitions."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/fashion/19fitness.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=copyright&st=cse
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Library group offers text search to 4.6M books; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/21/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Library group offers text search to 4.6M books:
"A group of major national research libraries says users now can search the full text of 1.6 billion pages from 4.6 million digitized volumes.
Last year, the University of Michigan and 24 other research libraries launched the HathiTrust Digital Library. The consortium said Thursday it's offering full-text search capability to all digitized works. Access to non-copyright books started in 2008.
The group says it adds hundreds of thousands of volumes monthly.
Participants include the University of California system; California Digital Library; Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State and Purdue universities; and the universities of Chicago, Illinois, Illinois-Chicago, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin-Madison and Virginia."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/library-group-offers-text-search-to-46m-books-20091121-ir56.html
"A group of major national research libraries says users now can search the full text of 1.6 billion pages from 4.6 million digitized volumes.
Last year, the University of Michigan and 24 other research libraries launched the HathiTrust Digital Library. The consortium said Thursday it's offering full-text search capability to all digitized works. Access to non-copyright books started in 2008.
The group says it adds hundreds of thousands of volumes monthly.
Participants include the University of California system; California Digital Library; Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State and Purdue universities; and the universities of Chicago, Illinois, Illinois-Chicago, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin-Madison and Virginia."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/library-group-offers-text-search-to-46m-books-20091121-ir56.html
Queen: We sank the Armada, we can sink some P2P pirates!; Ars Technica, 11/19/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Queen: We sank the Armada, we can sink some P2P pirates!:
The Queen opened the UK parliamentary session yesterday and announced that an Internet disconnection bill would be coming soon. But will it actually be legal?
"My Government will introduce a Bill to ensure the communications infrastructure is fit for the digital age, supports future economic growth, delivers competitive communications and enhances public service broadcasting," said Her Majesty, an innocuous description of the about-to-be-introduced Digital Economy bill.
That bill will likely attempt to reduce Internet copyright infringement, as measured by UK telecoms regulator Ofcom, by 70 percent from its current levels over the next two years. It's also widely expected that the bill will give the Secretary of State certain abilities to expand the enforcement regime and to introduce new sanctions, regardless of what happens on the piracy front. Still, we'd be a bit surprised if the bill opened the door to some kind of "Pirate Finder General" who can turn the recording industry into a legal, doorbusting militia, but Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing insists the current language in the bill (which should be available by the end of the week) is in fact this broad."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/queen-we-sank-the-armada-we-can-sink-some-p2p-pirates.ars
The Queen opened the UK parliamentary session yesterday and announced that an Internet disconnection bill would be coming soon. But will it actually be legal?
"My Government will introduce a Bill to ensure the communications infrastructure is fit for the digital age, supports future economic growth, delivers competitive communications and enhances public service broadcasting," said Her Majesty, an innocuous description of the about-to-be-introduced Digital Economy bill.
That bill will likely attempt to reduce Internet copyright infringement, as measured by UK telecoms regulator Ofcom, by 70 percent from its current levels over the next two years. It's also widely expected that the bill will give the Secretary of State certain abilities to expand the enforcement regime and to introduce new sanctions, regardless of what happens on the piracy front. Still, we'd be a bit surprised if the bill opened the door to some kind of "Pirate Finder General" who can turn the recording industry into a legal, doorbusting militia, but Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing insists the current language in the bill (which should be available by the end of the week) is in fact this broad."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/queen-we-sank-the-armada-we-can-sink-some-p2p-pirates.ars
BlueBeat Beatles tracks gone for good after judge's beatdown; Ars Technica, 11/19/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; BlueBeat Beatles tracks gone for good after judge's beatdown:
Who needs hearings? A federal judge has read enough to extend his injunction against BlueBeat.com, a site selling Beatles tracks online for a quarter each. And he has little time for the "vague" explanations of "pyscho-acoustic simulation" provided by BlueBeat's founder.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/bluebeat-beatles-tracks-gone-for-good-after-judges-beatdown.ars
Who needs hearings? A federal judge has read enough to extend his injunction against BlueBeat.com, a site selling Beatles tracks online for a quarter each. And he has little time for the "vague" explanations of "pyscho-acoustic simulation" provided by BlueBeat's founder.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/bluebeat-beatles-tracks-gone-for-good-after-judges-beatdown.ars
If Google's Book Scanning Violates Copyright Law, What About The AP's Book Scanning?; Tech Dirt, 11/20/09
Mike Masnick, Tech Dirt; If Google's Book Scanning Violates Copyright Law, What About The AP's Book Scanning?:
"Danny Sullivan does a great job calling out the hypocrisy of the Associated Press yet again. The organization, which has taken a very maximalist position on copyright, where fair use gets mostly ignored, apparently had no problem scanning Sarah Palin's entire book into a computer so that reporters could search it. Of course, this is no different than what Google is doing with its book scanning program (which, again, I still believe is a clear case of fair use). Yet, since the AP seems to take such a limited view on fair use (and has a habit of accusing Google of "stealing" content), it's amusing that it's now trying to defend its actions by claiming that it was legal because it was for the sake of journalism, and the scan wasn't for public consumption. Except, of course, Google's book scanning isn't for "public consumption" of the entire work either, but so people can do a search to find the relevant tidbit of info within the book."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091120/1528217031.shtml
"Danny Sullivan does a great job calling out the hypocrisy of the Associated Press yet again. The organization, which has taken a very maximalist position on copyright, where fair use gets mostly ignored, apparently had no problem scanning Sarah Palin's entire book into a computer so that reporters could search it. Of course, this is no different than what Google is doing with its book scanning program (which, again, I still believe is a clear case of fair use). Yet, since the AP seems to take such a limited view on fair use (and has a habit of accusing Google of "stealing" content), it's amusing that it's now trying to defend its actions by claiming that it was legal because it was for the sake of journalism, and the scan wasn't for public consumption. Except, of course, Google's book scanning isn't for "public consumption" of the entire work either, but so people can do a search to find the relevant tidbit of info within the book."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091120/1528217031.shtml
Friday, November 20, 2009
Mandelson seeks to amend copyright law in new crackdown on filesharing; Guardian, 11/19/09
Charles Arthur, Guardian; Mandelson seeks to amend copyright law in new crackdown on filesharing:
Labour colleagues are concerned business secretary could set precedent that would allow Tories to help Murdoch take on Google
"Lord Mandelson is seeking to amend the laws on copyright to give the government sweeping new powers against people accused of illegal downloading.
But Labour colleagues are concerned that if he succeeds it could give a future Tory government the ability that Rupert Murdoch wants to quash Google.
In a letter to Harriet Harman, the leader of the house and head of the committee responsible for determining changes to such legislation, Mandelson says he is "writing to seek your urgent agreement" to changes to the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act "for the purposes of facilitating prevention or reduction of online copyright infringement".
By writing to Harman, the business secretary is seeking to get the change made through a "statutory instrument" – in effect, an update to the existing bill that the government can push through using its parliamentary majority.
That can be done with the minimum of parliamentary time, which is already at a premium.
The letter, which is circulating inside the government, comes as ministers prepare to publish the digital economy bill at 7.30am tomorrow. That is expected to set out a "three strikes" policy under which people who are found to be illicitly downloading copyrighted material have their internet connections withdrawn after three warnings.
Internet service providers have warned that the scheme is unworkable and unlawful.
The proposed alteration to the Copyright Act would create a new offence of downloading material that infringes copyright laws, as well as giving new powers or rights to "protect" rights holders such as record companies and movie studios – and, controversially, conferring powers on "any person as may be specified" to help cut down online infringement of copyright.
The changes proposed seem small – but are enormously wideranging, given both the breadth of even minor copyright infringement online, where photographs and text are copied with little regard to ownership, and the complexity of ownership.
Mandelson says in his letter that he is concerned about "cyberlockers" – websites that offer users private storage spaces whose contents can be shared by passing a web link via email.
"These can be used entirely legitimately, but recently rights holders have pointed to them as being used for illegal use," Mandelson writes in the letter.
But the proposal to alter the Copyright Act in this way has caused alarm within government, where some fear that an incoming Tory administration could use it to curry favour with Murdoch, head of the News International publishing group.
"They've seen that file-sharing is essentially unpoliceable, but the net effect is that a future secretary of state could change copyright law as they see fit," said one Labour insider.
In his letter, Mandelson sets out the expected reaction from the three groups who would be affected by the changes: rights holders such as record companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and consumers.
"I expect rights holders to welcome this and to support it. ISPs are likely to be neutral until it is clear what effect it will have on them in terms of costs." Consumer groups "are likely to oppose [the move] but will see it may lead to further unquantifiable measures against infringing consumers."
He also expects "a great deal of scrutiny" of the idea in parliament.
Murdoch has recently said that he believes that copyright is being abused, particularly by organisations such as Google, which uses short extracts from online newspapers to create its Google News page, and the BBC, which he has accused of "stealing from newspapers".
Earlier this month Murdoch was vituperative about how search engines have aggregated news. "The people who simply just pick up everything and run with it – steal our stories, we say they steal our stories – they just take them," he said. "That's Google, that's Microsoft, that's Ask.com, a whole lot of people ... They shouldn't have had it free all the time, and I think we've been asleep."
By giving the business secretary the power to amend the Copyright Act at will, Labour fears Mandelson could be creating a Trojan horse that under a Tory administration would allow Murdoch to be rewarded for his support for David Cameron over Gordon Brown, for example by making it illegal to use such extracts from a news site for profit.
A spokesperson for the Department for Business said the department could not comment on correspondence between ministers."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/19/mandelson-copyright-filesharing-murdoch-google
Labour colleagues are concerned business secretary could set precedent that would allow Tories to help Murdoch take on Google
"Lord Mandelson is seeking to amend the laws on copyright to give the government sweeping new powers against people accused of illegal downloading.
But Labour colleagues are concerned that if he succeeds it could give a future Tory government the ability that Rupert Murdoch wants to quash Google.
In a letter to Harriet Harman, the leader of the house and head of the committee responsible for determining changes to such legislation, Mandelson says he is "writing to seek your urgent agreement" to changes to the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act "for the purposes of facilitating prevention or reduction of online copyright infringement".
By writing to Harman, the business secretary is seeking to get the change made through a "statutory instrument" – in effect, an update to the existing bill that the government can push through using its parliamentary majority.
That can be done with the minimum of parliamentary time, which is already at a premium.
The letter, which is circulating inside the government, comes as ministers prepare to publish the digital economy bill at 7.30am tomorrow. That is expected to set out a "three strikes" policy under which people who are found to be illicitly downloading copyrighted material have their internet connections withdrawn after three warnings.
Internet service providers have warned that the scheme is unworkable and unlawful.
The proposed alteration to the Copyright Act would create a new offence of downloading material that infringes copyright laws, as well as giving new powers or rights to "protect" rights holders such as record companies and movie studios – and, controversially, conferring powers on "any person as may be specified" to help cut down online infringement of copyright.
The changes proposed seem small – but are enormously wideranging, given both the breadth of even minor copyright infringement online, where photographs and text are copied with little regard to ownership, and the complexity of ownership.
Mandelson says in his letter that he is concerned about "cyberlockers" – websites that offer users private storage spaces whose contents can be shared by passing a web link via email.
"These can be used entirely legitimately, but recently rights holders have pointed to them as being used for illegal use," Mandelson writes in the letter.
But the proposal to alter the Copyright Act in this way has caused alarm within government, where some fear that an incoming Tory administration could use it to curry favour with Murdoch, head of the News International publishing group.
"They've seen that file-sharing is essentially unpoliceable, but the net effect is that a future secretary of state could change copyright law as they see fit," said one Labour insider.
In his letter, Mandelson sets out the expected reaction from the three groups who would be affected by the changes: rights holders such as record companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and consumers.
"I expect rights holders to welcome this and to support it. ISPs are likely to be neutral until it is clear what effect it will have on them in terms of costs." Consumer groups "are likely to oppose [the move] but will see it may lead to further unquantifiable measures against infringing consumers."
He also expects "a great deal of scrutiny" of the idea in parliament.
Murdoch has recently said that he believes that copyright is being abused, particularly by organisations such as Google, which uses short extracts from online newspapers to create its Google News page, and the BBC, which he has accused of "stealing from newspapers".
Earlier this month Murdoch was vituperative about how search engines have aggregated news. "The people who simply just pick up everything and run with it – steal our stories, we say they steal our stories – they just take them," he said. "That's Google, that's Microsoft, that's Ask.com, a whole lot of people ... They shouldn't have had it free all the time, and I think we've been asleep."
By giving the business secretary the power to amend the Copyright Act at will, Labour fears Mandelson could be creating a Trojan horse that under a Tory administration would allow Murdoch to be rewarded for his support for David Cameron over Gordon Brown, for example by making it illegal to use such extracts from a news site for profit.
A spokesperson for the Department for Business said the department could not comment on correspondence between ministers."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/19/mandelson-copyright-filesharing-murdoch-google
Why are cyberlockers suddenly such a problem, Lord Mandelson?; Guardian, 11/20/09
Charles Arthur, Guardian; Why are cyberlockers suddenly such a problem, Lord Mandelson?:
"The first question is simply: why? What's wrong with the existing copyright laws, and the powers that they offer, that Lord Mandelson think they need tweaking so that anyone can be given powers to hunt down someone thought to be infringing copyright, and new powers have to be given so that certain acts are deemed to be illicit?
If you're not up to speed, Lord Mandelson wants sweeping new powers, which involve changing the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act of 1988."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/20/copyright-digital-economy-cyberlockers-rights
"The first question is simply: why? What's wrong with the existing copyright laws, and the powers that they offer, that Lord Mandelson think they need tweaking so that anyone can be given powers to hunt down someone thought to be infringing copyright, and new powers have to be given so that certain acts are deemed to be illicit?
If you're not up to speed, Lord Mandelson wants sweeping new powers, which involve changing the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act of 1988."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/20/copyright-digital-economy-cyberlockers-rights
Digital divide over filesharing plans; Guardian, 11/20/09
Richard Wray, Guardian; Digital divide over filesharing plans:
"The government's planned crackdown on unlawful online filesharing has been attacked by privacy campaigners and internet service providers but welcomed by executives and artists in the music business.
Earlier today, the government published the digital economy bill, the result of more than a year's consultation and debate, which includes plans to send warnings letters to persistent unlawful file-sharers and paves the way for persistent illegal sharers to have their broadband cut off from 2011...
Some critics have already suggested that the wide definition of online copyright within the bill could leave the door open for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation to use the new legislation to prevent sites such as Google News from linking to his online content.
But music and film companies warmly welcomed the digital economy bill. Christine Payne, general secretary of Equity and chair of the Creative Coalition Campaign, said: "The government is doing the right thing by introducing legal measures aimed at tackling widespread online infringement of creative copyright, such as by peer-to-peer filesharing or other technologies that may emerge in the future."
"Our creative sector provides 1.8 million jobs in the UK and produces world-class content, enjoyed by millions around the world, but simply put, this cannot be sustained and more jobs will be lost if illegal filesharing persists."
Chris Marcich, president and managing director of the Motion Picture Association for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, added that Mandelson's decision to include powers in the bill to further change copyright law in future, were to be welcomed as "safeguards built in that will ensure the effectiveness of the legislation in the long-term"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/20/filesharing-crackdown
"The government's planned crackdown on unlawful online filesharing has been attacked by privacy campaigners and internet service providers but welcomed by executives and artists in the music business.
Earlier today, the government published the digital economy bill, the result of more than a year's consultation and debate, which includes plans to send warnings letters to persistent unlawful file-sharers and paves the way for persistent illegal sharers to have their broadband cut off from 2011...
Some critics have already suggested that the wide definition of online copyright within the bill could leave the door open for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation to use the new legislation to prevent sites such as Google News from linking to his online content.
But music and film companies warmly welcomed the digital economy bill. Christine Payne, general secretary of Equity and chair of the Creative Coalition Campaign, said: "The government is doing the right thing by introducing legal measures aimed at tackling widespread online infringement of creative copyright, such as by peer-to-peer filesharing or other technologies that may emerge in the future."
"Our creative sector provides 1.8 million jobs in the UK and produces world-class content, enjoyed by millions around the world, but simply put, this cannot be sustained and more jobs will be lost if illegal filesharing persists."
Chris Marcich, president and managing director of the Motion Picture Association for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, added that Mandelson's decision to include powers in the bill to further change copyright law in future, were to be welcomed as "safeguards built in that will ensure the effectiveness of the legislation in the long-term"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/20/filesharing-crackdown
Judge sets February hearing for new Google Books deal; CNet News, 11/19/09
Tom Krazit, CNet News; Judge sets February hearing for new Google Books deal:
"The judge overseeing the Google Books case has laid out the schedule for the second round of the final approval process, at the same time granting preliminary approval of the revised deal.
Like before, opponents of Google's settlement with groups representing authors and publishers will have a comment period in which to file objections, and books rights holders who want to preserve their abilty to sue Google for scanning their books will have an opt-out deadline. The final hearing is set for February 18 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
After numerous interest groups and the Department of Justice objected to Google's original settlement over digital books scanning, the parties submitted a revised settlement late Friday night that amended the size of the class affected by the deal and wrote into the document explicit guarantees regarding access to the scanned material that were previously mere promises.
This wasn't enough to satisfy Google's most persistent critics, however, who will likely fill Judge Denny Chin's mailbox with objections to the revised settlement much the same way they did prior to the original September deadline. After the DOJ filed its own set of objections, final approval of the settlement was delayed until the parties could work out something more amenable to the government.
Opponents will have until January 28th to file objections with the court. That's also the same date for affected class members to decide whether or not they would like to opt out of the amended agreement.
Rights holders who opted out of the previous agreement also have until January to decide if they would like to opt into the revised agreement, otherwise the court will assume they still wish to opt out. Those who missed the deadline the first time around have a second chance to opt out by January 28th.
Google released a statement regarding the court filing. "The preliminary approval order sends a positive initial message; this agreement promises to benefit readers and researchers, and enhance the ability of authors and publishers to distribute their content in digital form. We remain hopeful that the agreement will receive final approval from the court and will realize the goal of significantly expanding online access to works through Google Book Search, an ambitious effort to make millions of books searchable via the Web."
The Open Books Alliance, which has vigorously opposed the settlement, weighed in a little later with a statement of their own.
"Today, in an expected procedural move, Judge Denny Chin granted preliminary approval to the revised Settlement of Google's copyright infringement lawsuit. This is not a surprising development and is not any indication that the court will or will not accept the terms of Settlement 2.0. The same procedural preliminary approval was given to Settlement 1.0, and now sets up a court process that will allow those opposed to the revised settlement to let their objections known to the court. The U.S. Department of Justice has until February 4th to weigh in with the court, as their investigation into the matter continues.""
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10402125-265.html
"The judge overseeing the Google Books case has laid out the schedule for the second round of the final approval process, at the same time granting preliminary approval of the revised deal.
Like before, opponents of Google's settlement with groups representing authors and publishers will have a comment period in which to file objections, and books rights holders who want to preserve their abilty to sue Google for scanning their books will have an opt-out deadline. The final hearing is set for February 18 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
After numerous interest groups and the Department of Justice objected to Google's original settlement over digital books scanning, the parties submitted a revised settlement late Friday night that amended the size of the class affected by the deal and wrote into the document explicit guarantees regarding access to the scanned material that were previously mere promises.
This wasn't enough to satisfy Google's most persistent critics, however, who will likely fill Judge Denny Chin's mailbox with objections to the revised settlement much the same way they did prior to the original September deadline. After the DOJ filed its own set of objections, final approval of the settlement was delayed until the parties could work out something more amenable to the government.
Opponents will have until January 28th to file objections with the court. That's also the same date for affected class members to decide whether or not they would like to opt out of the amended agreement.
Rights holders who opted out of the previous agreement also have until January to decide if they would like to opt into the revised agreement, otherwise the court will assume they still wish to opt out. Those who missed the deadline the first time around have a second chance to opt out by January 28th.
Google released a statement regarding the court filing. "The preliminary approval order sends a positive initial message; this agreement promises to benefit readers and researchers, and enhance the ability of authors and publishers to distribute their content in digital form. We remain hopeful that the agreement will receive final approval from the court and will realize the goal of significantly expanding online access to works through Google Book Search, an ambitious effort to make millions of books searchable via the Web."
The Open Books Alliance, which has vigorously opposed the settlement, weighed in a little later with a statement of their own.
"Today, in an expected procedural move, Judge Denny Chin granted preliminary approval to the revised Settlement of Google's copyright infringement lawsuit. This is not a surprising development and is not any indication that the court will or will not accept the terms of Settlement 2.0. The same procedural preliminary approval was given to Settlement 1.0, and now sets up a court process that will allow those opposed to the revised settlement to let their objections known to the court. The U.S. Department of Justice has until February 4th to weigh in with the court, as their investigation into the matter continues.""
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10402125-265.html
Thursday, November 19, 2009
French publishers slam new Google book proposals; AFP, 11/19/09
AFP; French publishers slam new Google book proposals:
"French book publishers gave a hostile reception Thursday to new proposals by the Internet giant Google to clear the way for millions of books to be sold online.
The proposals "do not mark any progress on the essential question of non-English language works pirated by Google," said a statement by the Publisher's Association (SNE), which groups most of France's publishers.
"The SNE is maintaining its position by asking Google to respect the essential principle of prior consent by authors and publishers for use of their works," it said.
The SNE noted that it has an ongoing court case against Google, seeking compensation from the US company which it accuses of counterfeiting French books by digitizing them and posting them online.
The Federation of European Publishers on Monday gave a cautious welcome to Google's new proposals.
"It is positive that the parties considered the concerns of European publishers and made some steps, however we want to analyse more thoroughly the new settlement before giving a final comment," it said."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5imp12E990fCnRku-vSKa6-d7XDfg
"French book publishers gave a hostile reception Thursday to new proposals by the Internet giant Google to clear the way for millions of books to be sold online.
The proposals "do not mark any progress on the essential question of non-English language works pirated by Google," said a statement by the Publisher's Association (SNE), which groups most of France's publishers.
"The SNE is maintaining its position by asking Google to respect the essential principle of prior consent by authors and publishers for use of their works," it said.
The SNE noted that it has an ongoing court case against Google, seeking compensation from the US company which it accuses of counterfeiting French books by digitizing them and posting them online.
The Federation of European Publishers on Monday gave a cautious welcome to Google's new proposals.
"It is positive that the parties considered the concerns of European publishers and made some steps, however we want to analyse more thoroughly the new settlement before giving a final comment," it said."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5imp12E990fCnRku-vSKa6-d7XDfg
[Podcast] Copyright Basics - The Video; Copyright Clearance Center
[Podcast] Copyright Clearance Center; Copyright Basics - The Video:
"This Program is made available for your use by the rights licensing experts at Copyright Clearance Center. We welcome you to view the video here and/or download it for non-commercial use in your organization (terms and conditions apply)."
http://216.183.190.29/
"This Program is made available for your use by the rights licensing experts at Copyright Clearance Center. We welcome you to view the video here and/or download it for non-commercial use in your organization (terms and conditions apply)."
http://216.183.190.29/
Chinese Authors Turn up Heat on Google Over Book Scanning; PC World, 11/19/09
Owen Fletcher, PC World; Chinese Authors Turn up Heat on Google Over Book Scanning:
A Chinese authors' group late Wednesday demanded Google compensate writers whose books the U.S. company scanned without permission.
"A Chinese authors' group demanded late Wednesday that Google compensate writers whose books the U.S. company scanned without permission, cranking up tension in the country over Google's digital library project.
The demand marked the second time in just days that a U.S. company came under fire in China for intellectual property violations. A Chinese court this week ruled that Microsoft's use of certain Chinese fonts violated a local company's intellectual property rights and ordered Microsoft to stop selling versions of its operating system containing the fonts, including Windows XP.
The Chinese Authors Society demanded that Google present a resolution plan by the end of the year and quickly handle compensation for Chinese authors whose books the U.S. company scanned without permission. A local copyright protection group, co-founded by the authors group, has said it found at least 17,000 Chinese works included in Google's scanning plan...
Legal action by Chinese companies to protect their intellectual property rights is increasingly common, but piracy remains widespread in the country. Pirated books, DVDs and computer programs such as Windows 7 are widely sold in bazaars and on street corners."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/182559/chinese_authors_turn_up_heat_on_google_over_book_scanning.html
A Chinese authors' group late Wednesday demanded Google compensate writers whose books the U.S. company scanned without permission.
"A Chinese authors' group demanded late Wednesday that Google compensate writers whose books the U.S. company scanned without permission, cranking up tension in the country over Google's digital library project.
The demand marked the second time in just days that a U.S. company came under fire in China for intellectual property violations. A Chinese court this week ruled that Microsoft's use of certain Chinese fonts violated a local company's intellectual property rights and ordered Microsoft to stop selling versions of its operating system containing the fonts, including Windows XP.
The Chinese Authors Society demanded that Google present a resolution plan by the end of the year and quickly handle compensation for Chinese authors whose books the U.S. company scanned without permission. A local copyright protection group, co-founded by the authors group, has said it found at least 17,000 Chinese works included in Google's scanning plan...
Legal action by Chinese companies to protect their intellectual property rights is increasingly common, but piracy remains widespread in the country. Pirated books, DVDs and computer programs such as Windows 7 are widely sold in bazaars and on street corners."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/182559/chinese_authors_turn_up_heat_on_google_over_book_scanning.html
We See Your 'Copyright Contributes $1.5 Trillion' And Raise You 'Fair Use Contributes $2.2 Trillion'; Tech Dirt, 11/18/09
Mike Masnick, Tech Dirt; We See Your 'Copyright Contributes $1.5 Trillion' And Raise You 'Fair Use Contributes $2.2 Trillion':
"The copyright industry lobbyists absolutely love to throw around the bogus and debunked stat that copyright contributes $1.52 trillion to the economy. That number is derived by taking any business that kinda sorta maybe touches copyright (including things like furniture and jewelry) and then assuming that all of the revenue they make is entirely due to copyright. Yes, that's ridiculous. But, if the copyright lobbyists are going to use such bogus methodology to push their agenda, it seems only fair for those on the other side to use the same methodology...
In response, Ed Black, from the Computer & Communications Industry Association wrote a letter to the editor highlighting those lawyers factual mistakes as well as the importance of fair use throughout the industry (thanks to Yano for sending this in). Most of the (short) letter discusses all the wonderful things that fair use allows, and then has this wonderful line at the end:
"Businesses dependent upon exceptions to copyright contribute $2.2 trillion to the U.S. economy. They are responsible for one in eight jobs, for a total payroll of $1.2 trillion in 2006. Fair use is serious business; it is the glue that holds the Internet and new technology together. It is worth protecting."
This is fantastic. Of course, the number is just as bogus as the $1.52 trillion used by copyright maximalists, but I think that if they're going to use their methodology to make such ridiculous claims, it's only fair to do the same for the contributions to the economy of exceptions to copyright".
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091118/1002136992.shtml
"The copyright industry lobbyists absolutely love to throw around the bogus and debunked stat that copyright contributes $1.52 trillion to the economy. That number is derived by taking any business that kinda sorta maybe touches copyright (including things like furniture and jewelry) and then assuming that all of the revenue they make is entirely due to copyright. Yes, that's ridiculous. But, if the copyright lobbyists are going to use such bogus methodology to push their agenda, it seems only fair for those on the other side to use the same methodology...
In response, Ed Black, from the Computer & Communications Industry Association wrote a letter to the editor highlighting those lawyers factual mistakes as well as the importance of fair use throughout the industry (thanks to Yano for sending this in). Most of the (short) letter discusses all the wonderful things that fair use allows, and then has this wonderful line at the end:
"Businesses dependent upon exceptions to copyright contribute $2.2 trillion to the U.S. economy. They are responsible for one in eight jobs, for a total payroll of $1.2 trillion in 2006. Fair use is serious business; it is the glue that holds the Internet and new technology together. It is worth protecting."
This is fantastic. Of course, the number is just as bogus as the $1.52 trillion used by copyright maximalists, but I think that if they're going to use their methodology to make such ridiculous claims, it's only fair to do the same for the contributions to the economy of exceptions to copyright".
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091118/1002136992.shtml
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Argument for Free Classes via iTunes; New York Times Bits Blog, 11/17/09
Brad Stone, New York Times Bits Blog: The Argument for Free Classes via iTunes:
"Other universities say that limited resources, copyright concerns or the reluctance of old-fashioned professors are keeping them from recording and uploading lectures. But Mr. Bean challenges his peers around the world who are not participating in iTunes U at all, or who are making lectures available only to registered students who sign in with a password.
“There are still a lot of universities in the world that define the value of their experience as somehow locking up their content and only giving people access to the content when they enroll in the program,” Mr. Bean said. “The courage comes from taking the next leap of faith. Universities no longer define themselves by their content but the overall experience: the concept, the student support, the tutoring and mentoring, the teaching and learning they get and the quality of the assessment.”"
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/the-argument-for-free-classes-via-itunes/?scp=6&sq=copyright&st=cse
"Other universities say that limited resources, copyright concerns or the reluctance of old-fashioned professors are keeping them from recording and uploading lectures. But Mr. Bean challenges his peers around the world who are not participating in iTunes U at all, or who are making lectures available only to registered students who sign in with a password.
“There are still a lot of universities in the world that define the value of their experience as somehow locking up their content and only giving people access to the content when they enroll in the program,” Mr. Bean said. “The courage comes from taking the next leap of faith. Universities no longer define themselves by their content but the overall experience: the concept, the student support, the tutoring and mentoring, the teaching and learning they get and the quality of the assessment.”"
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/the-argument-for-free-classes-via-itunes/?scp=6&sq=copyright&st=cse
Google Books debate gets personal; Tech Chronicles, 11/17/09
James Temple, Tech Chronicles; Google Books debate gets personal:
"The increasingly acrimonious squabble over the Google Books legal settlement has officially slid past that threshold -- all too familiar during heated political campaigns -- where the debate becomes about the debate.
The Open Book Alliance issued a statement today complaining not about the terms of the revised settlement offering -- that press release was yesterday -- but about how Google rudely backed out of an opportunity to publicly wrangle over those terms. And how that means they're hiding things.
First, Google released the settlement's details at the witching hour of midnight on Friday. Then last night, Google refused to address the facts behind the book settlement on a widely respected national television news program.
Google continues to say they would like to have an open discussion on the merits of their revised settlement. However, the only discussions about the settlement seem to be occurring behind the closed doors of the company's Mountain View, Calif. campus.
According to TechCrunch, Google Books Engineering Director Dan Clancy had agreed to appear on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer to debate the topic with Harvard professor Robert Darnton. With little notice, however, Silicon Valley attorney Gary Reback was added to the line up.
Reback spearheaded the antitrust crusade against Microsoft last decade and, by the way, co-chairs the Open Books Alliance, whose members include Google competitors Yahoo, Microsoft and Amazon.com.
Apparently Google didn't want an engineer to spar with a lawyer on national television, which doesn't seem as unreasonable to us as the incredulous tone of the Open Books Alliance statement would have one think.
As in politics, focusing on these sorts of trivial matters becomes a convenient stand in for the issues themselves because, of course, those issues are incredibly complex.
Besides, it's easier to incite consumer emotions by saying a massive company is hiding from a public debate than by explaining that, say, Open Books Alliance member Amazon.com is worried about how the deal will affect their own dominance over the book industry."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=51855#ixzz0XDgJfxXd
"The increasingly acrimonious squabble over the Google Books legal settlement has officially slid past that threshold -- all too familiar during heated political campaigns -- where the debate becomes about the debate.
The Open Book Alliance issued a statement today complaining not about the terms of the revised settlement offering -- that press release was yesterday -- but about how Google rudely backed out of an opportunity to publicly wrangle over those terms. And how that means they're hiding things.
First, Google released the settlement's details at the witching hour of midnight on Friday. Then last night, Google refused to address the facts behind the book settlement on a widely respected national television news program.
Google continues to say they would like to have an open discussion on the merits of their revised settlement. However, the only discussions about the settlement seem to be occurring behind the closed doors of the company's Mountain View, Calif. campus.
According to TechCrunch, Google Books Engineering Director Dan Clancy had agreed to appear on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer to debate the topic with Harvard professor Robert Darnton. With little notice, however, Silicon Valley attorney Gary Reback was added to the line up.
Reback spearheaded the antitrust crusade against Microsoft last decade and, by the way, co-chairs the Open Books Alliance, whose members include Google competitors Yahoo, Microsoft and Amazon.com.
Apparently Google didn't want an engineer to spar with a lawyer on national television, which doesn't seem as unreasonable to us as the incredulous tone of the Open Books Alliance statement would have one think.
As in politics, focusing on these sorts of trivial matters becomes a convenient stand in for the issues themselves because, of course, those issues are incredibly complex.
Besides, it's easier to incite consumer emotions by saying a massive company is hiding from a public debate than by explaining that, say, Open Books Alliance member Amazon.com is worried about how the deal will affect their own dominance over the book industry."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=51855#ixzz0XDgJfxXd
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Revised Google Book search deal 'a massive disappointment'; Computer Weekly, 11/17/09
Warwick Ashford, Computer Weekly; Revised Google Book search deal 'a massive disappointment':
"The revised proposal does not fix the serious problems that led to widespread European condemnation of the settlement. Although some European works will technically now fall outside the scope of the settlement, Google appears intent to continue copying and engaging in "snippet" display of copyrighted European works through its existing arrangements with American libraries. To say the least, the revised settlement is a massive disappointment...
The revised provisions on orphan works are similarly a failure, as Google still gets to keep a significant share of any profits from orphan works and to maintain its grip on online access to orphan works.
If Google were serious about allowing meaningful competition, the settlement would allow any company to access copies of orphan works scanned pursuant to the settlement on the same terms as Google. This would have been a simple fix to make and would have alleviated many of the most serious competition concerns.
Equally disturbing is that this settlement will give Google inordinate influence over Europe's own efforts to develop online digital libraries. It will give Google overwhelming influence over how much consumers and libraries pay for access, and how much authors and publishers earn. It is clear that Google's pricing in the US will also have a strong influence on the pricing of any similar digital library project that emerges in Europe.
Without competition, Google will face no pressure to innovate, to improve its services, or lower its prices. Online access to millions of books will remain locked up in the database of a single American company, and only Google will have the key. The world's literary heritage is simply too important to abandon to such a fate."
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/17/239154/revised-google-book-search-deal-a-massive-disappointment.htm
"The revised proposal does not fix the serious problems that led to widespread European condemnation of the settlement. Although some European works will technically now fall outside the scope of the settlement, Google appears intent to continue copying and engaging in "snippet" display of copyrighted European works through its existing arrangements with American libraries. To say the least, the revised settlement is a massive disappointment...
The revised provisions on orphan works are similarly a failure, as Google still gets to keep a significant share of any profits from orphan works and to maintain its grip on online access to orphan works.
If Google were serious about allowing meaningful competition, the settlement would allow any company to access copies of orphan works scanned pursuant to the settlement on the same terms as Google. This would have been a simple fix to make and would have alleviated many of the most serious competition concerns.
Equally disturbing is that this settlement will give Google inordinate influence over Europe's own efforts to develop online digital libraries. It will give Google overwhelming influence over how much consumers and libraries pay for access, and how much authors and publishers earn. It is clear that Google's pricing in the US will also have a strong influence on the pricing of any similar digital library project that emerges in Europe.
Without competition, Google will face no pressure to innovate, to improve its services, or lower its prices. Online access to millions of books will remain locked up in the database of a single American company, and only Google will have the key. The world's literary heritage is simply too important to abandon to such a fate."
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/17/239154/revised-google-book-search-deal-a-massive-disappointment.htm
Monday, November 16, 2009
[Press Release] International Activists Launch New Website to Gather and Share Copyright Knowledge; Electronic Frontier Foundation, 11/13/09
[Press Release] Electronic Frontier Foundation; International Activists Launch New Website to Gather and Share Copyright Knowledge:
Anyone Can Track National Copyright Laws Globally with 'Copyright Watch'
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL.net), and other international copyright experts joined together today to launch Copyright Watch -- a public website created to centralize resources on national copyright laws at http://www.copyright-watch.org/.
"Copyright laws are changing across the world, and it's hard to keep track of these changes, even for those whose daily work is affected by them," said Teresa Hackett, Program Manager at eIFL.net. "A law that is passed in one nation can quickly be taken up by others, bilateral trade agreements, regional policy initiatives, or international treaties. With Copyright Watch, people can learn about the similarities and differences in national copyright laws, and they can use that information to more easily spot patterns and emerging trends."
Copyright Watch is the first comprehensive and up-to-date online repository of national copyright laws. To find links to national and regional copyright laws, users can choose a continent or search using a country name. The site will be updated over time to include proposed amendments to laws, as well as commentary and context from national copyright experts. Copyright Watch will help document how legislators around the world are coping with the challenges of new technology and new business models.
"Balanced and well-calibrated copyright laws are extremely important in our global information society," said Gwen Hinze, International Policy Director at EFF. "Small shifts in the balance between the rights of copyright owners and the limitations and exceptions relied on by those who use copyrighted content can destroy or enable business models, criminalize or liberate free expression and everyday behavior, and support the development of new technologies that facilitate access to knowledge for all the world's citizens. We hope that Copyright Watch will encourage comparative research and help to highlight more and less flexible copyright regimes."
"Details of copyright law used to be important only for a few people in creative industries," added Danny O'Brien, International Outreach Coordinator at EFF. "But now, with the growth of the Internet and other digital tools, we are all authors, publishers, and sharers of copyrighted works. Copyright Watch was created so citizens of the world can share and compare information about their countries' laws."
Funding to create Copyright Watch was generously provided by the Open Society Institute.
Copyright Watch:http://www.copyright-watch.org/"
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/11/13
Anyone Can Track National Copyright Laws Globally with 'Copyright Watch'
"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL.net), and other international copyright experts joined together today to launch Copyright Watch -- a public website created to centralize resources on national copyright laws at http://www.copyright-watch.org/.
"Copyright laws are changing across the world, and it's hard to keep track of these changes, even for those whose daily work is affected by them," said Teresa Hackett, Program Manager at eIFL.net. "A law that is passed in one nation can quickly be taken up by others, bilateral trade agreements, regional policy initiatives, or international treaties. With Copyright Watch, people can learn about the similarities and differences in national copyright laws, and they can use that information to more easily spot patterns and emerging trends."
Copyright Watch is the first comprehensive and up-to-date online repository of national copyright laws. To find links to national and regional copyright laws, users can choose a continent or search using a country name. The site will be updated over time to include proposed amendments to laws, as well as commentary and context from national copyright experts. Copyright Watch will help document how legislators around the world are coping with the challenges of new technology and new business models.
"Balanced and well-calibrated copyright laws are extremely important in our global information society," said Gwen Hinze, International Policy Director at EFF. "Small shifts in the balance between the rights of copyright owners and the limitations and exceptions relied on by those who use copyrighted content can destroy or enable business models, criminalize or liberate free expression and everyday behavior, and support the development of new technologies that facilitate access to knowledge for all the world's citizens. We hope that Copyright Watch will encourage comparative research and help to highlight more and less flexible copyright regimes."
"Details of copyright law used to be important only for a few people in creative industries," added Danny O'Brien, International Outreach Coordinator at EFF. "But now, with the growth of the Internet and other digital tools, we are all authors, publishers, and sharers of copyrighted works. Copyright Watch was created so citizens of the world can share and compare information about their countries' laws."
Funding to create Copyright Watch was generously provided by the Open Society Institute.
Copyright Watch:http://www.copyright-watch.org/"
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/11/13
Viacom's top lawyer: suing P2P users "felt like terrorism"; Ars Technica, 11/16/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Viacom's top lawyer: suing P2P users "felt like terrorism":
Michael Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel, tells a group of Yale Law students that he's a huge fan of fair use, doesn't want to take down your YouTube mashup, and has no plans to start suing P2P users in federal courts—but he still loves DRM and "three strikes" laws.
"Michael Fricklas is Viacom's general counsel, and it's his job to oversee the company's legal efforts, including its $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube. When people talk about Big Content, they're talking about people like Fricklas.
So it might be surprising to watch him tell a class of Yale law students this month that suing end users for online copyright infringement is "expensive, and it's painful, and it feels like bullying." While the recording industry was big on this approach for a while, Fricklas certainly understands the way it came across to the public when some college student went up against "very expensive lawyers and unlimited resources and it felt like terrorism."
Customers "need to be treated with respect," he added, and that respect extends even to DRM—much of which has been "really bad."...
Kinder, gentler, but still lovin' DRM
Part of the answer is that "Big Content" is of course a convenient fiction; every creator and company has a different outlook, is staffed by different individuals, and relies more or less heavily on exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
Viacom, for instance, creates copyrighted works every day, but it's also a heavy "fair user." Consider The Daily Show, for instance, and think about just how much of its daily show relies on video footage from other organizations. Fricklas even showed a spoof movie poster that Viacom had done years ago—for which it was sued by famous photographer Annie Leibowitz—and with which it eventually prevailed in court, claiming parodic fair use...
DRM
While bashing the experience of many earlier DRM schemes, Fricklas is a firm believe in the basic concept, saying that it allows consumers to have experiences they could not have without DRM (or not at the same prices)...
Graduated response
Another area of tension between consumers and rightsholders is graduated response, sometimes referred to as "three-strikes" policies that sanction those accused of repeat copyright infringement online. While the content industries like to tout graduated response as a kinder, gentler way to handle these issues, the worldwide public hasn't been sold on the plan. The European Parliament voted several times to ban such schemes unless they had judicial oversight, while France's attempt at passing a graduated response law was defeated once in the legislature and once by the Constitutional Council before finally being passed. New Zealand had to scrap its three-strikes plan and start over after resistance from users and ISPs, and the UK is in the midst of a furious row over the idea. Graduated response has never been introduced in Congress, and no major ISP has agreed to adopt the approach voluntarily.
Still, Fricklas is big on the idea. It's definitely a saner solution to the issue than hauling college kids into federal court, and feature sanctions "more proportional to the harm." (This is certainly debatable when it comes to France-style disconnections and blacklists, however, especially on family accounts.)
And Fricklas wants to make sure that there are rights of appeal, since the process can sometimes be a bit too "guilty until proven innocent."
Michael Fricklas, Viacom's general counsel, tells a group of Yale Law students that he's a huge fan of fair use, doesn't want to take down your YouTube mashup, and has no plans to start suing P2P users in federal courts—but he still loves DRM and "three strikes" laws.
"Michael Fricklas is Viacom's general counsel, and it's his job to oversee the company's legal efforts, including its $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube. When people talk about Big Content, they're talking about people like Fricklas.
So it might be surprising to watch him tell a class of Yale law students this month that suing end users for online copyright infringement is "expensive, and it's painful, and it feels like bullying." While the recording industry was big on this approach for a while, Fricklas certainly understands the way it came across to the public when some college student went up against "very expensive lawyers and unlimited resources and it felt like terrorism."
Customers "need to be treated with respect," he added, and that respect extends even to DRM—much of which has been "really bad."...
Kinder, gentler, but still lovin' DRM
Part of the answer is that "Big Content" is of course a convenient fiction; every creator and company has a different outlook, is staffed by different individuals, and relies more or less heavily on exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.
Viacom, for instance, creates copyrighted works every day, but it's also a heavy "fair user." Consider The Daily Show, for instance, and think about just how much of its daily show relies on video footage from other organizations. Fricklas even showed a spoof movie poster that Viacom had done years ago—for which it was sued by famous photographer Annie Leibowitz—and with which it eventually prevailed in court, claiming parodic fair use...
DRM
While bashing the experience of many earlier DRM schemes, Fricklas is a firm believe in the basic concept, saying that it allows consumers to have experiences they could not have without DRM (or not at the same prices)...
Graduated response
Another area of tension between consumers and rightsholders is graduated response, sometimes referred to as "three-strikes" policies that sanction those accused of repeat copyright infringement online. While the content industries like to tout graduated response as a kinder, gentler way to handle these issues, the worldwide public hasn't been sold on the plan. The European Parliament voted several times to ban such schemes unless they had judicial oversight, while France's attempt at passing a graduated response law was defeated once in the legislature and once by the Constitutional Council before finally being passed. New Zealand had to scrap its three-strikes plan and start over after resistance from users and ISPs, and the UK is in the midst of a furious row over the idea. Graduated response has never been introduced in Congress, and no major ISP has agreed to adopt the approach voluntarily.
Still, Fricklas is big on the idea. It's definitely a saner solution to the issue than hauling college kids into federal court, and feature sanctions "more proportional to the harm." (This is certainly debatable when it comes to France-style disconnections and blacklists, however, especially on family accounts.)
And Fricklas wants to make sure that there are rights of appeal, since the process can sometimes be a bit too "guilty until proven innocent."
Google Book Search Database Halved By Removing Most Foreign Texts; Library Journal, 11/16/09
Norman Oder, Library Journal; Google Book Search Database Halved By Removing Most Foreign Texts:
The Wall Street Journal added some crucial context to discussion of the revised Google Book Search Settlement announced late Friday: it "would cut the number of works covered by the settlement by at least half by removing millions of foreign works." (Only works from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada would be included.)
Librarian and consultant Karen Coyle commented, "This greatly changes the value of the institutional subscription for higher education, as well as the value of the 'research corpus' (essentially a database of the OCR'd texts that researchers can use for computational research)... As it is, too many Americans are unaware of the world outside of those Anglo-American borders. This will just exacerbate that problem.
"What about the DOJ?
LJ suggested Saturday that the relatively minor changes on the issue of orphan works—in-copyright but out of print—might draw continued interest from the Department of Justice (DOJ); the Wall Street Journal reported that "the Justice Department remains concerned that the fact the settlement gives Google immunity from lawsuits related to orphan works may be anticompetitive."
Privacy concerns remain
Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote, "Unfortunately, the parties did not add any reader privacy protections. The only nominal change was that they formally confirmed a position they had long taken privately that information will not be freely shared between Google and the Registry."
Timetable: resolution in February?
The proposed timetable sets January 28, 2010 as the deadline for opting out and filing objections or amicus briefs; February 4 for the DOJ response; and February 18 for the final fairness hearing"
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6707253.html
- "Only Anglo-American works included
- Issues of pricing, comprehensiveness
- EFF: nothing new on reader privacy
- Department of Justice still concerned
The Wall Street Journal added some crucial context to discussion of the revised Google Book Search Settlement announced late Friday: it "would cut the number of works covered by the settlement by at least half by removing millions of foreign works." (Only works from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada would be included.)
Librarian and consultant Karen Coyle commented, "This greatly changes the value of the institutional subscription for higher education, as well as the value of the 'research corpus' (essentially a database of the OCR'd texts that researchers can use for computational research)... As it is, too many Americans are unaware of the world outside of those Anglo-American borders. This will just exacerbate that problem.
"What about the DOJ?
LJ suggested Saturday that the relatively minor changes on the issue of orphan works—in-copyright but out of print—might draw continued interest from the Department of Justice (DOJ); the Wall Street Journal reported that "the Justice Department remains concerned that the fact the settlement gives Google immunity from lawsuits related to orphan works may be anticompetitive."
Privacy concerns remain
Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote, "Unfortunately, the parties did not add any reader privacy protections. The only nominal change was that they formally confirmed a position they had long taken privately that information will not be freely shared between Google and the Registry."
Timetable: resolution in February?
The proposed timetable sets January 28, 2010 as the deadline for opting out and filing objections or amicus briefs; February 4 for the DOJ response; and February 18 for the final fairness hearing"
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6707253.html
New Google Book Settlement Tries To Appease Worries; Tech Dirt, 11/16/09
Mike Masnick, Tech Dirt; New Google Book Settlement Tries To Appease Worries:
"Separately, a lot of the focus on this new agreement, as with the old agreement, is over how Google treats orphan works. Again, I have to admit that I think most people are making a much bigger deal of this than it warrants. The orphan works stuff really covers a very small number of works. And giving rightsholders ten years to claim their rights seems more than adequate to me. I just don't see what the big deal is here. The real issue is that we have orphan works at all. Under the old (more sensible) copyright regime, you actually had to proactively declare your copyright interest. The only reason we have orphan works at all is that we got rid of such a system in the ongoing effort of copyright maximalists to wipe out the public domain.
Anyway, I think this is all something of a sideshow. I still stand by my original feeling towards the settlement, which is that I'm upset anyone felt it was necessary at all. Google had a strong fair use claim that I would have liked to have seen taken all the way through the courts. And, of course, this settlement really has nothing at all to do with the main issue of the lawsuit (that fair use question) and is really a debate over a separate issue: how to take the books Google scans and trying to turn them into a "book store" rather than more of a "library." And, in doing so, the important fair use question gets completely buried -- which I find unfortunate."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1842336943.shtml
"Separately, a lot of the focus on this new agreement, as with the old agreement, is over how Google treats orphan works. Again, I have to admit that I think most people are making a much bigger deal of this than it warrants. The orphan works stuff really covers a very small number of works. And giving rightsholders ten years to claim their rights seems more than adequate to me. I just don't see what the big deal is here. The real issue is that we have orphan works at all. Under the old (more sensible) copyright regime, you actually had to proactively declare your copyright interest. The only reason we have orphan works at all is that we got rid of such a system in the ongoing effort of copyright maximalists to wipe out the public domain.
Anyway, I think this is all something of a sideshow. I still stand by my original feeling towards the settlement, which is that I'm upset anyone felt it was necessary at all. Google had a strong fair use claim that I would have liked to have seen taken all the way through the courts. And, of course, this settlement really has nothing at all to do with the main issue of the lawsuit (that fair use question) and is really a debate over a separate issue: how to take the books Google scans and trying to turn them into a "book store" rather than more of a "library." And, in doing so, the important fair use question gets completely buried -- which I find unfortunate."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1842336943.shtml
Psystar Loses Big To Apple; Tech Dirt, 11/16/09
Mike Masnick, Tech Dirt; Psystar Loses Big To Apple:
"When Psystar first started selling PCs with Apple OS's installed on them, we knew there would be a lawsuit -- though it took a bit more time than we expected. Originally, Psystar tried to claim that Apple was violating antitrust law, which seemed like a wasted path for exploration -- and, indeed, a court rejected that claim. Then Psystar went back to more reasonable defenses... or so we thought.
The court hearing the case didn't seem to think any of Psystar's main lines of defense had any validity at all and granted summary judgment to Apple on all of the major points, saying that a trial wasn't even necessary. The "fair use" claim was already weak, and the judge noted that Psystar didn't even try to discuss any of the four factors generally used in determining fair use. The two (I thought) stronger claims were that (a) the right of first sale applied, and once Psystar purchased OSX legally, it could resell it, provided it was only installed on that one computer, and (b) that Apple went too far in its EULA terms, which demanded that OS X could only work on a Mac. Unfortunately, the judge didn't agree to either one, though I find the judge's reasoning perplexing and hardly convincing."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1813376929.shtml
"When Psystar first started selling PCs with Apple OS's installed on them, we knew there would be a lawsuit -- though it took a bit more time than we expected. Originally, Psystar tried to claim that Apple was violating antitrust law, which seemed like a wasted path for exploration -- and, indeed, a court rejected that claim. Then Psystar went back to more reasonable defenses... or so we thought.
The court hearing the case didn't seem to think any of Psystar's main lines of defense had any validity at all and granted summary judgment to Apple on all of the major points, saying that a trial wasn't even necessary. The "fair use" claim was already weak, and the judge noted that Psystar didn't even try to discuss any of the four factors generally used in determining fair use. The two (I thought) stronger claims were that (a) the right of first sale applied, and once Psystar purchased OSX legally, it could resell it, provided it was only installed on that one computer, and (b) that Apple went too far in its EULA terms, which demanded that OS X could only work on a Mac. Unfortunately, the judge didn't agree to either one, though I find the judge's reasoning perplexing and hardly convincing."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1813376929.shtml
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Ruling for Apple against Psystar means clone-makers have no legal recourse; Guardian, 11/14/09
Charles Arthur, Guardian; Ruling for Apple against Psystar means clone-makers have no legal recourse:
"Psystar, the little company in Florida that seemed for a while to be based in the back of a truck while it made Apple clones based on PC hardware, has lost all its claims against Apple in a legal victory that is an important ruling against would-be clone makers.
The company had already filed for bankruptcy - specifically, Chapter 11 protection, which protects a business from creditors while it restructures - back in May. But in the ruling (via BusinessWeek, via Groklaw) Judge William Alsup ruled that Apple's end user licence agreement (EULA) on its Mac OSX software is legal and can be interpreted broadly - that when it says you can't install on non-Mac hardware, that's what it means; it doesn't mean that you could argue that it's a bit limiting on you.
The PDF of the ruling explains that the problem comes down to this line: "Psystar has modified Mac OS X to run on its computers and has sold them to the public."
Psystar had claimed that "first sale doctrine" in the US means that the buyer (Psystar) can sell something on, regardless of whether the original owner (Apple) likes it. But the modification - "Psystar then replaced the Mac OS X 'bootloader'", to quote the finding of facts - means that first sale doctrine doesn't apply any more."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/14/apple-psystar-cloning-licence-judges-ruling
"Psystar, the little company in Florida that seemed for a while to be based in the back of a truck while it made Apple clones based on PC hardware, has lost all its claims against Apple in a legal victory that is an important ruling against would-be clone makers.
The company had already filed for bankruptcy - specifically, Chapter 11 protection, which protects a business from creditors while it restructures - back in May. But in the ruling (via BusinessWeek, via Groklaw) Judge William Alsup ruled that Apple's end user licence agreement (EULA) on its Mac OSX software is legal and can be interpreted broadly - that when it says you can't install on non-Mac hardware, that's what it means; it doesn't mean that you could argue that it's a bit limiting on you.
The PDF of the ruling explains that the problem comes down to this line: "Psystar has modified Mac OS X to run on its computers and has sold them to the public."
Psystar had claimed that "first sale doctrine" in the US means that the buyer (Psystar) can sell something on, regardless of whether the original owner (Apple) likes it. But the modification - "Psystar then replaced the Mac OS X 'bootloader'", to quote the finding of facts - means that first sale doctrine doesn't apply any more."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/14/apple-psystar-cloning-licence-judges-ruling
NZ left out of revised $US125m Google Books deal; National Business Review, 11/16/09
Chris Keall, National Business Review; NZ left out of revised $US125m Google Books deal:
"Google has narrowed the scope of its $US125 million settlement with publishers of out-of-print titles released as free e-books through its ad-funded Book Search service.
The settlement, originally announced in October last year, will now only cover books that are registered with the US copyright office, or originally published in the UK, Canada or Australia.
The revised deal came after pressure from the US Department of Justice. The European Union had also been circling.
In a statement released soon after the revised deal was announced late Saturday New Zealand time, Google said the deal was narrowed to the four countries “which share a common legal heritage and similar book industry practices.”
Martin Taylor, director of Auckland publisher Addenda and founder of the Digital Publishing Forum, had an alternative definition.
“The revised terms are notable for the exclusion of works from many countries that objected to its original settlement proposal,” said Mr Taylor in a blog post over the weekend.
“Interestingly, many of those from countries excluded from the deal might now be asking themselves, ‘Why can’t we be in, too?’ Perhaps this is part of the clever psychology of the deal, creating an apparent ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ so that the excluded parties feel obliged to open negotiations with Google,” added Mr Taylor."
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-left-out-revised-us125m-google-books-deal-114962
"Google has narrowed the scope of its $US125 million settlement with publishers of out-of-print titles released as free e-books through its ad-funded Book Search service.
The settlement, originally announced in October last year, will now only cover books that are registered with the US copyright office, or originally published in the UK, Canada or Australia.
The revised deal came after pressure from the US Department of Justice. The European Union had also been circling.
In a statement released soon after the revised deal was announced late Saturday New Zealand time, Google said the deal was narrowed to the four countries “which share a common legal heritage and similar book industry practices.”
Martin Taylor, director of Auckland publisher Addenda and founder of the Digital Publishing Forum, had an alternative definition.
“The revised terms are notable for the exclusion of works from many countries that objected to its original settlement proposal,” said Mr Taylor in a blog post over the weekend.
“Interestingly, many of those from countries excluded from the deal might now be asking themselves, ‘Why can’t we be in, too?’ Perhaps this is part of the clever psychology of the deal, creating an apparent ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ so that the excluded parties feel obliged to open negotiations with Google,” added Mr Taylor."
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-left-out-revised-us125m-google-books-deal-114962
Selling Lessons Online Raises Cash and Questions; New York Times, 11/15/09
Winnie Hu, New York Times; Selling Lessons Online Raises Cash and Questions:
"Between Craigslist and eBay, the Internet is well established as a marketplace where one person’s trash is transformed into another’s treasure. Now, thousands of teachers are cashing in on a commodity they used to give away, selling lesson plans online for exercises as simple as M&M sorting and as sophisticated as Shakespeare.
While some of this extra money is going to buy books and classroom supplies in a time of tight budgets, the new teacher-entrepreneurs are also spending it on dinners out, mortgage payments, credit card bills, vacation travel and even home renovation, leading some school officials to raise questions over who owns material developed for public school classrooms.
“To the extent that school district resources are used, then I think it’s fair to ask whether the district should share in the proceeds,” said Robert N. Lowry, deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents.
The marketplace for educational tips and tricks is too new to have generated policies or guidelines in most places. In Fairfax County, Va., officials had been studying the issue when they discovered this fall that a former football coach was selling his playbook and instructional DVDs online for $197; they investigated but let him keep selling.
A high school English teacher in upstate New York said her bosses barred her from selling plans used in her classroom; she spoke on the condition that she not be named.
Beyond the unresolved legal questions, there are philosophical ones."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/education/15plans.html
"Between Craigslist and eBay, the Internet is well established as a marketplace where one person’s trash is transformed into another’s treasure. Now, thousands of teachers are cashing in on a commodity they used to give away, selling lesson plans online for exercises as simple as M&M sorting and as sophisticated as Shakespeare.
While some of this extra money is going to buy books and classroom supplies in a time of tight budgets, the new teacher-entrepreneurs are also spending it on dinners out, mortgage payments, credit card bills, vacation travel and even home renovation, leading some school officials to raise questions over who owns material developed for public school classrooms.
“To the extent that school district resources are used, then I think it’s fair to ask whether the district should share in the proceeds,” said Robert N. Lowry, deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents.
The marketplace for educational tips and tricks is too new to have generated policies or guidelines in most places. In Fairfax County, Va., officials had been studying the issue when they discovered this fall that a former football coach was selling his playbook and instructional DVDs online for $197; they investigated but let him keep selling.
A high school English teacher in upstate New York said her bosses barred her from selling plans used in her classroom; she spoke on the condition that she not be named.
Beyond the unresolved legal questions, there are philosophical ones."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/education/15plans.html
Saturday, November 14, 2009
New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music; TechDirt, 11/13/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music:
"In the recent debate in the UK about copyright extension for performances, one of the key points raised by many who were against the proposal was that economic studies suggested that it would really only help a few big superstars (who probably were well enough off already) while harming up-and-coming artists greatly. Christian Zimmerman points us to a recent economics paper by Francisco Alcala and Miguel Gonzalez-Maestre that models why this happens, and points out that copyright extension actually serves to decrease incentives for the creation of new content. The full paper (pdf) basically points out that extending copyright really only helps the superstar performers, since, for everyone else, the economic value of the content is exhausted by the time the extension would matter. That's pretty obvious. But the more troubling part is that this also then negatively impacts the market for new artists, because money and attention that might have gone towards new works end up going instead to those older works."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091104/0328256794.shtml
"In the recent debate in the UK about copyright extension for performances, one of the key points raised by many who were against the proposal was that economic studies suggested that it would really only help a few big superstars (who probably were well enough off already) while harming up-and-coming artists greatly. Christian Zimmerman points us to a recent economics paper by Francisco Alcala and Miguel Gonzalez-Maestre that models why this happens, and points out that copyright extension actually serves to decrease incentives for the creation of new content. The full paper (pdf) basically points out that extending copyright really only helps the superstar performers, since, for everyone else, the economic value of the content is exhausted by the time the extension would matter. That's pretty obvious. But the more troubling part is that this also then negatively impacts the market for new artists, because money and attention that might have gone towards new works end up going instead to those older works."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091104/0328256794.shtml
Newspaper Industry Lawyers Attack Fair Use, Claim Google Is Illegal; TechDirt, 11/13/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Newspaper Industry Lawyers Attack Fair Use, Claim Google Is Illegal:
"Hmm. So, on Monday Rupert Murdoch suggests that the courts would reject fair use as a concept, and by Friday two newspaper industry lawyers just happen to have an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal explaining how Google violates copyright law by caching the websites it indexes. If the names of the lawyers -- Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown -- sound vaguely familiar, that's because they're the same two lawyers who, six months ago, wrote a laughably ridiculous editorial (that time for the Washington Post) proposing special new copyright laws to save newspapers, while destroying pretty much everything that makes the internet useful. Of course, both the Washington Post and the WSJ conveniently left out the fact that these two lawyers regularly represent newspapers and other media and entertainment firms -- even as that seems rather relevant (what happened to those FTC disclosure laws?). While I do actually agree with the lawyers that it's a shame the focus on the Google Book Search settlement avoided the big fair use question, I think they're entirely wrong to suggest that Google itself violates copyright law."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1357386926.shtml
"Hmm. So, on Monday Rupert Murdoch suggests that the courts would reject fair use as a concept, and by Friday two newspaper industry lawyers just happen to have an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal explaining how Google violates copyright law by caching the websites it indexes. If the names of the lawyers -- Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown -- sound vaguely familiar, that's because they're the same two lawyers who, six months ago, wrote a laughably ridiculous editorial (that time for the Washington Post) proposing special new copyright laws to save newspapers, while destroying pretty much everything that makes the internet useful. Of course, both the Washington Post and the WSJ conveniently left out the fact that these two lawyers regularly represent newspapers and other media and entertainment firms -- even as that seems rather relevant (what happened to those FTC disclosure laws?). While I do actually agree with the lawyers that it's a shame the focus on the Google Book Search settlement avoided the big fair use question, I think they're entirely wrong to suggest that Google itself violates copyright law."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1357386926.shtml
[OpEd] Google and the Copyright Wars; Wall Street Journal, 11/13/09
[OpEd] Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown, Wall Street Journal; Google and the Copyright Wars:
"Search engine caching—the process through which automated crawlers travel across the Internet, sweep up the contents of Web sites, and index them into searchable databases—is so fundamental to how information is distributed today that it's too big for any one case. It's a policy question that Congress has to tackle to give copyright owners a fair share of the revenue that their content generates on the Web.
The "snippets" of text that appear on your screen after you've entered a term in a search engine are produced from a complete copy stored in a search engine's server. True, the search results are only a few lines of text. But copyright is not limited to "display" rights. It includes exclusive rights to "reproduction" as well. And that surely means the storing of the complete text.
The search engines argue that they do not have to pay rights holders because the full copies they index are for a purpose different from the original. In addition, they say that they help make Web sites more valuable by driving readers to them. Publishers certainly like the traffic. But since only a few search engines control the market, publishers have had little choice but to play by their rules.
Google has consistently compared itself to the neighborhood library. When it was sued by Agence France Presse for copyright violations in 2005—a case that also settled before any judge ruled on the fair use issue—Google described itself "as important to the web as a card catalog is to a library." A public library, Google said in Agence France Presse v. Google Inc., "would be of limited use without an index or some other means to organize and find particular volumes of interest."
The copyright code allows public libraries to copy texts as long as there is no "direct or indirect commercial advantage." But that does not describe what search engines do. They use the complete copies they take for free to sell the advertising that has made them enormously profitable. This has a direct impact on book publishers, and on the publishers of magazines and newspapers that are losing the advertising that once supported them. According to Ken Auletta's recently released book "Googled," its search business alone now takes in 40% of all advertising across the Internet.
Consistent with the handling of copying by libraries, indexing without any commercial gain should be protected as fair use. But it should not be controversial to legislate that once the cache is monetized for the benefit of the search engine, the line of copyright infringement is crossed. The absence of such defined rules gave Google a green light to proceed with its book scanning project and establish itself as the proprietor of the world's largest digital bookstore.
In the last year, many fresh ideas have begun to circulate on how to help the publishing industry transition profitably to the online world. But without legal reform to back up these new business models, publishers will not have the bargaining power to make the search engines into true partners willing to compensate them meaningfully for their copyrights."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704402404574523454258004332.html?mod=djemITP
"Search engine caching—the process through which automated crawlers travel across the Internet, sweep up the contents of Web sites, and index them into searchable databases—is so fundamental to how information is distributed today that it's too big for any one case. It's a policy question that Congress has to tackle to give copyright owners a fair share of the revenue that their content generates on the Web.
The "snippets" of text that appear on your screen after you've entered a term in a search engine are produced from a complete copy stored in a search engine's server. True, the search results are only a few lines of text. But copyright is not limited to "display" rights. It includes exclusive rights to "reproduction" as well. And that surely means the storing of the complete text.
The search engines argue that they do not have to pay rights holders because the full copies they index are for a purpose different from the original. In addition, they say that they help make Web sites more valuable by driving readers to them. Publishers certainly like the traffic. But since only a few search engines control the market, publishers have had little choice but to play by their rules.
Google has consistently compared itself to the neighborhood library. When it was sued by Agence France Presse for copyright violations in 2005—a case that also settled before any judge ruled on the fair use issue—Google described itself "as important to the web as a card catalog is to a library." A public library, Google said in Agence France Presse v. Google Inc., "would be of limited use without an index or some other means to organize and find particular volumes of interest."
The copyright code allows public libraries to copy texts as long as there is no "direct or indirect commercial advantage." But that does not describe what search engines do. They use the complete copies they take for free to sell the advertising that has made them enormously profitable. This has a direct impact on book publishers, and on the publishers of magazines and newspapers that are losing the advertising that once supported them. According to Ken Auletta's recently released book "Googled," its search business alone now takes in 40% of all advertising across the Internet.
Consistent with the handling of copying by libraries, indexing without any commercial gain should be protected as fair use. But it should not be controversial to legislate that once the cache is monetized for the benefit of the search engine, the line of copyright infringement is crossed. The absence of such defined rules gave Google a green light to proceed with its book scanning project and establish itself as the proprietor of the world's largest digital bookstore.
In the last year, many fresh ideas have begun to circulate on how to help the publishing industry transition profitably to the online world. But without legal reform to back up these new business models, publishers will not have the bargaining power to make the search engines into true partners willing to compensate them meaningfully for their copyrights."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704402404574523454258004332.html?mod=djemITP
[Court Document] Revised Google Book Search settlement, submitted to court 11/14/09
[Court Document, 377 pages] Revised Google Book Search settlement, submitted to court by Google, AAP, and Authors Guild, 11/14/09:
http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended_settlement/amended_settlement_redline.pdf
http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended_settlement/amended_settlement_redline.pdf
Revised Google Settlement Offers Minor Changes on Antitrust Issue, No Response on Library Pricing; Library Journal, 11/14/09
Norman Oder, Library Journal; Revised Google Settlement Offers Minor Changes on Antitrust Issue, No Response on Library Pricing:
Most foreign language books out; showdown coming with Department of Justice about orphan works?
Most foreign language books out; showdown coming with Department of Justice about orphan works?
- More than one free terminal authorized at public libraries
- No discussion of pricing of institutional database
- Open Book Alliance: fundamental flaws not addressed
Shortly before midnight last night, Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers released a revised version (PDF) of the Google Book Search Settlement, with some clear concessions to foreign rightsholders (as noted by Publishers Weekly), a vague—and, to critics, fatally inadequate—concession on orphan works. There was also no response to library concerns about pricing of the potentially monopolistic institutional database—an issue that Google representatives say can't be addressed in the settlement.
The one notable response to criticisms from the library community was an agreement that, as Google representatives had already stated, more than one free public access terminal per library building may be authorized.
The revised settlement also incorporates some other concerns raised by the library community and similarly interested parties. The settlement will allow for Creative Commons licensing, which means that rightsholders—notably academics—can ensure their works are available for no cost. And Google won't "provide personally identifiable information about end users to the Registry other than as required by law or valid legal process...
Orphan works
New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann noted that, while foreign, non-Anglophone books had been taken out and the parties had made some tweaks here and there, the "heart of the settlement’s promise, peril, and problems has always been its treatment of unclaimed works—a category that contains the orphan works. Settlement 1.0 allowed Google to use and sell them on an opt-out basis, and Settlement 2.0 does the same. That gave Google exclusive access to a market segment that no one else can enter, and thus raised antitrust concerns."
University of Michigan Library dean Paul Courant, a settlement supporter, had recently expressed support for "a revised settlement (as suggested by the U.S. Department of Justice) that provided competitors with the ability to use the orphan works on the same terms as Google, or legislation with similar consequence.
"That didn't happen. "The DOJ all but invited Google and the plaintiffs to empower the Registry to license Google’s competitors; they declined that all-but-invitation," Grimmelmann commented. "They’re going to try to tough this one out; the DOJ will have to decide whether to back down or to fight, as this amended settlement doesn’t give it one of the central changes it asked for."
Grimmelmann noted that the agreement sets up a scenario in which Google competitors could scan orphan works should Congress change copyright law. Such a speculative possibility, he observed, "doesn’t create actual competition now." And, if Congress does create a statutory licensing system, "why do we need the class action [lawsuit]?"
His conclusion: despite "meaningful, if modest improvements," the central issue has not been addressed.
From Google
Google's point man Dan Clancy issued a statement: "The changes we've made in our amended agreement address many of the concerns we've heard (particularly in limiting its international scope), while at the same time preserving the core benefits of the original agreement: opening access to millions of books while providing rightsholders with ways to sell and control their work online.""
Terms of Digital Book Deal With Google Revised; New York Times, 11/14/09
Brad Stone and Miguel Helft, New York Times; Terms of Digital Book Deal With Google Revised:
"Google and groups representing book publishers and authors filed a modified version of their controversial books settlement with a federal court on Friday. The changes would pave the way for other companies to license Google’s vast digital collection of copyrighted out-of-print books, and might resolve Google’s conflicts with European governments.
The settlement, for a 2005 lawsuit over Google’s ambitious plan to digitize books from major American libraries, outlined a plan to create a comprehensive database of in-print and out-of-print works. But the original agreement, primarily between Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, drew much criticism.
The Justice Department and others said Google was potentially violating copyright law, setting itself up to unfairly control access to electronic versions of older books and depriving authors and their heirs of proper compensation.
The revisions to the settlement primarily address the handling of so-called orphan works, the millions of books whose rights holders are unknown or cannot be found. The changes call for the appointment of an independent fiduciary, or trustee, who will be solely responsible for decisions regarding orphan works.
The trustee, with Congressional approval, can grant licenses to other companies who also want to sell these books, and will oversee the pool of unclaimed funds that they generate. If the money goes unclaimed for 10 years, according to the revised settlement, it will go to philanthropy and to an effort to locate rights holders. In the original settlement, unclaimed funds reverted to known rights holders after five years.
The changes also restrict the Google catalog to books published in the United States, Britain, Australia or Canada. That move is intended to resolve objections from the French and German governments, which complained that the settlement did not abide by copyright law in those countries.
The revised settlement could make it easier for other companies to compete with Google in offering their own digitized versions of older library books because it drops a provision that was widely interpreted as ensuring that no other company could get a better deal with authors and publishers than the one Google had struck.
“We’re disappointed that we won’t be able to provide access to as many books from as many countries through the settlement as a result of our modifications, but we look forward to continuing to work with rightsholders from around the world to fulfill our longstanding mission of increasing access to all the world’s books,” the engineering director for Google Book Search, Dan Clancy, wrote in a blog post on the company’s Web site.
In the next week, Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is expected to set a date for a fairness hearing, where arguments from both sides will be heard about whether or not to approve the settlement.
The changes have not placated all opponents of the original settlement. In a blog post on Friday night, the Open Book Alliance, a coalition whose members include Yahoo, Microsoft and Amazon, referred to the changes as a “sleight of hand” and said they did not address the “fundamental flaws” addressed by critics.
“This settlement remains a set-piece designed to serve the private commercial interests of Google and its partners,” wrote Peter Brantley, co-founder of the alliance.
But the parties are hoping they will placate the concerns raised by the Justice Department, which in September asked a federal judge to reject the original $125 million agreement. While the decision on whether to approve the deal will be in the hands of Judge Chin, the Justice Department’s opinion is an important factor.
Gina Talamona, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said that the department would review the filing, and that its investigation into possible anticompetitive practices involving the rights to digital books was continuing.
Google and its partners had hailed the original agreement, signed in October 2008, as a public good. They said it would allow Google to create an immense digital library that would expand access to millions of out-of-print books, while creating new ways for authors and publishers to profit from digital versions of their works.
Google’s library would be searchable online, and users would have free access to 20 percent of the text in each book. Google would also sell subscriptions to the entire collection to universities and other institutions. Every public library in the United States would be able to offer its patrons free access to the full collection at one terminal. Users would be able to buy access to full texts at home. Google, authors and publishers would split all revenue generated through the system.
As part of the settlement, Google would pay to establish a Books Rights Registry, to be run by representatives of authors and publishers, that would administer payments.
But earlier this year, academics, legal scholars and some librarians expressed concern that the settlement would grant Google a virtual monopoly over orphan works, making it nearly impossible for anyone else to build a comprehensive digital library. Some librarians feared that without competition, Google would be free to raise prices arbitrarily.
Other critics said the agreement turned copyright law on its head by granting Google the license to profit from works unless rights holders objected. Some argued that orphan works authors and foreign authors were not properly represented by the Authors Guild. The proposed settlement prompted several hundred filings with the court, the vast majority opposing all or parts of the deal.
In a Sept. 18 filling, the Justice Department echoed many of the concerns. While saying that the settlement provided many benefits, it urged Judge Chin to reject it, saying it raised antitrust, class-action and copyright issues. But the Justice Department also encouraged the parties to work to modify the agreement to salvage its benefits and overcome its problems.
The Justice Department filing prompted the parties to withdraw the original agreement and revise it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/technology/internet/14books.html?_r=1&hp
"Google and groups representing book publishers and authors filed a modified version of their controversial books settlement with a federal court on Friday. The changes would pave the way for other companies to license Google’s vast digital collection of copyrighted out-of-print books, and might resolve Google’s conflicts with European governments.
The settlement, for a 2005 lawsuit over Google’s ambitious plan to digitize books from major American libraries, outlined a plan to create a comprehensive database of in-print and out-of-print works. But the original agreement, primarily between Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, drew much criticism.
The Justice Department and others said Google was potentially violating copyright law, setting itself up to unfairly control access to electronic versions of older books and depriving authors and their heirs of proper compensation.
The revisions to the settlement primarily address the handling of so-called orphan works, the millions of books whose rights holders are unknown or cannot be found. The changes call for the appointment of an independent fiduciary, or trustee, who will be solely responsible for decisions regarding orphan works.
The trustee, with Congressional approval, can grant licenses to other companies who also want to sell these books, and will oversee the pool of unclaimed funds that they generate. If the money goes unclaimed for 10 years, according to the revised settlement, it will go to philanthropy and to an effort to locate rights holders. In the original settlement, unclaimed funds reverted to known rights holders after five years.
The changes also restrict the Google catalog to books published in the United States, Britain, Australia or Canada. That move is intended to resolve objections from the French and German governments, which complained that the settlement did not abide by copyright law in those countries.
The revised settlement could make it easier for other companies to compete with Google in offering their own digitized versions of older library books because it drops a provision that was widely interpreted as ensuring that no other company could get a better deal with authors and publishers than the one Google had struck.
“We’re disappointed that we won’t be able to provide access to as many books from as many countries through the settlement as a result of our modifications, but we look forward to continuing to work with rightsholders from around the world to fulfill our longstanding mission of increasing access to all the world’s books,” the engineering director for Google Book Search, Dan Clancy, wrote in a blog post on the company’s Web site.
In the next week, Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is expected to set a date for a fairness hearing, where arguments from both sides will be heard about whether or not to approve the settlement.
The changes have not placated all opponents of the original settlement. In a blog post on Friday night, the Open Book Alliance, a coalition whose members include Yahoo, Microsoft and Amazon, referred to the changes as a “sleight of hand” and said they did not address the “fundamental flaws” addressed by critics.
“This settlement remains a set-piece designed to serve the private commercial interests of Google and its partners,” wrote Peter Brantley, co-founder of the alliance.
But the parties are hoping they will placate the concerns raised by the Justice Department, which in September asked a federal judge to reject the original $125 million agreement. While the decision on whether to approve the deal will be in the hands of Judge Chin, the Justice Department’s opinion is an important factor.
Gina Talamona, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said that the department would review the filing, and that its investigation into possible anticompetitive practices involving the rights to digital books was continuing.
Google and its partners had hailed the original agreement, signed in October 2008, as a public good. They said it would allow Google to create an immense digital library that would expand access to millions of out-of-print books, while creating new ways for authors and publishers to profit from digital versions of their works.
Google’s library would be searchable online, and users would have free access to 20 percent of the text in each book. Google would also sell subscriptions to the entire collection to universities and other institutions. Every public library in the United States would be able to offer its patrons free access to the full collection at one terminal. Users would be able to buy access to full texts at home. Google, authors and publishers would split all revenue generated through the system.
As part of the settlement, Google would pay to establish a Books Rights Registry, to be run by representatives of authors and publishers, that would administer payments.
But earlier this year, academics, legal scholars and some librarians expressed concern that the settlement would grant Google a virtual monopoly over orphan works, making it nearly impossible for anyone else to build a comprehensive digital library. Some librarians feared that without competition, Google would be free to raise prices arbitrarily.
Other critics said the agreement turned copyright law on its head by granting Google the license to profit from works unless rights holders objected. Some argued that orphan works authors and foreign authors were not properly represented by the Authors Guild. The proposed settlement prompted several hundred filings with the court, the vast majority opposing all or parts of the deal.
In a Sept. 18 filling, the Justice Department echoed many of the concerns. While saying that the settlement provided many benefits, it urged Judge Chin to reject it, saying it raised antitrust, class-action and copyright issues. But the Justice Department also encouraged the parties to work to modify the agreement to salvage its benefits and overcome its problems.
The Justice Department filing prompted the parties to withdraw the original agreement and revise it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/technology/internet/14books.html?_r=1&hp
Google, Plaintiffs Submit Revised Book Search Settlement; PC World, 11/14/09
Elizabeth Heichler, PC World; Google, Plaintiffs Submit Revised Book Search Settlement:
"Right up against a deadline to submit a revised settlement agreement to a judge overseeing a lawsuit filed against Google by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, the parties filed their second take near midnight on Friday. The original settlement agreement had come under fire from many parties but most notably from the U.S. Department of Justice, whose withering and broad critique of the deal led the judge to demand revisions in the proposal...
Google listed the following revisions in a statement issued early Saturday:
-- The settlement will only include books that were either registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or published in the U.K., Australia, or Canada. Rightsholders in those countries are joining the case as named plaintiffs.
-- The Book Rights Registry that Google and the plaintiffs had agreed to establish will search for rightsholders who have not yet come forward and to hold revenue on their behalf. The settlement now also specifies that a portion of the revenue generated from unclaimed works may, after five years, be used to locate rightsholders, but will no longer be used for the Registry's general operations or redistributed to other rightsholders. The Book Rights Registry is intended to manage a royalty system to compensate authors and publishers from the sale of digitized books.
-- Explicitly written into the settlement is the provision, offered by Google in September, that any book retailer will be able to sell consumers online access to the out-of-print books covered by the settlement, including unclaimed books.
-- The revision clarifies that rightsholders can choose to make their books available for free or allow re-use under Creative Commons or other licenses. Rightsholders can also choose to modify or remove restrictions placed on Google's display of their books, such as limits on the number of pages that users can print.
-- The Registry is now free to license to other parties without ever extending the same terms to Google.
The Open Book Alliance immediately came out against the revised settlement, issuing a statement early on Saturday claiming that the new proposal does not address "the fundamental flaws illuminated by the Department of Justice and other critics that impact public interest."
"By performing surgical nip and tuck, Google, the AAP, and the AG are attempting to distract people from their continued efforts to establish a monopoly over digital content access and distribution; usurp Congress's role in setting copyright policy; lock writers into their unsought registry, stripping them of their individual contract rights; put library budgets and patron privacy at risk; and establish a dangerous precedent by abusing the class action process," Open Book Alliance co-chair Peter Brantley said in the statement."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/182214/google_plaintiffs_submit_revised_book_search_settlement.html
"Right up against a deadline to submit a revised settlement agreement to a judge overseeing a lawsuit filed against Google by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, the parties filed their second take near midnight on Friday. The original settlement agreement had come under fire from many parties but most notably from the U.S. Department of Justice, whose withering and broad critique of the deal led the judge to demand revisions in the proposal...
Google listed the following revisions in a statement issued early Saturday:
-- The settlement will only include books that were either registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or published in the U.K., Australia, or Canada. Rightsholders in those countries are joining the case as named plaintiffs.
-- The Book Rights Registry that Google and the plaintiffs had agreed to establish will search for rightsholders who have not yet come forward and to hold revenue on their behalf. The settlement now also specifies that a portion of the revenue generated from unclaimed works may, after five years, be used to locate rightsholders, but will no longer be used for the Registry's general operations or redistributed to other rightsholders. The Book Rights Registry is intended to manage a royalty system to compensate authors and publishers from the sale of digitized books.
-- Explicitly written into the settlement is the provision, offered by Google in September, that any book retailer will be able to sell consumers online access to the out-of-print books covered by the settlement, including unclaimed books.
-- The revision clarifies that rightsholders can choose to make their books available for free or allow re-use under Creative Commons or other licenses. Rightsholders can also choose to modify or remove restrictions placed on Google's display of their books, such as limits on the number of pages that users can print.
-- The Registry is now free to license to other parties without ever extending the same terms to Google.
The Open Book Alliance immediately came out against the revised settlement, issuing a statement early on Saturday claiming that the new proposal does not address "the fundamental flaws illuminated by the Department of Justice and other critics that impact public interest."
"By performing surgical nip and tuck, Google, the AAP, and the AG are attempting to distract people from their continued efforts to establish a monopoly over digital content access and distribution; usurp Congress's role in setting copyright policy; lock writers into their unsought registry, stripping them of their individual contract rights; put library budgets and patron privacy at risk; and establish a dangerous precedent by abusing the class action process," Open Book Alliance co-chair Peter Brantley said in the statement."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/182214/google_plaintiffs_submit_revised_book_search_settlement.html
Singing a different tune; Economist, 11/12/09
Economist; Singing a different tune:
The battle against online music piracy is turning. A return to growth will take a good deal longer
"While it is by no means over, the struggle against music piracy is going better than at any point since the appearance of Napster, a file-sharing service, ten years ago.
It has been a brutal decade. In many countries music sales to consumers have fallen by more than a third...
The music business is now doing two things right. First, it has built a better stick. Most countries have virtually abandoned the practice of suing people for downloading copyrighted files. The favoured approach these days is known as “graduated response” or “three strikes and you’re out”. People who are suspected of trading media illegally are sent warnings. If they fail to stop, their internet-service provider (ISP) may slow their connection. If that fails to deter, they may be temporarily cut off...
Almost everywhere in the developed world, such laws are being debated. Even where they are not (America, for example), ISPs are working quietly with the record industry to similar ends.
The trouble with the old practice of suing people for swapping music is that it is slow, expensive and limited. In most countries, being prosecuted for file-sharing is a little like being struck by lightning. The exception is Germany, where a cheap, efficient legal system has made it possible to launch some 100,000 prosecutions. In the past two years the proportion of German internet users who share files illegally has dropped significantly. It now stands at 6%, according to Jupiter Research—less than in any other big European country...
The second change is that the industry is offering tastier carrots. These days the music associations talk less about lawsuits and more about cultivating alternatives to piracy. The past year has seen rapid growth of digital music services that accept the post-Napster consensus that music should be free, or at least appear to be free...
The recorded-music business is not about to lurch into growth. A big proportion of revenues—more than half just about everywhere—still comes from CD albums, which are gradually falling out of favour. Start-ups like Spotify need to turn more freeloaders into paying subscribers if they are to survive and start providing a serious income stream to record companies and artists. And there are still plenty of ways of sneakily copying music.
John Kennedy, head of the IFPI, points out that piracy was rife even before file-sharing. The goal is not to eradicate it—that is impossible—but to tilt the playing field towards legitimate services. That finally seems to be happening. "
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845087
The battle against online music piracy is turning. A return to growth will take a good deal longer
"While it is by no means over, the struggle against music piracy is going better than at any point since the appearance of Napster, a file-sharing service, ten years ago.
It has been a brutal decade. In many countries music sales to consumers have fallen by more than a third...
The music business is now doing two things right. First, it has built a better stick. Most countries have virtually abandoned the practice of suing people for downloading copyrighted files. The favoured approach these days is known as “graduated response” or “three strikes and you’re out”. People who are suspected of trading media illegally are sent warnings. If they fail to stop, their internet-service provider (ISP) may slow their connection. If that fails to deter, they may be temporarily cut off...
Almost everywhere in the developed world, such laws are being debated. Even where they are not (America, for example), ISPs are working quietly with the record industry to similar ends.
The trouble with the old practice of suing people for swapping music is that it is slow, expensive and limited. In most countries, being prosecuted for file-sharing is a little like being struck by lightning. The exception is Germany, where a cheap, efficient legal system has made it possible to launch some 100,000 prosecutions. In the past two years the proportion of German internet users who share files illegally has dropped significantly. It now stands at 6%, according to Jupiter Research—less than in any other big European country...
The second change is that the industry is offering tastier carrots. These days the music associations talk less about lawsuits and more about cultivating alternatives to piracy. The past year has seen rapid growth of digital music services that accept the post-Napster consensus that music should be free, or at least appear to be free...
The recorded-music business is not about to lurch into growth. A big proportion of revenues—more than half just about everywhere—still comes from CD albums, which are gradually falling out of favour. Start-ups like Spotify need to turn more freeloaders into paying subscribers if they are to survive and start providing a serious income stream to record companies and artists. And there are still plenty of ways of sneakily copying music.
John Kennedy, head of the IFPI, points out that piracy was rife even before file-sharing. The goal is not to eradicate it—that is impossible—but to tilt the playing field towards legitimate services. That finally seems to be happening. "
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845087
Friday, November 13, 2009
My next book; Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars, 11/03/09
William Patry, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars; My next book:
"All this leads me to the title of this post, "My Next Book." Regardless of how unfair I think it is to judge Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars for not being prescriptive, the fact remains that at least some people wanted a prescriptive book. In Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars I criticize some in the copyright industries for not responding to consumer demand. Having made that criticism, it would be hypocritical not to apply it to myself. As a result, I have decided to write a purely prescriptive book, tentatively called "How to Fix Copyright." It will be about 200 pages, and cover core issues internationally, that is, important common issues facing all countries. I will explain why I think there is a problem and then offer my view on how to solve each problem. I will finish the manuscript in 6 months and try to get it in print as soon as the publisher can, responsibly, after that. I hope too that people might now try to read Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars for what it tries to do; feel free to comment on how well or poorly it does so."
http://moralpanicsandthecopyrightwars.blogspot.com/2009/11/my-next-book.html
"All this leads me to the title of this post, "My Next Book." Regardless of how unfair I think it is to judge Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars for not being prescriptive, the fact remains that at least some people wanted a prescriptive book. In Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars I criticize some in the copyright industries for not responding to consumer demand. Having made that criticism, it would be hypocritical not to apply it to myself. As a result, I have decided to write a purely prescriptive book, tentatively called "How to Fix Copyright." It will be about 200 pages, and cover core issues internationally, that is, important common issues facing all countries. I will explain why I think there is a problem and then offer my view on how to solve each problem. I will finish the manuscript in 6 months and try to get it in print as soon as the publisher can, responsibly, after that. I hope too that people might now try to read Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars for what it tries to do; feel free to comment on how well or poorly it does so."
http://moralpanicsandthecopyrightwars.blogspot.com/2009/11/my-next-book.html
Serbia's New Draft Copyright Law - A Partial Diff; Copyright Watch, 11/12/09
Danny OBrien, Copyright Watch; Serbia's New Draft Copyright Law - A Partial Diff:
"Disability Exceptions
The new Serbian law has an explicit exception for "persons with invalidity" (Article 54):
For the needs of the persons with invalidity, it is allowed, without the permission of the author and without payment of the remuneration, to copy and distribute the work protected by copyright, if such a work does not exist in the required form, if its use is in direct connection with the invalidity of persons concerned and in the scope that is required by a specific kind of invalidity providing the copying and distribution has not been made for the sake of realizing direct or indirect commercial gain.
Disability exceptions are at the forefront of current discussions of international copyright, with WIPO currently debating a proposed Treaty on Improved Access for Blind, Visually Impaired and other Reading Disabled Persons to normalize these exceptions across the world.
Serbia's proposed provisions score plus points for not restricting the scope of their exception to just those with reading disabilities or the blind. Modern technology means that content can be improved for a whole range of sensory disabilities (like signing books for the many people born with hearing disabilities who develop reading problems).
Unfortunately, the Article makes no mention of one of the key limiting factors for many with disabilities right now: bypassing the digital rights management restrictions on existing digital content to transform it by themselves into a new, accessible form. Article 208 contains Serbia's anti-circumvention provisions, similar to the United State's DMCA; it's not clear from a first glance that those with disabilites can legally access their own media if they have to bypass DRM to transform it."
http://www.copyright-watch.org/blog/serbias-new-draft-copyright-law-a-partial-diff
"Disability Exceptions
The new Serbian law has an explicit exception for "persons with invalidity" (Article 54):
For the needs of the persons with invalidity, it is allowed, without the permission of the author and without payment of the remuneration, to copy and distribute the work protected by copyright, if such a work does not exist in the required form, if its use is in direct connection with the invalidity of persons concerned and in the scope that is required by a specific kind of invalidity providing the copying and distribution has not been made for the sake of realizing direct or indirect commercial gain.
Disability exceptions are at the forefront of current discussions of international copyright, with WIPO currently debating a proposed Treaty on Improved Access for Blind, Visually Impaired and other Reading Disabled Persons to normalize these exceptions across the world.
Serbia's proposed provisions score plus points for not restricting the scope of their exception to just those with reading disabilities or the blind. Modern technology means that content can be improved for a whole range of sensory disabilities (like signing books for the many people born with hearing disabilities who develop reading problems).
Unfortunately, the Article makes no mention of one of the key limiting factors for many with disabilities right now: bypassing the digital rights management restrictions on existing digital content to transform it by themselves into a new, accessible form. Article 208 contains Serbia's anti-circumvention provisions, similar to the United State's DMCA; it's not clear from a first glance that those with disabilites can legally access their own media if they have to bypass DRM to transform it."
http://www.copyright-watch.org/blog/serbias-new-draft-copyright-law-a-partial-diff
Europe split on Google book plans; BBC News, 11/13/09
David Reid, BBC News; Europe split on Google book plans:
Google plans to put millions of the world's books online and create the world's largest virtual library by 2010.
"The European Union has its own project to digitise library collections which was first mooted as a counter to Google.
The Europeana project aims to keep art, culture and out-of-print books free from commercial control.
Not everyone is opposed to Google's plans - some libraries view the firm's commercial ambitions as a chance to get their collections digitised for free.
Patrick Bazin, director of the library in the French city of Lyon, explained that if libraries do not digitize their collections, they run the risk of disappearing from the cultural landscape.
He added that Google's investment could be used to his library's advantage.
"Our aim is not to supply a private company with digital versions of our books, but to have digital versions so we can build a digital library.
"We estimated that to digitise the 500,000 books we are going to would cost us 60m euros. We don't have 60m euros," he explained."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8357773.stm
Google plans to put millions of the world's books online and create the world's largest virtual library by 2010.
"The European Union has its own project to digitise library collections which was first mooted as a counter to Google.
The Europeana project aims to keep art, culture and out-of-print books free from commercial control.
Not everyone is opposed to Google's plans - some libraries view the firm's commercial ambitions as a chance to get their collections digitised for free.
Patrick Bazin, director of the library in the French city of Lyon, explained that if libraries do not digitize their collections, they run the risk of disappearing from the cultural landscape.
He added that Google's investment could be used to his library's advantage.
"Our aim is not to supply a private company with digital versions of our books, but to have digital versions so we can build a digital library.
"We estimated that to digitise the 500,000 books we are going to would cost us 60m euros. We don't have 60m euros," he explained."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8357773.stm
Google, book publishers to reveal new settlement; Associated Press, 11/13/09
Associated Press; Google, book publishers to reveal new settlement:
"The future of Google's plans to scan and sell millions of books online could begin to take shape Friday.
Google Inc. and book publishers are expected to show a federal judge in New York a new settlement in the copyright lawsuit over Google's book-scanning project.
Monday had been the deadline for a new deal, but they got an extension to Friday."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdFC6FPR3nJfAKfpAUEEsmkZjqWAD9BUQ5582
"The future of Google's plans to scan and sell millions of books online could begin to take shape Friday.
Google Inc. and book publishers are expected to show a federal judge in New York a new settlement in the copyright lawsuit over Google's book-scanning project.
Monday had been the deadline for a new deal, but they got an extension to Friday."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdFC6FPR3nJfAKfpAUEEsmkZjqWAD9BUQ5582
Copyright laws must fit online evolution; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/11/09
Lance Kavanaugh, (senior product counsel, YouTube, is in Australia this week to discuss copyright issues), Sydney Morning Herald; Copyright laws must fit online evolution:
New business models will need new content ownership rules.
"PEOPLE around the world want to connect and interact with content online. We expect to be able to sit at our computer, or walk along with our mobile phone, and have content at our fingertips. The internet enables just that, and in doing so has shifted community expectations about access to content.
It is challenging for traditional copyright laws to adapt to the online environment, as was noted by WIPO director-general Francis Gurry in his address to the National Press Club in August.
In Mr Gurry's words: ''It is not necessarily by putting teenagers in jail that we are going to be able to deal with this extremely serious problem.''
Managing copyright online presents some of the most difficult technical and legal challenges on the internet - in part because global rights ownership and management are exceedingly complicated.
For example, music videos often have many different content owners who own different components of the video and audio. One party may own the video, another party the soundtrack and yet another the musical composition. You get the picture.
As a lawyer for YouTube, I am familiar with the challenges and excited about the potential solutions. I believe it's important that content owners, service providers and the public tackle this proactively. We see a lot of focus on combating copyright infringement. But do we see enough focus on the experimentation that is happening with new business models and the copyright tools that will make those new business models possible?"
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/copyright-laws-must-fit-online-evolution-20091109-i5hl.html
New business models will need new content ownership rules.
"PEOPLE around the world want to connect and interact with content online. We expect to be able to sit at our computer, or walk along with our mobile phone, and have content at our fingertips. The internet enables just that, and in doing so has shifted community expectations about access to content.
It is challenging for traditional copyright laws to adapt to the online environment, as was noted by WIPO director-general Francis Gurry in his address to the National Press Club in August.
In Mr Gurry's words: ''It is not necessarily by putting teenagers in jail that we are going to be able to deal with this extremely serious problem.''
Managing copyright online presents some of the most difficult technical and legal challenges on the internet - in part because global rights ownership and management are exceedingly complicated.
For example, music videos often have many different content owners who own different components of the video and audio. One party may own the video, another party the soundtrack and yet another the musical composition. You get the picture.
As a lawyer for YouTube, I am familiar with the challenges and excited about the potential solutions. I believe it's important that content owners, service providers and the public tackle this proactively. We see a lot of focus on combating copyright infringement. But do we see enough focus on the experimentation that is happening with new business models and the copyright tools that will make those new business models possible?"
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/copyright-laws-must-fit-online-evolution-20091109-i5hl.html
Google Battles For Book Rights; Forbes, 11/12/09
Oxford Analytica, via Forbes; Google Battles for Book Rights:
"A settlement between Google and a U.S. court on the digitization of books is expected this week, after Google presents a new version of its proposed settlement with the Association of American Publishers and the Authors' Guild. If approved, it will enable the full roll-out of Google Books in the U.S. market.
However, in October, the European Commission announced that it wanted to resolve the copyright problem in advance of the U.S. company, which had hitherto set the pace on this issue...
New approach. The Commission has recently taken the initiative on issues of digitization and copyright. Interestingly, while Information Commissioner Vivien Reding has talked much about the possibilities for an E.U. approach to the issue, the Commission's paper makes no direct mention of Google. Perhaps the Commission is trying to walk a line between its own enthusiasm for an E.U. solution, and the clear hostility of some member states towards Google Books. This new stance is in contrast to Reding's earlier "pro-Google" stance and may be related to her concerns to secure a further term in the Commission.
Outlook. While a U.S. settlement for Google looks likely to be reached this week, it may not be acceptable to critics at home and abroad. This provides an opportunity for the Commission to push forward with a European regime for digitized libraries. This will depend on the member states' willingness to harmonize copyright rules, a process where progress in the past has been slow."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/google-books-settlement-business-oxford-europe.html
"A settlement between Google and a U.S. court on the digitization of books is expected this week, after Google presents a new version of its proposed settlement with the Association of American Publishers and the Authors' Guild. If approved, it will enable the full roll-out of Google Books in the U.S. market.
However, in October, the European Commission announced that it wanted to resolve the copyright problem in advance of the U.S. company, which had hitherto set the pace on this issue...
New approach. The Commission has recently taken the initiative on issues of digitization and copyright. Interestingly, while Information Commissioner Vivien Reding has talked much about the possibilities for an E.U. approach to the issue, the Commission's paper makes no direct mention of Google. Perhaps the Commission is trying to walk a line between its own enthusiasm for an E.U. solution, and the clear hostility of some member states towards Google Books. This new stance is in contrast to Reding's earlier "pro-Google" stance and may be related to her concerns to secure a further term in the Commission.
Outlook. While a U.S. settlement for Google looks likely to be reached this week, it may not be acceptable to critics at home and abroad. This provides an opportunity for the Commission to push forward with a European regime for digitized libraries. This will depend on the member states' willingness to harmonize copyright rules, a process where progress in the past has been slow."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/google-books-settlement-business-oxford-europe.html
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Ebook entrepreneur Neil Jones takes on the big guys; Guardian, 11/12/09
Katie Allen, Guardian; Ebook entrepreneur Neil Jones takes on the big guys:
"With authors who want to control their own publishing in mind, [Neil Jones] founded Interead and developed the Coolerbooks.com ebook site. He wanted to sell the Sony Reader to accompany the downloads but Sony could not guarantee supply, so he created the Cool-er ereader instead. After a few months in the market, worldwide sales of the Cool-er (which costs £189 in the UK) have soared...
He is confident that his brightly coloured devices, which have been called the iPods of the ebook world, will be number two in America by next autumn in terms of sales, and number one in the UK.
As he takes on the likes of Sony and Amazon – whose Kindle reader launched internationally in October – Jones has been looking into research on David and Goliath battles throughout history. He thinks the odds for the small guy are pretty good. Outside the battlefield, he cites the business example of Virgin Atlantic, currently celebrating its 25th year. "Twenty-five years ago, who would have given Virgin Atlantic any chance against the likes of British Airways?"...
Interead's ebook site recently became the first ebookstore outside the US to offer 500,000 of the public domain books (books that have fallen out of copyright) available from Google Books.
Jones says Interead's latest example of thinking differently is the US retail launch of its reader on the QVC shopping channel. "We know the majority of our market is women – women read more," he says."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/12/small-business-ereaders-neil-jones-profile
"With authors who want to control their own publishing in mind, [Neil Jones] founded Interead and developed the Coolerbooks.com ebook site. He wanted to sell the Sony Reader to accompany the downloads but Sony could not guarantee supply, so he created the Cool-er ereader instead. After a few months in the market, worldwide sales of the Cool-er (which costs £189 in the UK) have soared...
He is confident that his brightly coloured devices, which have been called the iPods of the ebook world, will be number two in America by next autumn in terms of sales, and number one in the UK.
As he takes on the likes of Sony and Amazon – whose Kindle reader launched internationally in October – Jones has been looking into research on David and Goliath battles throughout history. He thinks the odds for the small guy are pretty good. Outside the battlefield, he cites the business example of Virgin Atlantic, currently celebrating its 25th year. "Twenty-five years ago, who would have given Virgin Atlantic any chance against the likes of British Airways?"...
Interead's ebook site recently became the first ebookstore outside the US to offer 500,000 of the public domain books (books that have fallen out of copyright) available from Google Books.
Jones says Interead's latest example of thinking differently is the US retail launch of its reader on the QVC shopping channel. "We know the majority of our market is women – women read more," he says."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/12/small-business-ereaders-neil-jones-profile
Closing chapter of Google Books saga near; CNet, 11/09/09
Tom Krazit, CNet; Closing chapter of Google Books saga near:
"Every book project is a series of deadlines. Google's faces an important one Monday.
Google and representatives for author and publisher groups are due to submit a revised Google Book Search settlement in New York federal court Monday. It's been a long year since they first reached a settlement they deemed "historic," which would have granted Google unique rights to continue scanning out-of-print yet copyright-protected books as it builds out a digital library containing more than 10 million books, which also includes public domain works as well as books scanned through partnerships with publishers.
However, opposition to the settlement grew in the months following its release, and the intervention of the Department of Justice in September forced the parties to rework the settlement. Google has sought to downplay the changes that are in the works, but the filing will showcase just how much Google and author groups have had to bend in order to satisfy the government.
It's not clear how widespread the changes will be. The Justice Department objected to several items it found "serious in isolation, and, taken together, raise cause for concern." The principal objection seemed to concern the Books Rights Registry, a nonprofit organization set up by Google and the author groups to distribute royalty payments from Google Book Search to authors. The group's directors will be picked by the parties, and while Google insists that anyone else who wants to scan out-of-print books can negotiate with the Registry, some objectors are concerned that they won't be able to get the same deal that Google has received.
The main problem, however, is that the settlement effectively sets copyright law precedent by affirming Google's position that it was, and is, allowed to scan books that are out of print but protected by copyright under fair-use rights. This does not sit well with many, and ahead of the revised settlement's release, Google's loudest opponents made their case that Google and author groups should defer to Congress on this issue.
"Congress must retain the exclusive authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to set copyright policy," declared the Open Book Alliance, a group that includes the Internet Archive, Microsoft, Amazon, and Yahoo.
The revised settlement is expected to be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York late on Monday. It's believed that Judge Denny Chin will order some sort of waiting period for interested parties to review the settlement before holding a final hearing, perhaps in early 2010."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10392768-2.html
"Every book project is a series of deadlines. Google's faces an important one Monday.
Google and representatives for author and publisher groups are due to submit a revised Google Book Search settlement in New York federal court Monday. It's been a long year since they first reached a settlement they deemed "historic," which would have granted Google unique rights to continue scanning out-of-print yet copyright-protected books as it builds out a digital library containing more than 10 million books, which also includes public domain works as well as books scanned through partnerships with publishers.
However, opposition to the settlement grew in the months following its release, and the intervention of the Department of Justice in September forced the parties to rework the settlement. Google has sought to downplay the changes that are in the works, but the filing will showcase just how much Google and author groups have had to bend in order to satisfy the government.
It's not clear how widespread the changes will be. The Justice Department objected to several items it found "serious in isolation, and, taken together, raise cause for concern." The principal objection seemed to concern the Books Rights Registry, a nonprofit organization set up by Google and the author groups to distribute royalty payments from Google Book Search to authors. The group's directors will be picked by the parties, and while Google insists that anyone else who wants to scan out-of-print books can negotiate with the Registry, some objectors are concerned that they won't be able to get the same deal that Google has received.
The main problem, however, is that the settlement effectively sets copyright law precedent by affirming Google's position that it was, and is, allowed to scan books that are out of print but protected by copyright under fair-use rights. This does not sit well with many, and ahead of the revised settlement's release, Google's loudest opponents made their case that Google and author groups should defer to Congress on this issue.
"Congress must retain the exclusive authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to set copyright policy," declared the Open Book Alliance, a group that includes the Internet Archive, Microsoft, Amazon, and Yahoo.
The revised settlement is expected to be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York late on Monday. It's believed that Judge Denny Chin will order some sort of waiting period for interested parties to review the settlement before holding a final hearing, perhaps in early 2010."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10392768-2.html
Judge Rules Shepard Fairey Can Get New Lawyer; New York Times, 11/10/09
Melena Ryzik, New York Times; Judge Rules Shepard Fairey Can Get New Lawyer:
"The street artist Shepard Fairey has won the right to a new lawyer in his ongoing suit against The Associated Press over the image that became his celebrated Barack Obama “Hope” poster. In a pretrial hearing, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein also allowed that lawyers for The A.P. can depose Mr. Fairey and his outgoing lawyers before the end of the year, The A.P. reported. The agency and the artist are countersuing each other over the rights to the image, a photo taken in April 2006 at an event at the National Press Club in Washington. Mr. Fairey recently admitted that he had lied publicly and to his own lawyers about which image he had used, which caused them to abandon his case.
He later added that he still believed that his work fell under fair-use guidelines and did not infringe on the A.P.’s copyright, a claim which his new lawyer, Geoffrey Stewart, supported, and that the agency refuted."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/judge-rules-shepard-fairey-can-get-new-lawyer/?scp=1&sq=fairey&st=cse
"The street artist Shepard Fairey has won the right to a new lawyer in his ongoing suit against The Associated Press over the image that became his celebrated Barack Obama “Hope” poster. In a pretrial hearing, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein also allowed that lawyers for The A.P. can depose Mr. Fairey and his outgoing lawyers before the end of the year, The A.P. reported. The agency and the artist are countersuing each other over the rights to the image, a photo taken in April 2006 at an event at the National Press Club in Washington. Mr. Fairey recently admitted that he had lied publicly and to his own lawyers about which image he had used, which caused them to abandon his case.
He later added that he still believed that his work fell under fair-use guidelines and did not infringe on the A.P.’s copyright, a claim which his new lawyer, Geoffrey Stewart, supported, and that the agency refuted."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/judge-rules-shepard-fairey-can-get-new-lawyer/?scp=1&sq=fairey&st=cse
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
As Hollywood Insists Canada Is A Den Of Copyright Thieves, Movie Business Is Thriving; TechDirt, 11/11/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; As Hollywood Insists Canada Is A Den Of Copyright Thieves, Movie Business Is Thriving:
"For years, Hollywood has pushed a totally ridiculous claim that Canada is somehow a den of copyright thieves, and it needs to make its copyright laws much more strict. This fantasy has worked on journalists and politicians, who insist that the movie industry is dying in Canada due to rampant piracy. Except someone forgot to inform the real world. An anonymous reader sends over the news that the owners of Cineplex in Canada are reporting record box office sales and revenue, even with the current economic downturn."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091110/1202446880.shtml
"For years, Hollywood has pushed a totally ridiculous claim that Canada is somehow a den of copyright thieves, and it needs to make its copyright laws much more strict. This fantasy has worked on journalists and politicians, who insist that the movie industry is dying in Canada due to rampant piracy. Except someone forgot to inform the real world. An anonymous reader sends over the news that the owners of Cineplex in Canada are reporting record box office sales and revenue, even with the current economic downturn."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091110/1202446880.shtml
What is Acta and what should I know about it?; Guardian, 11/11/09
Bobbie Johnson, Guardian; What is Acta and what should I know about it?:
""Unlike other high-powered government meetings – which are often accompanied by protests and brouhaha – Acta, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, has been progressing for two years without much fanfare.
Supporters say the treaty will help create a broad consensus on how to deal with counterfeit goods: the kind of legislation usually aimed at criminals who mass-manufacture and sell pirate DVDs, or flood the market with dangerous fake products such as batteries and electrical equipment. In truth, the treaty also contains suggestions for the control of internet content that some believe could radically alter the nature of copyright law worldwide.
According to information that leaked from a secret meeting in South Korea last week, officials are proposing new ways to deal with intellectual property infringement online, including a global three-strikes law that could effectively override any British laws, regardless of whether or not the controversial Mandelson plan goes through parliament...
On top of all this, say campaigners, Acta is being thrashed out in total secrecy – leaving everyone guessing at what laws might be on the way. Professor Michael Geist, a prominent legal expert at the University of Ottowa, says this cloak-and-dagger approach is part of a wider set of problems with the treaty.
"A copyright agreement is being treated akin to nuclear secrets, with virtually no transparency but for a few leaks that have emerged," he told CBC. "As a policy-making matter, it's enormously problematic – but then the provisions associated with the treaty are even more problematic."...
The US government appears to be pushing for three strikes – despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European parliament," said Gwen Hinze of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, adding that the leaks "confirmed everything that we feared"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/11/acta-trade-agreement
""Unlike other high-powered government meetings – which are often accompanied by protests and brouhaha – Acta, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, has been progressing for two years without much fanfare.
Supporters say the treaty will help create a broad consensus on how to deal with counterfeit goods: the kind of legislation usually aimed at criminals who mass-manufacture and sell pirate DVDs, or flood the market with dangerous fake products such as batteries and electrical equipment. In truth, the treaty also contains suggestions for the control of internet content that some believe could radically alter the nature of copyright law worldwide.
According to information that leaked from a secret meeting in South Korea last week, officials are proposing new ways to deal with intellectual property infringement online, including a global three-strikes law that could effectively override any British laws, regardless of whether or not the controversial Mandelson plan goes through parliament...
On top of all this, say campaigners, Acta is being thrashed out in total secrecy – leaving everyone guessing at what laws might be on the way. Professor Michael Geist, a prominent legal expert at the University of Ottowa, says this cloak-and-dagger approach is part of a wider set of problems with the treaty.
"A copyright agreement is being treated akin to nuclear secrets, with virtually no transparency but for a few leaks that have emerged," he told CBC. "As a policy-making matter, it's enormously problematic – but then the provisions associated with the treaty are even more problematic."...
The US government appears to be pushing for three strikes – despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European parliament," said Gwen Hinze of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, adding that the leaks "confirmed everything that we feared"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/11/acta-trade-agreement
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The ACTA Internet provisions: DMCA goes worldwide; Ars Technica, 11/08/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; The ACTA Internet provisions: DMCA goes worldwide:
New details about the Internet section of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) have leaked, and critics are already claiming that they mandate "three strikes" policies and will put an end to Flickr and YouTube. The reality is less sensational but just as important: ACTA is really about taking the DMCA global.
"The statements are strong, but the document they are based on is not. As the ACTA countries (Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Korea, the US, etc.) meet in South Korea this week to hash out the provisions of the treaty dealing with the Internet, multiple reports began to circulate based on "sources" and a leaked document from the EU. Turns out, though, that all of these sources were actually the same one: the leaked EU document, which is now widely available for download (PDF)...
The real problem here is not for US residents, but for everyone else. ACTA is clearly an attempt to bring DMCA ideas like "notice and takedown" to other countries that don't currently use them. For instance, some other countries currently use and prefer a "notice and notice" scheme in which an ISP is not required to takedown allegedly infringing material after receiving a simple notice, but only to forward that notice on to the relevant subscriber.
Extending the anticircumvention language to the rest of the world will also be novel (in a bad way) for other countries, which could follow the US path of allowing DRM to trump copyright law and fair use rights. (Which is why it's pleasing to see that the US negotiators are open to fair use and to country-by-country exceptions to such rules.)...
ACTA is looking a good deal less scary than when it first appeared, but that's no reason for the public to back off its attempts to see what's being negotiated in its name."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/the-acta-internet-provisions-dmca-goes-worldwide.ars
New details about the Internet section of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) have leaked, and critics are already claiming that they mandate "three strikes" policies and will put an end to Flickr and YouTube. The reality is less sensational but just as important: ACTA is really about taking the DMCA global.
"The statements are strong, but the document they are based on is not. As the ACTA countries (Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Korea, the US, etc.) meet in South Korea this week to hash out the provisions of the treaty dealing with the Internet, multiple reports began to circulate based on "sources" and a leaked document from the EU. Turns out, though, that all of these sources were actually the same one: the leaked EU document, which is now widely available for download (PDF)...
The real problem here is not for US residents, but for everyone else. ACTA is clearly an attempt to bring DMCA ideas like "notice and takedown" to other countries that don't currently use them. For instance, some other countries currently use and prefer a "notice and notice" scheme in which an ISP is not required to takedown allegedly infringing material after receiving a simple notice, but only to forward that notice on to the relevant subscriber.
Extending the anticircumvention language to the rest of the world will also be novel (in a bad way) for other countries, which could follow the US path of allowing DRM to trump copyright law and fair use rights. (Which is why it's pleasing to see that the US negotiators are open to fair use and to country-by-country exceptions to such rules.)...
ACTA is looking a good deal less scary than when it first appeared, but that's no reason for the public to back off its attempts to see what's being negotiated in its name."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/the-acta-internet-provisions-dmca-goes-worldwide.ars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)