Eric Pfanner, New York Times; YouTube Can’t Be Liable on Copyright, Spain Rules:
"A Spanish court on Thursday sided with Google in a dispute with the broadcaster Telecinco, saying Google’s online video-sharing service, YouTube, did not have to screen television clips for potential copyright violations before posting them on the site.
The decision, by a commercial court in Madrid, follows a similar ruling in the United States in June, when a judge rejected copyright infringement claims against YouTube by the media company Viacom. Like the American court, the judge in Madrid said YouTube was not liable as long as it removed copyrighted material when notified by the rights holder."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/technology/24google.html?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Copyright and Football: A Guest Post; New York Times, Freakonomics, 9/17/10
Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman, New York Times, Freakonomics; Copyright and Football: A Guest Post:
"Kal Raustiala, a professor at UCLA Law School and the UCLA International Institute, and Chris Sprigman, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, are experts in counterfeiting and intellectual property. They have been guest-blogging for us about copyright issues. Today, they write about copyrighting and football."
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/copyrighting-football-a-guest-post/?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse
"Kal Raustiala, a professor at UCLA Law School and the UCLA International Institute, and Chris Sprigman, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, are experts in counterfeiting and intellectual property. They have been guest-blogging for us about copyright issues. Today, they write about copyrighting and football."
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/copyrighting-football-a-guest-post/?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Stevie Wonder to UN: Ease Copyrights for the Blind; ABC News via Associated Press, 9/20/10
Bradley S. Klapper, ABC News via Associated Press; Stevie Wonder to UN: Ease Copyrights for the Blind: Stevie Wonder urges UN diplomats to pass treaty helping the blind or face his musical wrath:
"Stevie Wonder pressed global copyright overseers on Monday to help blind and visually impaired people access millions of science, history and other audiobooks, which they cannot read in electronic form.
The blind singer told the U.N.'s 184-nation World Intellectual Property Organization that more than 300 million people who "live in the dark" want to "read their way into light," and the current copyright system denies them an equal opportunity...
But the problem of access for such copyrighted material goes to the heart of a growing crisis in the world of copyright protection, as the Internet increasingly muddies laws that were created for traditional media. Whereas wide exceptions exist for books in Braille, WIPO officials say there is confusion over how these benefits can be translated into the digital age."
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=11679443
"Stevie Wonder pressed global copyright overseers on Monday to help blind and visually impaired people access millions of science, history and other audiobooks, which they cannot read in electronic form.
The blind singer told the U.N.'s 184-nation World Intellectual Property Organization that more than 300 million people who "live in the dark" want to "read their way into light," and the current copyright system denies them an equal opportunity...
But the problem of access for such copyrighted material goes to the heart of a growing crisis in the world of copyright protection, as the Internet increasingly muddies laws that were created for traditional media. Whereas wide exceptions exist for books in Braille, WIPO officials say there is confusion over how these benefits can be translated into the digital age."
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=11679443
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Google's publishing free for all undermines our literary tradition; (London) Guardian, 9/19/10
Robert McCrum, (London) Guardian; Google's publishing free for all undermines our literary tradition: The 'dark threat of digitisation' is being underestimated, warns Robert McCrum, even by enlightened critics such as Andre Schiffrin:
"There's a lot that's passionate and useful in Schiffrin's anguished analysis. He is right to identify a healthy market as the key to a vital culture and vigorous democracy. His heart is certainly in the right place, but strangely, for a book entitled Words and Money, he never fully addresses the thorny question of "free", as articulated by Anderson, James Boyle (The Public Domain) and Lawrence Lessig (Free Culture). I wish he had because this goes to the heart of the crisis faced by print at the moment...
Johnson was right. Words that get written for money are likely to be superior to words spun out for nothing, on a whim. California's "free" movement wants to argue that literary copyright is an intolerable restriction of the public's right to access information, and that words should be free. That's a profound threat to the western intellectual tradition. I hope that André Schiffrin, having raised the alarm about the demise of serious publishing and journalism, will urgently turn his attention to the new, possibly darker, threat of digitisation and its consequences."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/sep/19/literature-google-publishing-threat-mccrum
"There's a lot that's passionate and useful in Schiffrin's anguished analysis. He is right to identify a healthy market as the key to a vital culture and vigorous democracy. His heart is certainly in the right place, but strangely, for a book entitled Words and Money, he never fully addresses the thorny question of "free", as articulated by Anderson, James Boyle (The Public Domain) and Lawrence Lessig (Free Culture). I wish he had because this goes to the heart of the crisis faced by print at the moment...
Johnson was right. Words that get written for money are likely to be superior to words spun out for nothing, on a whim. California's "free" movement wants to argue that literary copyright is an intolerable restriction of the public's right to access information, and that words should be free. That's a profound threat to the western intellectual tradition. I hope that André Schiffrin, having raised the alarm about the demise of serious publishing and journalism, will urgently turn his attention to the new, possibly darker, threat of digitisation and its consequences."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/sep/19/literature-google-publishing-threat-mccrum
Friday, September 17, 2010
Designers Get Fierce With Copyright On The Catwalk; NPR's Morning Edition, 9/16/10
Kaomi Goetz, NPR's Morning Edition; Designers Get Fierce With Copyright On The Catwalk:
"The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act, introduced in August by New York Sen. Charles Schumer and now pending in Congress, would be the first piece of legislation to provide copyright protection — for three years in this case — to new and inventive designs. It's not much compared with the 25 years of protection European laws provide, but it's a start...
That's because the U.S. is one of a few countries that don't have copyright protection for fashion, which American courts have long viewed as utilitarian — a craft rather than an art — and therefore haven’t protected in the same way as other creative fields like film or music."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129834984
"The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act, introduced in August by New York Sen. Charles Schumer and now pending in Congress, would be the first piece of legislation to provide copyright protection — for three years in this case — to new and inventive designs. It's not much compared with the 25 years of protection European laws provide, but it's a start...
That's because the U.S. is one of a few countries that don't have copyright protection for fashion, which American courts have long viewed as utilitarian — a craft rather than an art — and therefore haven’t protected in the same way as other creative fields like film or music."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129834984
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Marley family loses copyright battle; MSN Music News, 9/14/10
MSN Music News; Marley family loses copyright battle:
"The family of reggae legend Bob Marley has lost a lawsuit seeking ownership of his most famous tracks.
Executives at UMG Recordings were declared the rightful owners of copyrights to five albums that Marley recorded between 1973 and 1977 for Island Records...
...U.S. District Judge Denise Cote ruled that Bob Marley's recordings were "works made for hire" as defined under U.S. copyright law, entitling UMG to be designated the owner of those recordings, for both the initial 28-year copyright terms and for renewals."
http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=595415
"The family of reggae legend Bob Marley has lost a lawsuit seeking ownership of his most famous tracks.
Executives at UMG Recordings were declared the rightful owners of copyrights to five albums that Marley recorded between 1973 and 1977 for Island Records...
...U.S. District Judge Denise Cote ruled that Bob Marley's recordings were "works made for hire" as defined under U.S. copyright law, entitling UMG to be designated the owner of those recordings, for both the initial 28-year copyright terms and for renewals."
http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=595415
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Lost tapes of classic British television found in the US; (London) Guardian, 9/12/10
Vanessa Thorpe, (London) Guardian; Lost tapes of classic British television found in the US: Treasure trove of drama from the 'golden age of television' discovered in Library of Congress after more than 40 years:
"The Library of Congress initially approached Kaleidoscope, the classic TV experts, who took the good news to the BBC and ITV this spring. "We brokered the deal for the BFI because so many different companies have copyright over the material," wrote Kaleidoscope's Chris Perry in a blog this weekend."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/sep/12/lost-tapes-classic-british-television
"The Library of Congress initially approached Kaleidoscope, the classic TV experts, who took the good news to the BBC and ITV this spring. "We brokered the deal for the BFI because so many different companies have copyright over the material," wrote Kaleidoscope's Chris Perry in a blog this weekend."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/sep/12/lost-tapes-classic-british-television
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
European Parliament passes anti-ACTA declaration; ArsTechnica.com, 9/8/10
Nate Anderson, ArsTechnica.com; European Parliament passes anti-ACTA declaration:
"Today 377 members of the European Parliament adopted a written declaration on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in which they demand greater transparency, assert that ISPs should not up end being liable for data sent through their networks, and say that ACTA "should not force limitations upon judicial due process or weaken fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy."
The "written declaration" has no binding force".
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/european-parliament-passes-anti-acta-declaration.ars
"Today 377 members of the European Parliament adopted a written declaration on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in which they demand greater transparency, assert that ISPs should not up end being liable for data sent through their networks, and say that ACTA "should not force limitations upon judicial due process or weaken fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy."
The "written declaration" has no binding force".
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/european-parliament-passes-anti-acta-declaration.ars
Film Piracy is Robbing American Workers; HuffingtonPost.com, 9/3/10
Matthew D. Loeb, HuffingtonPost.com; Film Piracy is Robbing American Workers:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-d-loeb/film-piracy-is-robbing-am_b_705121.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-d-loeb/film-piracy-is-robbing-am_b_705121.html
The High Cost of Free Culture; HuffingtonPost.com, 8/24/10
Bevin Carnes, HuffingtonPost.com; The High Cost of Free Culture:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bevin-carnes/post_740_b_692901.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bevin-carnes/post_740_b_692901.html
Village Voice writer sues author Gerald Posner for lifting chunks of mob book for 'Miami Babylon'; New York Daily News, 9/7/10
Scott Shifrel, New York Daily News; Village Voice writer sues author Gerald Posner for lifting chunks of mob book for 'Miami Babylon':
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/07/2010-09-07_village_voice_writer_sues_author_gerald_posner_for_lifting_chunks_of_mob_book_fo.html#ixzz0yzkUUJgn
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/07/2010-09-07_village_voice_writer_sues_author_gerald_posner_for_lifting_chunks_of_mob_book_fo.html#ixzz0yzkUUJgn
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Un-Google That; ABA Journal, 9/1/10
Brendan L. Smith, ABA Journal; Un-Google That: Google's new pact may have crisscrossed copyright law:
"At the fairness hearing for the Google Books settlement, an overflow crowd filled U.S. District Judge Denny Chin's Manhattan courtroom and spilled into a separate room where spectators watched a video feed.
"Voluminous materials have been submitted, and we are working our way through them," Chin said at the Feb. 18 hearing. "There is a lot of repetition. Some of the submissions even quote some of the other submissions. I'm reading them twice."
The agreement weighs in at 179 pages with 16 attachments, and it has been opposed on several fronts, with the Justice Department raising antitrust concerns alongside authors' claims of copyright infringement."
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/un-google_that/78714/
"At the fairness hearing for the Google Books settlement, an overflow crowd filled U.S. District Judge Denny Chin's Manhattan courtroom and spilled into a separate room where spectators watched a video feed.
"Voluminous materials have been submitted, and we are working our way through them," Chin said at the Feb. 18 hearing. "There is a lot of repetition. Some of the submissions even quote some of the other submissions. I'm reading them twice."
The agreement weighs in at 179 pages with 16 attachments, and it has been opposed on several fronts, with the Justice Department raising antitrust concerns alongside authors' claims of copyright infringement."
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/un-google_that/78714/
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Appeals court rules game films showing NFL team's 1st logo violates artist's copyright; Los Angeles Times, 9/2/10
Larry O'Dell, Los Angeles Times; Appeals court rules game films showing NFL team's 1st logo violates artist's copyright:
"An amateur artist who designed the original logo used by the Baltimore Ravens won a partial victory Thursday when a federal appeals court ruled the commercial use of game and highlight films from the Ravens' first three seasons violates his copyright."
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-ravens-logo-suit,0,6282798.story
"An amateur artist who designed the original logo used by the Baltimore Ravens won a partial victory Thursday when a federal appeals court ruled the commercial use of game and highlight films from the Ravens' first three seasons violates his copyright."
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-ravens-logo-suit,0,6282798.story
Sharron Angle hit with R-J copyright infringement lawsuit; Las Vegas Sun, 9/3/10
Steve Green, Las Vegas Sun; Sharron Angle hit with R-J copyright infringement lawsuit:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/03/sharron-angle-hit-r-j-copyright-lawsuit/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/03/sharron-angle-hit-r-j-copyright-lawsuit/
Is The Contract Cast Members Sign To Be On Survivor Covered By Copyright? CBS Thinks So...; TechDirt.com, 9/3/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; Is The Contract Cast Members Sign To Be On Survivor Covered By Copyright? CBS Thinks So...:
"Eric Goldman points us to the news that CBS sent a DMCA takedown to Scribd after the reality TV site RealityBlurred.com uploaded a copy of the contract castmembers sign before being able to go on the show Survivor, as well as a copy of the "rulebook" they receive. CBS apparently claimed that both of these were covered by copyright. Thankfully, RealityBlurred filed a counternotice, claiming fair use due to its use for reporting and commentary -- leading to a scary two week period where CBS would have to sue if it wanted to keep the document offline. However, the two weeks passed and CBS did not respond to notification from Scribd, meaning that the Survivor Contract and the Survivor Rulebook are back online."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/15345210865.shtml
"Eric Goldman points us to the news that CBS sent a DMCA takedown to Scribd after the reality TV site RealityBlurred.com uploaded a copy of the contract castmembers sign before being able to go on the show Survivor, as well as a copy of the "rulebook" they receive. CBS apparently claimed that both of these were covered by copyright. Thankfully, RealityBlurred filed a counternotice, claiming fair use due to its use for reporting and commentary -- leading to a scary two week period where CBS would have to sue if it wanted to keep the document offline. However, the two weeks passed and CBS did not respond to notification from Scribd, meaning that the Survivor Contract and the Survivor Rulebook are back online."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/15345210865.shtml
Bartenders Looking For Greater Intellectual Property Protection For Drinks; TechDirt.com, 9/2/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; Bartenders Looking For Greater Intellectual Property Protection For Drinks:
"Copycense points us to yet another story about another person in another industry whining about not getting enough monopoly privileges from the government. This time, believe it or not, it's bartenders wanting to protect mixed drink recipes. Seriously. Unfortunately, the writeup at the Atlantic, by food writer Chantal Martineau seems to get an awful lot of points about intellectual property totally mixed up. The article slips back and forth between trademark law and copyright law (which are extremely different) and then has this whopper:
The publication of a recipe can be legally protected, but the "expression of an idea," as the lawyers in the seminar explained, cannot. It's the reason musicians can't be sued for covering another band's song in a live show.
So many things wrong in two short sentences. First of all, no, the publication of a recipe cannot be protected. Straight from the US Copyright Office: "Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection." That said, if there is "substantial literary expression" in, say, the description of how to prepare the recipe that part (and that part alone) could be covered by copyright, but that should have little impact on bartenders making similar mixed drinks. Also, copyright is, in fact, supposed to protect the expression, contrary to the statement above. This is the whole basis of the idea-expression dichotomy, which Martineau seems to get backwards. As for why musicians can't be sued for covering another band's song in a live show, that's got nothing to do with the difference between an expression and an idea, and everything to do with performance rights licenses from venues to PROs like ASCAP and BMI that (in theory) are supposed to cover the copyright (yes, there is one) on the composition."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/17381410868.shtml
"Copycense points us to yet another story about another person in another industry whining about not getting enough monopoly privileges from the government. This time, believe it or not, it's bartenders wanting to protect mixed drink recipes. Seriously. Unfortunately, the writeup at the Atlantic, by food writer Chantal Martineau seems to get an awful lot of points about intellectual property totally mixed up. The article slips back and forth between trademark law and copyright law (which are extremely different) and then has this whopper:
The publication of a recipe can be legally protected, but the "expression of an idea," as the lawyers in the seminar explained, cannot. It's the reason musicians can't be sued for covering another band's song in a live show.
So many things wrong in two short sentences. First of all, no, the publication of a recipe cannot be protected. Straight from the US Copyright Office: "Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection." That said, if there is "substantial literary expression" in, say, the description of how to prepare the recipe that part (and that part alone) could be covered by copyright, but that should have little impact on bartenders making similar mixed drinks. Also, copyright is, in fact, supposed to protect the expression, contrary to the statement above. This is the whole basis of the idea-expression dichotomy, which Martineau seems to get backwards. As for why musicians can't be sued for covering another band's song in a live show, that's got nothing to do with the difference between an expression and an idea, and everything to do with performance rights licenses from venues to PROs like ASCAP and BMI that (in theory) are supposed to cover the copyright (yes, there is one) on the composition."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/17381410868.shtml
The Era of Copyrighted Cocktails?; Atlantic, 8/31/10
Chantal Martineau, Atlantic; The Era of Copyrighted Cocktails?:
"So, can a cocktail be copyrighted? In short, no. The publication of a recipe can be legally protected, but the [following portion between brackets crossed out as correction for error in updated version of article] ["expression of an idea,"] idea of the recipe, as the lawyers in the seminar explained, cannot. [following portion between brackets crossed out as correction for error in updated version of article] [It's the reason musicians can't be sued for covering another band's song in a live show.] But few bartenders publish their recipes. They tend to pass them on as an oral tradition."
http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/08/the-era-of-copyrighted-cocktails/62153/
"So, can a cocktail be copyrighted? In short, no. The publication of a recipe can be legally protected, but the [following portion between brackets crossed out as correction for error in updated version of article] ["expression of an idea,"] idea of the recipe, as the lawyers in the seminar explained, cannot. [following portion between brackets crossed out as correction for error in updated version of article] [It's the reason musicians can't be sued for covering another band's song in a live show.] But few bartenders publish their recipes. They tend to pass them on as an oral tradition."
http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/08/the-era-of-copyrighted-cocktails/62153/
Copyright breaches land group in trouble; Sydney Morning Herald,
Kate Benson, Sydney Morning Herald; Copyright breaches land group in trouble:
"An anti-vaccination group is under fire for allegedly breaching copyright laws by selling newspaper and medical journal articles online without permission from the authors.
The Australian Vaccination Network, which was the subject of a public warning issued by the Health Care Complaints Commission last month, withdrew 11 information packs from its website yesterday after complaints from authors.
The packs, which were selling for up to $128, included home-made books filled with articles photocopied from journals around the world, information on drugs taken from MIMS, the medical guide used by doctors and nurses, and copies of brochures inserted in medication boxes by pharmaceutical companies.
Under the Copyright Act, articles can be copied for personal research or for use by students but cannot be disseminated widely or sold...
Mary-Anne Toy, from The Age newspaper, said she did not recall giving the network permission to sell her work and would seek payment. Leigh Dayton, a science reporter at The Australian newspaper, was also unaware her story was being sold.
Kate Haddock, a copyright lawyer, said those found breaching the law could face substantial damages.
Damages would increase if articles were reproduced in a way which would cause readers to think less of the writers, Ms Haddock said."
http://www.smh.com.au/national/copyright-breaches-land-group-in-trouble-20100831-14fna.html
"An anti-vaccination group is under fire for allegedly breaching copyright laws by selling newspaper and medical journal articles online without permission from the authors.
The Australian Vaccination Network, which was the subject of a public warning issued by the Health Care Complaints Commission last month, withdrew 11 information packs from its website yesterday after complaints from authors.
The packs, which were selling for up to $128, included home-made books filled with articles photocopied from journals around the world, information on drugs taken from MIMS, the medical guide used by doctors and nurses, and copies of brochures inserted in medication boxes by pharmaceutical companies.
Under the Copyright Act, articles can be copied for personal research or for use by students but cannot be disseminated widely or sold...
Mary-Anne Toy, from The Age newspaper, said she did not recall giving the network permission to sell her work and would seek payment. Leigh Dayton, a science reporter at The Australian newspaper, was also unaware her story was being sold.
Kate Haddock, a copyright lawyer, said those found breaching the law could face substantial damages.
Damages would increase if articles were reproduced in a way which would cause readers to think less of the writers, Ms Haddock said."
http://www.smh.com.au/national/copyright-breaches-land-group-in-trouble-20100831-14fna.html
German court rules against YouTube over copyright; Sydney Morning Herald, 8/27/10
Sydney Morning Herald; German court rules against YouTube over copyright:
"A German court ruled Friday that Google Inc.'s subsidiary YouTube LLC must pay compensation after users uploaded several videos of performances by singer Sarah Brightman in violation of copyright laws.
The Hamburg state court said the standardized question to users about whether they have the necessary rights to publish material is not enough to relieve YouTube of the legal responsibility for the content, especially because the platform can be used anonymously.
The wording of the court statement appears to be a major blow to YouTube's business model, but Google Germany spokesman Henning Dorstewitz told The Associated Press YouTube will appeal the decision detailed in the 60-page ruling."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/german-court-rules-against-youtube-over-copyright-20100827-13w8o.html
"A German court ruled Friday that Google Inc.'s subsidiary YouTube LLC must pay compensation after users uploaded several videos of performances by singer Sarah Brightman in violation of copyright laws.
The Hamburg state court said the standardized question to users about whether they have the necessary rights to publish material is not enough to relieve YouTube of the legal responsibility for the content, especially because the platform can be used anonymously.
The wording of the court statement appears to be a major blow to YouTube's business model, but Google Germany spokesman Henning Dorstewitz told The Associated Press YouTube will appeal the decision detailed in the 60-page ruling."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/german-court-rules-against-youtube-over-copyright-20100827-13w8o.html
Indonesia is Asia copyright pirate centre: survey; Sydney Morning Herald, 8/25/10
Sydney Morning Herald; Indonesia is Asia copyright pirate centre: survey:
"Indonesia has the worst record when it comes to protecting intellectual property rights (IPR) in Asia and Singapore the best, a survey of expatriate business people showed Wednesday...
"Of the emerging Asian countries, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are all poorly rated not only for their low level of IPR protection but also for such criteria as physical infrastructure, bureaucratic inefficiency and labour limitations," PERC said.
China also came under strong scrutiny because of the sheer size of its economy and the presence of large companies "capable of using pirated technology to compete in foreign markets," said PERC."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/indonesia-is-asia-copyright-pirate-centre-survey-20100825-13rzi.html
"Indonesia has the worst record when it comes to protecting intellectual property rights (IPR) in Asia and Singapore the best, a survey of expatriate business people showed Wednesday...
"Of the emerging Asian countries, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines are all poorly rated not only for their low level of IPR protection but also for such criteria as physical infrastructure, bureaucratic inefficiency and labour limitations," PERC said.
China also came under strong scrutiny because of the sheer size of its economy and the presence of large companies "capable of using pirated technology to compete in foreign markets," said PERC."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/indonesia-is-asia-copyright-pirate-centre-survey-20100825-13rzi.html
Lost in translation: why have we declared war on foreign dramatists?; (London) Guardian, 9/1/10
John M. Morrison; (London) Guardian; Lost in translation: why have we declared war on foreign dramatists?: Classic plays in foreign languages are being rewritten for modern audiences who have no idea that what they're seeing is quite different from, and vastly inferior to, the originals:
"Whatever will these silly foreigners get up to next? Did you hear about the Chinese version of Hamlet that gave the play a happy ending? Surely we all know you can't rewrite the classics, and my Chinese example is imaginary. But British theatre commits artistic assault and battery of this kind on an increasingly regular basis. The victims, sprawled in the wings with their scripts torn to shreds are invariably playwrights who had the misfortune not to write in English...
One can argue that in the theatre anything goes, particularly when the author is safely dead and long out of copyright. But one of the principles that marks off theatre from film is respect for the artistic integrity of the author's text, even when he or she is no longer around to complain. That's why we squirm to think of Nahum Tate reworking King Lear in the 1680s to give Shakespeare's tragedy a happy ending."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2010/sep/01/lost-translation-war-foreign-dramatists
"Whatever will these silly foreigners get up to next? Did you hear about the Chinese version of Hamlet that gave the play a happy ending? Surely we all know you can't rewrite the classics, and my Chinese example is imaginary. But British theatre commits artistic assault and battery of this kind on an increasingly regular basis. The victims, sprawled in the wings with their scripts torn to shreds are invariably playwrights who had the misfortune not to write in English...
One can argue that in the theatre anything goes, particularly when the author is safely dead and long out of copyright. But one of the principles that marks off theatre from film is respect for the artistic integrity of the author's text, even when he or she is no longer around to complain. That's why we squirm to think of Nahum Tate reworking King Lear in the 1680s to give Shakespeare's tragedy a happy ending."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2010/sep/01/lost-translation-war-foreign-dramatists
Thursday, September 2, 2010
YouTube Deals Turn Piracy Into Revenue; New York Times, 9/3/10
Claire Cain Miller, New York Times; YouTube Deals Turn Piracy Into Revenue:
"In the past, Lions Gate, which owns the rights to the “Mad Men” clip, might have requested that TomR35’s version be taken down. But it has decided to leave clips like this up, and in return, YouTube runs ads with the video and splits the revenue with Lions Gate.
Remarkably, more than one-third of the two billion views of YouTube videos with ads each week are like TomR35’s “Mad Men” clip — uploaded without the copyright owner’s permission but left up by the owner’s choice. They are automatically recognized by YouTube, using a system called Content ID that scans videos and compares them to material provided by copyright owners."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html?_r=1&ref=technology
"In the past, Lions Gate, which owns the rights to the “Mad Men” clip, might have requested that TomR35’s version be taken down. But it has decided to leave clips like this up, and in return, YouTube runs ads with the video and splits the revenue with Lions Gate.
Remarkably, more than one-third of the two billion views of YouTube videos with ads each week are like TomR35’s “Mad Men” clip — uploaded without the copyright owner’s permission but left up by the owner’s choice. They are automatically recognized by YouTube, using a system called Content ID that scans videos and compares them to material provided by copyright owners."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html?_r=1&ref=technology
Of Two Minds About Books; New York Times, 9/2/10
Matt Richtel and Claire Cain Miller, New York Times; Of Two Minds About Books:
"By the end of this year, 10.3 million people are expected to own e-readers in the United States, buying about 100 million e-books, the market research company Forrester predicts. This is up from 3.7 million e-readers and 30 million e-books sold last year.
The trend is wreaking havoc inside the publishing industry, but inside homes, the plot takes a personal twist as couples find themselves torn over the “right way” to read. At bedtime, a couple might sit side-by-side, one turning pages by lamplight and the other reading Caecilia font in E Ink on a Kindle or backlighted by the illuminated LCD screen of an iPad, each quietly judgmental.
Although there are no statistics on how widespread the battles are, the publishing industry is paying close attention, trying to figure out how to market books to households that read in different ways.
A few publishers and bookstores are testing the bundling of print books with e-books at a discount."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/technology/02couples.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=print%20pixels&st=cse
"By the end of this year, 10.3 million people are expected to own e-readers in the United States, buying about 100 million e-books, the market research company Forrester predicts. This is up from 3.7 million e-readers and 30 million e-books sold last year.
The trend is wreaking havoc inside the publishing industry, but inside homes, the plot takes a personal twist as couples find themselves torn over the “right way” to read. At bedtime, a couple might sit side-by-side, one turning pages by lamplight and the other reading Caecilia font in E Ink on a Kindle or backlighted by the illuminated LCD screen of an iPad, each quietly judgmental.
Although there are no statistics on how widespread the battles are, the publishing industry is paying close attention, trying to figure out how to market books to households that read in different ways.
A few publishers and bookstores are testing the bundling of print books with e-books at a discount."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/technology/02couples.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=print%20pixels&st=cse
Mark Waid on Delivery, Content, and the Gulf Between; ComicBookResources.com, 9/1/10
Mark Waid, ComicBookResources.com; Mark Waid on Delivery, Content, and the Gulf Between:
"So I was asked to deliver the keynote speech at the Harvey Awards this year. And I worked hard on it. Really hard. Notecard set after notecard set, document after document, draft after draft. Because I’d chosen a topic that I’m practically evangelical about, the tough part wasn’t coming up with stuff to say--the tough part was winnowing down the number of ideas. I went through an entire pocket notebook’s worth of paper writing and re-writing right up until my cue to speak. And that’s because I wanted to hit a home run. I really, really wanted to knock it out of the park in front of my peers.
And I didn’t.
I was uncharacteristically nervous, and it showed. I just listened to a partial recording, and while it was probably a solid double and not nearly as botched as I want to remember, to my ears, that speech was an absolute train wreck. I joked a few times about it being “a vodka-fueled rant” to cover my nervousness, but now that I listen to a playback, I get why some of the people in the room were ready to throw a punch: I didn't hit the points hard enough that I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN'T GET PAID and I’M NOT ARGUING AGAINST OWNERSHIP. I did say those things, more than once, but not often enough and not at all in the back half of the speech, and I’m pretty sure that’s how I lost some of the audience, because I went off on tangents about sharing, and tangents are really dangerous territory when your speech doesn’t even begin until nearly 10:00 at night.
Worse, at least one audience member misinterpreted my speech as suggesting we should do away altogether with copyright and ownership and disagreed aggressively, and while that wasn’t at all what was said, if my message was misheard, I regret that profoundly and apologize to the listeners.
But while I may have fumbled the delivery, I’m still proud of the content (and would like it stated for the record that at no time did I “defend piracy”; seeing my speech reported as such really misses the point.) There is no written text, so no official transcript exists thus far, but Jonah Weiland has invited me to CBR to re-deliver the reconstructed speech to all (with its points better organized--I’m less nervous at a keyboard than I am with Jerry Robinson and Denny O’Neil staring expectantly back at me, go figure), so ready the tomatoes...
I’ve been asked a lot to speak about digital, because it’s such a passion with me and I’m such an advocate. But saying “Let’s cheer for digital comics!” seems kind of mundane. I want to talk tonight instead about how we fret about downloads and "piracy" and their impact. How we’re in danger because people are breaking copyright. But, first, let's talk a little about copyright and its history.
What most people don’t realize about copyright is that it was originally conceived to protect not artists but the public domain--to ensure that artists and writers and their heirs couldn’t have perpetual ownership of their work until the end of time because, at some point, the sentiment went, you ought to have to give back to culture the same way you, I, and all artists draw from it. Certainly, you should benefit from your work, and you should have legal protection, but I find it interesting that the original intent was to deliver ides back into the public domain.
Then, three hundred years ago exactly this year, publishers co-opted the copyright concept to create what are the foundation of today's copyright laws--but even then, they existed not to protect creative folks but, rather, publishers and printers. Copyright was about making sure no one could bootleg the printed work and compete with legitimate, licensed printers. It was about protecting distribution. Public domain was still seen as important, however, because no one then or now can argue that Western civilization would be better if Shakespeare's heirs still controlled his works and they couldn't be read in schools without payment, or if you had to pay a fee every time you wanted to even look at a Degas. Culture is more important than copyright.
That copyright system, however imperfect, worked for centuries. It was a decent balance of copyright and culture--you were allowed to profit from your work during your lifetime, your heirs even got many years' grace period afterwards, and then it all went back into the pool of public domain at some point long after you were dead. But for the past several decades, megacorporations have turned copyright into a perpetual revenue machine for them that will never end and never expire. That's great for individual copyright holders who draft off of that momentum, but it’s lousy for culture. Worse, it's led to a mindset among creators that the only acceptable reward for creativity is dollars and cents...
...but that leaves culture and public domain out in the cold, and again, culture is more important than copyright. No one's saying we shouldn't be compensated for our work, but we are obliged to give back at some point. Moreover--and I know that in hard economic times like these, it's very hard to remember this--I would also offer that being able to contribute to culture, having the satisfaction of knowing that we've done work that is embraced by others, watching our ideas spread and seed new ideas--if you're calculating overall job compensation, that is not without value.
“Yes, Professor Waid, you hippie freak, sharing is all well and good, but how does that pay my bills?”
I know. I know. We all still should be financially compensated for hard work so we can keep doing this and make a decent living. No argument. And that brings us back around to filesharing. If you're genuinely morally indignant about this issue, I understand and respect that. But I worry that a lot of the moral indignation I hear over filesharing is just a way of trying to mask our panic over how our ability to make a living with our art is quickly eroding under the current business models. And I understand that fear. I really, truly do.
Look, if you are in comics just to make money, I can respect that. Honestly, no sarcasm. But if you are here to create a sustainable living for yourself while at the same time finding some way to give back to the world, then filesharing is not a problem...it’s an opportunity.
Like it or not, downloading is here. Torrents and filesharing are here. That's not going away. I'm not here to attack it or defend it--I'm not going to change anyone's mind either way, and everyone in America at this point has anecdotal evidence "proving" how it hurts or helps the medium--but I am here to say it isn’t going away--and fear of it, fear of filesharing, fear of illegal downloading, fear of how the internet changes publishing in the 21st century, that’s a legitimate fear, because we’re all worried about putting food on the table and leaving a legacy for our children, but we’re using our energy on something we can’t stop, because filesharing is not going away.
And I’ll tell you why. It’s not because people “like stealing.” It’s because the greatest societal change in the last five years is that we are entering an era of sharing. Twitter and YouTube and Facebook--they’re all about sharing. Sharing links, sharing photographs, sending some video of some cat doing something stupid--that’s the era we’re entering. And whether or not you’re sharing things that technically aren’t yours to share, whether or not you’re angry because you see this as a “generation of entitlement,” that’s not the issue--the issue is, it’s happening, and the internet’s ability to reward sharing has reignited this concept that the public domain has cultural value. And I understand if you are morally outraged about it and you believe to your core that an entire generation is criminal and they’re taking food off your table, I respect that.
But moral outrage is often how we deal with fear. It’s a false sense of empowerment in the face of fear. And I’m here to tell you, that if at core you’re reacting not out of moral outrage but out of fear of the internet and the whole way publishing seems to be headed--that’s good news. Because that’s something we can fix.
We are the smartest, most creative medium in America. We put out ideas on a periodical basis bam, bam, bam. We don’t put out a screenplay every three years. We don’t invent a TV show every ten years. There are more ideas in one Wednesday in one comic shop than in three years of Hollywood. We're notoriously bad businessmen, but we are unmatched for creativity and inventiveness, and there are ways to make filesharing work for us rather than cower in fear that it’s going to destroy us.
I'm going to be rolling out some ideas in the next few weeks on how I personally want to make torrents work for me, not take away from me, and how I plan to shift the paradigm. Lots of you already have similar ideas or will, as well. I’m not saying that to plug anything I’m doing; I just want to go on record that I’m willing to walk the walk. My ideas may work. They may not work. But I’m going to share them. And if they don’t work, I’m going to keep trying. And I’m going to set up forums by which we can share our ideas on this, and I invite us all to throw them around. I really want us to keep that dialogue open. But we can define the terms of 21st century publishing and not have them defined for us.
I don’t want to be afraid. I don’t want to enter my third decade of my career terrified that publishing’s going down the tubes when we have the power to affect it. In fact, we have the advantage of being able to watch how other media have mismanaged their attempts at digital for ten years and learn from their mistakes. We can--and we will--find ways to make the internet work for us and for the enrichment of culture."
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=28129
"So I was asked to deliver the keynote speech at the Harvey Awards this year. And I worked hard on it. Really hard. Notecard set after notecard set, document after document, draft after draft. Because I’d chosen a topic that I’m practically evangelical about, the tough part wasn’t coming up with stuff to say--the tough part was winnowing down the number of ideas. I went through an entire pocket notebook’s worth of paper writing and re-writing right up until my cue to speak. And that’s because I wanted to hit a home run. I really, really wanted to knock it out of the park in front of my peers.
And I didn’t.
I was uncharacteristically nervous, and it showed. I just listened to a partial recording, and while it was probably a solid double and not nearly as botched as I want to remember, to my ears, that speech was an absolute train wreck. I joked a few times about it being “a vodka-fueled rant” to cover my nervousness, but now that I listen to a playback, I get why some of the people in the room were ready to throw a punch: I didn't hit the points hard enough that I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN'T GET PAID and I’M NOT ARGUING AGAINST OWNERSHIP. I did say those things, more than once, but not often enough and not at all in the back half of the speech, and I’m pretty sure that’s how I lost some of the audience, because I went off on tangents about sharing, and tangents are really dangerous territory when your speech doesn’t even begin until nearly 10:00 at night.
Worse, at least one audience member misinterpreted my speech as suggesting we should do away altogether with copyright and ownership and disagreed aggressively, and while that wasn’t at all what was said, if my message was misheard, I regret that profoundly and apologize to the listeners.
But while I may have fumbled the delivery, I’m still proud of the content (and would like it stated for the record that at no time did I “defend piracy”; seeing my speech reported as such really misses the point.) There is no written text, so no official transcript exists thus far, but Jonah Weiland has invited me to CBR to re-deliver the reconstructed speech to all (with its points better organized--I’m less nervous at a keyboard than I am with Jerry Robinson and Denny O’Neil staring expectantly back at me, go figure), so ready the tomatoes...
I’ve been asked a lot to speak about digital, because it’s such a passion with me and I’m such an advocate. But saying “Let’s cheer for digital comics!” seems kind of mundane. I want to talk tonight instead about how we fret about downloads and "piracy" and their impact. How we’re in danger because people are breaking copyright. But, first, let's talk a little about copyright and its history.
What most people don’t realize about copyright is that it was originally conceived to protect not artists but the public domain--to ensure that artists and writers and their heirs couldn’t have perpetual ownership of their work until the end of time because, at some point, the sentiment went, you ought to have to give back to culture the same way you, I, and all artists draw from it. Certainly, you should benefit from your work, and you should have legal protection, but I find it interesting that the original intent was to deliver ides back into the public domain.
Then, three hundred years ago exactly this year, publishers co-opted the copyright concept to create what are the foundation of today's copyright laws--but even then, they existed not to protect creative folks but, rather, publishers and printers. Copyright was about making sure no one could bootleg the printed work and compete with legitimate, licensed printers. It was about protecting distribution. Public domain was still seen as important, however, because no one then or now can argue that Western civilization would be better if Shakespeare's heirs still controlled his works and they couldn't be read in schools without payment, or if you had to pay a fee every time you wanted to even look at a Degas. Culture is more important than copyright.
That copyright system, however imperfect, worked for centuries. It was a decent balance of copyright and culture--you were allowed to profit from your work during your lifetime, your heirs even got many years' grace period afterwards, and then it all went back into the pool of public domain at some point long after you were dead. But for the past several decades, megacorporations have turned copyright into a perpetual revenue machine for them that will never end and never expire. That's great for individual copyright holders who draft off of that momentum, but it’s lousy for culture. Worse, it's led to a mindset among creators that the only acceptable reward for creativity is dollars and cents...
...but that leaves culture and public domain out in the cold, and again, culture is more important than copyright. No one's saying we shouldn't be compensated for our work, but we are obliged to give back at some point. Moreover--and I know that in hard economic times like these, it's very hard to remember this--I would also offer that being able to contribute to culture, having the satisfaction of knowing that we've done work that is embraced by others, watching our ideas spread and seed new ideas--if you're calculating overall job compensation, that is not without value.
“Yes, Professor Waid, you hippie freak, sharing is all well and good, but how does that pay my bills?”
I know. I know. We all still should be financially compensated for hard work so we can keep doing this and make a decent living. No argument. And that brings us back around to filesharing. If you're genuinely morally indignant about this issue, I understand and respect that. But I worry that a lot of the moral indignation I hear over filesharing is just a way of trying to mask our panic over how our ability to make a living with our art is quickly eroding under the current business models. And I understand that fear. I really, truly do.
Look, if you are in comics just to make money, I can respect that. Honestly, no sarcasm. But if you are here to create a sustainable living for yourself while at the same time finding some way to give back to the world, then filesharing is not a problem...it’s an opportunity.
Like it or not, downloading is here. Torrents and filesharing are here. That's not going away. I'm not here to attack it or defend it--I'm not going to change anyone's mind either way, and everyone in America at this point has anecdotal evidence "proving" how it hurts or helps the medium--but I am here to say it isn’t going away--and fear of it, fear of filesharing, fear of illegal downloading, fear of how the internet changes publishing in the 21st century, that’s a legitimate fear, because we’re all worried about putting food on the table and leaving a legacy for our children, but we’re using our energy on something we can’t stop, because filesharing is not going away.
And I’ll tell you why. It’s not because people “like stealing.” It’s because the greatest societal change in the last five years is that we are entering an era of sharing. Twitter and YouTube and Facebook--they’re all about sharing. Sharing links, sharing photographs, sending some video of some cat doing something stupid--that’s the era we’re entering. And whether or not you’re sharing things that technically aren’t yours to share, whether or not you’re angry because you see this as a “generation of entitlement,” that’s not the issue--the issue is, it’s happening, and the internet’s ability to reward sharing has reignited this concept that the public domain has cultural value. And I understand if you are morally outraged about it and you believe to your core that an entire generation is criminal and they’re taking food off your table, I respect that.
But moral outrage is often how we deal with fear. It’s a false sense of empowerment in the face of fear. And I’m here to tell you, that if at core you’re reacting not out of moral outrage but out of fear of the internet and the whole way publishing seems to be headed--that’s good news. Because that’s something we can fix.
We are the smartest, most creative medium in America. We put out ideas on a periodical basis bam, bam, bam. We don’t put out a screenplay every three years. We don’t invent a TV show every ten years. There are more ideas in one Wednesday in one comic shop than in three years of Hollywood. We're notoriously bad businessmen, but we are unmatched for creativity and inventiveness, and there are ways to make filesharing work for us rather than cower in fear that it’s going to destroy us.
I'm going to be rolling out some ideas in the next few weeks on how I personally want to make torrents work for me, not take away from me, and how I plan to shift the paradigm. Lots of you already have similar ideas or will, as well. I’m not saying that to plug anything I’m doing; I just want to go on record that I’m willing to walk the walk. My ideas may work. They may not work. But I’m going to share them. And if they don’t work, I’m going to keep trying. And I’m going to set up forums by which we can share our ideas on this, and I invite us all to throw them around. I really want us to keep that dialogue open. But we can define the terms of 21st century publishing and not have them defined for us.
I don’t want to be afraid. I don’t want to enter my third decade of my career terrified that publishing’s going down the tubes when we have the power to affect it. In fact, we have the advantage of being able to watch how other media have mismanaged their attempts at digital for ten years and learn from their mistakes. We can--and we will--find ways to make the internet work for us and for the enrichment of culture."
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=28129
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Rights Holders Launch Initiative To Protect Content In Africa; Intellectual Property Watch, 8/26/10
Dugie Standeford, Intellectual Property Watch; Rights Holders Launch Initiative To Protect Content In Africa:
"Foreign content producers and broadcasters hope the soon-to-be-launched Africa Media Rights Watch will help convince the region’s regulators and consumers alike to increase respect for copyright."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/08/26/rights-holders-launch-initiative-to-protect-content-in-africa/
"Foreign content producers and broadcasters hope the soon-to-be-launched Africa Media Rights Watch will help convince the region’s regulators and consumers alike to increase respect for copyright."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/08/26/rights-holders-launch-initiative-to-protect-content-in-africa/
Monday, August 30, 2010
Comic Book Writer Mark Waid Defends Copying, Points To The Value Of The Public Domain; TechDirt.com, 8/30/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; Comic Book Writer Mark Waid Defends Copying, Points To The Value Of The Public Domain:
"[F]amed comic writer Mark Waid gave a keynote talk at the comics' Harvey Awards event over the weekend, where he apparently gave a stirring defense of unauthorized downloading, content sharing and the public domain..."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100830/03352510818.shtml
"[F]amed comic writer Mark Waid gave a keynote talk at the comics' Harvey Awards event over the weekend, where he apparently gave a stirring defense of unauthorized downloading, content sharing and the public domain..."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100830/03352510818.shtml
Russian spy Anna Chapman films risque video in Moscow; (London) Guardian, 8/26/10
Luke Harding, (London) Guardian); Russian spy Anna Chapman films risque video in Moscow:
"A diplomat's daughter, Chapman was the most high-profile of 10 Russian "sleepers" arrested in America in June after being caught trying to embed themselves in American society while secretly reporting to the Kremlin and leading double lives.
The first clue that Chapman was in Moscow surfaced this week when she posted a photo taken during the session on her Facebook page.
According to lifenews.ru, Heat is now taking legal action against Chapman, accusing her of breach of copyright. It is not clear when the magazine's exclusive with the 28-year-old spy, who spent several years working in London and is a former employee of Barclays Bank, will appear."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/26/anna-chapman-moscow-revealing-video
"A diplomat's daughter, Chapman was the most high-profile of 10 Russian "sleepers" arrested in America in June after being caught trying to embed themselves in American society while secretly reporting to the Kremlin and leading double lives.
The first clue that Chapman was in Moscow surfaced this week when she posted a photo taken during the session on her Facebook page.
According to lifenews.ru, Heat is now taking legal action against Chapman, accusing her of breach of copyright. It is not clear when the magazine's exclusive with the 28-year-old spy, who spent several years working in London and is a former employee of Barclays Bank, will appear."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/26/anna-chapman-moscow-revealing-video
Copyrighting Fashion: Who Gains?; New York Times, 8/30/10
Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman, Freakonomics, New York Times; Copyrighting Fashion: Who Gains?:
"Kal Raustiala, a professor at UCLA Law School and the UCLA International Institute, and Chris Sprigman, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, are experts in counterfeiting and intellectual property. They have been guest-blogging for us about copyright issues. Today, they write about new efforts to extend copyright law to the fashion industry."
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/copyrighting-fashion-who-gains/?src=twr&scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse
"Kal Raustiala, a professor at UCLA Law School and the UCLA International Institute, and Chris Sprigman, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, are experts in counterfeiting and intellectual property. They have been guest-blogging for us about copyright issues. Today, they write about new efforts to extend copyright law to the fashion industry."
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/copyrighting-fashion-who-gains/?src=twr&scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
[OpEd] Free That Tenor Sax; New York Times, 8/22/10
[OpEd] New York Times; Free That Tenor Sax:
"For jazz fans, nothing could be more tantalizing than the excerpts made available by the National Jazz Museum in Harlem of newly discovered recordings from the 1930s and ’40s. Nearly 1,000 discs containing performances by masters like Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young, Billie Holiday and the long-neglected Herschel Evans suddenly re-emerged when the son of the audio engineer, William Savory, sold them to the museum.
The museum is doing its best to clean up and digitize the recordings. But because of the way copyright laws work, excerpts may be all that fans can hear for some time. The museum paid for the discs, but cannot distribute the music until it has found a way to compensate the estates of the musicians, many of which may be very difficult to track down after all these decades."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22sun3.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
"For jazz fans, nothing could be more tantalizing than the excerpts made available by the National Jazz Museum in Harlem of newly discovered recordings from the 1930s and ’40s. Nearly 1,000 discs containing performances by masters like Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young, Billie Holiday and the long-neglected Herschel Evans suddenly re-emerged when the son of the audio engineer, William Savory, sold them to the museum.
The museum is doing its best to clean up and digitize the recordings. But because of the way copyright laws work, excerpts may be all that fans can hear for some time. The museum paid for the discs, but cannot distribute the music until it has found a way to compensate the estates of the musicians, many of which may be very difficult to track down after all these decades."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22sun3.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Copycats vs. Copyrights; Newsweek, 8/20/10
Ezra Klein, Newsweek; Copycats vs. Copyrights: Does it make sense to legally protect the fashion industry from knockoffs?:
"At a certain point, copyrights stop protecting innovation and begin protecting profits. They scare off future inventors who want to take a 60-year-old idea and use it as the foundation to build something new and interesting. That’s the difficulty of copyrights, patents, and other forms of intellectual protection. Too little, and the first innovation won’t happen. Too much, and the second innovation—the one relying on the first—will be stanched."
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/20/copycats-versus-copyrights.html
"At a certain point, copyrights stop protecting innovation and begin protecting profits. They scare off future inventors who want to take a 60-year-old idea and use it as the foundation to build something new and interesting. That’s the difficulty of copyrights, patents, and other forms of intellectual protection. Too little, and the first innovation won’t happen. Too much, and the second innovation—the one relying on the first—will be stanched."
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/20/copycats-versus-copyrights.html
Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review; New York Times, 8/24/10
Patricia Cohen, New York Times; Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review:
"“What we’re experiencing now is the most important transformation in our reading and writing tools since the invention of movable type,” said Katherine Rowe, a Renaissance specialist and media historian at Bryn Mawr College. “The way scholarly exchange is moving is radical, and we need to think about what it means for our fields.”
That transformation was behind the recent decision by the prestigious 60-year-old Shakespeare Quarterly to embark on an uncharacteristic experiment in the forthcoming fall issue — one that will make it, Ms. Rowe says, the first traditional humanities journal to open its reviewing to the World Wide Web...
Today a small vanguard of digitally adept scholars is rethinking how knowledge is understood and judged by inviting online readers to comment on books in progress, compiling journals from blog posts and sometimes successfully petitioning their universities to grant promotions and tenure on the basis of non-peer-reviewed projects...
“Knowledge is not democratic,” said Michèle Lamont, a Harvard sociologist who analyzes peer review in her 2009 book, “How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment.” Evaluating originality and intellectual significance, she said, can be done only by those who are expert in a field.
At the same time she noted that the Web is already having an incalculable effect on academia, especially among younger professors...
“There is an ethical imperative to share information,” said Mr. Cohen, who regularly posts his work online, where he said thousands read it. Engaging people in different disciplines and from outside academia has made his scholarship better, he said.
To Mr. Cohen, the most pressing intellectual issue in the next decade is this tension between the insular, specialized world of expert scholarship and the open and free-wheeling exchange of information on the Web. “And academia,” he said, “is caught in the middle.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=venerable%20peer%20review&st=cse
"“What we’re experiencing now is the most important transformation in our reading and writing tools since the invention of movable type,” said Katherine Rowe, a Renaissance specialist and media historian at Bryn Mawr College. “The way scholarly exchange is moving is radical, and we need to think about what it means for our fields.”
That transformation was behind the recent decision by the prestigious 60-year-old Shakespeare Quarterly to embark on an uncharacteristic experiment in the forthcoming fall issue — one that will make it, Ms. Rowe says, the first traditional humanities journal to open its reviewing to the World Wide Web...
Today a small vanguard of digitally adept scholars is rethinking how knowledge is understood and judged by inviting online readers to comment on books in progress, compiling journals from blog posts and sometimes successfully petitioning their universities to grant promotions and tenure on the basis of non-peer-reviewed projects...
“Knowledge is not democratic,” said Michèle Lamont, a Harvard sociologist who analyzes peer review in her 2009 book, “How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment.” Evaluating originality and intellectual significance, she said, can be done only by those who are expert in a field.
At the same time she noted that the Web is already having an incalculable effect on academia, especially among younger professors...
“There is an ethical imperative to share information,” said Mr. Cohen, who regularly posts his work online, where he said thousands read it. Engaging people in different disciplines and from outside academia has made his scholarship better, he said.
To Mr. Cohen, the most pressing intellectual issue in the next decade is this tension between the insular, specialized world of expert scholarship and the open and free-wheeling exchange of information on the Web. “And academia,” he said, “is caught in the middle.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=venerable%20peer%20review&st=cse
[Book Review] An Un-'Common' Take On Copyright Law; NPR, 8/24/10
[Book Review] ]Michael Schaub, NPR; An Un-'Common' Take On Copyright Law:
"Some people believe that not only are current copyright laws too stringent, but that the assumptions the current laws are based on are artificial, illogical and outdated.
Among them is Lewis Hyde, a professor of art and politics who has studied these issues for years. In his new book Common As Air, Hyde says he's suspicious of the concept of "intellectual property" to begin with, calling it "historically strange." Hyde backs it up with an impressive amount of research; he spends a significant amount of time reflecting on the Founding Fathers, who came up with America's initial copyright laws.
Hyde is a contrarian, but he's not a scorched-earth opponent of all copyright laws. He does believe the national paradigm for intellectual property issues should be changed, though, at one point offering several examples of the absurd situations the current laws have created. (In one particularly weird example, an e-book publisher insisted its edition of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland "cannot be lent to someone else" and "cannot be read aloud.") Hyde advocates for a return to a "cultural commons" and quotes, approvingly, Thomas Jefferson, who believed that "ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129299939
"Some people believe that not only are current copyright laws too stringent, but that the assumptions the current laws are based on are artificial, illogical and outdated.
Among them is Lewis Hyde, a professor of art and politics who has studied these issues for years. In his new book Common As Air, Hyde says he's suspicious of the concept of "intellectual property" to begin with, calling it "historically strange." Hyde backs it up with an impressive amount of research; he spends a significant amount of time reflecting on the Founding Fathers, who came up with America's initial copyright laws.
Hyde is a contrarian, but he's not a scorched-earth opponent of all copyright laws. He does believe the national paradigm for intellectual property issues should be changed, though, at one point offering several examples of the absurd situations the current laws have created. (In one particularly weird example, an e-book publisher insisted its edition of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland "cannot be lent to someone else" and "cannot be read aloud.") Hyde advocates for a return to a "cultural commons" and quotes, approvingly, Thomas Jefferson, who believed that "ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129299939
[Book Review] A Republic of Letters; New York Times Book Review, 8/22/10
[Book Review] Robert Darnton, New York Times Book Review; A Republic of Letters:
"Intellectual property has become such a hot topic that it needs to be doused with some history. Strange as it may sound, this is an argument developed convincingly in Lewis Hyde’s “Common as Air,” an eloquent and erudite plea for protecting our cultural patrimony from appropriation by commercial interests."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/books/review/Darnton-t.html
"Intellectual property has become such a hot topic that it needs to be doused with some history. Strange as it may sound, this is an argument developed convincingly in Lewis Hyde’s “Common as Air,” an eloquent and erudite plea for protecting our cultural patrimony from appropriation by commercial interests."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/books/review/Darnton-t.html
Photographer Withdraws Lawsuit in Shepard Fairey Case; New York Times, 8/23/10
Randy Kennedy, New York Times; Photographer Withdraws Lawsuit in Shepard Fairey Case:
"The photographer who took the shot of Barack Obama that was later transformed by the street artist Shepard Fairey into the well-known “Hope” campaign poster has withdrawn a lawsuit against the Associated Press, in which he claimed he was not working for the agency when he took the picture."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/photographer-withdraws-lawsuit-in-shepard-fairey-case/?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse
"The photographer who took the shot of Barack Obama that was later transformed by the street artist Shepard Fairey into the well-known “Hope” campaign poster has withdrawn a lawsuit against the Associated Press, in which he claimed he was not working for the agency when he took the picture."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/photographer-withdraws-lawsuit-in-shepard-fairey-case/?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse
Theater Talkback: Who Owns Sheet Music?; New York Times, 7/15/10
Jason Robert Brown, New York Times; Theater Talkback: Who Owns Sheet Music?:
"[C]omposer Jason Robert Brown (“13,” “Parade”) discusses the ethics, creative implications and financial consequences of illegally downloading sheet music — including his sheet music — on the Internet."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/theater-talkback-who-owns-sheet-music/
"[C]omposer Jason Robert Brown (“13,” “Parade”) discusses the ethics, creative implications and financial consequences of illegally downloading sheet music — including his sheet music — on the Internet."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/theater-talkback-who-owns-sheet-music/
The Purpose of Copyright; Open Spaces, 8/10
Lydia Pallas Loren, Open Spaces; The Purpose of Copyright:
"The newspaper you read this morning, the television show you watched last night, the movie you are going to see this weekend, the computer software you use to prepare your letters or send your email, the music you listen to in the car on your way to work: they are all copyrighted. Copyright permeates our lives and yet, despite its impact on our lives, relatively few people, including lawyers, have sufficient knowledge or understanding of what copyright is. And far too many people, including lawyers, have major misconceptions concerning copyright. These misconceptions are causing a dangerous shift in copyright protection, a shift that threatens the advancement of knowledge and learning in this country. This shift that we are experiencing in copyright law reflects a move away from viewing copyright as a monopoly that the public is willing to tolerate in order to encourage innovation and creation of new works to viewing copyright as a significant asset to this country's economy. The most recent example of this shift is the new Digital Millennium Copyright Act, sign by the President on October 28, 1998.
Understanding the root cause and the dangers of this shift requires exposing the most fundamental and most common misconception concerning the underlying purpose of the monopoly granted by our copyright law."
http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php
"The newspaper you read this morning, the television show you watched last night, the movie you are going to see this weekend, the computer software you use to prepare your letters or send your email, the music you listen to in the car on your way to work: they are all copyrighted. Copyright permeates our lives and yet, despite its impact on our lives, relatively few people, including lawyers, have sufficient knowledge or understanding of what copyright is. And far too many people, including lawyers, have major misconceptions concerning copyright. These misconceptions are causing a dangerous shift in copyright protection, a shift that threatens the advancement of knowledge and learning in this country. This shift that we are experiencing in copyright law reflects a move away from viewing copyright as a monopoly that the public is willing to tolerate in order to encourage innovation and creation of new works to viewing copyright as a significant asset to this country's economy. The most recent example of this shift is the new Digital Millennium Copyright Act, sign by the President on October 28, 1998.
Understanding the root cause and the dangers of this shift requires exposing the most fundamental and most common misconception concerning the underlying purpose of the monopoly granted by our copyright law."
http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php
Google's count of 130 million books is probably bunk; ArsTechnica.com, 8/9/10
Jon Stokes, ArsTechnica.com; Google's count of 130 million books is probably bunk:
""After we exclude serials, we can finally count all the books in the world," wrote Google's Leonid Taycher in a GBS blog post. "There are 129,864,880 of them. At least until Sunday."
It's a large, official-sounding number, and the explanation for how Google arrived at it involves a number of acronyms and terms that will be unfamiliar to most of those who read the post. It's also quite likely to be complete bunk...
But the problem with Google's count, as is clear from the GBS count post itself, is that GBS's metadata collection is a riddled with errors of every sort. Or, as linguist and GBS critic Goeff Nunberg put it last year in a blog post, Google's metadata is "train wreck: a mish-mash wrapped in a muddle wrapped in a mess."
Indeed, a simple Google search for "google books metadata" (sans quotes) will turn up mostly criticisms and caterwauling by dismayed linguists, librarians, and other scholars at the terrible state of Google's metadata. Erroneous dates are pervasive, to the point that you can find many GBS references to historical figures and technologies in books that Google dates to well before the people or technologies existed. The classifications are a mess, and Nunberg's presentation points out that the first 10 classifications for Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" classify it as Juvenile Nonfiction, Poetry, Fiction, Literary Criticism, Biography & Autobiography, Counterfeits and Counterfeiting. Then there are authors that are missing or misattributed, and titles that bear no relation to the linked work."
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/08/googles-count-of-130-million-books-is-probably-bunk.ars
""After we exclude serials, we can finally count all the books in the world," wrote Google's Leonid Taycher in a GBS blog post. "There are 129,864,880 of them. At least until Sunday."
It's a large, official-sounding number, and the explanation for how Google arrived at it involves a number of acronyms and terms that will be unfamiliar to most of those who read the post. It's also quite likely to be complete bunk...
But the problem with Google's count, as is clear from the GBS count post itself, is that GBS's metadata collection is a riddled with errors of every sort. Or, as linguist and GBS critic Goeff Nunberg put it last year in a blog post, Google's metadata is "train wreck: a mish-mash wrapped in a muddle wrapped in a mess."
Indeed, a simple Google search for "google books metadata" (sans quotes) will turn up mostly criticisms and caterwauling by dismayed linguists, librarians, and other scholars at the terrible state of Google's metadata. Erroneous dates are pervasive, to the point that you can find many GBS references to historical figures and technologies in books that Google dates to well before the people or technologies existed. The classifications are a mess, and Nunberg's presentation points out that the first 10 classifications for Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" classify it as Juvenile Nonfiction, Poetry, Fiction, Literary Criticism, Biography & Autobiography, Counterfeits and Counterfeiting. Then there are authors that are missing or misattributed, and titles that bear no relation to the linked work."
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/08/googles-count-of-130-million-books-is-probably-bunk.ars
Friday, August 13, 2010
Sharing of Data Leads to Progress on Alzheimer’s; New York Times, 8/13/10
Gina Kolata, New York Times; Sharing of Data Leads to Progress on Alzheimer’s:
"The key to the Alzheimer’s project was an agreement as ambitious as its goal: not just to raise money, not just to do research on a vast scale, but also to share all the data, making every single finding public immediately, available to anyone with a computer anywhere in the world.
No one would own the data. No one could submit patent applications, though private companies would ultimately profit from any drugs or imaging tests developed as a result of the effort.
“It was unbelievable,” said Dr. John Q. Trojanowski, an Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s not science the way most of us have practiced it in our careers. But we all realized that we would never get biomarkers unless all of us parked our egos and intellectual-property noses outside the door and agreed that all of our data would be public immediately.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/health/research/13alzheimer.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=homepage&src=me
"The key to the Alzheimer’s project was an agreement as ambitious as its goal: not just to raise money, not just to do research on a vast scale, but also to share all the data, making every single finding public immediately, available to anyone with a computer anywhere in the world.
No one would own the data. No one could submit patent applications, though private companies would ultimately profit from any drugs or imaging tests developed as a result of the effort.
“It was unbelievable,” said Dr. John Q. Trojanowski, an Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s not science the way most of us have practiced it in our careers. But we all realized that we would never get biomarkers unless all of us parked our egos and intellectual-property noses outside the door and agreed that all of our data would be public immediately.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/health/research/13alzheimer.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=homepage&src=me
Viacom's billion-dollar lawsuit lives on; ArsTechnica.com, 8/12/10
Nate Anderson, ArsTechnica.com; Viacom's billion-dollar lawsuit lives on:
"The billion-dollar Viacom lawsuit against YouTube/Google trudges on. After a federal judge sided completely with YouTube in summary judgment, Viacom has now filed its appeal to take the case to the next level."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/viacoms-billion-dollar-lawsuit-lives-on.ars
"The billion-dollar Viacom lawsuit against YouTube/Google trudges on. After a federal judge sided completely with YouTube in summary judgment, Viacom has now filed its appeal to take the case to the next level."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/viacoms-billion-dollar-lawsuit-lives-on.ars
Why Imitation Is the Sincerest Form of Fashion; New York Times, 8/13/10
Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman, New York Times; Why Imitation Is the Sincerest Form of Fashion:
"It strikes many people as strange that fashion designs are not already protected against copying. Creative artists like musicians and filmmakers argue, quite persuasively, that their success requires copyright protection for their work. If others could steal it, they say, innovation would grind to a halt.
But there is a good reason that fashion designs have never been protected by copyright. Some designers have lost sales to knockoffs, but the copying of designs has not been a serious threat to the survival of the industry. To the contrary, much of the growth and creativity in the industry depends on imitation."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/opinion/13raustiala.html?_r=1&hp
"It strikes many people as strange that fashion designs are not already protected against copying. Creative artists like musicians and filmmakers argue, quite persuasively, that their success requires copyright protection for their work. If others could steal it, they say, innovation would grind to a halt.
But there is a good reason that fashion designs have never been protected by copyright. Some designers have lost sales to knockoffs, but the copying of designs has not been a serious threat to the survival of the industry. To the contrary, much of the growth and creativity in the industry depends on imitation."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/opinion/13raustiala.html?_r=1&hp
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Most Ridiculous Bootleg DVD Covers Of All Time (PHOTOS); HuffingtonPost.com, 8/11/10
Katla McGlynn, HuffingtonPost.com; The Most Ridiculous Bootleg DVD Covers Of All Time (PHOTOS):
"You've seen them being sold on blankets on the streets of New York, on shelves in other countries, or even in your friend's living room: bootleg DVDs. Whether actually bootleg or just in foreign packaging, these DVD and VHS covers all have one thing in common and that is extreme misinformation. Take a look at that "Battlestar Galactica" DVD for example. Not only do they call it a "tween comedy" but they actually Photoshopped in the U.S.S. Enterprise from "Star Trek" on the front. On the front. Of the DVD. That they sell. It's a crazy world out there people, so next time you buy a movie or DVD of your favorite TV show, make sure you're buying the real thing."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/09/the-most-ridiculous-bootl_n_676490.html
"You've seen them being sold on blankets on the streets of New York, on shelves in other countries, or even in your friend's living room: bootleg DVDs. Whether actually bootleg or just in foreign packaging, these DVD and VHS covers all have one thing in common and that is extreme misinformation. Take a look at that "Battlestar Galactica" DVD for example. Not only do they call it a "tween comedy" but they actually Photoshopped in the U.S.S. Enterprise from "Star Trek" on the front. On the front. Of the DVD. That they sell. It's a crazy world out there people, so next time you buy a movie or DVD of your favorite TV show, make sure you're buying the real thing."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/09/the-most-ridiculous-bootl_n_676490.html
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Pat Conroy and the e-book future; Associated Press via YahooNews.com, 8/10/10
Hillel Italie, Associated Press via YahooNews.com; Pat Conroy and the e-book future:
"Conroy is a good example of the divided state of electronic books. With standard contracts now including digital rights, e-editions of his recent works — from "South of Broad" to a memoir out this fall, "My Reading Life" — are handled by Random House, Inc., which also releases the bound versions. Meanwhile, rights to his older books have shifted among outside companies."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100810/ap_en_ot/us_books_pat_conroy
"Conroy is a good example of the divided state of electronic books. With standard contracts now including digital rights, e-editions of his recent works — from "South of Broad" to a memoir out this fall, "My Reading Life" — are handled by Random House, Inc., which also releases the bound versions. Meanwhile, rights to his older books have shifted among outside companies."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100810/ap_en_ot/us_books_pat_conroy
Monday, August 9, 2010
Google: 129 Million Different Books Have Been Published; PC World, 8/6/10
Joab Jackson, PC World; Google: 129 Million Different Books Have Been Published:
"For those who have ever wondered how many different books are out there in the world, Google has an answer for you: 129,864,880, according to Leonid Taycher, a Google software engineer who works on the Google Books project.
Estimating the number of books in the world is more than an exercise in curiosity for the search giant: It also provides a roadmap of some of the work still left to be done in meeting the company's ambitious goal of organizing all the world's information...
As of June, the company has scanned 12 million books, according to a presentation given by Google Books engineering manager Jon Orwant at the USENIX Annual Technical Conference in Boston. These books have been written in about 480 languages (including 3 books in the Star Trek-originated Klingon language) .
The company plans to complete the scanning of existing books within a decade. The resulting virtual collection will consist of four billion pages and two trillion words, Orwant said.
About 20 percent of the world's books are in the public domain, Orwant explained. About 10 to 15 percent of these books are in print. The remaining books -- the vast majority of all titles -- are still under copyright but out of print. Google is in the process of borrowing copies of these books in order to digitize them, from about 40 large libraries worldwide.
It's this act of scanning in books that are out-of-print but still covered by copyright that has been met with some resistance by the publishing industry.
The company is now waiting for a judgement from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on whether it can scan these books. "
http://www.pcworld.com/article/202803/google_129_million_different_books_have_been_published.html
"For those who have ever wondered how many different books are out there in the world, Google has an answer for you: 129,864,880, according to Leonid Taycher, a Google software engineer who works on the Google Books project.
Estimating the number of books in the world is more than an exercise in curiosity for the search giant: It also provides a roadmap of some of the work still left to be done in meeting the company's ambitious goal of organizing all the world's information...
As of June, the company has scanned 12 million books, according to a presentation given by Google Books engineering manager Jon Orwant at the USENIX Annual Technical Conference in Boston. These books have been written in about 480 languages (including 3 books in the Star Trek-originated Klingon language) .
The company plans to complete the scanning of existing books within a decade. The resulting virtual collection will consist of four billion pages and two trillion words, Orwant said.
About 20 percent of the world's books are in the public domain, Orwant explained. About 10 to 15 percent of these books are in print. The remaining books -- the vast majority of all titles -- are still under copyright but out of print. Google is in the process of borrowing copies of these books in order to digitize them, from about 40 large libraries worldwide.
It's this act of scanning in books that are out-of-print but still covered by copyright that has been met with some resistance by the publishing industry.
The company is now waiting for a judgement from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on whether it can scan these books. "
http://www.pcworld.com/article/202803/google_129_million_different_books_have_been_published.html
Sunday Times faces £150,000-plus payout over Jimi Hendrix CD; (London) Guardian, 8/6/10
Josh Halliday, (London) Guardian; Sunday Times faces £150,000-plus payout over Jimi Hendrix CD: US companies linked with musician's estate win ruling that paper did not obtain proper copyright clearance for giveaway disc:
"High court judge Sir William Blackburne last Friday ruled that the Sunday Times covermount had delayed by a year the receipt of $5.8m in earnings to Experience Hendrix and Last Experience from the Hendrix concert film. He ordered Times Newspapers to pay damages equivalent to one year's interest on that sum.
The exact damages figure is still being worked out by the two sides' legal teams, but MediaGuardian.co.uk understands it will be just over $250,000."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/06/sunday-times-jimi-hendrix-cd
"High court judge Sir William Blackburne last Friday ruled that the Sunday Times covermount had delayed by a year the receipt of $5.8m in earnings to Experience Hendrix and Last Experience from the Hendrix concert film. He ordered Times Newspapers to pay damages equivalent to one year's interest on that sum.
The exact damages figure is still being worked out by the two sides' legal teams, but MediaGuardian.co.uk understands it will be just over $250,000."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/06/sunday-times-jimi-hendrix-cd
The Music-Copyright Enforcers; New York Times, 8/8/10
John Bowe, New York Times; The Music-Copyright Enforcers:
"Baker, 30, is a licensing executive with Broadcast Music Incorporated, otherwise known as BMI. The firm is a P.R.O., or performing rights organization; P.R.O.’s license the music of the songwriters and music publishers they represent, collecting royalties whenever that music is played in a public setting. Which means that if you buy a CD by, say, Ryan Adams, or download one of his songs from iTunes, and play it at your family reunion, even if 500 people come, you owe nothing. But if you play it at a restaurant you own, then you must pay for the right to harness Adams’s creativity to earn money for yourself. Which leaves you with three choices: you can track down Ryan Adams, make a deal with him and pay him directly; you can pay a licensing fee to the P.R.O. that represents him — in this case, BMI; or you can ignore the issue altogether and hope not to get caught.
P.R.O.’s like BMI spend much of their energy negotiating licenses with the biggest users of music — radio stations, TV and cable networks, film studios, streaming Internet music sites and so on. But a significant portion of BMI’s business is to “educate” and charge — by phone and in person — the hundreds of thousands of businesses across America that don’t know or don’t care to know that they have to pay for the music they use. Besides the more obvious locales like bars and nightclubs, the list of such venues includes: funeral parlors, grocery stores, sports arenas, fitness centers, retirement homes — tens of thousands of businesses, playing a collective many billions of songs per year.
Most Americans have no problem with BMI charging for its music — except when they do. As Richard Conlon, a vice president at BMI in charge of new media, put it: “A few years back, we had Penn, Schoen and Berland, Hillary’s pollster guys, do a study. The idea was, go and find out what Americans really think about copyright. Do songwriters deserve to be paid? Absolutely! The numbers were enormously favorable — like, 85 percent. The poll asked, ‘If there was a party that wasn’t compensating songwriters, do you think that would be wrong?’ And the answer was, ‘Yes!’ So then, everything’s fine, right? Wrong. Because when it came time to ask people to part with their shekels, it was like: ‘Eww. You want me to pay?’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/magazine/08music-t.html
"Baker, 30, is a licensing executive with Broadcast Music Incorporated, otherwise known as BMI. The firm is a P.R.O., or performing rights organization; P.R.O.’s license the music of the songwriters and music publishers they represent, collecting royalties whenever that music is played in a public setting. Which means that if you buy a CD by, say, Ryan Adams, or download one of his songs from iTunes, and play it at your family reunion, even if 500 people come, you owe nothing. But if you play it at a restaurant you own, then you must pay for the right to harness Adams’s creativity to earn money for yourself. Which leaves you with three choices: you can track down Ryan Adams, make a deal with him and pay him directly; you can pay a licensing fee to the P.R.O. that represents him — in this case, BMI; or you can ignore the issue altogether and hope not to get caught.
P.R.O.’s like BMI spend much of their energy negotiating licenses with the biggest users of music — radio stations, TV and cable networks, film studios, streaming Internet music sites and so on. But a significant portion of BMI’s business is to “educate” and charge — by phone and in person — the hundreds of thousands of businesses across America that don’t know or don’t care to know that they have to pay for the music they use. Besides the more obvious locales like bars and nightclubs, the list of such venues includes: funeral parlors, grocery stores, sports arenas, fitness centers, retirement homes — tens of thousands of businesses, playing a collective many billions of songs per year.
Most Americans have no problem with BMI charging for its music — except when they do. As Richard Conlon, a vice president at BMI in charge of new media, put it: “A few years back, we had Penn, Schoen and Berland, Hillary’s pollster guys, do a study. The idea was, go and find out what Americans really think about copyright. Do songwriters deserve to be paid? Absolutely! The numbers were enormously favorable — like, 85 percent. The poll asked, ‘If there was a party that wasn’t compensating songwriters, do you think that would be wrong?’ And the answer was, ‘Yes!’ So then, everything’s fine, right? Wrong. Because when it came time to ask people to part with their shekels, it was like: ‘Eww. You want me to pay?’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/magazine/08music-t.html
Saturday, August 7, 2010
How to Find Cheaper College Textbooks; New York Times, 8/3/10
Tara Siegel Bernard, New York Times; How to Find Cheaper College Textbooks:
"The cost of buying the textbooks can easily add up to $1,000 a year or more.
Thankfully, federal rules that went into effect in July may help ease the pain. Publishers can no longer bundle their textbooks with accompanying materials like workbooks, and they must reveal their prices to professors when making a sales pitch. Colleges, meanwhile, are now required to provide students with a list of assigned textbooks during course registration, which allows for more time for shopping before classes begin.
That’s especially important now because there are an increasing number of ways to save on books if you buy or rent them online. This Times article from last year provides a lot of helpful information. But we also spoke with Nicole Allen, textbook advocate at the Student Public Interest Research Groups, for some more tips.."
http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/how-to-find-cheaper-college-textbooks/?src=me&ref=homepage
"The cost of buying the textbooks can easily add up to $1,000 a year or more.
Thankfully, federal rules that went into effect in July may help ease the pain. Publishers can no longer bundle their textbooks with accompanying materials like workbooks, and they must reveal their prices to professors when making a sales pitch. Colleges, meanwhile, are now required to provide students with a list of assigned textbooks during course registration, which allows for more time for shopping before classes begin.
That’s especially important now because there are an increasing number of ways to save on books if you buy or rent them online. This Times article from last year provides a lot of helpful information. But we also spoke with Nicole Allen, textbook advocate at the Student Public Interest Research Groups, for some more tips.."
http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/how-to-find-cheaper-college-textbooks/?src=me&ref=homepage
Friday, August 6, 2010
Schumer Bill Seeks to Protect Fashion Design; New York Times, 8/5/10
Cathy Horyn, New York Times; Schumer Bill Seeks to Protect Fashion Design:
"The American fashion industry has been pushing hard over the last four years for copyright protection for its designs. A bill in the House of Representative died in committee after clothing makers argued that protection against knock-offs would only encourage frivolous lawsuits from people claiming they had the idea first. Today, after a year of negotiations, Senator Charles E. Schumer introduced a bill that seemed to satisfy the different sides of the fashion industry — and may provide some protection, too.
The bill, the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act, has the support of the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA), whose individual members represent the creative core of the industry, and the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA), which represents more than 700 manufacturers and suppliers and by its estimate accounts for about 75 percent of the industry’s business. The AAFA had argued that the House bill was too broad and would expose its members to lawsuits."
http://runway.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/schumer-bill-seeks-to-protect-fashion-design/?scp=3&sq=copyright&st=cse
"The American fashion industry has been pushing hard over the last four years for copyright protection for its designs. A bill in the House of Representative died in committee after clothing makers argued that protection against knock-offs would only encourage frivolous lawsuits from people claiming they had the idea first. Today, after a year of negotiations, Senator Charles E. Schumer introduced a bill that seemed to satisfy the different sides of the fashion industry — and may provide some protection, too.
The bill, the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act, has the support of the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA), whose individual members represent the creative core of the industry, and the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA), which represents more than 700 manufacturers and suppliers and by its estimate accounts for about 75 percent of the industry’s business. The AAFA had argued that the House bill was too broad and would expose its members to lawsuits."
http://runway.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/schumer-bill-seeks-to-protect-fashion-design/?scp=3&sq=copyright&st=cse
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Beach Boys' label wants writing credit and royalties for Katy Perry's 'California Gurls'--but they're not suing yet; EntertainmentWeekly.com, 8/5/10
Leah Greenblatt, EntertainmentWeekly.com; Beach Boys' label wants writing credit and royalties for Katy Perry's 'California Gurls'--but they're not suing yet:
http://music-mix.ew.com/2010/08/05/katy-perry-beach-boys-california-gurl/
http://music-mix.ew.com/2010/08/05/katy-perry-beach-boys-california-gurl/
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Gary Friedrich's Ghost Rider lawsuit against Marvel lives on; ComicBookResources.com, 8/3/10
Kevin Melrose, ComicBookResources.com; Gary Friedrich's Ghost Rider lawsuit against Marvel lives on:
"A lawyer for Ghost Rider co-creator Gary Friedrich asserts the writer's copyright-infringement lawsuit against Marvel will proceed, despite reports in June that the action had been dismissed."
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/08/gary-friedrichs-ghost-rider-lawsuit-against-marvel-lives-on/
"A lawyer for Ghost Rider co-creator Gary Friedrich asserts the writer's copyright-infringement lawsuit against Marvel will proceed, despite reports in June that the action had been dismissed."
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/08/gary-friedrichs-ghost-rider-lawsuit-against-marvel-lives-on/
Monday, August 2, 2010
JailbreakMe released for Apple devices; (London) Guardian, 8/2/10
Josh Halliday, (London) Guardian; JailbreakMe released for Apple devices: JailbreakMe – which will unlock iPhones, iPads and iPods – ruled legal by the US Library of Congress:
"Less than a week after the US Library of Congress established the "jailbreaking" of Apple iPhones as "fair use", a plucky hacker yesterday launched a browser-based service to do just that.
JailbreakMe 2.0 will "jailbreak" – unlock from restrictions imposed by the manufacturer – the Apple iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad when visited from the device."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/aug/02/jailbreakme-released-apple-devices-legal
"Less than a week after the US Library of Congress established the "jailbreaking" of Apple iPhones as "fair use", a plucky hacker yesterday launched a browser-based service to do just that.
JailbreakMe 2.0 will "jailbreak" – unlock from restrictions imposed by the manufacturer – the Apple iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad when visited from the device."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/aug/02/jailbreakme-released-apple-devices-legal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)