Jason Epstein, New York Review of Books; Publishing: The Revolutionary Future:
"The transition within the book publishing industry from physical inventory stored in a warehouse and trucked to retailers to digital files stored in cyberspace and delivered almost anywhere on earth as quickly and cheaply as e-mail is now underway and irreversible. This historic shift will radically transform worldwide book publishing, the cultures it affects and on which it depends. Meanwhile, for quite different reasons, the genteel book business that I joined more than a half-century ago is already on edge, suffering from a gambler's unbreakable addiction to risky, seasonal best sellers, many of which don't recoup their costs, and the simultaneous deterioration of backlist, the vital annuity on which book publishers had in better days relied for year-to-year stability through bad times and good. The crisis of confidence reflects these intersecting shocks, an overspecialized marketplace dominated by high-risk ephemera and a technological shift orders of magnitude greater than the momentous evolution from monkish scriptoria to movable type launched in Gutenberg's German city of Mainz six centuries ago.
Though Gutenberg's invention made possible our modern world with all its wonders and woes, no one, much less Gutenberg himself, could have foreseen that his press would have this effect. And no one today can foresee except in broad and sketchy outline the far greater impact that digitization will have on our own future. With the earth trembling beneath them, it is no wonder that publishers with one foot in the crumbling past and the other seeking solid ground in an uncertain future hesitate to seize the opportunity that digitization offers them to restore, expand, and promote their backlists to a decentralized, worldwide marketplace. New technologies, however, do not await permission. They are, to use Schumpeter's overused term, disruptive, as nonnegotiable as earthquakes."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23683?email
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Yet Another Larry Lessig YouTube Presentation; TechDirt, 3/2/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Yet Another Larry Lessig YouTube Presentation:
"Nearly a year ago, we wrote about how a YouTube presentation done by well known law professor (and strong believer in fair use and fixing copyright law), Larry Lessig, had been taken down, because his video, in explaining copyright and fair use and other such things, used a snippet of a Warner Music song to demonstrate a point. There could be no clearer example of fair use -- but the video was still taken down. There was some dispute at the time as to whether or not this was an actual DMCA takedown, or merely YouTube's audio/video fingerprinting technology (which the entertainment industry insists can understand fair use and not block it). But, in the end, does it really make a difference? A takedown over copyright is a takedown over copyright.
Amazingly enough, it appears that almost the exact same thing has happened again. A video of one of Lessig's presentations, that he just posted -- a "chat" he had done for the OpenVideoAlliance a week or so ago, about open culture and fair use, has received notice that it has been silenced. It hasn't been taken down entirely -- but the entire audio track from the 42 minute video is completely gone. All of it. In the comments, some say there's a notification somewhere that the audio has been disabled because of "an audio track that has not been authorized by WMG" (Warner Music Group) -- which would be the same company whose copyright caused the issue a year ago -- but I haven't seen or heard that particular message anywhere.
However, Lessig is now required to fill out a counternotice challenging the takedown -- while silencing his video in the meantime:
While you can still see the video on YouTube, without the audio, it's pretty much worthless. Thankfully, the actual video is available elsewhere, where you can both hear and see it. But, really, the fact that Lessig has had two separate videos -- both of which clearly are fair use -- neutered due to bogus copyright infringement risks suggests a serious problem. I'm guessing that, once again, this video was likely caught by the fingerprinting, rather than a direct claim by Warner Music. In fact, the issue may be the identical one, as I believe the problem last year was the muppets theme, which very, very briefly appears in this video (again) as an example of fair use in action. But it was Warner Music and others like it that demanded Google put such a fingerprinting tool in place (and such companies are still talking about requiring such tools under the law). And yet, this seems to show just how problematic such rules are.
Even worse, this highlights just how amazingly problematic things get when you put secondary liability on companies like Google. Under such a regime, Google would of course disable such a video, to avoid its own liability. The idea that Google can easily tell what is infringing and what is not is proven ridiculous when something like this is pulled off-line (or just silenced). When a video about fair use itself is pulled down for a bogus copyright infringement, it proves the point. The unintended consequences of asking tool providers to judge what is and what is not copyright infringement lead to tremendous problems with companies shooting first and asking questions later. They are silencing speech, on the threat that it might infringe on copyright.
This is backwards.
We live in a country that is supposed to cherish free speech, not stifle it in case it harms the business model of a company. We live in a country that is supposed to encourage the free expression of ideas -- not lock it up and take it down because one company doesn't know how to adapt its business model. We should never be silencing videos because they might infringe on copyright.
Situations like this demonstrate the dangerous unintended consequences of secondary liability. At least with Lessig, you have someone who knows what happened, and knows how to file a counternotice -- though, who knows how long it will take for this situation to be corrected. But for many, many, many other people, they are simply silenced. Silenced because of industry efforts to turn copyright law into something it was never intended to be: a tool to silence the wider audience in favor of a few large companies.
The system is broken. When even the calls to fix the system are silenced by copyright claims, isn't it time that we fixed the system?"
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100302/0354498358.shtml
"Nearly a year ago, we wrote about how a YouTube presentation done by well known law professor (and strong believer in fair use and fixing copyright law), Larry Lessig, had been taken down, because his video, in explaining copyright and fair use and other such things, used a snippet of a Warner Music song to demonstrate a point. There could be no clearer example of fair use -- but the video was still taken down. There was some dispute at the time as to whether or not this was an actual DMCA takedown, or merely YouTube's audio/video fingerprinting technology (which the entertainment industry insists can understand fair use and not block it). But, in the end, does it really make a difference? A takedown over copyright is a takedown over copyright.
Amazingly enough, it appears that almost the exact same thing has happened again. A video of one of Lessig's presentations, that he just posted -- a "chat" he had done for the OpenVideoAlliance a week or so ago, about open culture and fair use, has received notice that it has been silenced. It hasn't been taken down entirely -- but the entire audio track from the 42 minute video is completely gone. All of it. In the comments, some say there's a notification somewhere that the audio has been disabled because of "an audio track that has not been authorized by WMG" (Warner Music Group) -- which would be the same company whose copyright caused the issue a year ago -- but I haven't seen or heard that particular message anywhere.
However, Lessig is now required to fill out a counternotice challenging the takedown -- while silencing his video in the meantime:
While you can still see the video on YouTube, without the audio, it's pretty much worthless. Thankfully, the actual video is available elsewhere, where you can both hear and see it. But, really, the fact that Lessig has had two separate videos -- both of which clearly are fair use -- neutered due to bogus copyright infringement risks suggests a serious problem. I'm guessing that, once again, this video was likely caught by the fingerprinting, rather than a direct claim by Warner Music. In fact, the issue may be the identical one, as I believe the problem last year was the muppets theme, which very, very briefly appears in this video (again) as an example of fair use in action. But it was Warner Music and others like it that demanded Google put such a fingerprinting tool in place (and such companies are still talking about requiring such tools under the law). And yet, this seems to show just how problematic such rules are.
Even worse, this highlights just how amazingly problematic things get when you put secondary liability on companies like Google. Under such a regime, Google would of course disable such a video, to avoid its own liability. The idea that Google can easily tell what is infringing and what is not is proven ridiculous when something like this is pulled off-line (or just silenced). When a video about fair use itself is pulled down for a bogus copyright infringement, it proves the point. The unintended consequences of asking tool providers to judge what is and what is not copyright infringement lead to tremendous problems with companies shooting first and asking questions later. They are silencing speech, on the threat that it might infringe on copyright.
This is backwards.
We live in a country that is supposed to cherish free speech, not stifle it in case it harms the business model of a company. We live in a country that is supposed to encourage the free expression of ideas -- not lock it up and take it down because one company doesn't know how to adapt its business model. We should never be silencing videos because they might infringe on copyright.
Situations like this demonstrate the dangerous unintended consequences of secondary liability. At least with Lessig, you have someone who knows what happened, and knows how to file a counternotice -- though, who knows how long it will take for this situation to be corrected. But for many, many, many other people, they are simply silenced. Silenced because of industry efforts to turn copyright law into something it was never intended to be: a tool to silence the wider audience in favor of a few large companies.
The system is broken. When even the calls to fix the system are silenced by copyright claims, isn't it time that we fixed the system?"
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100302/0354498358.shtml
UCLA Will Resume Streaming Video After Legal Dispute; Chronicle of Higher Education, 3/3/10
Jill Laster, Chronicle of Higher Education; UCLA Will Resume Streaming Video After Legal Dispute:
"The University of California at Los Angeles has restored its streaming video service about two months after temporarily suspending the service amid complaints from an educational-media trade group.
The Association for Information and Media Equipment told UCLA in the fall that the university had violated copyright laws by letting instructors use the videos, some of which were full-length productions. UCLA decided that beginning this semester it would suspend the password-protected video-streaming service, available only to students in specific classes.
UCLA announced Wednesday that it will restart streaming of instructional content. The university hopes material will be back up by the spring quarter, which begins March 29. L. Amy Blum, senior campus counsel for UCLA, says the university wants to take steps to ensure that faculty members explicitly say why they are using the copyrighted material.
Current copyright law allows exceptions for research and teaching, including permitting instructors to use audiovisual material in face-to-face courses. The university believes it is protected by those exceptions and the Teach Act, which allows limited use of copyrighted materials for online education.
The information association, or AIME, argues those exclusions do not apply. UCLA and the association had discussions to try to resolve the situation, but the university made the decision to begin using its video-streaming service again independently.
"The message that UCLA sent AIME and all its members is that they and literally every other university have every right to buy a single copy of a video and stream it to an unlimited number of students forever without permission or compensation to the creator," said the association's counsel, Arnold P. Lutzker, in a statement to The Chronicle. "Given that message, AIME members will retain their right to move against UCLA and others that we are investigating."
Mr. Lutzker declined further comment on other institutions the trade group might be investigating.
UCLA spends about $45,000 each year on instructional media and began converting faculty- requested titles to a streamable format in 2005.
Robin L. Garrell, a UCLA chemistry professor and chair of the Academic Senate, said it is too soon to tell if faculty members who use videos will change their syllabi to again include streaming videos. But she said the ability to use streaming videos has been beneficial for students, who might have trouble reaching the university's media lab at a specific time set to view materials.
"As you can imagine, in Los Angeles, a five-mile commute might be a one-hour commute. So this is really important for our students, so they can manage their time," Ms. Garrell said."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/UCLA-Will-Resume-Streaming/21594/
"The University of California at Los Angeles has restored its streaming video service about two months after temporarily suspending the service amid complaints from an educational-media trade group.
The Association for Information and Media Equipment told UCLA in the fall that the university had violated copyright laws by letting instructors use the videos, some of which were full-length productions. UCLA decided that beginning this semester it would suspend the password-protected video-streaming service, available only to students in specific classes.
UCLA announced Wednesday that it will restart streaming of instructional content. The university hopes material will be back up by the spring quarter, which begins March 29. L. Amy Blum, senior campus counsel for UCLA, says the university wants to take steps to ensure that faculty members explicitly say why they are using the copyrighted material.
Current copyright law allows exceptions for research and teaching, including permitting instructors to use audiovisual material in face-to-face courses. The university believes it is protected by those exceptions and the Teach Act, which allows limited use of copyrighted materials for online education.
The information association, or AIME, argues those exclusions do not apply. UCLA and the association had discussions to try to resolve the situation, but the university made the decision to begin using its video-streaming service again independently.
"The message that UCLA sent AIME and all its members is that they and literally every other university have every right to buy a single copy of a video and stream it to an unlimited number of students forever without permission or compensation to the creator," said the association's counsel, Arnold P. Lutzker, in a statement to The Chronicle. "Given that message, AIME members will retain their right to move against UCLA and others that we are investigating."
Mr. Lutzker declined further comment on other institutions the trade group might be investigating.
UCLA spends about $45,000 each year on instructional media and began converting faculty- requested titles to a streamable format in 2005.
Robin L. Garrell, a UCLA chemistry professor and chair of the Academic Senate, said it is too soon to tell if faculty members who use videos will change their syllabi to again include streaming videos. But she said the ability to use streaming videos has been beneficial for students, who might have trouble reaching the university's media lab at a specific time set to view materials.
"As you can imagine, in Los Angeles, a five-mile commute might be a one-hour commute. So this is really important for our students, so they can manage their time," Ms. Garrell said."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/UCLA-Will-Resume-Streaming/21594/
The Google Book Search Case: March Madness Edition; Chronicle of Higher Education, 3/5/10
Jennifer Howard, Chronicle of Higher Education; The Google Book Search Case: March Madness Edition:
"The February 18 fairness hearing on the revised settlement in the Google Books lawsuit has come and gone, and the world now waits for word from Denny Chin, the federal judge in charge of the case. It could be a long wait. At the Association of American Publishers meeting held in Washington this week, there was talk that we might not hear from the judge for a couple of months. (He could issue a ruling anytime, of course.)
One question on the minds of everyone following the settlement is : What happens after the judge rules? Jonathan Band, a specialist in technology law and policy, has created a nifty chart of possible paths the settlement might take, depending on what Judge Chin decides. Called "GBS March Madness: Paths Forward for the Google Books Settlement," the chart lays out a many-branched tree of appeals or litigation, all the way up to the Supreme Court.
In a note, Mr. Band points out that even a chart as complex as his does not lay out all the possible twists and turns the case could still take. "For example, it does not mention stays pending appeals nor whether litigation would proceed as a class action," he writes. And it doesn't talk about why Judge Chin might reject or accept the deal, or whether Congress might step in at some juncture.
"In short, the precise way forward is more difficult to predict than the NCAA tournament," Mr. Band observes."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/The-Google-Book-Search-Case-/21643/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Video Mad Libs With the Right Software; New York Times, 2/25/10
Paul Boutin, New York Times; Video Mad Libs With the Right Software:
"It is April 1945. In his underground bunker, Hitler huddles over a map with his top generals. The room is insufferably tense. Members of the German high command, sweating in their uniforms, wonder who will dare to break the terrible news to Der Führer.
“The iPad won’t support multitasking,” one general confesses. Hitler erupts in impotent rage, “I wanted to watch videos of lolcats while laying on the couch. But no, they won’t even give it Flash support.”
This four-minute video, available on YouTube, is one of hundreds of goofy edits to the English subtitles of a powerful scene from a 2004 German-language movie titled “Downfall” in the United States. In various home-subtitled remakes over the last few years, Hitler explodes when told that the McMansion he was trying to flip is in foreclosure, that the band Oasis has split up, that the Colts lost the Super Bowl or that people keep making more “Downfall” parodies. When Hitler learns Sarah Palin has resigned as governor of Alaska, he pounds his chest. “Every time she winked,” he moans, “I thought it was just for me.”
Making your own Hitler video turns out to be refreshingly easy, which is why so many of them can be found on YouTube. All you need is a PC and Microsoft’s Movie Maker, a program included with both Windows XP and Vista. (If you run the new Windows 7, you will need to download the old Movie Maker 2.6, rather than the new but less powerful Windows Live Movie Maker. If you’re a Mac user, Apple’s built-in iMovie application will handle the job.)...
A brief word about “fair use.” When you are playing with copyrighted material, you have to be aware that all your hard work can be for naught. While you may be well within your rights to use a portion of copyrighted material in a parody — the law is murky on how much material and in what fashion constitutes fair use — your parody might get squashed. Downfall’s copyright holder, Constantin Film, had a dozen remixes removed from YouTube earlier this year. But the company seems to have since yielded to the phenomenon. And YouTube recently removed the clip that began the 2007 fad of rickrolling, long after the meme had worn itself out."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/personaltech/25basics.html?scp=1&sq=madlibs&st=cse
"It is April 1945. In his underground bunker, Hitler huddles over a map with his top generals. The room is insufferably tense. Members of the German high command, sweating in their uniforms, wonder who will dare to break the terrible news to Der Führer.
“The iPad won’t support multitasking,” one general confesses. Hitler erupts in impotent rage, “I wanted to watch videos of lolcats while laying on the couch. But no, they won’t even give it Flash support.”
This four-minute video, available on YouTube, is one of hundreds of goofy edits to the English subtitles of a powerful scene from a 2004 German-language movie titled “Downfall” in the United States. In various home-subtitled remakes over the last few years, Hitler explodes when told that the McMansion he was trying to flip is in foreclosure, that the band Oasis has split up, that the Colts lost the Super Bowl or that people keep making more “Downfall” parodies. When Hitler learns Sarah Palin has resigned as governor of Alaska, he pounds his chest. “Every time she winked,” he moans, “I thought it was just for me.”
Making your own Hitler video turns out to be refreshingly easy, which is why so many of them can be found on YouTube. All you need is a PC and Microsoft’s Movie Maker, a program included with both Windows XP and Vista. (If you run the new Windows 7, you will need to download the old Movie Maker 2.6, rather than the new but less powerful Windows Live Movie Maker. If you’re a Mac user, Apple’s built-in iMovie application will handle the job.)...
A brief word about “fair use.” When you are playing with copyrighted material, you have to be aware that all your hard work can be for naught. While you may be well within your rights to use a portion of copyrighted material in a parody — the law is murky on how much material and in what fashion constitutes fair use — your parody might get squashed. Downfall’s copyright holder, Constantin Film, had a dozen remixes removed from YouTube earlier this year. But the company seems to have since yielded to the phenomenon. And YouTube recently removed the clip that began the 2007 fad of rickrolling, long after the meme had worn itself out."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/personaltech/25basics.html?scp=1&sq=madlibs&st=cse
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Issue Brief on Streaming of Films for Educational Purposes; ACRL Insider, 2/22/10
Kara Malenfant, ACRL Insider; Issue Brief on Streaming of Films for Educational Purposes:
"Last Friday, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) released an issue brief that reviews the legal status of streaming entire films to students located outside of physical classrooms. The discussion was prompted by recent news of a disagreement between the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and a media equipment trade association over the streaming of films to students as part of an online courseware system. Innovations in secure streaming and online courseware systems hold significant promise for institutions serving faculty and students who demand increased access to institutional and library holdings. Many questions have been raised concerning the use of these technologies and copyright law, and the LCA issue brief aims to dispel some of the mystery and uncertainty that surround this issue, and to foster a balanced discussion.
The LCA issue brief explains characteristics that could increase the likelihood that a particular use will be allowed as well as the arguments that could lead a court to find in favor of educational uses. It also explains how these statutory provisions interact, and, most importantly, how the scope of fair use is affected by the other provisions in the Act.
The Copyright Act includes several provisions that allow users to copy, perform, distribute, or display works without permission from a rightsholder. The LCA issue brief surveys three provisions of the Copyright Act—Sections 107, 110(1), and 110(2)—that could arguably support streaming entire films. The strongest argument is grounded in Section 107—the fair use provision. Fair use is a flexible, evolving doctrine that is often helpful to scholarly and educational users and users of new technology. Section 110(1) and (2) specifically address the issue of educational use of films, but they are less flexible. Whether these provisions will allow for a particular use will depend on the details of the use as well as how a court chooses to interpret certain key parts of the Act. View the full issue brief online.
****
The Library Copyright Alliance is a coalition of library associations made up of the Association of Research Libraries, the American Library Association, and the Association of College and Research Libraries. Read more about LCA."
http://www.acrl.ala.org/acrlinsider/2010/02/22/issue-brief-on-streaming-of-films-for-educational-purposes/
"Last Friday, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) released an issue brief that reviews the legal status of streaming entire films to students located outside of physical classrooms. The discussion was prompted by recent news of a disagreement between the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and a media equipment trade association over the streaming of films to students as part of an online courseware system. Innovations in secure streaming and online courseware systems hold significant promise for institutions serving faculty and students who demand increased access to institutional and library holdings. Many questions have been raised concerning the use of these technologies and copyright law, and the LCA issue brief aims to dispel some of the mystery and uncertainty that surround this issue, and to foster a balanced discussion.
The LCA issue brief explains characteristics that could increase the likelihood that a particular use will be allowed as well as the arguments that could lead a court to find in favor of educational uses. It also explains how these statutory provisions interact, and, most importantly, how the scope of fair use is affected by the other provisions in the Act.
The Copyright Act includes several provisions that allow users to copy, perform, distribute, or display works without permission from a rightsholder. The LCA issue brief surveys three provisions of the Copyright Act—Sections 107, 110(1), and 110(2)—that could arguably support streaming entire films. The strongest argument is grounded in Section 107—the fair use provision. Fair use is a flexible, evolving doctrine that is often helpful to scholarly and educational users and users of new technology. Section 110(1) and (2) specifically address the issue of educational use of films, but they are less flexible. Whether these provisions will allow for a particular use will depend on the details of the use as well as how a court chooses to interpret certain key parts of the Act. View the full issue brief online.
****
The Library Copyright Alliance is a coalition of library associations made up of the Association of Research Libraries, the American Library Association, and the Association of College and Research Libraries. Read more about LCA."
http://www.acrl.ala.org/acrlinsider/2010/02/22/issue-brief-on-streaming-of-films-for-educational-purposes/
Textbook Publishers Win Court Ruling Against File-Sharing Web Site; Chronicle of Higher Education, 2/24/10
Jeffrey Young, Chronicle of Higher Education; Textbook Publishers Win Court Ruling Against File-Sharing Web Site:
"In a victory for textbook publishers, a German court has ruled that RapidShare, a file-trading Web site, must do more to stop the unauthorized swapping of some copyrighted books on its service.
The Landgericht in Hamburg, a district court, issued a preliminary ruling against RapidShare this month, prohibiting the company from making available certain copyrighted books on its site. The order took effect February 17.
Six major publishers brought the legal action against RapidShare, and they specified a list of 148 titles that are frequently pirated on the site. Those are the works covered under the court order, and many of them are textbooks.
Officials for RapidShare, which is based in Switzerland, could not be reached on Tuesday. In the past, the company has argued that it quickly takes down any copyrighted material that users post to the service once officials become aware of it, and that it follows all legal requirements regarding copyright.
The ruling said the company must go further: "It is not only necessary to promptly block access to the specific file, but rather to also take precautions going beyond this in order to prevent to the largest possible extent the occurrence of further similar infringements."
The court said it will issue fines of up to 250,000 euros (about $340,000) or jail time for company executives of up to two years per instance that a specified book is present on the file-sharing site.
On Tuesday afternoon, one of the books, Advanced 2D Game Development, by Jonathan S. Harbour, was still listed on the service, but an attempt to download it drew only the following error message: "Due to a violation of our terms of use, the file has been removed from the server."
Officials for the book publishers said they have been too busy writing a news release about the Hamburg court's decision to check whether all of the selected books have been removed from the site.
In an interview with The Chronicle, Tom Allen, chief executive of the Association of American Publishers, called the decision "a big deal," describing RapidShare as one of the largest provider of illegal books.
A recent study by Attributor Corporation, which helps companies search for pirated works, found that the vast majority of pirated books appear on just two sites, and RapidShare was one of them.
The publishers involved are among the largest in the world when it comes to textbooks: Bedford, Freeman & Worth; Cengage Learning; Elsevier; the McGraw-Hill Companies; Pearson; and John Wiley & Sons.
They brought the suit in Germany because courts there have been friendly to publishers in the past. "The German courts had dealt with this issue and did it in a way that respected copyright and did it quickly," said Mr. Allen, of the publishers' association."
http://chronicle.com/article/Textbook-Publishers-Win-Court/64342/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
"In a victory for textbook publishers, a German court has ruled that RapidShare, a file-trading Web site, must do more to stop the unauthorized swapping of some copyrighted books on its service.
The Landgericht in Hamburg, a district court, issued a preliminary ruling against RapidShare this month, prohibiting the company from making available certain copyrighted books on its site. The order took effect February 17.
Six major publishers brought the legal action against RapidShare, and they specified a list of 148 titles that are frequently pirated on the site. Those are the works covered under the court order, and many of them are textbooks.
Officials for RapidShare, which is based in Switzerland, could not be reached on Tuesday. In the past, the company has argued that it quickly takes down any copyrighted material that users post to the service once officials become aware of it, and that it follows all legal requirements regarding copyright.
The ruling said the company must go further: "It is not only necessary to promptly block access to the specific file, but rather to also take precautions going beyond this in order to prevent to the largest possible extent the occurrence of further similar infringements."
The court said it will issue fines of up to 250,000 euros (about $340,000) or jail time for company executives of up to two years per instance that a specified book is present on the file-sharing site.
On Tuesday afternoon, one of the books, Advanced 2D Game Development, by Jonathan S. Harbour, was still listed on the service, but an attempt to download it drew only the following error message: "Due to a violation of our terms of use, the file has been removed from the server."
Officials for the book publishers said they have been too busy writing a news release about the Hamburg court's decision to check whether all of the selected books have been removed from the site.
In an interview with The Chronicle, Tom Allen, chief executive of the Association of American Publishers, called the decision "a big deal," describing RapidShare as one of the largest provider of illegal books.
A recent study by Attributor Corporation, which helps companies search for pirated works, found that the vast majority of pirated books appear on just two sites, and RapidShare was one of them.
The publishers involved are among the largest in the world when it comes to textbooks: Bedford, Freeman & Worth; Cengage Learning; Elsevier; the McGraw-Hill Companies; Pearson; and John Wiley & Sons.
They brought the suit in Germany because courts there have been friendly to publishers in the past. "The German courts had dealt with this issue and did it in a way that respected copyright and did it quickly," said Mr. Allen, of the publishers' association."
http://chronicle.com/article/Textbook-Publishers-Win-Court/64342/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)