Etan Vlessing, Hollywood Reporter; Canadian copyright reform debate turns nasty:
"Canadian federal politician James Moore has lashed out at opponents of his made-in-U.S.A. copyright reform package as "radical extremists."
"They will find any excuse to oppose this bill, to drum up fear, to mislead, to misdirect and to push people in the wrong direction and to undermine what has been a year-long comprehensive effort to get something right," Moore, the federal heritage minister in charge of copyright reform, told a G20 Chamber of Commerce gathering in Toronto.
Moore, who is looking to get Bill C-32 and its amendments to the federal Copyright Act into law, has come under attack from artist and consumer advocates for proposing to bar Canadians from picking a digital lock on music, film or any entertainment product protected from duplication
"There are those cited as experts by the media who are not in favor of copyright reform. They are in favor only in weakening legislation, and only gutting tools that would allow those who are investing in and creating jobs to continue to have those jobs," Moore insisted.
"When they speak up, we need to confront them," he added.
But Moore's call to arms met with an immediate barrage of complaints from opposition politicians and copyright reform critics.
Charlie Angus, a broadcast critic for the opposition NDP party, said Moore attacking artists and consumers posing legitimate questions about Bill C-32 was "ridiculous."
"Instead of understanding and appreciating the nuances of balanced copyright, the minister is appearing hyper-defensive and bombastic. I think he needs a time out," Angus said.
Michael Geist, an Internet and e-commerce law professor at the University of Ottawa, in a blog criticized Moore for looking to discredit and confront opponents of his proposed copyright reform package.
"To use his own words, it is an attempt to mislead, misdirect, and undermine what has been more than a year-long effort for Canadians to speak out on copyright," Geist said.
The Canadian mud fight over copyright reform comes as Ottawa looks to get back in Washington's good books after being placed by the U.S. Trade Representative on its "priority watch list" for piracy.
Moore's proposed copyright reforms include a first-time "notice-and-notice" regime where copyright holders can warn Internet service providers of suspected piracy, and the ISP will then be compelled to tell their customer they are breaking the law.
The long-awaited reforms to limit consumer protections will also narrow Canada's fair dealing provision, albeit with extensions for the recording of content for news reporting or parody, for example, if copyright infringement is not intended.
Bill C32 will now go to committee in Ottawa for likely amendments before the Canadian Parliament gets a chance to vote on the new legislation."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/world/news/e3i4398ded06f46a32c46ea40e0f6d0562e
Friday, June 25, 2010
Canadian Heritage Minister Says That Those In Favor Of Balanced Copyright Are 'Radical Extremists'; TechDirt.com, 6/23/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; Canadian Heritage Minister Says That Those In Favor Of Balanced Copyright Are 'Radical Extremists':
"Anshar alerts us to the news that the driving force behind Canada's new copyright bill, Heritage Minister James Moore, at a Chamber of Commerce event, apparently claimed that those who are opposed to Canada's attempt to put in place a version of the DMCA are just a group of "radical extremists." Really? So, people who just want to make sure that copyright law doesn't lock up culture and harm creativity are "radical extremists"? How does he figure that? Meanwhile, in response to this, Michael Geist has started putting together a list of these "radical extremists" who appear to be just about everywhere, including littered throughout all of the major political parties, and appears to include such "radicals" as the Canadian Library Association and the Canadian Bookseller Association (radicals! all of them!). I guess since Moore doesn't appear to want to have to actually defend the more worrisome parts of the legislation (mainly the "digital locks" anti-circumvention provisions) he figures the next best thing is to demonize people who actually care about consumer rights."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100622/1658319925.shtml
"Anshar alerts us to the news that the driving force behind Canada's new copyright bill, Heritage Minister James Moore, at a Chamber of Commerce event, apparently claimed that those who are opposed to Canada's attempt to put in place a version of the DMCA are just a group of "radical extremists." Really? So, people who just want to make sure that copyright law doesn't lock up culture and harm creativity are "radical extremists"? How does he figure that? Meanwhile, in response to this, Michael Geist has started putting together a list of these "radical extremists" who appear to be just about everywhere, including littered throughout all of the major political parties, and appears to include such "radicals" as the Canadian Library Association and the Canadian Bookseller Association (radicals! all of them!). I guess since Moore doesn't appear to want to have to actually defend the more worrisome parts of the legislation (mainly the "digital locks" anti-circumvention provisions) he figures the next best thing is to demonize people who actually care about consumer rights."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100622/1658319925.shtml
ASCAP Files 21 Copyright Suits Against Bars and Clubs; New York Times, 6/21/10
Joseph Plambeck, New York Times; ASCAP Files 21 Copyright Suits Against Bars and Clubs:
"The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers said on Monday that it had filed copyright suits against 21 bars, nightclubs and restaurants across the country, including Doug’s Burger Bar in Imperial, Mo., and The Vibe in Riverside, Calif.
The performing rights group, which represents more than 380,000 songwriters and publishers, said in a statement that each of the businesses did not have the required license to allow performers to play copyrighted songs or have failed to make the payments required by the license.
Any venue that hosts musicians who perform any of the 8.5 million copyrighted songs overseen by the performing rights group, which collects royalties for song writers, is supposed to pay an annual licensing fee.
“Having music in an establishment is an enhancement that draws many patrons to these venues. A music license is a basic cost of business recognized in hundreds of thousands of bars, restaurants and other venues across the U.S.,” Vincent Candilora, the group’s senior vice president of licensing, said in a statement. “The 21 cases filed today aim to heighten awareness among music users and the public that it is a federal offense to perform copyrighted music without permission.”"
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/ascap-files-21-copyright-suits-against-bars-and-clubs/?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
"The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers said on Monday that it had filed copyright suits against 21 bars, nightclubs and restaurants across the country, including Doug’s Burger Bar in Imperial, Mo., and The Vibe in Riverside, Calif.
The performing rights group, which represents more than 380,000 songwriters and publishers, said in a statement that each of the businesses did not have the required license to allow performers to play copyrighted songs or have failed to make the payments required by the license.
Any venue that hosts musicians who perform any of the 8.5 million copyrighted songs overseen by the performing rights group, which collects royalties for song writers, is supposed to pay an annual licensing fee.
“Having music in an establishment is an enhancement that draws many patrons to these venues. A music license is a basic cost of business recognized in hundreds of thousands of bars, restaurants and other venues across the U.S.,” Vincent Candilora, the group’s senior vice president of licensing, said in a statement. “The 21 cases filed today aim to heighten awareness among music users and the public that it is a federal offense to perform copyrighted music without permission.”"
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/ascap-files-21-copyright-suits-against-bars-and-clubs/?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
Center Releases New Guide to Navigating Copyright Law; Chronicle of Higher Education, 6/23/10
Sophia Li, Chronicle of Higher Education; Center Releases New Guide to Navigating Copyright Law:
"Communications scholars often fret over the legal nuances of using copyrighted material in their research, says Pat Aufderheide, a professor of communication at American University and director of its Center for Social Media. Ms. Aufderheide and Peter A. Jaszi, a law professor at American, hope to help researchers rest easy with a new guide to using copyrighted work—like political cartoons or screenshots from online games—in their studies.
Because of the "fair use" provisions of copyright law, copyrighted work can be quoted if it is being used for a purpose different from its original intent, according to the report, which was vetted by a committee of lawyers.
The report, released today, gives communications scholars four types of research-related situations as examples: analyzing copyrighted material, quoting it to illustrate a point, using it to spark discussion, and storing it in a collection. The situations in the report were based on 387 responses to a survey of communications scholars conducted in collaboration with the International Communication Association.
The center's guides establish what's acceptable for a field and tell scholars how to apply the law to the cases they encounter, said Ms. Aufderheide.
The center plans to continue producing similar documents for other groups, like an association of research librarians, that want clearer guidelines on using copyrighted works, she added."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Center-Releases-New-Guide-to/25038/
"Communications scholars often fret over the legal nuances of using copyrighted material in their research, says Pat Aufderheide, a professor of communication at American University and director of its Center for Social Media. Ms. Aufderheide and Peter A. Jaszi, a law professor at American, hope to help researchers rest easy with a new guide to using copyrighted work—like political cartoons or screenshots from online games—in their studies.
Because of the "fair use" provisions of copyright law, copyrighted work can be quoted if it is being used for a purpose different from its original intent, according to the report, which was vetted by a committee of lawyers.
The report, released today, gives communications scholars four types of research-related situations as examples: analyzing copyrighted material, quoting it to illustrate a point, using it to spark discussion, and storing it in a collection. The situations in the report were based on 387 responses to a survey of communications scholars conducted in collaboration with the International Communication Association.
The center's guides establish what's acceptable for a field and tell scholars how to apply the law to the cases they encounter, said Ms. Aufderheide.
The center plans to continue producing similar documents for other groups, like an association of research librarians, that want clearer guidelines on using copyrighted works, she added."
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Center-Releases-New-Guide-to/25038/
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Google Wins Viacom Copyright Lawsuit; Wired.com, 6/23/10
David Kravets, Wired.com; Google Wins Viacom Copyright Lawsuit:
"Google-owned YouTube won a major victory Wednesday when a federal judge ruled the video-sharing site was protected under U.S. copyright law.
Viacom, which vowed an appeal, was seeking $1 billion in damages in a case testing the depths of copyright-infringement protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.
The ruling, if it survives, is a boon for internet freedom, especially as it applies to search engines, video-hosting companies, picture-hosting services like Flickr, social-networking sites like Facebook and micro-blogging services such as Twitter. But it will make it all the more difficult for rights holders to protect their works.
In short, Wednesday’s decision says internet companies, even if they know they are hosting infringing material, are immune from copyright liability if they promptly remove works at a rights-holder’s request — under what is known as a takedown notice.
“Today’s decision isn’t just about YouTube,” said Center for Democracy & Technology lawyer David Sohn. “Without this decision, user generated content would dry up and the internet would cease to be a participatory medium.”
U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton of New York disagreed with Viacom’s claims that YouTube had lost the so-called “safe harbor” protection under the DMCA. Viacom, parent of Paramount Pictures and MTV, maintained Google did not qualify, because internal records showed Google was well aware its video-hosting site was riddled with infringing material posted by its users.
Stanton ruled that YouTube’s “mere knowledge” of infringing activity “is not enough.”
“To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA,” the judge wrote.
Stanton ruled that YouTube had no way of knowing whether a video was licensed by the owner, was a “fair use” of the material “or even whether its copyright owner or licensee objects to its posting.”
Stanton added, “Indeed, the present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently: When Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass takedown notice on Feb. 2, 2007, by the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them.”
Jonathan Band, a copyright attorney who helped craft the DMCA, said “The argument Viacom was making would have neutered the DMCA. I think the judge understood that.”
The DMCA, which was heavily lobbied into existence by the Hollywood studios, has been a boon for internet freedom. But it has been a bust in other areas.
Among its provisions, it prohibits the circumvention of encryption technology. DVDs are encrypted with what is known as the Content Scramble System, and DVD players must secure a license to play discs. So a San Francisco federal judge ruled in March that RealNetworks breached the DMCA when it marketed a DVD-copying device, and precluded it from the market. Apple also claims the DMCA makes it unlawful to jailbreak iPhones.
The Motion Picture Association of America declined comment on Stanton’s decision.
What’s more, the DMCA’s “safe harbor” privilege comes with another price. The law demands intermediaries such as YouTube to take down content in response to a notice from rights holders, without evaluating the claim for reasonableness or accuracy, or considering the fair use rights of users. That has opened the door to many abuses of free expression, including Universal Music’s 2008 takedown notice to YouTube over a Pennsylvania woman’s 29-second video of her toddler dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy.”
The YouTube-Viacom decision came nearly a year after a Los Angeles federal judge ruled similarly in a case against little-known, video-sharing site Veoh, which has gone bankrupt. The difference between Wednesday’s ruling and the Veoh outcome, Band said, is that YouTube is mainstream, used by millions daily and is owned by one of the world’s most popular and richest internet brands: Google.
Google, which purchased YouTube for $1.8 billion in 2006, hailed the decision, saying it was “an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the web to communicate and share experiences with each other.”
Viacom, which brought the case three years ago, said “We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.”
Judge Stanton ruled the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision against Grokster did not apply. He said Grokster distributed software that allowed computer-to-computer exchanges of infringing material, “with the expressed intent of succeeding to the business of the notoriously infringing Napster.”
Here is the case’s entire docket."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/dmca-protects-youtube/#ixzz0rjMsFe8I
"Google-owned YouTube won a major victory Wednesday when a federal judge ruled the video-sharing site was protected under U.S. copyright law.
Viacom, which vowed an appeal, was seeking $1 billion in damages in a case testing the depths of copyright-infringement protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.
The ruling, if it survives, is a boon for internet freedom, especially as it applies to search engines, video-hosting companies, picture-hosting services like Flickr, social-networking sites like Facebook and micro-blogging services such as Twitter. But it will make it all the more difficult for rights holders to protect their works.
In short, Wednesday’s decision says internet companies, even if they know they are hosting infringing material, are immune from copyright liability if they promptly remove works at a rights-holder’s request — under what is known as a takedown notice.
“Today’s decision isn’t just about YouTube,” said Center for Democracy & Technology lawyer David Sohn. “Without this decision, user generated content would dry up and the internet would cease to be a participatory medium.”
U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton of New York disagreed with Viacom’s claims that YouTube had lost the so-called “safe harbor” protection under the DMCA. Viacom, parent of Paramount Pictures and MTV, maintained Google did not qualify, because internal records showed Google was well aware its video-hosting site was riddled with infringing material posted by its users.
Stanton ruled that YouTube’s “mere knowledge” of infringing activity “is not enough.”
“To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA,” the judge wrote.
Stanton ruled that YouTube had no way of knowing whether a video was licensed by the owner, was a “fair use” of the material “or even whether its copyright owner or licensee objects to its posting.”
Stanton added, “Indeed, the present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently: When Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass takedown notice on Feb. 2, 2007, by the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them.”
Jonathan Band, a copyright attorney who helped craft the DMCA, said “The argument Viacom was making would have neutered the DMCA. I think the judge understood that.”
The DMCA, which was heavily lobbied into existence by the Hollywood studios, has been a boon for internet freedom. But it has been a bust in other areas.
Among its provisions, it prohibits the circumvention of encryption technology. DVDs are encrypted with what is known as the Content Scramble System, and DVD players must secure a license to play discs. So a San Francisco federal judge ruled in March that RealNetworks breached the DMCA when it marketed a DVD-copying device, and precluded it from the market. Apple also claims the DMCA makes it unlawful to jailbreak iPhones.
The Motion Picture Association of America declined comment on Stanton’s decision.
What’s more, the DMCA’s “safe harbor” privilege comes with another price. The law demands intermediaries such as YouTube to take down content in response to a notice from rights holders, without evaluating the claim for reasonableness or accuracy, or considering the fair use rights of users. That has opened the door to many abuses of free expression, including Universal Music’s 2008 takedown notice to YouTube over a Pennsylvania woman’s 29-second video of her toddler dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy.”
The YouTube-Viacom decision came nearly a year after a Los Angeles federal judge ruled similarly in a case against little-known, video-sharing site Veoh, which has gone bankrupt. The difference between Wednesday’s ruling and the Veoh outcome, Band said, is that YouTube is mainstream, used by millions daily and is owned by one of the world’s most popular and richest internet brands: Google.
Google, which purchased YouTube for $1.8 billion in 2006, hailed the decision, saying it was “an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the web to communicate and share experiences with each other.”
Viacom, which brought the case three years ago, said “We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.”
Judge Stanton ruled the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision against Grokster did not apply. He said Grokster distributed software that allowed computer-to-computer exchanges of infringing material, “with the expressed intent of succeeding to the business of the notoriously infringing Napster.”
Here is the case’s entire docket."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/dmca-protects-youtube/#ixzz0rjMsFe8I
Google triumphant, beats back billion dollar Viacom lawsuit; ArsTechnica.com, 6/23/10
Michael Lasar, ArsTechnica.com; Google triumphant, beats back billion dollar Viacom lawsuit:
"It was a billion dollar lawsuit, and YouTube has won—for now. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has rejected Viacom's claim that Google's premier video site was guilty of massive copyright infringement. Instead, the court has granted Google's motion for summary judgment and asserted that YouTube fully qualifies for "safe harbor" protections under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
"This is an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the Web to communicate and share experiences with each other," Google just announced on its blog. "We’re excited about this decision and look forward to renewing our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas and expression that billions of people post and watch on YouTube every day around the world."
Viacom had contended that most of the "safe harbor" provisions in the DMCA did not protect Google from Viacom's infringement claims. Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that if Viacom's arguments prevailed, they would severely compromise the viability of online content providers both huge and small, and would gut the DMCA's protections for sites that host or transmit other people's content. eBay, Facebook, Ask.com, and Yahoo! similarly weighed in on the case.
"The present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently," the court noted, "when Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007. By the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them."
Viacom, it should be noted, doesn't agree with the sweeping judicial ruling (which was a relatively sparse 30-pager), as is evident from the press statement we just received. Viacom intends to appeal the case.
"We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the intent of Congress, and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions," Viacom says.
Furthermore: "We intend to seek to have these issues before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible. After years of delay, this decision gives us the opportunity to have the Appellate Court address these critical issues on an accelerated basis. We look forward to the next stage of the process."
But for now, YouTube and Google have won a tremendous victory."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/06/google-beats-viacom-in-billion-dollar-lawsuit.ars
"It was a billion dollar lawsuit, and YouTube has won—for now. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has rejected Viacom's claim that Google's premier video site was guilty of massive copyright infringement. Instead, the court has granted Google's motion for summary judgment and asserted that YouTube fully qualifies for "safe harbor" protections under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
"This is an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the Web to communicate and share experiences with each other," Google just announced on its blog. "We’re excited about this decision and look forward to renewing our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas and expression that billions of people post and watch on YouTube every day around the world."
Viacom had contended that most of the "safe harbor" provisions in the DMCA did not protect Google from Viacom's infringement claims. Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that if Viacom's arguments prevailed, they would severely compromise the viability of online content providers both huge and small, and would gut the DMCA's protections for sites that host or transmit other people's content. eBay, Facebook, Ask.com, and Yahoo! similarly weighed in on the case.
"The present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently," the court noted, "when Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007. By the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them."
Viacom, it should be noted, doesn't agree with the sweeping judicial ruling (which was a relatively sparse 30-pager), as is evident from the press statement we just received. Viacom intends to appeal the case.
"We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the intent of Congress, and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions," Viacom says.
Furthermore: "We intend to seek to have these issues before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible. After years of delay, this decision gives us the opportunity to have the Appellate Court address these critical issues on an accelerated basis. We look forward to the next stage of the process."
But for now, YouTube and Google have won a tremendous victory."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/06/google-beats-viacom-in-billion-dollar-lawsuit.ars
Huge Victory: Court Rules For YouTube Against Viacom; TechDirt.com, 6/23/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; Huge Victory: Court Rules For YouTube Against Viacom:
"Well this is a pleasant surprise. Like many others, I had assumed that the court reviewing the Viacom/YouTube lawsuit would not accept either side's position for summary judgment and the case would go to a full trial. However, as Eric Goldman alerts us, the court has quickly ruled in favor of Google/YouTube, saying that it is, in fact, protected by the DMCA's safe harbors. Here's the ruling..."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/1333269937.shtml
"Well this is a pleasant surprise. Like many others, I had assumed that the court reviewing the Viacom/YouTube lawsuit would not accept either side's position for summary judgment and the case would go to a full trial. However, as Eric Goldman alerts us, the court has quickly ruled in favor of Google/YouTube, saying that it is, in fact, protected by the DMCA's safe harbors. Here's the ruling..."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/1333269937.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)