‘The Last Bookaneer,’ by Matthew Pearl; New York Times Sunday Book Review, 5/29/15

John Vernon, New York Times Sunday Book Review; ‘The Last Bookaneer,’ by Matthew Pearl:

"The novelistic conceit of “The Last Bookaneer” is based on the historical fact that until the passage of the International Copyright Act of 1891, the pirating of books, especially books by British authors, was common in America. Set at the time of the act’s passage, Pearl’s novel tells a one-last-heist story of two rival pirates, Penrose Davenport and a mysterious malefactor called Belial, who separately leave for Samoa, where Robert Louis Stevenson is finishing what promises to be his final novel. (Stevenson and his family did indeed spend his last years in Samoa.) Each bookaneer hopes to steal Stevenson’s manuscript and sell it to a New York publisher before the law goes into effect on July 1, which means they’re engaged in a race against time...

In his asides, Pearl can be smart and inventive. He clearly knows the quirky history of books, especially those by the great 19th-century writers. The voice of his narrator, a bookseller by trade, is authentic and convincing, with just the right dash of stuffiness and complaint. In fact, the best thing about “The Last Bookaneer” may be the opportunity it provides for its author to comment on writers, bibliophiles and publishers, with sly allusions to today’s changing and threatened book culture. The closure of a bookshop, Fergins remarks, is a “failure of mankind — a sign . . . that bookshops will one day disappear altogether and be replaced by mail order.”"

How copyright law threatens your right to repair your car; Vox, 5/28/15

Timothy B. Lee, Vox; How copyright law threatens your right to repair your car:

"The DMCA prohibits anyone from "circumventing" electronic locks that prevent copying of copyrighted content, including software. The law was designed for the kind of copy-prevention schemes used by DVDs and online music stores like iTunes.

But the software baked into your car is also copyrighted. In theory, that means carmakers could invoke the DMCA to shut down third-party diagnostic tools, shut out independent mechanics, and prevent customers from repairing their own vehicles. Earlier this year, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a petition with the Librarian of Congress, which has the authority to grant DMCA exemptions, to allow customers and independent mechanics to repair their vehicles without the permission of automakers.

Most automakers oppose the petition. General Motors, for example, argues that the ban on tinkering with car software is an important safety feature. "The proposed exemption presents a host of potential safety, security and regulatory concerns that proponents have not fully considered," the carmaker says.

They point out, for example, that someone could use software to disable a car's airbag and then sell the vehicle to another customer, who would have no way of knowing the airbag wouldn't deploy in an accident.

This isn't a crazy argument. The software on your smartphone or PC can't get anyone killed. The software in your car can. So it's worth being concerned about the safety risks of unauthorized software tampering.

But people have had the ability to modify their cars in potentially dangerous ways since long before the invention of software."

No more DIY farmer? John Deere copyright battle brings farm equipment ownership in question; Kankakee Daily Journal, 5/30/15

Dennis Moran, Kankakee Daily Journal; No more DIY farmer? John Deere copyright battle brings farm equipment ownership in question:

"Deere & Co. is among major manufacturers engaged in a U.S. Copyright Office battle, one over sophisticated electronic systems.

At issue is access to the software controlling much of the operation of modern cars, trucks and tractors. The software is copyright-protected and, beyond that, locked to prevent hackers and do-it-your-selfers from altering or copying it.

The people and organizations asking the Copyright Office to permit access to the software say it's a matter of fully "owning" the tractor or car you paid for, and that open access would enable consumers to make do-it-yourself repairs without having to go through authorized repair shops with software access codes.

Deere isn't the only company fighting the proposed change — General Motors, the Association of Global Automakers and Eaton Corporation are among the half dozen or so companies and manufacturer associations filing briefs in opposition — but it seems to have become the whipping boy for the opposition with one provocative online story making the rounds.

"We Can't Let John Deere Destroy the Very Idea of Ownership," reads a headline for an opinion piece on Wired, a popular magazine that reports on the culture of emerging technologies."

Appropriation art meets Instagram: Is copyright law ready?; MSNBC, 5/26/15

Christopher Buccafusco, MSNBC; Appropriation art meets Instagram: Is copyright law ready? :

"Prince is an appropriation artist; he takes other people’s works and repurposes them in new, slightly different ways. The field of appropriation art dates back to Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, a signed and dated urinal laid flat on the ground, and it includes Sherrie Levine’s re-photographing of famous Walker Evans images. An appellate court in New York recently declared that Prince’s modifications to photographs taken by Patrick Cariou were fair use, insulating Prince from liability for copyright infringement.

In his new work, Prince isn’t borrowing from established artists—he may be borrowing from you. His new show in New York’s Frieze Art Fair includes blown up images taken (I assume, without authorization) from other people’s Instagram accounts. According to The Washington Post, Prince left the images and the usernames intact, but he substituted his own, somewhat unusual comments beneath the images.

Will the original Instagram users be upset? They might be after they hear that Prince’s works sold for $90,000 each. Will they successfully be able to sue him? Probably not.

Again, the reason why will be the fair use doctrine. Copyright law gives people rights to encourage creativity. Although copying someone else’s creative work without paying for it is often against the law, certain kinds of copying isn’t. The fair use doctrine protects some kinds of copying when doing so is beneficial to society. For example, a reviewer can reproduce a portion of a book or movie in order to criticize it."

A reminder that your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90,000; Washington Post, 5/25/15

Jessica Contrera, Washington Post; A reminder that your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90,000:

"This month, painter and photographer Richard Prince reminded us that what you post is public, and given the flexibility of copyright laws, can be shared — and sold — for anyone to see. As a part of the Frieze Art Fair in New York, Prince displayed giant screenshots of other people’s Instagram photos without warning or permission...

The collection, “New Portraits,” is primarily made up of pictures of women, many in sexually charged poses. They are not paintings, but screenshots that have been enlarged to 6-foot-tall inkjet prints. According to Vulture, nearly every piece sold for $90,000 each.

How is this okay?

First you should know that Richard Prince has been “re-photographing” since the 1970s. He takes pictures of photos in magazines, advertisements, books or actors’ headshots, then alters them to varying degrees. Often, they look nearly identical to the originals. This has of course, led to legal trouble. In 2008, French photographer Patrick Cariou sued Prince after he re-photographed Cariou’s images of Jamaica’s Rastafarian community. Although Cariou won at first, on appeal, the court ruled that Prince had not committed copyright infringement because his works were “transformative.”"

The Turtles Win Class Action Certification In SiriusXM Copyright Lawsuit, Opening Door For Others; Forbes, 5/28/15

Nomi Prins, Forbes; The Turtles Win Class Action Certification In SiriusXM Copyright Lawsuit, Opening Door For Others:

"Legally, theses suits hinge on the demarcation between federal and state copyright laws. Under Section 114 of the federal Copyright Act, there is a statute of limitations on exclusive rights to recordings made on or after February 15, 1972. SiriusXM and others are operating legally under that law. Certain state laws, on the other hand, cover pre-1972 recordings. The Turtles have filed class-action suits against SiriusXM in California, Florida and New York, requesting more than $100 million in damages.

Granting this suit class action status leaves the door wide open for other artists with pre-1972 recordings to enter the class. The result could be substantial settlements, or many years of litigation, or both."

Publishing World Gathers This Week for Book Conventions; Associated Press via New York Times, 5/26/15

Associated Press via New York Times; Publishing World Gathers This Week for Book Conventions:

"The digital revolution that was supposed to have prevailed by now remains stalled. Independent bookstores, supposedly on the same path to oblivion as video stores and record shops, have grown for six consecutive years. Authors and agents are unhappy with the standard e-book royalty, 25 percent, but the once-predicted exodus to Amazon and other digital companies offering higher rates has yet to happen.

"I think traditional publishing offers elements that are still essential to writers and readers," said Roxana Robinson, president of the Authors Guild, a trade association for thousands of writers. "No one in the writing community likes the low e-book royalty rates, and I think you'll see a concerted effort to change them. But for many writers, the advantages offered by traditional houses still outweigh the disadvantages."

"It's not that nothing has changed," said literary agent Eric Simonoff, noting the downfall of the Borders superstore chain and the prevalence of e-books for romance novels and other genres. "But it's still a generally healthy business and it's still primarily physical books. It speaks to the reports of the demise of publishing being greatly exaggerated.""