AP Exclusive: China Ministry Posted Bootleg 'Liar's Poker'; Associated Press via New York Times, 7/3/15

Associated Press via New York Times; AP Exclusive: China Ministry Posted Bootleg 'Liar's Poker' :

"A complete bootlegged copy of Michael Lewis' bestselling book about Wall Street, "Liar's Poker," was hosted on the official website of the Chinese Commerce Ministry, the agency responsible for intellectual property protection in China, The Associated Press has found.

How and why a PDF, in English, of Lewis' raucous memoir about the excesses of Wall Street in the 1980s ended up on the ministry's site remains a mystery. The ministry did not respond to multiple requests for comment this week, but on Friday removed the page from its website.

China has a long and troubled history with copyright infringement. Despite high-level attempts to bolster enforcement, particularly as Beijing turns to innovation as a source of economic growth, piracy remains rampant — and widely tolerated.

Andrew Hay, director of security research at OpenDNS, a network security firm based in San Francisco, confirmed the file was hosted on the Ministry of Commerce website and was not a spoof."

YouTube Not Liable on Copyright, but Needs to Do More: German Court; Reuters via New York Times, 7/1/15

Reuters via New York Times; YouTube Not Liable on Copyright, but Needs to Do More: German Court:

"A German court reaffirmed on Wednesday that YouTube was only responsible for blocking copyright-infringing videos which had been brought to its attention, but the judicial panel said the Google video unit could do more to stop breaches.

The Hamburg regional court rejected an appeal by German performing rights association GEMA, upholding a lower court ruling that said sites such as YouTube do not actively have to search for illegal activity by their users.

The appeals court rebuffed a Google appeal on a secondary issue in the case, finding that YouTube had failed to act promptly enough to takedown infringing videos in seven of 12 cases brought before the court. For the remaining five video clips at issue YouTube had no duty to remove them, it said."

No Directions For WIPO Copyright Committee, Despite Positive Mood; Intellectual Property Watch, 7/6/15

Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch; No Directions For WIPO Copyright Committee, Despite Positive Mood:

"Despite what was described as good momentum by World Intellectual Property Organization delegates trying to find ways to protect broadcasting organisations against piracy and providing copyright exceptions and limitations for the benefit of libraries, archives, education and research, no recommendation to the upcoming annual WIPO General Assembly could be agreed last week.

The 30th session of the WIPO Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) took place from 29 June to 3 July 2015."

Robin Thicke Finally Speaks About 'Blurred Lines' Lawsuit; Huffington Post, 7/2/15

Julia Brucculieri, Huffington Post; Robin Thicke Finally Speaks About 'Blurred Lines' Lawsuit:

"In an interview with the New York Times, Thicke explains, "I know the difference between inspiration and theft. I’m constantly inspired, but I would never steal. And neither would Pharrell."

He continues, "As a songwriter, you’re obviously trying to create a brand-new feeling that comes from your heart. But you can’t help but be inspired by all of the greatness that came before you."

Thicke admits to being "careless" during the trial, as he was going through a very messy public divorce with his former wife, Paula Patton...

Thicke and Williams ultimately lost the case and the jury awarded Gaye's children $4 million in damages plus $3.4 million in profits the two artists had made from their copyright infringement. They went on to appeal the case.

Thicke notes the verdict could have a negative effect on the music industry as a whole, saying, "If the verdict holds up, I believe that it will have a ripple effect on the arts and the industry in general. I mean, if you made the first superhero movie, do you own the concept of the superhero?""

Does the Copyright Office Belong in a Library?; Library Journal, 7/2/15

Kevin L. Smith, Library Journal; Does the Copyright Office Belong in a Library? :

"It has been a busy time for those of us who watch the doings of the Copyright Office. In addition to releasing a massive report on Orphan Works and Mass Digitization, about which I have written here, the Copyright Office (CO) is the subject of a piece of legislation introduced as a discussion draft on June 3. The bill, if it were officially introduced and ultimately enacted, would remove the CO from the Library of Congress (LC) and establish it as an independent agency of the federal government, under the Executive Branch. Then, while we were still considering the ramifications of this idea, came the announcement on June 10 of the pending retirement of Dr. James Billington, who has been the Librarian of Congress for the past 29 years.

These events suggest long-term changes for the copyright and library communities, and it is worth taking a moment to consider, especially, the impact of the idea of making the Copyright Office an independent agency.

The first thing that strikes me about the “discussion draft” of the proposed law to establish the Copyright Office as an independent agency—called the Copyright Office for the Digital Economy (CODE) Act—is that it never says why it is needed...

In short, this bill seems like a solution in search of a problem, unless you accept that the problem is that music and movie companies are making less money than they would like. Rather than considering such an ill-advised bill, I hope that we will see, over the next year and a half or so, a new Librarian of Congress who will provide stronger leadership on many issues, but especially on the need to keep copyright policy, and the Copyright Office, firmly grounded in the needs and interests of all of the American public."

A New Kind of Leader: Transition time at the Library of Congress; Library Journal, 7/1/15

John N. Berry III, Library Journal; A New Kind of Leader: Transition time at the Library of Congress:

"The Librarian of Congress needs to be a modern library administrator, capable of curating the great collections, leading the exemplary staff of more than 3,000, and keeping LC’s array of vital services current and on technology’s cutting edge.

LC must be led by a person who understands and not only can deal effectively with the huge cultural, economic, and political differences in America but can deliver information services that enlighten our Congress and the people of the nation. The Librarian of Congress must lead us out of the jungle of conflicting claims, rival demands, and legal interpretations that obscure our implementation of the rules and regulations of intellectual property and copyright.

Simultaneously, the Librarian of Congress must be an intellectual inspiration, with an acumen and articulateness that capture the attention of an argumentative society of free people struggling to govern themselves amid the tempests of a world so complex that true cultural understanding is rare and difficult to achieve.

If that formidable job sounds like the one most librarians work at every day, then that suggests an excellent place for our president to begin the search for candidates: in our nation’s libraries.

It is our duty, through ALA and through all of our most effective connections to government, to help the president find the right librarian to lead our national library. We all know she or he is out there ready and waiting to accept the challenge."

Bad News: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Oracle v. Google API Copyright Decision; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 6/29/15

Michael Barclay and Corynne McSherry, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Bad News: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Oracle v. Google API Copyright Decision:

"Sadly, today the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the Federal Circuit’s dangerous decision in Oracle v. Google. Oracle claims a copyright on the Java Application Programming Interface (API), and that Google infringed that copyright by using certain Java APIs in the Android OS. The Federal Circuit had ruled in Oracle’s favor, reversing a well-reasoned district court opinion holding that the APIs in question were not subject to copyright. Google had asked the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit decision. On behalf of 77 computer scientists, EFF had filed an amicus brief supporting Google’s petition.

The Federal Circuit’s decision has been harshly criticized for its misunderstanding of both computer science and copyright law. APIs are, generally speaking, specifications that allow programs to communicate with each other, and are different than the code that implements a program. Treating APIs as copyrightable would have a profound negative impact on interoperability, and, therefore, innovation.

Today’s decision doesn’t mean that Oracle has won the lawsuit. The case will now return to the district court for a trial on Google’s fair use defense."