Sarah Jeong, The Verge; No one’s ready for GDPR
"The General Data Protection Regulation will go into effect on May 25th,
and no one is ready — not the companies and not even the regulators...
GDPR is only supposed to apply to the EU and EU residents, but because
so many companies do business in Europe, the American technology
industry is scrambling to become GDPR compliant. Still, even though
GDPR’s big debut is bound to be messy, the regulation marks a sea change
in how data is handled across the world. Americans outside of Europe
can’t make data subject access requests, and they can’t demand that
their data be deleted. But GDPR compliance is going to have spillover
effects for them anyway. The breach notification requirement,
especially, is more stringent than anything in the US. The hope is that
as companies and regulatory bodies settle into the flow of things, the
heightened privacy protections of GDPR will become business as usual. In
the meantime, it’s just a mad scramble to keep up."
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
How The Recording Industry Hid Its Latest Attempt To Expand Copyright (And Why You Should Call Your Senator To Stop It); Techdirt, May 21, 2018
Mike Masnick, Techdirt; How The Recording Industry Hid Its Latest Attempt To Expand Copyright (And Why You Should Call Your Senator To Stop It)
"Larry Lessig has a piece over at Wired where he explains how this is really just the latest attempt at copyright extension. Earlier this year, we had noted (happily!) that it appeared that the usual crew of copyright maximalists had appeared to give in, saying they had no intention to push for any sort of copyright term extension this year, meaning that for the first time in decades in the US, some works may actually enter the public domain on January 1st next year. And while the CLASSICS Act isn't a straight-up copyright term extension, it is a form of copyright expansion on old works, done for no other purpose than to give the copyright holders more ways to extract money, without any corresponding public benefit. As Lessig notes, this is explicitly a welfare system for musicians...
Now, I should note that I've seen some recording industry lobbyists mocking Lessig's piece, claiming that how could he be against supporting musicians. This, of course, is the whole setup of this bill. It's designed -- like so many copyright expansions in the past -- to make it hard for people to question, because, really, who doesn't want to support the content creators we like? But that ignores the other side of this equation. Copyright is designed to benefit the public. The whole setup is to give an exclusivity to content creators for a limited time in order to give them the incentive to create.
For EVERY SINGLE WORK that would be impacted by this bill, that incentive worked. It worked decades and decades ago. Those recordings were all created prior to 1972. So why do they now need more incentive for the works that were already created? And why, if we're giving them more incentive, does the public not get anything back in return? That's the hidden part that the lobbyists and think tank shills for the recording industry are hoping you'll ignore. The "expansion" here is at the expense of the public. And it's a big expense. For no benefit at all. The copyright system was an incentive system for creation, in the recognition that it would then help the public get access to content. But the CLASSICS Act flips that over. It takes away from the public and provides no new incentives to anyone."
"Larry Lessig has a piece over at Wired where he explains how this is really just the latest attempt at copyright extension. Earlier this year, we had noted (happily!) that it appeared that the usual crew of copyright maximalists had appeared to give in, saying they had no intention to push for any sort of copyright term extension this year, meaning that for the first time in decades in the US, some works may actually enter the public domain on January 1st next year. And while the CLASSICS Act isn't a straight-up copyright term extension, it is a form of copyright expansion on old works, done for no other purpose than to give the copyright holders more ways to extract money, without any corresponding public benefit. As Lessig notes, this is explicitly a welfare system for musicians...
Now, I should note that I've seen some recording industry lobbyists mocking Lessig's piece, claiming that how could he be against supporting musicians. This, of course, is the whole setup of this bill. It's designed -- like so many copyright expansions in the past -- to make it hard for people to question, because, really, who doesn't want to support the content creators we like? But that ignores the other side of this equation. Copyright is designed to benefit the public. The whole setup is to give an exclusivity to content creators for a limited time in order to give them the incentive to create.
For EVERY SINGLE WORK that would be impacted by this bill, that incentive worked. It worked decades and decades ago. Those recordings were all created prior to 1972. So why do they now need more incentive for the works that were already created? And why, if we're giving them more incentive, does the public not get anything back in return? That's the hidden part that the lobbyists and think tank shills for the recording industry are hoping you'll ignore. The "expansion" here is at the expense of the public. And it's a big expense. For no benefit at all. The copyright system was an incentive system for creation, in the recognition that it would then help the public get access to content. But the CLASSICS Act flips that over. It takes away from the public and provides no new incentives to anyone."
Music Modernization Act Gains Momentum in Senate; Variety, May 15, 2018
Ted Johnson and Paula Parisi, Variety; Music Modernization Act Gains Momentum in Senate
"[Smokey] Robinson spoke forcefully on behalf of the MMA and particularly the CLASSICS Act, sharing how a few years ago, he audited the digital services playing his music and found they owed him $250,000. After confronting them, he was offered $12,000 and told, “If you don’t like it, sue us.” Robinson noted there are few artists with the economic means to take on that sort of battle, concluding “We need your help!’”
The legislation passed the House unanimously last month, and it also includes sweeping changes to the licensing regime for digital music services. A Senate version was recently introduced.
The Senators seemed inclined to provide that help."
"[Smokey] Robinson spoke forcefully on behalf of the MMA and particularly the CLASSICS Act, sharing how a few years ago, he audited the digital services playing his music and found they owed him $250,000. After confronting them, he was offered $12,000 and told, “If you don’t like it, sue us.” Robinson noted there are few artists with the economic means to take on that sort of battle, concluding “We need your help!’”
The legislation passed the House unanimously last month, and it also includes sweeping changes to the licensing regime for digital music services. A Senate version was recently introduced.
The Senators seemed inclined to provide that help."
Monday, May 21, 2018
Patent and trademark office coming to Durango; The Durango Herald, May 18, 2018
Patrick Armijo, The Durango Herald; Patent and trademark office coming to Durango
"Several workshops with officials from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia, are planned for Tuesday and registration for the workshops has been extended until Monday.
The workshop schedule includes:
9:15-10:30 a.m.: An Overview of Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights and Trade Secrets.
10:45 to noon: Conducting Preliminary Federal Trademark Search Using USPTO Website.
1:30 to 2:30 p.m.: Seven-Step Strategy for Preliminary U.S. Patent Search Using USPTO Databases.
2:45 to 3:15 p.m.: Non-USPTO Solicitations and Invention Promotion Scams: Asking the Right Questions.
3:15-4:15 p.m.: A local panel for resources on patent and trademark issues with Ken Freudenberg, an intellectual property attorney; Ryan Finnigan, co-founder of the Maker Lab at the Powerhouse Science Center; Mark Radtke, assistant regional director for the Rocky Mountain Regional Patent and Trademark Office in Denver; John Wolgamott, president of StoneAge Inc.; and Roger Zalneraitis, executive director of La Plata Economic Development Alliance."
"Several workshops with officials from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia, are planned for Tuesday and registration for the workshops has been extended until Monday.
The workshop schedule includes:
9:15-10:30 a.m.: An Overview of Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights and Trade Secrets.
10:45 to noon: Conducting Preliminary Federal Trademark Search Using USPTO Website.
1:30 to 2:30 p.m.: Seven-Step Strategy for Preliminary U.S. Patent Search Using USPTO Databases.
2:45 to 3:15 p.m.: Non-USPTO Solicitations and Invention Promotion Scams: Asking the Right Questions.
3:15-4:15 p.m.: A local panel for resources on patent and trademark issues with Ken Freudenberg, an intellectual property attorney; Ryan Finnigan, co-founder of the Maker Lab at the Powerhouse Science Center; Mark Radtke, assistant regional director for the Rocky Mountain Regional Patent and Trademark Office in Denver; John Wolgamott, president of StoneAge Inc.; and Roger Zalneraitis, executive director of La Plata Economic Development Alliance."
‘Westworld’ Season 2: Seven Big Things We Still Don’t Know at Midseason; The New York Times, May 21, 2018
Scott Tobias, The New York Times; ‘Westworld’ Season 2: Seven Big Things We Still Don’t Know at Midseason
[SPOILERS BELOW]
"Delos cares about its intellectual property. The theme parks are merely a means to an end — that much was clear from the first season, even clearer from the second, in which recovering Dolores’s father, Peter Abernathy (Louis Herthum), has been a top priority.”
[SPOILERS BELOW]
"Delos cares about its intellectual property. The theme parks are merely a means to an end — that much was clear from the first season, even clearer from the second, in which recovering Dolores’s father, Peter Abernathy (Louis Herthum), has been a top priority.”
Hasbro trademarks Play-Doh's distinctive "sweet, slightly musky" scent; CBS, May 18, 2018
CBS; Hasbro trademarks Play-Doh's distinctive "sweet, slightly musky" scent
"Hasbro has trademarked the scent of Play-Doh. The toy company on Friday announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has recognized Play-Doh's distinctive smell with a registered trademark, something rarely issued for a scent."
"Hasbro has trademarked the scent of Play-Doh. The toy company on Friday announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has recognized Play-Doh's distinctive smell with a registered trademark, something rarely issued for a scent."
Law Professors Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Reject or Amend CLASSICS Act; Public Knowledge, May 15, 2018
Press Release, Public Knowledge; Law Professors Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Reject or Amend CLASSICS Act
“The expert consensus is clear: The CLASSICS Act is a problematic attempt to shortcut full federalization of pre-1972 copyrights. At best a half-measure, at worst a ploy to avoid difficult but necessary conversations about artist and consumer rights, CLASSICS complicates the status of legacy recordings without any countervailing benefit to protect nonprofit users and archivists. We welcome the insight of the more than 40 professors on this letter and look forward to working to bring true reform and harmonization to these works.”
You may view the letter here. You may also view Meredith Rose’s testimony from today’s hearing on “Protecting and Promoting Music Creation for the 21st Century” for more information on the CLASSICS Act and why it should be amended or rejected from the Music Modernization Act."
"Yesterday, more than 40 intellectual property law professors sent a letter
to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA),
Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and all members of the
committee, urging them to reject or, at a minimum, amend the CLASSICS
Act to ensure that its provisions are in line with existing federal
copyright law.
The
Senate recently combined the Classics Act, a flawed bill that hurts
consumers, with the Music Modernization Act, a bill that creates a
database of songwriters and performers to ensure that creators receive
fair compensation for their work. Public Knowledge supports the Music
Modernization Act, but agrees with these law professors that the
CLASSICS Act harms the public interest. Public Knowledge contends that
the CLASSICS Act fails to provide full federal protection for pre-1972
sound recordings, making it out of sync with the rest of copyright law.
The following can be attributed to Meredith Rose, Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge:
“The expert consensus is clear: The CLASSICS Act is a problematic attempt to shortcut full federalization of pre-1972 copyrights. At best a half-measure, at worst a ploy to avoid difficult but necessary conversations about artist and consumer rights, CLASSICS complicates the status of legacy recordings without any countervailing benefit to protect nonprofit users and archivists. We welcome the insight of the more than 40 professors on this letter and look forward to working to bring true reform and harmonization to these works.”
You may view the letter here. You may also view Meredith Rose’s testimony from today’s hearing on “Protecting and Promoting Music Creation for the 21st Century” for more information on the CLASSICS Act and why it should be amended or rejected from the Music Modernization Act."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)