Sify.com; Nelly Furtado, Timbaland facing copyright infringement lawsuit:
"Canadian/Portuguese singer Nelly Furtado and producer Timbaland are facing a copyright infringement lawsuit from record label executives in Finland.
The two have been accused of borrowing segments of someone else's song to create the track Do It, which appeared on the singer's 2006 album Loose, and was a hit song in 2007....
And the record company bosses are planning to use Timbaland's own words against him by quoting him in their lawsuit. They claim the producer gave two radio interviews after the first accusations of plagiarism arose, and spoke about the allegations. He also attempted to explain his take on sampling a song and stealing it.
"Sample and stole is two different things. Stole is like I walked in your house, watched you make it... went to my house and told Nelly, 'Hey, I got a great song for you'," Contactmusic quoted him as reportedly telling one interviewer.
"Sample is like you heard it somewhere, and you just sampled. Maybe you didn't know who it was by because it don't have the credits listed (sic)," he had added."
http://sify.com/movies/hollywood/fullstory.php?id=14894825
Friday, June 19, 2009
Two losses and $1.9 million later, Thomas-Rasset remains defiant; Minneapolis Star Tribune, 6/19/09
Alex Ebert and Curt Brown via Minneapolis Star Tribune; Two losses and $1.9 million later, Thomas-Rasset remains defiant:
"Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said Friday the verdict should remind those who share music illegally about the penalties in copyright law. “For the few existing cases, this verdict is a reminder of the clarity of the law,” she said...
Not that [Jammie Thomas-Rasset] minds being a scapegoat. She thinks her case was a factor in the music industry’s decision to halt mass litigation against individuals accused of sharing music.
“I take a little bit of pride in the fact that at least I threw a monkey wrench into their litigation campaign,” Thomas-Rasset said."
http://www.startribune.com/local/48641077.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUHK:uUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
"Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said Friday the verdict should remind those who share music illegally about the penalties in copyright law. “For the few existing cases, this verdict is a reminder of the clarity of the law,” she said...
Not that [Jammie Thomas-Rasset] minds being a scapegoat. She thinks her case was a factor in the music industry’s decision to halt mass litigation against individuals accused of sharing music.
“I take a little bit of pride in the fact that at least I threw a monkey wrench into their litigation campaign,” Thomas-Rasset said."
http://www.startribune.com/local/48641077.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUHK:uUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Salinger faces curse of creating a classic; Toronto Star, 6/14/09
Toronto Star; Salinger faces curse of creating a classic:
"The book, not yet published but listed for sale on Amazon.co.uk, follows Mr. C., a curmudgeonly 76-year-old who wanders away from his retirement home to revisit some of the Manhattan sites and people originally encountered by Caulfield in Salinger's seminal work. Although Colting and his company say they intended no infringement of Salinger's artistic rights – the novel is dedicated to him – the book has been described as a sequel, which is precisely where the ailing author's complaint draws its strength. Unlike a parody, which is considered fair use of an original work, a sequel is held to be within the original creator's domain. It may well be due to this distinction, and the issue of whether a character like Holden is copyrightable, that Salinger will win out."
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/650210
"The book, not yet published but listed for sale on Amazon.co.uk, follows Mr. C., a curmudgeonly 76-year-old who wanders away from his retirement home to revisit some of the Manhattan sites and people originally encountered by Caulfield in Salinger's seminal work. Although Colting and his company say they intended no infringement of Salinger's artistic rights – the novel is dedicated to him – the book has been described as a sequel, which is precisely where the ailing author's complaint draws its strength. Unlike a parody, which is considered fair use of an original work, a sequel is held to be within the original creator's domain. It may well be due to this distinction, and the issue of whether a character like Holden is copyrightable, that Salinger will win out."
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/650210
As US government closes in, Google eyes revenue streams for Book Search; Christian Science Monitor, 6/18/09
Matthew Shaer via Christian Science Monitor; As US government closes in, Google eyes revenue streams for Book Search:
"Earlier today, Google unveiled a new version of its controversial Book Search tool, even as the US government continued its investigation into a deal reached last October between publishers and the Mountain View, Calif.-based tech company. The updated Book Search includes a swath of new features intended to mirror the way we read dead-tree books, from an expanded table of contents to a page-turn button, with accompanying animation...
Book Search currently makes available only public-domain books, or the titles that Google has negotiated the rights to publish. Still, the improvements to the tool will likely help “position Google Books as the library/book store of choice going forward,” David Weir notes over at BNET. There are “multiple potential revenue streams available — advertising, affiliate marketing, keyword search, direct sales, licensing fees, subscription fees, e-reader device sales, and on and on,” he wrote."
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/18/as-us-government-closes-in-google-eyes-revenue-streams-for-book-search/
"Earlier today, Google unveiled a new version of its controversial Book Search tool, even as the US government continued its investigation into a deal reached last October between publishers and the Mountain View, Calif.-based tech company. The updated Book Search includes a swath of new features intended to mirror the way we read dead-tree books, from an expanded table of contents to a page-turn button, with accompanying animation...
Book Search currently makes available only public-domain books, or the titles that Google has negotiated the rights to publish. Still, the improvements to the tool will likely help “position Google Books as the library/book store of choice going forward,” David Weir notes over at BNET. There are “multiple potential revenue streams available — advertising, affiliate marketing, keyword search, direct sales, licensing fees, subscription fees, e-reader device sales, and on and on,” he wrote."
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/18/as-us-government-closes-in-google-eyes-revenue-streams-for-book-search/
Thomas verdict: willful infringement, $1.92 million penalty; Ars Technica, 6/18/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Thomas verdict: willful infringement, $1.92 million penalty:
"A new lawyer, a new jury, and a new trial were not enough to save Jammie Thomas-Rasset. In a repeat of the verdict from her first federal trial, Thomas-Rasset was found liable for willfully infringing all 24 copyrights controlled by the four major record labels at issue in the case. The jury awarded the labels damages totaling a whopping $1.92 million. As the dollar amount was read in court, Thomas-Rasset gasped and her eyes widened...
[Defense Attorney Kiwi] Camara acknowledged the [record labels] settlement offer and said that his side would certainly investigate it, but he made clear that he intends to file numerous motions if Thomas-Rasset wants to continue the fight. Motions on the constitutionality of such massive damages and other issues can still be filed with the judge, and then there's the entire matter of an appeal.
Thomas-Rasset sounds inclined to fight on. The case was "one for the RIAA, not the end of the war," she said.
As for Camara, he intends to press ahead with his class-action lawsuit against the recording industry, in which he will take up the daunting task of trying to claw back all the money that the recording industry has collected in the course of its legal campaign to date.
A vigorous defense from Kiwi Camara and Joe Sibley was not enough to sway the jury, which had only to find that a preponderance of the evidence pointed to Thomas-Rasset. The evidence clearly pointed to her machine, even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer's Ethernet port. When combined with the facts about her hard drive replacement (and her failure to disclose those facts to the investigators), her "tereastarr" username, and the new theories that she offered yesterday for the first time in more than three years, jurors clearly remained unconvinced by her protestations of innocence.
Camara suspects that the jury thought Thomas-Rasset was a liar and were "angry about it," thus leading to the $80,000 per-song damages.
The case is a reminder that in civil trials, simply raising some doubt about liability is not enough; lawyers need to raise lots of doubt to win the case, and Camara and Sibley were unable to do so here.
The jury found Thomas-Rasset's conduct to be willful, which means that statutory damages under the Copyright Act can range from $750 per infringement up to $150,000. In his closing statement, defense lawyer Joe Sibley made clear that even the minimum award would run $18,000 (24 songs x $750 = $18,000), an amount that he said was unfair and crippling to Thomas-Rasset. The jury decided that the per-song penalty would be $80,000, for a total damage award of $1.92 million, over $1.7 million more than the award in her first trial."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars
"A new lawyer, a new jury, and a new trial were not enough to save Jammie Thomas-Rasset. In a repeat of the verdict from her first federal trial, Thomas-Rasset was found liable for willfully infringing all 24 copyrights controlled by the four major record labels at issue in the case. The jury awarded the labels damages totaling a whopping $1.92 million. As the dollar amount was read in court, Thomas-Rasset gasped and her eyes widened...
[Defense Attorney Kiwi] Camara acknowledged the [record labels] settlement offer and said that his side would certainly investigate it, but he made clear that he intends to file numerous motions if Thomas-Rasset wants to continue the fight. Motions on the constitutionality of such massive damages and other issues can still be filed with the judge, and then there's the entire matter of an appeal.
Thomas-Rasset sounds inclined to fight on. The case was "one for the RIAA, not the end of the war," she said.
As for Camara, he intends to press ahead with his class-action lawsuit against the recording industry, in which he will take up the daunting task of trying to claw back all the money that the recording industry has collected in the course of its legal campaign to date.
A vigorous defense from Kiwi Camara and Joe Sibley was not enough to sway the jury, which had only to find that a preponderance of the evidence pointed to Thomas-Rasset. The evidence clearly pointed to her machine, even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer's Ethernet port. When combined with the facts about her hard drive replacement (and her failure to disclose those facts to the investigators), her "tereastarr" username, and the new theories that she offered yesterday for the first time in more than three years, jurors clearly remained unconvinced by her protestations of innocence.
Camara suspects that the jury thought Thomas-Rasset was a liar and were "angry about it," thus leading to the $80,000 per-song damages.
The case is a reminder that in civil trials, simply raising some doubt about liability is not enough; lawyers need to raise lots of doubt to win the case, and Camara and Sibley were unable to do so here.
The jury found Thomas-Rasset's conduct to be willful, which means that statutory damages under the Copyright Act can range from $750 per infringement up to $150,000. In his closing statement, defense lawyer Joe Sibley made clear that even the minimum award would run $18,000 (24 songs x $750 = $18,000), an amount that he said was unfair and crippling to Thomas-Rasset. The jury decided that the per-song penalty would be $80,000, for a total damage award of $1.92 million, over $1.7 million more than the award in her first trial."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars
Thomas testimony ends with tears, anger, Swedish death metal; Ars Technica, 6/17/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Thomas testimony ends with tears, anger, Swedish death metal:
"The Jammie Thomas-Rasset file-sharing retrial wrapped up today ahead of schedule after the defense called only a single witness—Jammie Thomas-Rasset—and the jury finally heard some alternative scenarios for the facts in the case.
The jury was also treated to an extraordinary display as Thomas-Rasset said that a distinguished computer science professor was brought in to give "false testimony" against her (there were gasps in the courtroom and an immediate objection from the record companies at this), then broke down crying, detailed the "complete nightmare" the case has made of her life, and claimed that the labels initially "tried to extort $5,000 from me."
Her testimony, which also featured such memorable phrases as "I never downloaded Morbid Angel's 'World of Shit'" and "I didn't even know there was a Swedish death metal genre," was certainly spellbinding. But did it sway the jury?"
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-testimony-ends-with-tears-anger-swedish-death-metal.ars
"The Jammie Thomas-Rasset file-sharing retrial wrapped up today ahead of schedule after the defense called only a single witness—Jammie Thomas-Rasset—and the jury finally heard some alternative scenarios for the facts in the case.
The jury was also treated to an extraordinary display as Thomas-Rasset said that a distinguished computer science professor was brought in to give "false testimony" against her (there were gasps in the courtroom and an immediate objection from the record companies at this), then broke down crying, detailed the "complete nightmare" the case has made of her life, and claimed that the labels initially "tried to extort $5,000 from me."
Her testimony, which also featured such memorable phrases as "I never downloaded Morbid Angel's 'World of Shit'" and "I didn't even know there was a Swedish death metal genre," was certainly spellbinding. But did it sway the jury?"
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-testimony-ends-with-tears-anger-swedish-death-metal.ars
Researchers conclude piracy not stifling content creation; Ars Technica, 6/18/09
John Timmer via Ars Technica; Researchers conclude piracy not stifling content creation:
"File-sharing, to the (very large) extent that it involves copyright infringement, has affected the music business. But, as a pair of academic researchers happily point out in a working paper they've posted online, copyright law was never meant to protect the music business in the first place—instead, it is intended to foster creative production in the arts, which happen to include music. As such, they argue it's worth analyzing the deeper question of whether file sharing is putting a damper on music creation. Their conclusion is that this is a much more complicated question, but the answer seems to be "probably not."
Some academic fields rely on the use of working papers—complete drafts of potential publications—to solicit feedback on the basic arguments and analyses used in the work-in-progress. These days, that simply involves posting it on the Internet for all to see; you can have a look at the document yourself. There are clearly a few places where the authors could polish up their arguments, but the paper makes a compelling case that the relationship between file-sharing and copyright law is a complex one.
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/06/researchers-conclude-piracy-not-stifling-content-creation.ars
"File-sharing, to the (very large) extent that it involves copyright infringement, has affected the music business. But, as a pair of academic researchers happily point out in a working paper they've posted online, copyright law was never meant to protect the music business in the first place—instead, it is intended to foster creative production in the arts, which happen to include music. As such, they argue it's worth analyzing the deeper question of whether file sharing is putting a damper on music creation. Their conclusion is that this is a much more complicated question, but the answer seems to be "probably not."
Some academic fields rely on the use of working papers—complete drafts of potential publications—to solicit feedback on the basic arguments and analyses used in the work-in-progress. These days, that simply involves posting it on the Internet for all to see; you can have a look at the document yourself. There are clearly a few places where the authors could polish up their arguments, but the paper makes a compelling case that the relationship between file-sharing and copyright law is a complex one.
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/06/researchers-conclude-piracy-not-stifling-content-creation.ars
File-Sharing and Copyright Working Paper; Felix Oberholzer-Gee & Koleman Strumpf, June 2009
Felix Oberholzer-Gee & Koleman Strumpf via Harvard Business School; File-Sharing and Copyright Working Paper:
www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf
www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf
Economists List File Sharing's Benefits; Information Week, 6/17/09
Thomas Claburn via Information Week; Economists List File Sharing's Benefits:
"In a newly published Harvard Business School paper, economists Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf argue that while file sharing has weakened copyright protection, weak copyright protection benefits society.
File sharing, the paper states, has not discouraged creative artists from producing new works...
The paper, however, acknowledges that content quality has not been considered. Its argument would be less compelling were it discovered that the increase in albums since 2000 consisted mainly of music cobbled together from Apple GarageBand loops.
Entertainment industry complaints about falling revenue, the paper suggests, don't tell the full story...
"While it is difficult to say how representative this sample is, there is no doubt that trade groups such as the Business Software Alliance vastly exaggerate the impact of file sharing on industry profitability when they treat every pirated copy as a lost sale," the paper states."
http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/ipod/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218000206
"In a newly published Harvard Business School paper, economists Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf argue that while file sharing has weakened copyright protection, weak copyright protection benefits society.
File sharing, the paper states, has not discouraged creative artists from producing new works...
The paper, however, acknowledges that content quality has not been considered. Its argument would be less compelling were it discovered that the increase in albums since 2000 consisted mainly of music cobbled together from Apple GarageBand loops.
Entertainment industry complaints about falling revenue, the paper suggests, don't tell the full story...
"While it is difficult to say how representative this sample is, there is no doubt that trade groups such as the Business Software Alliance vastly exaggerate the impact of file sharing on industry profitability when they treat every pirated copy as a lost sale," the paper states."
http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/ipod/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218000206
Music Labels Win $2 Million in Web Case; New York Times, 6/18/09
Bloomberg News via New York Times: Music Labels Win $2 Million in Web Case:
"The Universal Music Group, owned by Vivendi, and other record labels were awarded $1.92 million on Thursday in the retrial of a Minnesota woman accused of swapping music over the Kazaa Internet service.
The federal jury in Minneapolis said the woman, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, of Brainerd, should pay $80,000 for each of the 24 songs that were posted on the site so others could download them.
The first time the case went to trial, in 2007, a jury awarded $9,250 a song, or $222,000."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/business/media/19music.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=jammie%20thomas&st=cse
"The Universal Music Group, owned by Vivendi, and other record labels were awarded $1.92 million on Thursday in the retrial of a Minnesota woman accused of swapping music over the Kazaa Internet service.
The federal jury in Minneapolis said the woman, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, of Brainerd, should pay $80,000 for each of the 24 songs that were posted on the site so others could download them.
The first time the case went to trial, in 2007, a jury awarded $9,250 a song, or $222,000."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/business/media/19music.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=jammie%20thomas&st=cse
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
J.D. Salinger's 'The Catcher in the Rye': Restraining order issued in copyright case; Entertainment Weekly, 6/17/09
Sean Smith via Entertainment Weekly; J.D. Salinger's 'The Catcher in the Rye': Restraining order issued in copyright case:
"According to Publishers Weekly, [Judge Deborah] Batts' ruling is the first time that the Second Circuit court has explicitly stated that a single character from a single work is protected by copyright."
http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/06/salingers-catcher-in-the-rye-restraining-order-issued-in-copyright-case.html
"According to Publishers Weekly, [Judge Deborah] Batts' ruling is the first time that the Second Circuit court has explicitly stated that a single character from a single work is protected by copyright."
http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/06/salingers-catcher-in-the-rye-restraining-order-issued-in-copyright-case.html
Temporary Restraining Order Issued in Salinger Case; Publishers Weekly, 6/17/09
Andrew Albanese via Publishers Weekly; Temporary Restraining Order Issued in Salinger Case:
"In a precedent-setting ruling today, federal judge Deborah Batts ruled that J.D. Salinger’s most famous character, Holden Caulfield, is protected by copyright. She did not rule, however, on whether Swedish author Fredrik Colting’s use of Salinger’s iconic character in his book 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye was allowable under fair use, and issued a temporary restraining order blocking its publication...
Whatever Batts's ultimate ruling on the fair use aspect of the case, a final decision in the case will most likely come from the appellate court, since Batts's decision will be appealed by either losing side...
Salinger has a right, attorney Marcia Paul told the court, "to keep The Catcher in the Rye or Holden Caulfield frozen in time for the life of his copyright.""
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6666016.html?rssid=192
"In a precedent-setting ruling today, federal judge Deborah Batts ruled that J.D. Salinger’s most famous character, Holden Caulfield, is protected by copyright. She did not rule, however, on whether Swedish author Fredrik Colting’s use of Salinger’s iconic character in his book 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye was allowable under fair use, and issued a temporary restraining order blocking its publication...
Whatever Batts's ultimate ruling on the fair use aspect of the case, a final decision in the case will most likely come from the appellate court, since Batts's decision will be appealed by either losing side...
Salinger has a right, attorney Marcia Paul told the court, "to keep The Catcher in the Rye or Holden Caulfield frozen in time for the life of his copyright.""
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6666016.html?rssid=192
Librarians Fighting Google's Book Deal; Time, 6/17/09
Janet Morrissey via Time; Librarians Fighting Google's Book Deal:
"Goliath Google facing off against a legion of librarians and, possibly, the U.S. Justice Department — now there's a fight...
In a complex settlement agreement, which took three years to hammer out and spans 135 pages excluding attachments, Google will be allowed to show up to 20% of the books' text online at no charge to Web surfers. But the part of the settlement that deals with so-called orphan books — which refers to out-of-print books whose authors and publishers are unknown — is what's ruffling the most feathers in the literary henhouse. The deal gives Google an exclusive license to publish and profit from these orphans, which means it won't face legal action if an author or owner comes forward later. This, critics contend, gives it a competitive edge over any rival that wants to set up a competing digital library. And without competition, opponents fear Google will start charging exorbitant fees to academic libraries and others who want full access to its digital library.
"It will make Google virtually invulnerable to competition," says Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system.
Although competitors could scan orphans, they would not be protected from copyright suits as Google is under the agreement. "They'd face lawsuits all over the place," making the risk too big, said Darnton.
Without competition, pricing could go wild, critics claim. The registry, which oversees pricing, is comprised of authors and publishers who stand to benefit from high subscription fees. "There will be no incentive to keep prices moderate," Darnton says.
The library community recalls with horror the pricing fiasco that occurred when industry consolidation left academic journals in the hands of five publishing companies. The firms hiked subscription prices 227% over a 14-year period, between 1986 and 2002, forcing cash-strapped libraries to drop many subscriptions, according to Van Orsdel. "The chance of the price being driven up in a similar way (in the Google deal) is really very real," he says.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1904495,00.html?imw=Y
"Goliath Google facing off against a legion of librarians and, possibly, the U.S. Justice Department — now there's a fight...
In a complex settlement agreement, which took three years to hammer out and spans 135 pages excluding attachments, Google will be allowed to show up to 20% of the books' text online at no charge to Web surfers. But the part of the settlement that deals with so-called orphan books — which refers to out-of-print books whose authors and publishers are unknown — is what's ruffling the most feathers in the literary henhouse. The deal gives Google an exclusive license to publish and profit from these orphans, which means it won't face legal action if an author or owner comes forward later. This, critics contend, gives it a competitive edge over any rival that wants to set up a competing digital library. And without competition, opponents fear Google will start charging exorbitant fees to academic libraries and others who want full access to its digital library.
"It will make Google virtually invulnerable to competition," says Robert Darnton, head of the Harvard University library system.
Although competitors could scan orphans, they would not be protected from copyright suits as Google is under the agreement. "They'd face lawsuits all over the place," making the risk too big, said Darnton.
Without competition, pricing could go wild, critics claim. The registry, which oversees pricing, is comprised of authors and publishers who stand to benefit from high subscription fees. "There will be no incentive to keep prices moderate," Darnton says.
The library community recalls with horror the pricing fiasco that occurred when industry consolidation left academic journals in the hands of five publishing companies. The firms hiked subscription prices 227% over a 14-year period, between 1986 and 2002, forcing cash-strapped libraries to drop many subscriptions, according to Van Orsdel. "The chance of the price being driven up in a similar way (in the Google deal) is really very real," he says.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1904495,00.html?imw=Y
Bezos: We've got issues with Google Book Search; CNet News, 6/15/09
Caroline McCarthy via CNet News; Bezos: We've got issues with Google Book Search:
"Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos was coy about exactly why he isn't thrilled with Google's attempt to forge its way into the digital publishing business.
"We have strong opinions about that issue which I'm not going to share," Bezos said to interviewer Steven Levy at the Wired Business Conference. "But, clearly, that settlement in our opinion needs to be revisited and it is being revisited."
In a court battle rife with twists, turns, and delays, Google has been attempting to push forward its Book Search initiative, which could potentially give the Mountain View, Calif., tech giant exclusive access to digital editions of some out-of-print books. That could, as Levy pointed out, get in the way of Amazon's goal of offering every book ever printed in every language on the Kindle and its new, bigger Kindle DX sibling. And it sounds like that's where Amazon has some beef.
"There are many forces of work looking at that and saying it doesn't seem right that you should do something, kind of get a prize for violating a large series of copyrights," Bezos said."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10265038-36.html
"Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos was coy about exactly why he isn't thrilled with Google's attempt to forge its way into the digital publishing business.
"We have strong opinions about that issue which I'm not going to share," Bezos said to interviewer Steven Levy at the Wired Business Conference. "But, clearly, that settlement in our opinion needs to be revisited and it is being revisited."
In a court battle rife with twists, turns, and delays, Google has been attempting to push forward its Book Search initiative, which could potentially give the Mountain View, Calif., tech giant exclusive access to digital editions of some out-of-print books. That could, as Levy pointed out, get in the way of Amazon's goal of offering every book ever printed in every language on the Kindle and its new, bigger Kindle DX sibling. And it sounds like that's where Amazon has some beef.
"There are many forces of work looking at that and saying it doesn't seem right that you should do something, kind of get a prize for violating a large series of copyrights," Bezos said."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10265038-36.html
Jammie Thomas takes the stand, admits to major misstep; Ars Technica, 6/16/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Jammie Thomas takes the stand, admits to major misstep:
"Did she do it? That's for the jury to decide. But the bigger question is whether the process itself—the threat of life-altering damage awards, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, the time and exposure of a federal trial—is truly a proportional, equitable response to online copyright infringement?
Not even the judge who must preside over this case believes that the answer to that question is "yes." Writing an unusually pointed order granting Thomas-Rasset a new trial last year, Judge Michael Davis, Chief Justice of the Minnesota District Court, wrote these extraordinary words:
While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far‐reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs—the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000—more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent...
The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer‐ to‐peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court. The Court begins its analysis by recognizing the unique nature of this case. The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts... The Court does not condone Thomas’s actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother’s acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit...
Despite his opinion, Davis may well preside over another guilty verdict this week; if so, he won't be able to throw it out thanks to a "making available" jury instruction this time around—a fact that perhaps accounts for his perpetual grumpy frown during the trial."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars
"Did she do it? That's for the jury to decide. But the bigger question is whether the process itself—the threat of life-altering damage awards, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, the time and exposure of a federal trial—is truly a proportional, equitable response to online copyright infringement?
Not even the judge who must preside over this case believes that the answer to that question is "yes." Writing an unusually pointed order granting Thomas-Rasset a new trial last year, Judge Michael Davis, Chief Justice of the Minnesota District Court, wrote these extraordinary words:
While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far‐reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs—the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000—more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent...
The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer‐ to‐peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court. The Court begins its analysis by recognizing the unique nature of this case. The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts... The Court does not condone Thomas’s actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother’s acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit...
Despite his opinion, Davis may well preside over another guilty verdict this week; if so, he won't be able to throw it out thanks to a "making available" jury instruction this time around—a fact that perhaps accounts for his perpetual grumpy frown during the trial."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars
Holden Caulfield, a Ripe 76, Heads to Court Again; New York Times, 6/17/09
A.G. Sulzberger via New York Times; Holden Caulfield, a Ripe 76, Heads to Court Again:
"The case is one of several in recent years exploring how much license the public has to draw on a classic work. In 2001 the estate of Margaret Mitchell, author of “Gone With the Wind,” sued unsuccessfully to prevent the release of “The Wind Done Gone,” which told the same story from the perspective of a slave. Last year J. K. Rowling, the author of the best-selling Harry Potter books, won a lawsuit over a guidebook to the series called The Harry Potter Lexicon.
“This case is really interesting because it really is where copyright runs into First Amendment rights, and it shows the jagged line between them,” said Jennifer Jenkins, director of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School, who also was part of the legal team that defended the publisher in “The Wind Done Gone” lawsuit.
In examining questions of fair use of copyrighted work, courts have looked at whether a new work transforms the original in a significant way, Ms. Jenkins said, citing a Supreme Court ruling that a legitimate work must add “something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/books/17salinger.html?ref=arts
"The case is one of several in recent years exploring how much license the public has to draw on a classic work. In 2001 the estate of Margaret Mitchell, author of “Gone With the Wind,” sued unsuccessfully to prevent the release of “The Wind Done Gone,” which told the same story from the perspective of a slave. Last year J. K. Rowling, the author of the best-selling Harry Potter books, won a lawsuit over a guidebook to the series called The Harry Potter Lexicon.
“This case is really interesting because it really is where copyright runs into First Amendment rights, and it shows the jagged line between them,” said Jennifer Jenkins, director of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School, who also was part of the legal team that defended the publisher in “The Wind Done Gone” lawsuit.
In examining questions of fair use of copyrighted work, courts have looked at whether a new work transforms the original in a significant way, Ms. Jenkins said, citing a Supreme Court ruling that a legitimate work must add “something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/books/17salinger.html?ref=arts
Monday, June 15, 2009
Music cos. vow to show Minn. woman shared 24 songs; Associated Press, 6/15/09
Steve Karnowski via Associated Press; Music cos. vow to show Minn. woman shared 24 songs:
"This case remains the only one out of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits the industry has filed that has made it to trial. The vast majority of the other defendants settled for an average of about $3,500 rather than risk huge judgments and legal bills. [Jammie] Thomas-Rasset's first lawyer put in nearly $130,000 worth of time for which she couldn't pay. Her new lawyers, [Kiwi] Camara and Joe Sibley, of Houston, took the case for free.
Thomas-Rasset lost her first trial in 2007 when jurors awarded the companies $222,000. But U.S. District Judge Michael Davis later concluded he made a mistake in his jury instructions and ordered the retrial.
This time, Davis is expected to instruct the jurors the record companies need to prove that someone actually downloaded the music Thomas-Rasset allegedly made available over the Internet on the Kazaa file sharing service. Last time, he told the jury the plaintiffs didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyright-protected songs.
The companies suing are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
Thomas, a mother of four and employee of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe tribal government, allegedly used Kazaa, a "peer-to-peer" file sharing service in which users make files on their own computers available for downloading by other users. Although the industry contends she made more than 1,700 songs available, for simplicity's sake it's trying to prove copyright violations on just a representative sample of only 24, including songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day and Journey."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5cPHcxNbw61wli6CVCczuXJYgyQD98RETQG0
"This case remains the only one out of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits the industry has filed that has made it to trial. The vast majority of the other defendants settled for an average of about $3,500 rather than risk huge judgments and legal bills. [Jammie] Thomas-Rasset's first lawyer put in nearly $130,000 worth of time for which she couldn't pay. Her new lawyers, [Kiwi] Camara and Joe Sibley, of Houston, took the case for free.
Thomas-Rasset lost her first trial in 2007 when jurors awarded the companies $222,000. But U.S. District Judge Michael Davis later concluded he made a mistake in his jury instructions and ordered the retrial.
This time, Davis is expected to instruct the jurors the record companies need to prove that someone actually downloaded the music Thomas-Rasset allegedly made available over the Internet on the Kazaa file sharing service. Last time, he told the jury the plaintiffs didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyright-protected songs.
The companies suing are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
Thomas, a mother of four and employee of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe tribal government, allegedly used Kazaa, a "peer-to-peer" file sharing service in which users make files on their own computers available for downloading by other users. Although the industry contends she made more than 1,700 songs available, for simplicity's sake it's trying to prove copyright violations on just a representative sample of only 24, including songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day and Journey."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5cPHcxNbw61wli6CVCczuXJYgyQD98RETQG0
Jury selected in Thomas retrial: shockingly law-abiding; Ars Technica, 6/15/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Jury selected in Thomas retrial: shockingly law-abiding:
"After tossing out four jurors (the ones who had the most experience with file-sharing friends), the court was left with a 12-person jury: five men and seven women, all white, ranging in age from college students to retirees...
[Judge Michael J. Davis] displayed a list of songs that Thomas-Rasset was alleged to have shared online, which was the morning's most unintentionally poignant moment. Thomas-Rasset had earlier been ordered to pay $222,000 for such aural splendors as "Pour Some Sugar on Me," "Now and Forever," "Hella Good," "Bills, Bills, Bills," and "Don't Stop Believin'"—which may have been the real crime in the first trial. (OK, "Don't Stop Believin'" may in fact have deserved the almost $10,000 in damages.)"
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-selected-in-thomas-retrial-shockingly-law-abiding.ars
"After tossing out four jurors (the ones who had the most experience with file-sharing friends), the court was left with a 12-person jury: five men and seven women, all white, ranging in age from college students to retirees...
[Judge Michael J. Davis] displayed a list of songs that Thomas-Rasset was alleged to have shared online, which was the morning's most unintentionally poignant moment. Thomas-Rasset had earlier been ordered to pay $222,000 for such aural splendors as "Pour Some Sugar on Me," "Now and Forever," "Hella Good," "Bills, Bills, Bills," and "Don't Stop Believin'"—which may have been the real crime in the first trial. (OK, "Don't Stop Believin'" may in fact have deserved the almost $10,000 in damages.)"
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-selected-in-thomas-retrial-shockingly-law-abiding.ars
Obama Administration Reiterates Its Support Of Secretive, Industry Written ACTA; TechDirt, 6/15/09
Mike Masnick via TechDirt; Obama Administration Reiterates Its Support Of Secretive, Industry Written ACTA:
"We've been bothered by the incredibly secretive (except if you happen to be in the entertainment industry) ACTA Treaty negotiations for quite some time now. This is the industry-led effort to get a bunch of nations to agree to draconian and damaging new copyright laws by sneaking them through as a secretive "international treaty," such that countries are then compelled to change their copyright laws to "be in compliance with international agreements." It's a really sneaky trick that Hollywood has used for years. And then it acts all innocent when people accuse it of pushing draconian laws on consumers, claiming "it wasn't us... we needed to be in compliance with our international agreements." They just leave out the part where they're the ones who write those agreements for the various trade representatives. The early drafts of ACTA are no different. They were clearly written by industry lobbyists, and are now being pushed by various trade representatives, and then our elected officials will have "no choice" but to change copyright laws to be in compliance.
Perhaps the most troubling part of all of this is that the negotiations are happening in secret, and when consumers rights organizations ask to be given a seat at the table, they're denied. When those same consumer rights organizations ask to at least be told what's being negotiated, they're told it's forbidden because of "state secrets." However, for all that national security, the administration has absolutely no problem giving industry lobbyists access to the process. Funny how that works."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090614/1819325224.shtml
"We've been bothered by the incredibly secretive (except if you happen to be in the entertainment industry) ACTA Treaty negotiations for quite some time now. This is the industry-led effort to get a bunch of nations to agree to draconian and damaging new copyright laws by sneaking them through as a secretive "international treaty," such that countries are then compelled to change their copyright laws to "be in compliance with international agreements." It's a really sneaky trick that Hollywood has used for years. And then it acts all innocent when people accuse it of pushing draconian laws on consumers, claiming "it wasn't us... we needed to be in compliance with our international agreements." They just leave out the part where they're the ones who write those agreements for the various trade representatives. The early drafts of ACTA are no different. They were clearly written by industry lobbyists, and are now being pushed by various trade representatives, and then our elected officials will have "no choice" but to change copyright laws to be in compliance.
Perhaps the most troubling part of all of this is that the negotiations are happening in secret, and when consumers rights organizations ask to be given a seat at the table, they're denied. When those same consumer rights organizations ask to at least be told what's being negotiated, they're told it's forbidden because of "state secrets." However, for all that national security, the administration has absolutely no problem giving industry lobbyists access to the process. Funny how that works."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090614/1819325224.shtml
Thomas retrial begins Monday: what to expect; Ars Technica, 6/14/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Thomas retrial begins Monday: what to expect:
Monday morning, the federal file-sharing trial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset begins, and Ars will be there with gavel-to-gavel coverage. Here's what you need to know to keep up:
"Last time around, the case took three days to hear; this time, the lawyers estimate that it will take five. If the retrial is anything like the first go-round, we should get a verdict quickly, though whether a jury will award the RIAA nearly $10,000 in damages per song again remains to be seen.
Whatever the verdict, [defense attorney Kiwi] Camara has already announced his intent to take on the recording industry's entire legal campaign. Along with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, Camara tells Ars that he plans to file a class-action lawsuit against the recording industry later this summer."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-retrial-begins-monday-what-to-expect.ars
Monday morning, the federal file-sharing trial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset begins, and Ars will be there with gavel-to-gavel coverage. Here's what you need to know to keep up:
"Last time around, the case took three days to hear; this time, the lawyers estimate that it will take five. If the retrial is anything like the first go-round, we should get a verdict quickly, though whether a jury will award the RIAA nearly $10,000 in damages per song again remains to be seen.
Whatever the verdict, [defense attorney Kiwi] Camara has already announced his intent to take on the recording industry's entire legal campaign. Along with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, Camara tells Ars that he plans to file a class-action lawsuit against the recording industry later this summer."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-retrial-begins-monday-what-to-expect.ars
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Senator Orrin Hatch... And The Lies The Copyright Industry Tells; TechDirt, 6/12/09
Mike Masnick via TechDirt; Senator Orrin Hatch... And The Lies The Copyright Industry Tells:
"Furthermore, and more importantly, if Senator Hatch believes that "commercially-viable products created out of one's own mental processes deserve the same protection under the law as any other tangible product or piece of real estate," then clearly the Senator believes in the right to resell such property once you bought it, at a reasonable price. So if I buy a copy of a song by Senator Hatch, clearly, by his own words, I should have the right to resell it to others or to make a copy of it -- just as I have the right to make a copy of a physical chair that I buy, or to resell the chair that I have bought.
Or did Senator Hatch not mean what he said? Did he really mean that only some property rights should be granted? That is, should we only grant property rights that favor big industries at the expense of both consumer and social welfare?
[Sen. Hatch]: Appallingly, many believe that if they find it on the Internet then it must be free. I have heard some estimates cite no less than 80 percent of all Internet traffic comprises copyright-infringing files on peer-to-peer networks.
Ah, a misleading demonization. Senator Hatch has "heard some estimates." Why not cite them so that they can be responded to accurately? Perhaps because Senator Hatch knows they do not hold up under scrutiny.
[Sen. Hatch]: That is why the Pirate Bay case is so important. While the decision does not solve the problem of piracy and unauthorized file sharing, it certainly is a legal victory and one that sends a strong message that such behavior will not be tolerated.
I'm sure the Senator is quite busy, so perhaps he missed the "strong message" that was actually sent: a biased judge sided against a search engine claiming it was responsible for the actions of its users. From that, thousands of people recognized that this was a patently ridiculous scenario, and signed up as members of a political party designed to protect consumer civil rights -- allowing them to win a surprise seat in the European Parliament. Quite a strong message. It seems to be the opposite of the one Senator Hatch thinks was given.
[Sen. Hatch]: I strongly believe that if we're going to be successful in this fast-paced digital age, a solid partnership between the copyright community and the Internet Service Providers is crucial. I am confident that such a partnership can break up the current viral spread of copyrighted works on the Net.
[Sen. Hatch]: Many countries have begun to take action by working closely with ISPs to curb online piracy. For example, France has adopted a three strikes law, which calls for ISPs to suspend a subscriber's service if they are accused three times of pirating copyrighted material. Across the globe, from Japan to the UK, from Australia to Brazil, there have been engaging discussions within the industry on how best to proceed on this front.
[Sen. Hatch]: In the United States, I am encouraged with the developments that have transpired between content owners and some ISPs. Obviously, we still have a ways to go, but we are seeing a promising level of participation within the industry. I believe a flexible and free-market solution is essential if we are to be successful in this endeavor. As more of these discussions turn into actions, it is vital that these principles remain front and center.
To be fair, Hatch's speech was given the day before France tossed out the three strikes law as unconstitutional -- but that should still be instructive. The EU Parliament has made clear that cutting users off from the internet connections, especially based solely on industry accusations of infringement, represents a serious breach of civil rights. That a US Senator would support such a "guilty without proof" setup is quite troubling, and raises serious questions about his understanding of our constitutional rights."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090612/1235555213.shtml
"Furthermore, and more importantly, if Senator Hatch believes that "commercially-viable products created out of one's own mental processes deserve the same protection under the law as any other tangible product or piece of real estate," then clearly the Senator believes in the right to resell such property once you bought it, at a reasonable price. So if I buy a copy of a song by Senator Hatch, clearly, by his own words, I should have the right to resell it to others or to make a copy of it -- just as I have the right to make a copy of a physical chair that I buy, or to resell the chair that I have bought.
Or did Senator Hatch not mean what he said? Did he really mean that only some property rights should be granted? That is, should we only grant property rights that favor big industries at the expense of both consumer and social welfare?
[Sen. Hatch]: Appallingly, many believe that if they find it on the Internet then it must be free. I have heard some estimates cite no less than 80 percent of all Internet traffic comprises copyright-infringing files on peer-to-peer networks.
Ah, a misleading demonization. Senator Hatch has "heard some estimates." Why not cite them so that they can be responded to accurately? Perhaps because Senator Hatch knows they do not hold up under scrutiny.
[Sen. Hatch]: That is why the Pirate Bay case is so important. While the decision does not solve the problem of piracy and unauthorized file sharing, it certainly is a legal victory and one that sends a strong message that such behavior will not be tolerated.
I'm sure the Senator is quite busy, so perhaps he missed the "strong message" that was actually sent: a biased judge sided against a search engine claiming it was responsible for the actions of its users. From that, thousands of people recognized that this was a patently ridiculous scenario, and signed up as members of a political party designed to protect consumer civil rights -- allowing them to win a surprise seat in the European Parliament. Quite a strong message. It seems to be the opposite of the one Senator Hatch thinks was given.
[Sen. Hatch]: I strongly believe that if we're going to be successful in this fast-paced digital age, a solid partnership between the copyright community and the Internet Service Providers is crucial. I am confident that such a partnership can break up the current viral spread of copyrighted works on the Net.
[Sen. Hatch]: Many countries have begun to take action by working closely with ISPs to curb online piracy. For example, France has adopted a three strikes law, which calls for ISPs to suspend a subscriber's service if they are accused three times of pirating copyrighted material. Across the globe, from Japan to the UK, from Australia to Brazil, there have been engaging discussions within the industry on how best to proceed on this front.
[Sen. Hatch]: In the United States, I am encouraged with the developments that have transpired between content owners and some ISPs. Obviously, we still have a ways to go, but we are seeing a promising level of participation within the industry. I believe a flexible and free-market solution is essential if we are to be successful in this endeavor. As more of these discussions turn into actions, it is vital that these principles remain front and center.
To be fair, Hatch's speech was given the day before France tossed out the three strikes law as unconstitutional -- but that should still be instructive. The EU Parliament has made clear that cutting users off from the internet connections, especially based solely on industry accusations of infringement, represents a serious breach of civil rights. That a US Senator would support such a "guilty without proof" setup is quite troubling, and raises serious questions about his understanding of our constitutional rights."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090612/1235555213.shtml
Rep. Wexler And The Lies Of The Copyright Industry; TechDirt, 6/12/09
Mike Masnick via TechDirt; Rep. Wexler And The Lies Of The Copyright Industry:
"Earlier this week, CISAC, a copyright collection society held its "World Copyright Summit," which was effectively a gathering of groups of collections societies and copyright holders who want to strengthen copyright at every turn, so that they can collect more cash -- without ever needing to actually give people a reason to buy. IP Watch has a good summary of the event, where you see it was basically a bunch of people trying to figure out how to have governments around the world force people to hand money over to them. As per usual, the only voice of reason appears to have been Gary Shapiro, who tried to tell the assembled folks that their strategy to date has been a disaster, and they need to understand the differences between "property" and "copyright." In response -- the audience groaned. It would appear his message did not get across.
That said, I wanted to respond to two of our elected officials who both spoke at the event and who said somethings that are quite questionable. Rep. Robert Wexler gave a troubling speech in which he claimed that those who look to protect consumer rights, and question the value of stronger copyright are "lying" and need to be dealt with. Senator Orrin Hatch -- who once suggested remotely destroying the computers of anyone suspected of copyright infringement -- gave another misguided and misinformed talk. Both deserve a response."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090612/0850165209.shtml
"Earlier this week, CISAC, a copyright collection society held its "World Copyright Summit," which was effectively a gathering of groups of collections societies and copyright holders who want to strengthen copyright at every turn, so that they can collect more cash -- without ever needing to actually give people a reason to buy. IP Watch has a good summary of the event, where you see it was basically a bunch of people trying to figure out how to have governments around the world force people to hand money over to them. As per usual, the only voice of reason appears to have been Gary Shapiro, who tried to tell the assembled folks that their strategy to date has been a disaster, and they need to understand the differences between "property" and "copyright." In response -- the audience groaned. It would appear his message did not get across.
That said, I wanted to respond to two of our elected officials who both spoke at the event and who said somethings that are quite questionable. Rep. Robert Wexler gave a troubling speech in which he claimed that those who look to protect consumer rights, and question the value of stronger copyright are "lying" and need to be dealt with. Senator Orrin Hatch -- who once suggested remotely destroying the computers of anyone suspected of copyright infringement -- gave another misguided and misinformed talk. Both deserve a response."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090612/0850165209.shtml
Copyright Holders Acknowledge Losing Battle For Public Consciousness At World Copyright Summit; IP Watch, 6/11/09
Liza Porteus Viana via IP Watch; Copyright Holders Acknowledge Losing Battle For Public Consciousness At World Copyright Summit:
""The enemies of copyright have really done a good job at creating the false premise that the interest of copyright holders and the interest of society as a whole are antagonistic, and they always talk about the need for balance,” said Fritz Attaway, executive vice president and senior policy adviser for the Motion Picture Association of America. “We have got to do a better job” at attempting approaches at copyright protection “in a way that we get paid but also that consumers can access our works,” he added.
He cited MPAA’s work with the technology industry in the introduction of the DVD. He also noted that via Hulu - a joint venture of NBC Universal and News Corp. that offers television shows for free, for now - almost all TV products can be legitimately available to consumers in the United States.
”We’ve got to do more of that. We live in an age where we cannot block access to our content,” he said. “People are going to get it one way or the other. We would like them to pay for it and we need to seek out ways where they can pay for it. But just saying ‘no’ isn’t the answer.”
Eduardo Bautista, president of the management board of Spanish collective management group, Sociedad General de Autores y Editores, agreed, saying, “We’ve done a lousy job. We should have been fired.”
That’s also the message one of those referenced “enemies” tried to relay. Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association and president of the Home Recording Rights Coalition, said content creators cannot simply keep saying “no” - particularly with the next generation’s seemingly rebellious nature - because it will create more anti-copyright backlash.
"Recognise that kids today have been so turned off by the RIAA approach to litigation that they’re rejecting everything you say,” Shapiro said to National Association of Music Publishers President David Israelite.
Although Israelite made the comparison that if people were stealing computers from stores en masse, the technology industry would be up in arms, Shapiro argued that it is not the same, and that copyright and intellectual property rights are different than “real” property - a statement that received groans from the rights holder-friendly audience. “That’s hurting your case because you’re being rejected by anyone under 25 who is saying, ‘these guys are full of it,’” Shapiro continued.
One way to strengthen the creators’ case, particularly given the current state of the global economy, is to stress the economic value of their industry, particularly in developing countries, experts said. The World Intellectual Property Organization, for example, pointed out that the copyright industry is responsible for roughly 6 percent of a developing economy.
”When you bring those figures to the attention of the government of developing countries, they begin to see it differently,” said WIPO Deputy Director General Michael Keplinger. “There’s something in it for them … it’s not just something for America and the Europeans and the Japanese.”"
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/06/11/copyright-holders-acknowledge-losing-battle-for-public-consciousness-at-world-copyright-summit/
""The enemies of copyright have really done a good job at creating the false premise that the interest of copyright holders and the interest of society as a whole are antagonistic, and they always talk about the need for balance,” said Fritz Attaway, executive vice president and senior policy adviser for the Motion Picture Association of America. “We have got to do a better job” at attempting approaches at copyright protection “in a way that we get paid but also that consumers can access our works,” he added.
He cited MPAA’s work with the technology industry in the introduction of the DVD. He also noted that via Hulu - a joint venture of NBC Universal and News Corp. that offers television shows for free, for now - almost all TV products can be legitimately available to consumers in the United States.
”We’ve got to do more of that. We live in an age where we cannot block access to our content,” he said. “People are going to get it one way or the other. We would like them to pay for it and we need to seek out ways where they can pay for it. But just saying ‘no’ isn’t the answer.”
Eduardo Bautista, president of the management board of Spanish collective management group, Sociedad General de Autores y Editores, agreed, saying, “We’ve done a lousy job. We should have been fired.”
That’s also the message one of those referenced “enemies” tried to relay. Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association and president of the Home Recording Rights Coalition, said content creators cannot simply keep saying “no” - particularly with the next generation’s seemingly rebellious nature - because it will create more anti-copyright backlash.
"Recognise that kids today have been so turned off by the RIAA approach to litigation that they’re rejecting everything you say,” Shapiro said to National Association of Music Publishers President David Israelite.
Although Israelite made the comparison that if people were stealing computers from stores en masse, the technology industry would be up in arms, Shapiro argued that it is not the same, and that copyright and intellectual property rights are different than “real” property - a statement that received groans from the rights holder-friendly audience. “That’s hurting your case because you’re being rejected by anyone under 25 who is saying, ‘these guys are full of it,’” Shapiro continued.
One way to strengthen the creators’ case, particularly given the current state of the global economy, is to stress the economic value of their industry, particularly in developing countries, experts said. The World Intellectual Property Organization, for example, pointed out that the copyright industry is responsible for roughly 6 percent of a developing economy.
”When you bring those figures to the attention of the government of developing countries, they begin to see it differently,” said WIPO Deputy Director General Michael Keplinger. “There’s something in it for them … it’s not just something for America and the Europeans and the Japanese.”"
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/06/11/copyright-holders-acknowledge-losing-battle-for-public-consciousness-at-world-copyright-summit/
As US gov’t circles the wagons, Google’s brass stays cool; Christian Science Monitor, 6/11/09
Matthew Shaer via Christian Science Monitor; As US gov’t circles the wagons, Google’s brass stays cool:
"A day after Google acknowledged it was being investigated by the US Justice Department, two of the company’s lawyers said they saw no cause for concern.
“Most of these issues don’t deal with our core business,” said Dana Wagner, a competition lawyer for Google said yesterday, according to The Wall Street Journal. The newspaper also quoted Google’s chief legal officer David Drummond, who declined to comment on the specifics of the case.
“We hear people’s concerns and we want to address them,” Drummond said. He said he expected Google’s recent settlement on its Book Search project to be approved."
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/11/as-us-govt-circles-the-wagons-googles-brass-stays-cool/
"A day after Google acknowledged it was being investigated by the US Justice Department, two of the company’s lawyers said they saw no cause for concern.
“Most of these issues don’t deal with our core business,” said Dana Wagner, a competition lawyer for Google said yesterday, according to The Wall Street Journal. The newspaper also quoted Google’s chief legal officer David Drummond, who declined to comment on the specifics of the case.
“We hear people’s concerns and we want to address them,” Drummond said. He said he expected Google’s recent settlement on its Book Search project to be approved."
http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/06/11/as-us-govt-circles-the-wagons-googles-brass-stays-cool/
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Minn woman who lost music-share suit gets replay; YahooNews.com, 6/13/09
Steve Karnowski, AP Writer, via YahooNews.com; Minn woman who lost music-share suit gets replay:
"The Minnesota woman who became the nation's only music file-sharing defendant so far to go to trial is getting a replay two years after losing the case.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four and self-described "huge music fan," will be armed with aggressive new lawyers when her retrial begins in federal court here Monday.
The lawsuit is among the last vestiges of an anti-piracy campaign that the recording industry ultimately dropped amid widespread criticism. The Recording Industry Association of America said in December it had stopped filing lawsuits like these and would work instead with Internet service providers to cut access to those it deems illegal file-sharers. But the recording industry plans to proceed with cases that are already filed.
Thomas-Rasset is the rare defendant who has fought back.
Music companies have filed more than 30,000 similar copyright lawsuits in recent years against people they accused of illegally swapping songs through Internet file-sharing services such as Kazaa. None of the others has made it to trial yet.
Faced with huge legal bills, most settled for an average of about $3,500, even if they insisted they had done nothing wrong. Thomas-Rasset's new lawyer, K.A.D. Camara, notes the settlements add up to more than $100 million; the RIAA contends its legal costs exceeded the settlement money it brought in.
The lawsuits have turned into a public relations nightmare for the recording industry, putting music companies in the position of going after their most ardent fans...
Corryne McSherry, a staff attorney with the digital-rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the new defense team is taking a creative approach. She said it would have been interesting to see how all the cases that settled might have turned out if those defendants had free lawyers who were willing to push as hard.
"This case could end up being the tail end of a frankly shameful and certainly failed campaign to go after users," McSherry said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_en_ot/us_tec_music_downloading
"The Minnesota woman who became the nation's only music file-sharing defendant so far to go to trial is getting a replay two years after losing the case.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four and self-described "huge music fan," will be armed with aggressive new lawyers when her retrial begins in federal court here Monday.
The lawsuit is among the last vestiges of an anti-piracy campaign that the recording industry ultimately dropped amid widespread criticism. The Recording Industry Association of America said in December it had stopped filing lawsuits like these and would work instead with Internet service providers to cut access to those it deems illegal file-sharers. But the recording industry plans to proceed with cases that are already filed.
Thomas-Rasset is the rare defendant who has fought back.
Music companies have filed more than 30,000 similar copyright lawsuits in recent years against people they accused of illegally swapping songs through Internet file-sharing services such as Kazaa. None of the others has made it to trial yet.
Faced with huge legal bills, most settled for an average of about $3,500, even if they insisted they had done nothing wrong. Thomas-Rasset's new lawyer, K.A.D. Camara, notes the settlements add up to more than $100 million; the RIAA contends its legal costs exceeded the settlement money it brought in.
The lawsuits have turned into a public relations nightmare for the recording industry, putting music companies in the position of going after their most ardent fans...
Corryne McSherry, a staff attorney with the digital-rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the new defense team is taking a creative approach. She said it would have been interesting to see how all the cases that settled might have turned out if those defendants had free lawyers who were willing to push as hard.
"This case could end up being the tail end of a frankly shameful and certainly failed campaign to go after users," McSherry said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090613/ap_en_ot/us_tec_music_downloading
Simon & Schuster to Sell Digital Books on Scribd.com; New York Times, 6/12/09
Brad Stone via New York Times: Simon & Schuster to Sell Digital Books on Scribd.com:
"In another sign that book publishers are looking to embrace alternatives to Amazon.com’s Kindle e-book store, Simon & Schuster has agreed to sell digital copies of its books on Scribd.com, a popular document-sharing Web site.
Simon & Schuster, a division of CBS, plans to announce Friday that it will make digital editions of about 5,000 titles available for purchase on the site, including books from best-selling authors like Stephen King, Dan Brown and Mary Higgins Clark. It will also add thousands of other titles to Scribd’s search engine, allowing readers to sample 10 percent of the content of the books on the site and providing links to buy the print editions.
“We are interested in getting our books in front of consumers in as many formats and distribution platforms as possible,” said Ellie Hirschhorn, chief digital officer of Simon & Schuster."...
The Scribd Web site is the most popular of several document-sharing sites that take a YouTube-like approach to text, letting people upload sample chapters of books, research reports, homework and recipes. About 60 million users a month read documents on the site, embed them in blogs and share links to texts over social networks and e-mail messages.
Scribd has been criticized by publishers in the past for allowing users to upload pirated copies of their works. In an effort to combat the practice, Scribd will use the digital files of Simon & Schuster’s books to find and remove unauthorized copies from its site."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/technology/internet/12books.html?_r=1&sq=scribd&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1244909378-hifOeZiF+9Odinrgj8r/Xw
"In another sign that book publishers are looking to embrace alternatives to Amazon.com’s Kindle e-book store, Simon & Schuster has agreed to sell digital copies of its books on Scribd.com, a popular document-sharing Web site.
Simon & Schuster, a division of CBS, plans to announce Friday that it will make digital editions of about 5,000 titles available for purchase on the site, including books from best-selling authors like Stephen King, Dan Brown and Mary Higgins Clark. It will also add thousands of other titles to Scribd’s search engine, allowing readers to sample 10 percent of the content of the books on the site and providing links to buy the print editions.
“We are interested in getting our books in front of consumers in as many formats and distribution platforms as possible,” said Ellie Hirschhorn, chief digital officer of Simon & Schuster."...
The Scribd Web site is the most popular of several document-sharing sites that take a YouTube-like approach to text, letting people upload sample chapters of books, research reports, homework and recipes. About 60 million users a month read documents on the site, embed them in blogs and share links to texts over social networks and e-mail messages.
Scribd has been criticized by publishers in the past for allowing users to upload pirated copies of their works. In an effort to combat the practice, Scribd will use the digital files of Simon & Schuster’s books to find and remove unauthorized copies from its site."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/technology/internet/12books.html?_r=1&sq=scribd&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1244909378-hifOeZiF+9Odinrgj8r/Xw
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Probe of Google Book Deal Heats Up; Wall Street Journal, 6/10/09
Elizabeth Williamson, Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg, and Jessica E. Vascellero via Wall Street Journal; Probe of Google Book Deal Heats Up:
A New York publishing executive said the Justice Department is requesting documents about pricing, digital strategy and conversations with other publishers related to the Google settlement...
The Justice Department's escalation of its book search inquiry is the latest in a series of antitrust probes of Google's business launched by the department and the Federal Trade Commission, the government's two main antitrust regulators. Taken together, the inquiries represent a broad government examination of the dominant technology company of the decade.
People close to Google say the company considers the investigations part of a broader push by new antitrust regulators to step up scrutiny of the technology industry after a lull during the Bush administration.
In response, Google appears to be stepping up efforts to press its case with lawmakers and regulators. The company's chief legal officer, David Drummond, travels to Washington Wednesday to defend the book search deal in meetings with lawmakers and copyright advocates.
Google's effort to avoid anti-trust trouble could hinge on its willingness to strike concessions or scale back certain aspects of its plans to satisfy regulators' concerns. At the same time, Google is working to counter efforts by rivals -- including Microsoft Corp. -- to portray it as a threat to competition or consumer privacy."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458396782799555.html
A New York publishing executive said the Justice Department is requesting documents about pricing, digital strategy and conversations with other publishers related to the Google settlement...
The Justice Department's escalation of its book search inquiry is the latest in a series of antitrust probes of Google's business launched by the department and the Federal Trade Commission, the government's two main antitrust regulators. Taken together, the inquiries represent a broad government examination of the dominant technology company of the decade.
People close to Google say the company considers the investigations part of a broader push by new antitrust regulators to step up scrutiny of the technology industry after a lull during the Bush administration.
In response, Google appears to be stepping up efforts to press its case with lawmakers and regulators. The company's chief legal officer, David Drummond, travels to Washington Wednesday to defend the book search deal in meetings with lawmakers and copyright advocates.
Google's effort to avoid anti-trust trouble could hinge on its willingness to strike concessions or scale back certain aspects of its plans to satisfy regulators' concerns. At the same time, Google is working to counter efforts by rivals -- including Microsoft Corp. -- to portray it as a threat to competition or consumer privacy."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458396782799555.html
Google Book Search Settlement: Foster Competition, Escrow the Scans; Electronic Frontier Foundation, 6/11/09
Peter Eckerlsely via Electronic Frontier Foundation; Google Book Search Settlement: Foster Competition, Escrow the Scans:
"One good compromise might be to require that anyone who takes a blanket license (whether under the Google Book Search settlement, or under any legislation that might expand the settlement to others) must deposit a copy of the raw scans that they create with the Library of Congress or with the entity that administers the blanket license (e.g., the Books Rights Registry). After a period of years, let's say 14, the term of the Founder's Copyright, those scans should be made available at no cost to any others who take the relevant copyright licenses...
This would not only encourage market entry and competition in the online digital books arena, but would also foster innovation in the field. There's nothing that encourages digital innovation quite like access to an enormous dataset. After all, before Larry Page and Sergey Brin founded Google, they were graduate students at Stanford. They were able to build a new search engine by downloading their own copy of the web, messing around with it, and figuring our a better algorithm for querying it. New start-ups working with digital books should have the same kind of opportunity."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/should-google-have-s
"One good compromise might be to require that anyone who takes a blanket license (whether under the Google Book Search settlement, or under any legislation that might expand the settlement to others) must deposit a copy of the raw scans that they create with the Library of Congress or with the entity that administers the blanket license (e.g., the Books Rights Registry). After a period of years, let's say 14, the term of the Founder's Copyright, those scans should be made available at no cost to any others who take the relevant copyright licenses...
This would not only encourage market entry and competition in the online digital books arena, but would also foster innovation in the field. There's nothing that encourages digital innovation quite like access to an enormous dataset. After all, before Larry Page and Sergey Brin founded Google, they were graduate students at Stanford. They were able to build a new search engine by downloading their own copy of the web, messing around with it, and figuring our a better algorithm for querying it. New start-ups working with digital books should have the same kind of opportunity."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/should-google-have-s
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
U.S. Presses Antitrust Inquiry Into Google Book Settlement; New York Times, 6/10/09
Miguel Helft via New York Times; U.S. Presses Antitrust Inquiry Into Google Book Settlement:
"In a sign that the government has stepped up its antitrust investigation of a class-action settlement between Google and groups representing authors and publishers, the Justice Department has issued formal requests for information to several of the parties involved.
The Justice Department has sent the requests, called civil investigative demands, to various parties, including Google, the Association of American Publishers, the Authors Guild and individual publishers, said Michael J. Boni, a partner at Boni & Zack, who represented the Authors Guild in negotiations with Google.
“They are asking for a lot of information,” Mr. Boni said. “It signals that they are serious about the antitrust implications of the settlement.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/technology/companies/10book.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20book&st=cse
"In a sign that the government has stepped up its antitrust investigation of a class-action settlement between Google and groups representing authors and publishers, the Justice Department has issued formal requests for information to several of the parties involved.
The Justice Department has sent the requests, called civil investigative demands, to various parties, including Google, the Association of American Publishers, the Authors Guild and individual publishers, said Michael J. Boni, a partner at Boni & Zack, who represented the Authors Guild in negotiations with Google.
“They are asking for a lot of information,” Mr. Boni said. “It signals that they are serious about the antitrust implications of the settlement.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/technology/companies/10book.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20book&st=cse
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Lemonheads' Dando sues GM over alleged song copy; Associated Press, 6/5/09
Via Associated Press; Lemonheads' Dando sues GM over alleged song copy:
"Lemonheads founder Evan Dando (DAN'-doh) is suing General Motors, saying the auto giant copied one of his songs for an ad.
Dando sued GM and advertising and licensing firms in federal court Thursday, claiming the automaker violated his copyright on The Lemonheads song "It's a Shame About Ray." The complaint alleges the song was re-recorded and included in a 2008 TV campaign for Chevrolets and Buicks."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5glLRt4acGbCCiw_XiIkyvUSxdykgD98KQCE80
"Lemonheads founder Evan Dando (DAN'-doh) is suing General Motors, saying the auto giant copied one of his songs for an ad.
Dando sued GM and advertising and licensing firms in federal court Thursday, claiming the automaker violated his copyright on The Lemonheads song "It's a Shame About Ray." The complaint alleges the song was re-recorded and included in a 2008 TV campaign for Chevrolets and Buicks."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5glLRt4acGbCCiw_XiIkyvUSxdykgD98KQCE80
Critics: Google Book Deal a Monopoly, Privacy Debacle; Wired.com, 6/2/09
Ryan Singel via Wired.com; Critics: Google Book Deal a Monopoly, Privacy Debacle:
"Google set out to digitize the world’s books in 2003, got sued for its trouble in 2005 by publishers and authors wanting to make money from the efforts, and in 2007 came to a proposed settlement that gives Google the rights to scan, index, display and even sell millions of books that are in copyright. So far its Google Book Search program has digitized around 10 million books from the some of the nation’s most prestigious university libraries, but only small portions of most in-copyright books are shown online currently.
(Learn more with Wired.com’s Google Book Search Settlement FAQ.)
Even the deal’s critics — such as New York University professor James Grimmelmann — admit that the deal sounds great: Books in copyright but out-of-print become available for viewing and purchase by the public, and researchers and students at universities will get access to the full technology.
But Grimmelmann, whose Google Book Search research has been funded by Microsoft, says that the Google deal gives it exclusive rights to books that are in copyright whose authors can’t be found — so-called orphan works — and that any competitor who wants to try the same project could get sued for huge sums of money.
That makes a monopoly, Grimmelmann told conference goers at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in Washington, D.C. Tuesday."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/google_books/
"Google set out to digitize the world’s books in 2003, got sued for its trouble in 2005 by publishers and authors wanting to make money from the efforts, and in 2007 came to a proposed settlement that gives Google the rights to scan, index, display and even sell millions of books that are in copyright. So far its Google Book Search program has digitized around 10 million books from the some of the nation’s most prestigious university libraries, but only small portions of most in-copyright books are shown online currently.
(Learn more with Wired.com’s Google Book Search Settlement FAQ.)
Even the deal’s critics — such as New York University professor James Grimmelmann — admit that the deal sounds great: Books in copyright but out-of-print become available for viewing and purchase by the public, and researchers and students at universities will get access to the full technology.
But Grimmelmann, whose Google Book Search research has been funded by Microsoft, says that the Google deal gives it exclusive rights to books that are in copyright whose authors can’t be found — so-called orphan works — and that any competitor who wants to try the same project could get sued for huge sums of money.
That makes a monopoly, Grimmelmann told conference goers at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in Washington, D.C. Tuesday."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/google_books/
Monday, June 1, 2009
Salinger sues over "Catcher in the Rye" sequel; Reuters, 6/1/09
Edith Honan via Reuters; Salinger sues over "Catcher in the Rye" sequel:
"J.D. Salinger on Monday sued the writer and publisher of a book billed as a sequel to his classic novel "The Catcher in the Rye," saying the work infringes on his copyright.
Salinger is asking a judge to block publication of "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye" written by an author identified as J.D. California.
According to online bookstore Amazon.com, the book will be published in September by Swedish publisher Nicotext.
"The sequel is not a parody and it does not comment upon or criticize the original. It is a rip-off pure and simple," said the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan...
Salinger holds a copyright to the 1951 novel, considered one of the great works of American literature, and its main character, Holden Caulfield.
The lawsuit describes Salinger as "fiercely protective of his intellectual property" and says he "would not approve of defendants' use of his intellectual property.""
http://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSTRE5507H720090601
"J.D. Salinger on Monday sued the writer and publisher of a book billed as a sequel to his classic novel "The Catcher in the Rye," saying the work infringes on his copyright.
Salinger is asking a judge to block publication of "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye" written by an author identified as J.D. California.
According to online bookstore Amazon.com, the book will be published in September by Swedish publisher Nicotext.
"The sequel is not a parody and it does not comment upon or criticize the original. It is a rip-off pure and simple," said the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan...
Salinger holds a copyright to the 1951 novel, considered one of the great works of American literature, and its main character, Holden Caulfield.
The lawsuit describes Salinger as "fiercely protective of his intellectual property" and says he "would not approve of defendants' use of his intellectual property.""
http://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSTRE5507H720090601
Preparing to Sell E-Books, Google Takes on Amazon; New York Times, 6/1/09
Motoko Rich via New York Times; Preparing to Sell E-Books, Google Takes on Amazon:
"In discussions with publishers at the annual BookExpo convention in New York over the weekend, Google signaled its intent to introduce a program by [sic] that would enable publishers to sell digital versions of their newest books direct to consumers through Google. The move would pit Google against Amazon.com, which is seeking to control the e-book market with the versions it sells for its Kindle reading device.
Google’s move is likely to be welcomed by publishers who have expressed concerns about Amazon’s aggressive pricing strategy for e-books. Amazon offers Kindle editions of most new best sellers for $9.99, far less than the typical $26 at which publishers sell new hardcovers. In early discussions, Google has said it will allow publishers to set consumer prices."...
Google’s e-book retail program would be separate from the company’s settlement with authors and publishers over its book-scanning project, under which Google has scanned more than seven million volumes from several university libraries. A majority of those books are out of print.
The settlement, which is the focus of a Justice Department inquiry about the antitrust implications and is also subject to court review, provides for a way for Google to sell digital access to the scanned volumes.
And Google has already made its 1.5 million public-domain books available for reading on mobile phones as well as the Sony Reader, the Kindle’s largest competitor.
Under the new program, publishers give Google digital files of new and other in-print books. Already on Google, users can search up to about 20 percent of the content of those books and can follow links from Google to online retailers like Amazon.com and the Web site of Barnes & Noble to buy either paper or electronic versions of the books. But Google is now proposing to allow users to buy those digital editions direct from Google."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/technology/internet/01google.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=google%20books&st=cse
"In discussions with publishers at the annual BookExpo convention in New York over the weekend, Google signaled its intent to introduce a program by [sic] that would enable publishers to sell digital versions of their newest books direct to consumers through Google. The move would pit Google against Amazon.com, which is seeking to control the e-book market with the versions it sells for its Kindle reading device.
Google’s move is likely to be welcomed by publishers who have expressed concerns about Amazon’s aggressive pricing strategy for e-books. Amazon offers Kindle editions of most new best sellers for $9.99, far less than the typical $26 at which publishers sell new hardcovers. In early discussions, Google has said it will allow publishers to set consumer prices."...
Google’s e-book retail program would be separate from the company’s settlement with authors and publishers over its book-scanning project, under which Google has scanned more than seven million volumes from several university libraries. A majority of those books are out of print.
The settlement, which is the focus of a Justice Department inquiry about the antitrust implications and is also subject to court review, provides for a way for Google to sell digital access to the scanned volumes.
And Google has already made its 1.5 million public-domain books available for reading on mobile phones as well as the Sony Reader, the Kindle’s largest competitor.
Under the new program, publishers give Google digital files of new and other in-print books. Already on Google, users can search up to about 20 percent of the content of those books and can follow links from Google to online retailers like Amazon.com and the Web site of Barnes & Noble to buy either paper or electronic versions of the books. But Google is now proposing to allow users to buy those digital editions direct from Google."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/technology/internet/01google.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=google%20books&st=cse
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Potential of US Copyright Agenda to Endanger Freedom of Expression in China; IP Osgoode, 4/17/09
Julian Ho via IP Osgoode; Potential of US Copyright Agenda to Endanger Freedom of Expression in China:
"One of the most prevalent criticisms leveled against China today is the lack of human rights afforded to its citizens. This is particularly so in the area of civil and political rights, where China’s single-party unitary rule has made political prisoners of pro-democracy activists. Western advocacy groups have applied political pressure to convince the Chinese government to reduce its constraints on the human right of freedom of expression. At the same time, however, the American government has also worked hard through WTO means to toughen China’s intellectual property laws. Is this a conflicting position to take as it pertains to tougher copyright laws? Given the background of copyright law in China, it may very well be."
http://www.iposgoode.ca/2009/04/potential-of-us-copyright-agenda-to-endanger/
"One of the most prevalent criticisms leveled against China today is the lack of human rights afforded to its citizens. This is particularly so in the area of civil and political rights, where China’s single-party unitary rule has made political prisoners of pro-democracy activists. Western advocacy groups have applied political pressure to convince the Chinese government to reduce its constraints on the human right of freedom of expression. At the same time, however, the American government has also worked hard through WTO means to toughen China’s intellectual property laws. Is this a conflicting position to take as it pertains to tougher copyright laws? Given the background of copyright law in China, it may very well be."
http://www.iposgoode.ca/2009/04/potential-of-us-copyright-agenda-to-endanger/
Friday, May 29, 2009
Company's 'ATM For Books' Prints On Demand; Podcast [4 min. 13 sec.] NPR's All Things Considered, 5/28/09
Podcast [4 min. 13 sec.]: Rob Gifford via NPR's All Things Considered; Company's 'ATM For Books' Prints On Demand:
"The company that makes the Espresso calls it "an ATM for books." On Demand Books CEO Dane Neller says it's the biggest revolution in publishing since Gutenberg started printing more than 500 years ago. He says it will help keep paper books way ahead of electronic books, such as those available on the Amazon Kindle.
"Our technology now makes it possible for the printed page to move as rapidly as the electronic page," he says. "The printed book still remains overwhelmingly the dominant way books are read. I mean, I think the last statistic I saw worldwide, the electronic book is still less than a half percent."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104644575
"The company that makes the Espresso calls it "an ATM for books." On Demand Books CEO Dane Neller says it's the biggest revolution in publishing since Gutenberg started printing more than 500 years ago. He says it will help keep paper books way ahead of electronic books, such as those available on the Amazon Kindle.
"Our technology now makes it possible for the printed page to move as rapidly as the electronic page," he says. "The printed book still remains overwhelmingly the dominant way books are read. I mean, I think the last statistic I saw worldwide, the electronic book is still less than a half percent."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104644575
Boyle Web sensation: A massive missed opportunity?; Associated Press, 5/29/09
Jake Coyle via Associated Press; Boyle Web sensation: A massive missed opportunity?:
"According to rough estimates by the Times of London based on online ad rates, the first Boyle video could have earned close to $2 million with minimal advertising on YouTube.
Eliot Van Buskirk, a writer for Wired.com who has covered this territory, thinks a unique opportunity was missed.
"This video of Susan Boyle is quickly becoming the most viewed video of all-time — and nobody's making money," said Van Buskirk. "It's been sort of a growing pains stage of ad-supported media."
Van Buskirk said the situation showed the need for content creators and distributors to have agreements in place for when a sensation strikes.
"We're still in the early stages — somehow — of media on the Internet," he said.
A percentage of the would-be ad revenue also would have gone to YouTube. Instead, the Google Inc.-owned company has earned little directly from what might become its biggest hit since launching four years ago."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/ap_en_tv/us_web_susan_boyle
"According to rough estimates by the Times of London based on online ad rates, the first Boyle video could have earned close to $2 million with minimal advertising on YouTube.
Eliot Van Buskirk, a writer for Wired.com who has covered this territory, thinks a unique opportunity was missed.
"This video of Susan Boyle is quickly becoming the most viewed video of all-time — and nobody's making money," said Van Buskirk. "It's been sort of a growing pains stage of ad-supported media."
Van Buskirk said the situation showed the need for content creators and distributors to have agreements in place for when a sensation strikes.
"We're still in the early stages — somehow — of media on the Internet," he said.
A percentage of the would-be ad revenue also would have gone to YouTube. Instead, the Google Inc.-owned company has earned little directly from what might become its biggest hit since launching four years ago."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/ap_en_tv/us_web_susan_boyle
Thursday, May 28, 2009
EFF Launches 'Teaching Copyright' to Correct Entertainment Industry Misinformation; Electronic Frontier Foundation, 5/27/09
Via Electronic Frontier Foundation; EFF Launches 'Teaching Copyright' to Correct Entertainment Industry Misinformation: New Curriculum Gives Students the Facts About Their Digital Rights and Responsibilities:
"As the entertainment industry promotes its new anti-copying educational program to the nation's teachers, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today launched its own "Teaching Copyright" curriculum and website to help educators give students the real story about their digital rights and responsibilities on the Internet and beyond.
The Copyright Alliance -- backed by the recording, broadcast, and software industries -- has given its curriculum the ominous title "Think First, Copy Later." This is just the latest example of copyright-focused educational materials portraying the use of new technology as a high-risk behavior...
The website at www.teachingcopyright.org includes guides to copyright law, including fair use and the public domain.
"Kids are bombarded with messages that using new technology is illegal," said EFF Activist Richard Esguerra. "Instead of approaching the issues from a position of fear, Teaching Copyright encourages inquiry and greater understanding. This is a balanced curriculum, asking students to think about their role in the online world and to make informed choices about their behavior."
The Teaching Copyright curriculum was developed with the input of educators from across the U.S. and has been designed to satisfy components of standards from the International Society for Technology in Education and the California State Board of Education.
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/05/27
"As the entertainment industry promotes its new anti-copying educational program to the nation's teachers, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today launched its own "Teaching Copyright" curriculum and website to help educators give students the real story about their digital rights and responsibilities on the Internet and beyond.
The Copyright Alliance -- backed by the recording, broadcast, and software industries -- has given its curriculum the ominous title "Think First, Copy Later." This is just the latest example of copyright-focused educational materials portraying the use of new technology as a high-risk behavior...
The website at www.teachingcopyright.org includes guides to copyright law, including fair use and the public domain.
"Kids are bombarded with messages that using new technology is illegal," said EFF Activist Richard Esguerra. "Instead of approaching the issues from a position of fear, Teaching Copyright encourages inquiry and greater understanding. This is a balanced curriculum, asking students to think about their role in the online world and to make informed choices about their behavior."
The Teaching Copyright curriculum was developed with the input of educators from across the U.S. and has been designed to satisfy components of standards from the International Society for Technology in Education and the California State Board of Education.
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/05/27
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Copyright Meets a New Worthy Foe: The Real-Time Web; NewTeeVee.com, 5/21/09
Liz Gannes via NewTeeVee.com; Copyright Meets a New Worthy Foe: The Real-Time Web:
"If you’re a copyright holder and you want to keep up with your pirated content flitting about the web — well, good luck. The way the DMCA is set up means you’re always chasing, and the real-time web is racing faster than ever before. Analytics services are only just emerging that will tell you where your views are coming from on a semi-real-time basis.
That’s especially true for live video streaming sites such as Ustream and Justin.tv...
They’re also working to perfect and sell services so rights holders can monetize unauthorized clips that go viral, turning those views into marketing and revenue. (See our extended feature on this topic.) Adoption of such programs is moving a lot faster than the law...
Another live video company, Livestream (which until this week was called Mogulus), is trying to stand out from Justin.tv and Ustream by monitoring copyright more closely than DMCA requires. Livestream CEO Max Haot tells us his company has adopted aggressive copyright policies such as limiting new accounts to 50 concurrent viewers until they have been verified."
http://newteevee.com/2009/05/21/copyright-meets-a-new-worthy-foe-the-real-time-web/
"If you’re a copyright holder and you want to keep up with your pirated content flitting about the web — well, good luck. The way the DMCA is set up means you’re always chasing, and the real-time web is racing faster than ever before. Analytics services are only just emerging that will tell you where your views are coming from on a semi-real-time basis.
That’s especially true for live video streaming sites such as Ustream and Justin.tv...
They’re also working to perfect and sell services so rights holders can monetize unauthorized clips that go viral, turning those views into marketing and revenue. (See our extended feature on this topic.) Adoption of such programs is moving a lot faster than the law...
Another live video company, Livestream (which until this week was called Mogulus), is trying to stand out from Justin.tv and Ustream by monitoring copyright more closely than DMCA requires. Livestream CEO Max Haot tells us his company has adopted aggressive copyright policies such as limiting new accounts to 50 concurrent viewers until they have been verified."
http://newteevee.com/2009/05/21/copyright-meets-a-new-worthy-foe-the-real-time-web/
Teaching About Copyright and Fair Use for Media Literacy Education; Creative Commons, 5/26/09
Jane Park via Creative Commons; Teaching About Copyright and Fair Use for Media Literacy Education:
"Now, the Media Education Lab at Temple University has produced excellent resources based on the original guide to help teachers teach about copyright and fair use in their classrooms...
To use these resources in your classroom or study group (or for simply personal edification), check them all out here."
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/14707
"Now, the Media Education Lab at Temple University has produced excellent resources based on the original guide to help teachers teach about copyright and fair use in their classrooms...
To use these resources in your classroom or study group (or for simply personal edification), check them all out here."
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/14707
Music Labels Cut Friendlier Deals With Start-Ups; New York Times, 5/27/09
Brad Stone via New York Times; Music Labels Cut Friendlier Deals With Start-Ups:
"“Entrepreneurs are also realizing they need to spend as much energy on their business model as they do on technological innovation.”
The changes stem from an unavoidable and unpleasant reality facing the music business: the economics of offering music free on the Web do not work...
As a result, the online music landscape is littered with the wreckage of failed or troubled music start-ups...
“There was a generation of Web companies that signed up for deals that didn’t make sense, and unfortunately they set a precedent,” Mr. Westergren said. “Now that those deals turned out to be unsustainable, it made the labels realize that there was actually not hidden money they were missing out on. I think labels have a much better understanding of the economics of the business."...
Spotify plans to launch in the United States later this year, and its founder, Daniel Ek, claims that the music labels have given the start-up flexibility because they are attracted to a service that converts illegal downloaders into monetizable consumers of music. “This is what has been lacking for 10 years. The only way to beat piracy is by actually creating a legal service that is just as good,” Mr. Ek said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/technology/start-ups/28music.html?_r=1&hpw
"“Entrepreneurs are also realizing they need to spend as much energy on their business model as they do on technological innovation.”
The changes stem from an unavoidable and unpleasant reality facing the music business: the economics of offering music free on the Web do not work...
As a result, the online music landscape is littered with the wreckage of failed or troubled music start-ups...
“There was a generation of Web companies that signed up for deals that didn’t make sense, and unfortunately they set a precedent,” Mr. Westergren said. “Now that those deals turned out to be unsustainable, it made the labels realize that there was actually not hidden money they were missing out on. I think labels have a much better understanding of the economics of the business."...
Spotify plans to launch in the United States later this year, and its founder, Daniel Ek, claims that the music labels have given the start-up flexibility because they are attracted to a service that converts illegal downloaders into monetizable consumers of music. “This is what has been lacking for 10 years. The only way to beat piracy is by actually creating a legal service that is just as good,” Mr. Ek said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/technology/start-ups/28music.html?_r=1&hpw
Monday, May 25, 2009
Payoff Over a Web Sensation Is Elusive; New York Times, 5/24/09
Brian Stelter via The New York Times; Payoff Over a Web Sensation Is Elusive:
"[Susan Boyle] has already won a popularity contest on YouTube, where videos of her performances in April have been viewed an astounding 220 million times.
But until now, her runaway Web success has made little money for the program’s producers or distributors.
FremantleMedia Enterprises, a production company that owns the international digital rights to the talent show, hastily uploaded video clips to YouTube in the wake of Ms. Boyle’s debut, but the clips do not appear to be generating any advertising revenue for the company. The most popular videos of Ms. Boyle were not the official versions but rather copies of the TV show posted by individual users.
The case reflects the inability of big media companies to maximize profit from supersize Internet audiences that seem to come from nowhere. In essence, the complexities of TV production are curbing the Web possibilities. “Britain’s Got Talent” is produced jointly by three companies and distributed in Britain by a fourth, ITV, making it difficult to ascertain which of the companies can claim a video as its own...
YouTube, a unit of Google, has been keen to make money from its hulking library of online video by signing contracts with copyright owners and sharing the revenue from ads it sells before, during, after and alongside the videos. Major media companies have shown varying degrees of interest in these deals, in part because they are reticent to split much money with Google...
The broadcaster and producers allowed the copies to stay online because they created buzz for the program. The clips have received more than a half-million user comments.
The view counts continued to grow as people awaited Ms. Boyle’s next performance. Visible Measures, a company that tracks online video placements, said Ms. Boyle was responsible for the fastest-growing viral video in the roughly five-year history of Web video."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/business/media/25youtube.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&hpw=&adxnnlx=1243267357-yx358QnSV0PSvbz5bZMDwA
"[Susan Boyle] has already won a popularity contest on YouTube, where videos of her performances in April have been viewed an astounding 220 million times.
But until now, her runaway Web success has made little money for the program’s producers or distributors.
FremantleMedia Enterprises, a production company that owns the international digital rights to the talent show, hastily uploaded video clips to YouTube in the wake of Ms. Boyle’s debut, but the clips do not appear to be generating any advertising revenue for the company. The most popular videos of Ms. Boyle were not the official versions but rather copies of the TV show posted by individual users.
The case reflects the inability of big media companies to maximize profit from supersize Internet audiences that seem to come from nowhere. In essence, the complexities of TV production are curbing the Web possibilities. “Britain’s Got Talent” is produced jointly by three companies and distributed in Britain by a fourth, ITV, making it difficult to ascertain which of the companies can claim a video as its own...
YouTube, a unit of Google, has been keen to make money from its hulking library of online video by signing contracts with copyright owners and sharing the revenue from ads it sells before, during, after and alongside the videos. Major media companies have shown varying degrees of interest in these deals, in part because they are reticent to split much money with Google...
The broadcaster and producers allowed the copies to stay online because they created buzz for the program. The clips have received more than a half-million user comments.
The view counts continued to grow as people awaited Ms. Boyle’s next performance. Visible Measures, a company that tracks online video placements, said Ms. Boyle was responsible for the fastest-growing viral video in the roughly five-year history of Web video."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/business/media/25youtube.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&hpw=&adxnnlx=1243267357-yx358QnSV0PSvbz5bZMDwA
Sunday, May 24, 2009
UMich Gets Better Deal in Google’s Library of the Future Project; Wired.com, 5/21/09
Ryan Singel via Wired.com; UMich Gets Better Deal in Google’s Library of the Future Project:
"The new Google-UM agreement (.pdf) gives the university a digital copy of every book on its shelves, regardless of whether Google scanned its copy or another library’s. The school gets more rights to distribute its copies of the digitized works, and, most importantly for Google public relations, a way for the school to protest the pricing scheme of full-text institutional subscriptions to the millions of digitized books.
University of Michigan is one of the largest of the 29 libraries who have been digitizing public-domain and in-copyright books in conjunction with Google Book Search."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/05/umich-gets-better-deal-in-googles-library-of-the-future-project/
"The new Google-UM agreement (.pdf) gives the university a digital copy of every book on its shelves, regardless of whether Google scanned its copy or another library’s. The school gets more rights to distribute its copies of the digitized works, and, most importantly for Google public relations, a way for the school to protest the pricing scheme of full-text institutional subscriptions to the millions of digitized books.
University of Michigan is one of the largest of the 29 libraries who have been digitizing public-domain and in-copyright books in conjunction with Google Book Search."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/05/umich-gets-better-deal-in-googles-library-of-the-future-project/
The Evolving Google Library; InsideHigherEd.com, 5/21/09
Via InsideHigherEd.com; The Evolving Google Library:
"Here's how the system would work:
Universities that have made parts of their collections available for digitization will receive deep discounts on access to the collection, or -- in Michigan's case and perhaps those of others -- will pay nothing for access to the collection, which currently has about 10 million volumes and could easily double in size. Every participating library will have full free access to digitized copies of all of the books it contributed.
For people at other institutions, a free "preview" of a book -- with about 20 percent of content -- will be available online.
Individuals will be able to purchase full access (but not download a copy) at prices that Google said would be inexpensive compared to regular purchase prices.
Colleges and university libraries could buy site licenses, with pricing based on Carnegie classification. While no scale was released, Google officials said that the goal of pricing would be both to provide appropriate recognition to copyright holders but also to ensure wide access to the collections.
Any of the universities that have provided volumes for the project will have the right to seek arbitration if they feel that the pricing does not reflect both of those principles.
Michigan was the first university to sign this expanded agreement although others among the 30-plus having books digitized are expected to follow, so the resulting offering will contain all of their collections combined...
One of the groups that has been worrying about pricing is the American Library Association. Corey Williams, associate director of the association's Washington office, said in an interview Wednesday that while many details remain unclear, the Google-Michigan agreement is "a step in the right direction with regard to pricing."...
Steven Bell, associate university librarian for research and instructional services at Temple University, said he thinks Google is trying to respond to the complaints that have been raised, and that he doesn't think the Michigan announcement will make those issues go away.
"I don't think this new agreement with the University of Michigan is going to totally mitigate the concerns of the library community about Google's monopoly ownership of these millions of digitized books."
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/21/google
"Here's how the system would work:
Universities that have made parts of their collections available for digitization will receive deep discounts on access to the collection, or -- in Michigan's case and perhaps those of others -- will pay nothing for access to the collection, which currently has about 10 million volumes and could easily double in size. Every participating library will have full free access to digitized copies of all of the books it contributed.
For people at other institutions, a free "preview" of a book -- with about 20 percent of content -- will be available online.
Individuals will be able to purchase full access (but not download a copy) at prices that Google said would be inexpensive compared to regular purchase prices.
Colleges and university libraries could buy site licenses, with pricing based on Carnegie classification. While no scale was released, Google officials said that the goal of pricing would be both to provide appropriate recognition to copyright holders but also to ensure wide access to the collections.
Any of the universities that have provided volumes for the project will have the right to seek arbitration if they feel that the pricing does not reflect both of those principles.
Michigan was the first university to sign this expanded agreement although others among the 30-plus having books digitized are expected to follow, so the resulting offering will contain all of their collections combined...
One of the groups that has been worrying about pricing is the American Library Association. Corey Williams, associate director of the association's Washington office, said in an interview Wednesday that while many details remain unclear, the Google-Michigan agreement is "a step in the right direction with regard to pricing."...
Steven Bell, associate university librarian for research and instructional services at Temple University, said he thinks Google is trying to respond to the complaints that have been raised, and that he doesn't think the Michigan announcement will make those issues go away.
"I don't think this new agreement with the University of Michigan is going to totally mitigate the concerns of the library community about Google's monopoly ownership of these millions of digitized books."
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/21/google
Friday, May 22, 2009
Taking Sides in the Digital Revolution, Where Copyright Is the First Casualty; New York Times, 5/19/09
Michiko Kakutani via New York Times; Taking Sides in the Digital Revolution, Where Copyright Is the First Casualty:
"Such questions are being increasingly asked, as old and new media clash in cyberspace, and issues of copyright have become the subject of hotly contested debates. Two new books offer very different partisan takes on these arguments. In “Ripped” Greg Kot — a music critic at The Chicago Tribune since 1990 — contends that peer-to-peer file sharing and CD burning has empowered music consumers, while providing musicians with more “opportunities to be heard”: “In this world, the fringe players could more easily find and build a dedicated audience, and a musical ecosystem encompassing thousands of microcultures began to emerge.” In “Digital Barbarism” the novelist and sometimes political writer Mark Helprin argues that “copyright is important because it is one of the guarantors of the rights of authorship, and the rights of authorship are important because without them the individual voice would be subsumed in an indistinguishable and instantly malleable mass.”
The problem with both books is that the authors fail to come to terms with arguments that run counter to their own opinions."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/books/19kaku.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
"Such questions are being increasingly asked, as old and new media clash in cyberspace, and issues of copyright have become the subject of hotly contested debates. Two new books offer very different partisan takes on these arguments. In “Ripped” Greg Kot — a music critic at The Chicago Tribune since 1990 — contends that peer-to-peer file sharing and CD burning has empowered music consumers, while providing musicians with more “opportunities to be heard”: “In this world, the fringe players could more easily find and build a dedicated audience, and a musical ecosystem encompassing thousands of microcultures began to emerge.” In “Digital Barbarism” the novelist and sometimes political writer Mark Helprin argues that “copyright is important because it is one of the guarantors of the rights of authorship, and the rights of authorship are important because without them the individual voice would be subsumed in an indistinguishable and instantly malleable mass.”
The problem with both books is that the authors fail to come to terms with arguments that run counter to their own opinions."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/books/19kaku.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
Share a File, Lose Your Laptop?; PC World, 5/14/09
Bill Snyder via PC World; Share a File, Lose Your Laptop?:
"Called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the new plan would see the United States, Canada, members of the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, and Switzerland form an international coalition against copyright infringement. What's making groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation especially nervous is the veil of secrecy around the negotiations. In fact, it took some well-placed leaks and a Freedom of Information Act request to find out the most basic details of the plan."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/164889/share_a_file_lose_your_laptop.html
"Called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the new plan would see the United States, Canada, members of the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, and Switzerland form an international coalition against copyright infringement. What's making groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation especially nervous is the veil of secrecy around the negotiations. In fact, it took some well-placed leaks and a Freedom of Information Act request to find out the most basic details of the plan."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/164889/share_a_file_lose_your_laptop.html
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Google Book-Scanning Pact to Give Libraries Input on Price; New York Times, 5/20/9
Miguel Helft via New York Times; Google Book-Scanning Pact to Give Libraries Input on Price:
"The new agreement, which Google hopes other libraries will endorse, lets the University of Michigan object if it thinks the prices Google charges libraries for access to its digital collection are too high, a major concern of some librarians. Any pricing dispute would be resolved through arbitration.
Only the institutions that lend books to Google for scanning — now 21 libraries in the United States — would be allowed to object to pricing.
The new agreement also gives the university, and any library that signs a similar agreement, a discount on its subscription proportional to the number of books it contributes to Google’s mass digitization project. Since Michigan is lending a large number of books, it will receive Google’s service free for 25 years...
The new agreement does not address other criticism, including the complaints over orphan works and worries that the agreement does not protect the privacy of readers of Google’s digital library."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/technology/companies/21google.html?hpw
"The new agreement, which Google hopes other libraries will endorse, lets the University of Michigan object if it thinks the prices Google charges libraries for access to its digital collection are too high, a major concern of some librarians. Any pricing dispute would be resolved through arbitration.
Only the institutions that lend books to Google for scanning — now 21 libraries in the United States — would be allowed to object to pricing.
The new agreement also gives the university, and any library that signs a similar agreement, a discount on its subscription proportional to the number of books it contributes to Google’s mass digitization project. Since Michigan is lending a large number of books, it will receive Google’s service free for 25 years...
The new agreement does not address other criticism, including the complaints over orphan works and worries that the agreement does not protect the privacy of readers of Google’s digital library."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/technology/companies/21google.html?hpw
Cornell Library Lifts Restrictions on Public Domain Works; Library Journal.com, 5/14/09
Josh Hadro via Library Journal.com; Cornell Library Lifts Restrictions on Public Domain Works: 70,000 public domain works contributed to the Internet Archive:
"Coinciding with the donation of 70,000 public domain works to the Internet Archive, the Cornell University Library has announced that it will no longer requires users to seek permission to reuse public domain materials for any purpose.
According to the library's statement, the shift in practice stems from a desire to be consistent with the library and faculty's commitment to Open Access...
Because the materials in question are already in the public domain, and because no new rights to restrict usage of the material are granted during the digitization process, researchers technically had the legal right to use and republish the materials. Indeed, the announcement acknowledges that the tension between institutional licensing policies and users rights can lead to charges of copyfraud, something Cornell hopes to avoid with the codification of this new policy."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6658219.html
"Coinciding with the donation of 70,000 public domain works to the Internet Archive, the Cornell University Library has announced that it will no longer requires users to seek permission to reuse public domain materials for any purpose.
According to the library's statement, the shift in practice stems from a desire to be consistent with the library and faculty's commitment to Open Access...
Because the materials in question are already in the public domain, and because no new rights to restrict usage of the material are granted during the digitization process, researchers technically had the legal right to use and republish the materials. Indeed, the announcement acknowledges that the tension between institutional licensing policies and users rights can lead to charges of copyfraud, something Cornell hopes to avoid with the codification of this new policy."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6658219.html
© 2009? Wishful Thinking, Perhaps, as Backlog Mounts; Washington Post, 5/19/09
Lyndsey Layton via Washington Post; © 2009? Wishful Thinking, Perhaps, as Backlog Mounts:
"A serious logjam in the U.S. Copyright Office has created a growing mountain of paper applications, more than the staff can process. Like the marching buckets of water in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," the envelopes just keep coming, threatening to flood the operation.
The problem has tripled the processing time for a copyright from six to 18 months, and delays are expected to get worse in coming months. The library's inspector general has warned that the backlog threatens the integrity of the U.S. copyright system.
The irony is that the slowdown stems from a new $52 million electronic process that is supposed to speed the way writers and others register their literary, musical or visual work.
The delays do not appear to be hampering the business of the major publishing houses or those willing to spend $685 for a "special handling fee" that expedites registration. But the slowdown is frustrating hundreds of thousands of little-known people with big dreams."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051803171.html
"A serious logjam in the U.S. Copyright Office has created a growing mountain of paper applications, more than the staff can process. Like the marching buckets of water in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," the envelopes just keep coming, threatening to flood the operation.
The problem has tripled the processing time for a copyright from six to 18 months, and delays are expected to get worse in coming months. The library's inspector general has warned that the backlog threatens the integrity of the U.S. copyright system.
The irony is that the slowdown stems from a new $52 million electronic process that is supposed to speed the way writers and others register their literary, musical or visual work.
The delays do not appear to be hampering the business of the major publishing houses or those willing to spend $685 for a "special handling fee" that expedites registration. But the slowdown is frustrating hundreds of thousands of little-known people with big dreams."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051803171.html
Monday, May 18, 2009
When love is harder to show than hate; The Guardian, 5/13/09
Cory Doctorow via The Guardian; When love is harder to show than hate: Copyright law is set up to protect critics, while leaving fans of creative works out in the cold:
"But that's not what this column is about. What I want to ask is, how did we end up with a copyright law that only protects critics, while leaving fans out in the cold?"...
The upshot of this is that you're on much more solid ground if you want to quote or otherwise reference a work for the purposes of rubbishing it than if you are doing so to celebrate it. This is one of the most perverse elements of copyright law: the reality that loving something doesn't confer any right to make it a part of your creative life."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/13/cory-doctorow-copyright
"But that's not what this column is about. What I want to ask is, how did we end up with a copyright law that only protects critics, while leaving fans out in the cold?"...
The upshot of this is that you're on much more solid ground if you want to quote or otherwise reference a work for the purposes of rubbishing it than if you are doing so to celebrate it. This is one of the most perverse elements of copyright law: the reality that loving something doesn't confer any right to make it a part of your creative life."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/13/cory-doctorow-copyright
Site Lets Writers Sell Digital Copies; The New York Times, 5/18/09
Brad Stone via The New York Times; Site Lets Writers Sell Digital Copies:
"The Scribd Web site is the most popular of several document-sharing sites that take a YouTube-like approach to text, letting people upload sample chapters of books, research reports, homework, recipes and the like. Users can read documents on the site, embed them in other sites and share links over social networks and e-mail.
In the new Scribd store, authors or publishers will be able to set their own price for their work and keep 80 percent of the revenue. They can also decide whether to encode their documents with security software that will prevent their texts from being downloaded or freely copied...
Trying to address the piracy problem, Scribd is building a database of copyrighted works and using it to filter its system. If a publisher participates in the Scribd store, its books will be added to that database, the company said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/technology/start-ups/18download.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=scribd&st=cse
"The Scribd Web site is the most popular of several document-sharing sites that take a YouTube-like approach to text, letting people upload sample chapters of books, research reports, homework, recipes and the like. Users can read documents on the site, embed them in other sites and share links over social networks and e-mail.
In the new Scribd store, authors or publishers will be able to set their own price for their work and keep 80 percent of the revenue. They can also decide whether to encode their documents with security software that will prevent their texts from being downloaded or freely copied...
Trying to address the piracy problem, Scribd is building a database of copyrighted works and using it to filter its system. If a publisher participates in the Scribd store, its books will be added to that database, the company said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/technology/start-ups/18download.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=scribd&st=cse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)