Podcast [30 min. 49 sec.] NPR's Fresh Air; The New Price Point? 'Free':
"Journalist Chris Anderson believes that businesses can profit by giving their material away on the Internet. His new book Free: The Future of a Radical Price explains how "free" can become a marketing technique, helping businesses gain credibility in an economy that increasingly values reputation.
The editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, Anderson is the author of The Long Tail. Previously, he was U.S. business editor at The Economist."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106347439
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Special Report: Swedish Author’s Take On The Catcher In The Rye Copyright Case; Intellectual Property Watch, 7/10/09
Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen via Intellectual Property Watch; Special Report: Swedish Author’s Take On The Catcher In The Rye Copyright Case:
"Windupbird Publishing owned by Swedish author Fredrik Colting, alias John David California, promises that its books will “tickle your feet and yank your soul.” But American author J.D. Salinger is not amused and has indeed been wound up by Colting’s latest book, which he says is infringing on the copyright of his best-seller, “Catcher in the Rye.” A New York court recently sided with Salinger, but Intellectual Property Watch talked to Colting about why the battle is bound to go on.
Colting said he wants to appeal the New York ruling this week. “I believe we will win,” he said. The appeal will go to the Circuit Court of Appeal, in which there will be three judges, he said. The case is expected to come up in September."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/07/10/special-report-swedish-authors-take-on-the-catcher-in-the-rye-copyright-court-case/
"Windupbird Publishing owned by Swedish author Fredrik Colting, alias John David California, promises that its books will “tickle your feet and yank your soul.” But American author J.D. Salinger is not amused and has indeed been wound up by Colting’s latest book, which he says is infringing on the copyright of his best-seller, “Catcher in the Rye.” A New York court recently sided with Salinger, but Intellectual Property Watch talked to Colting about why the battle is bound to go on.
Colting said he wants to appeal the New York ruling this week. “I believe we will win,” he said. The appeal will go to the Circuit Court of Appeal, in which there will be three judges, he said. The case is expected to come up in September."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/07/10/special-report-swedish-authors-take-on-the-catcher-in-the-rye-copyright-court-case/
Obama Poster Photographer Says He Owns the Picture; New York Times, 7/15/09
Randy Kennedy via New York Times; Obama Poster Photographer Says He Owns the Picture:
"A freelance photographer who took the picture of Barack Obama that became the basis for Shepard Fairey’s well-known “Hope” poster has filed court papers arguing that The Associated Press, for whom he was working temporarily at the time, does not own the copyright to the picture.
The photographer, Mannie Garcia, said that he worked for The Associated Press for five weeks in the spring of 2006, when he took the picture of Mr. Obama listening intently at an event concerning Darfur at the National Press Club in Washington. Mr. Garcia contends in his papers, filed July 8 in federal court in Manhattan, that he received no benefits or vacation from The Associated Press during his time working for the news service and “never agreed to assign his copyright rights” to any photographs he took, so that he owns them and should benefit from any profits made from them.
Mr. Fairey and The Associated Press have been locked in a court battle for several months over the Obama image. The Associated Press contends that it owns the copyright to the picture and that Mr. Fairey misappropriated it. Mr. Fairey is seeking a declaratory judgment that his borrowing is protected under fair-use exceptions to copyright law, which allow limited use of protected materials for purposes like criticism or comment.
George F. Carpinello, Mr. Garcia’s lawyer, said that his client is saying “neither one of you should win this case - I should win this case.” A spokesman for The Associated Press said that it is “evaluating Mannie Garcia’s position, but remains confident in AP’s ownership of the copyright because Mr. Garcia was an employee of AP when he took the photo in 2006.”"
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/obama-poster-photographer-says-he-owns-the-picture/?scp=1&sq=garcia%20obama%20hope%20fairey&st=cse
"A freelance photographer who took the picture of Barack Obama that became the basis for Shepard Fairey’s well-known “Hope” poster has filed court papers arguing that The Associated Press, for whom he was working temporarily at the time, does not own the copyright to the picture.
The photographer, Mannie Garcia, said that he worked for The Associated Press for five weeks in the spring of 2006, when he took the picture of Mr. Obama listening intently at an event concerning Darfur at the National Press Club in Washington. Mr. Garcia contends in his papers, filed July 8 in federal court in Manhattan, that he received no benefits or vacation from The Associated Press during his time working for the news service and “never agreed to assign his copyright rights” to any photographs he took, so that he owns them and should benefit from any profits made from them.
Mr. Fairey and The Associated Press have been locked in a court battle for several months over the Obama image. The Associated Press contends that it owns the copyright to the picture and that Mr. Fairey misappropriated it. Mr. Fairey is seeking a declaratory judgment that his borrowing is protected under fair-use exceptions to copyright law, which allow limited use of protected materials for purposes like criticism or comment.
George F. Carpinello, Mr. Garcia’s lawyer, said that his client is saying “neither one of you should win this case - I should win this case.” A spokesman for The Associated Press said that it is “evaluating Mannie Garcia’s position, but remains confident in AP’s ownership of the copyright because Mr. Garcia was an employee of AP when he took the photo in 2006.”"
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/obama-poster-photographer-says-he-owns-the-picture/?scp=1&sq=garcia%20obama%20hope%20fairey&st=cse
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Google Image Search Plays Nice with Creative Commons for Bloggers; eWeek.com, 7/10/09
Clint Boulton via eWeek.com; Google Image Search Plays Nice with Creative Commons for Bloggers:
"Google adds a usage rights tool in its Image Search to help users find images protected by Creative Commons and other fair use licenses. The move should help the search engine giant fortify its position as a company that respects copyright holders as it seeks to fend off a Justice Department inquiry over its Google Book Search deal...
Naturally, the Creative Commons representatives were thrilled with Google's new Image Search tool. Every time a technology provider implements technology that helps uphold Creative Commons licenses, it lends greater validity to the cause to foster fair use.
"This is a huge step forward for the future of image search on the Web, so congratulations to the Google team on another great CC implementation!" Creative Commons rep Fred Benenson wrote in a blog.
The move is a huge step for Google, which has not always endeared itself to copyright holders in the past and may soon have to defend itself against a formal inquiry by the U.S. Justice Department over Google Book Search, its sweeping plan to digitize the world's books and make them accessible to users and libraries over the Internet for fees."
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Google-Image-Search-Plays-Nice-With-Creative-Commons-For-Bloggers-564223/
"Google adds a usage rights tool in its Image Search to help users find images protected by Creative Commons and other fair use licenses. The move should help the search engine giant fortify its position as a company that respects copyright holders as it seeks to fend off a Justice Department inquiry over its Google Book Search deal...
Naturally, the Creative Commons representatives were thrilled with Google's new Image Search tool. Every time a technology provider implements technology that helps uphold Creative Commons licenses, it lends greater validity to the cause to foster fair use.
"This is a huge step forward for the future of image search on the Web, so congratulations to the Google team on another great CC implementation!" Creative Commons rep Fred Benenson wrote in a blog.
The move is a huge step for Google, which has not always endeared itself to copyright holders in the past and may soon have to defend itself against a formal inquiry by the U.S. Justice Department over Google Book Search, its sweeping plan to digitize the world's books and make them accessible to users and libraries over the Internet for fees."
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Google-Image-Search-Plays-Nice-With-Creative-Commons-For-Bloggers-564223/
Thursday, July 9, 2009
European Publishers Call on E.U. to Protect Copyright; New York Times, 7/9/09
Eric Pfanner via New York Times; European Publishers Call on E.U. to Protect Copyright:
"Leading European newspaper and magazine publishers on Thursday called on the European Commission to strengthen copyright protection as a way to lay the groundwork for new ways to generate revenue online.
The publishers said widespread use of their work by online news aggregators and other Web sites was undermining their efforts to develop an online business models at a time when readers and advertisers are defecting from newspapers and magazines.
“Numerous providers are using the work of authors, publishers and broadcasters without paying for it,” the publishers said in a letter to Viviane Reding, the European media and telecommunications commissioner. “Over the long term, this threatens the production of high-quality content and the existence of independent journalism.”
The petition echoes other recent calls from publishers for greater copyright protection as they try to move beyond a business models based largely on advertising and try to generate more revenue from users. Only a handful of newspapers or magazines, including The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times, have had success charging readers to use their sites.
The initiative grew out of a campaign in Germany, led by Axel Springer, which publishes the tabloid Bild, to strengthen copyright law in that country. German publishers want to create a so-called neighboring right for publishers, similar to protections that already exist for music publishers and other content owners.
The right would give publishers greater control over secondary use of their work that generates revenue.
Publishers have not said publicly what they would do with such a right, but executives say one possibility would be to try to get business users to pay for access to online content. Under such a practice, businesses would have to pay for special licenses; fees would be collected by a new organization modeled on the “societies” that gather royalties on behalf of musical copyright owners. Private individuals would be allowed access to news sites without such a license.
The letter presented Thursday to Ms. Reding also stopped short of specific proposals. Instead, publishers want stricter enforcement of existing legislation, said Heidi Lambert, a spokeswoman for the European Publishers Council, a trade group that has endorsed the petition.
European publishers have been leading an effort to get Google and other Internet companies to adopt a new technology that manages the relationship between online publishers and search engines. The system, called the Automated Content Access Protocol, would allow publishers to set the terms of search engines’ and aggregators’ use of their content.
Publishers say the system, championed by the publishers’ council and the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers, would make it easier to create profitable Web sites. Critics say, however, that it would create unnecessary new hurdles for users.
Google did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Martin Selmayr, a spokesman for Ms. Reding, said she had not yet reviewed the document and could not comment on it. But he referred to a speech she gave Thursday in Brussels, in which she said that a top priority for developing the digital economy in Europe was the creation of “a simple, consumer-friendly legal framework for accessing digital content in Europe’s single market, while ensuring at the same time fair remuneration of creators.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/technology/internet/10copyright.html?_r=1&hpw
"Leading European newspaper and magazine publishers on Thursday called on the European Commission to strengthen copyright protection as a way to lay the groundwork for new ways to generate revenue online.
The publishers said widespread use of their work by online news aggregators and other Web sites was undermining their efforts to develop an online business models at a time when readers and advertisers are defecting from newspapers and magazines.
“Numerous providers are using the work of authors, publishers and broadcasters without paying for it,” the publishers said in a letter to Viviane Reding, the European media and telecommunications commissioner. “Over the long term, this threatens the production of high-quality content and the existence of independent journalism.”
The petition echoes other recent calls from publishers for greater copyright protection as they try to move beyond a business models based largely on advertising and try to generate more revenue from users. Only a handful of newspapers or magazines, including The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times, have had success charging readers to use their sites.
The initiative grew out of a campaign in Germany, led by Axel Springer, which publishes the tabloid Bild, to strengthen copyright law in that country. German publishers want to create a so-called neighboring right for publishers, similar to protections that already exist for music publishers and other content owners.
The right would give publishers greater control over secondary use of their work that generates revenue.
Publishers have not said publicly what they would do with such a right, but executives say one possibility would be to try to get business users to pay for access to online content. Under such a practice, businesses would have to pay for special licenses; fees would be collected by a new organization modeled on the “societies” that gather royalties on behalf of musical copyright owners. Private individuals would be allowed access to news sites without such a license.
The letter presented Thursday to Ms. Reding also stopped short of specific proposals. Instead, publishers want stricter enforcement of existing legislation, said Heidi Lambert, a spokeswoman for the European Publishers Council, a trade group that has endorsed the petition.
European publishers have been leading an effort to get Google and other Internet companies to adopt a new technology that manages the relationship between online publishers and search engines. The system, called the Automated Content Access Protocol, would allow publishers to set the terms of search engines’ and aggregators’ use of their content.
Publishers say the system, championed by the publishers’ council and the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers, would make it easier to create profitable Web sites. Critics say, however, that it would create unnecessary new hurdles for users.
Google did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Martin Selmayr, a spokesman for Ms. Reding, said she had not yet reviewed the document and could not comment on it. But he referred to a speech she gave Thursday in Brussels, in which she said that a top priority for developing the digital economy in Europe was the creation of “a simple, consumer-friendly legal framework for accessing digital content in Europe’s single market, while ensuring at the same time fair remuneration of creators.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/technology/internet/10copyright.html?_r=1&hpw
U. of Wisconsin, U. of Texas Expand Their Agreements With Google; Chronicle of Higher Education, The Wired Campus, 7/9/09
Chronicle of Higher Education, The Wired Campus; U. of Wisconsin, U. of Texas Expand Their Agreements With Google:
"The University of Wisconsin at Madison and the University of Texas at Austin, two longtime participants in Google’s massive book-digitizing project, announced today that they have expanded their agreements with the company. The new deals strengthen the alliance between two big university systems and Google’s Book Search program at a time when it is drawing scrutiny from librarians and federal regulators, among others."
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=3875
"The University of Wisconsin at Madison and the University of Texas at Austin, two longtime participants in Google’s massive book-digitizing project, announced today that they have expanded their agreements with the company. The new deals strengthen the alliance between two big university systems and Google’s Book Search program at a time when it is drawing scrutiny from librarians and federal regulators, among others."
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=3875
[University of Texas] Libraries and Google Amend Book Search Agreement; University of Texas at Austin, 7/9/09
University of Texas at Austin; [University of Texas] Libraries and Google Amend Book Search Agreement:
The University of Texas Libraries announces an amendment of its agreement with Google Inc. to create digital copies of books from the Libraries' collections.
The original agreement—which assures discovery, preservation and access to extraordinary resources at The University of Texas at Austin—has been amended to reflect changes made possible by Google's pending settlement with authors and publishers groups.
"The new agreement between the University of Texas Libraries and Google insures that our participation in the project will fulfill our initial primary goals of discovery, preservation and access," says Vice Provost and Libraries Director Fred Heath. "Additional provisions will enhance local access while allowing for the introduction of rich materials from our collections to a broad audience."
The Libraries' partnership with Google is part of the Google Books Library Project, started in December 2004, to digitize volumes drawn from the collections of respected institutions around the globe, including the University of Michigan, Stanford University, Oxford University, the New York Public Library and more. Through this historic collaboration, millions of books from the collections of the University of Texas Libraries and other partner institutions will be discoverable online.
"As the university's Commission of 125 has noted, the citizens of Texas expect our flagship university to 'actively address pressing public problems of Texas, the nation, and the world,'" says Heath. "In this age of rapidly expanding information resources, it is essential that the university leverage the reach of the Internet to make its collections more readily available to students, faculty and citizens—regardless of their location."
Particular materials from collections at the Libraries—especially items from the Nettie Lee Benson Latin American Collection—are now available in varying amounts, depending on copyright status, through Google Book Search. Under the settlement, public domain works will still be available in their full text and millions of in-copyright, out-of-print works will be available to be previewed and accessed online by readers. The subscription program proposed by the settlement will provide for subscriber institutions to allow their students and patrons to access the full texts of all the works included in the subscription database.
For more information, visit the University of Texas Libraries-Google Digitization Program online."
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/07/09/libraries_google_search/
The University of Texas Libraries announces an amendment of its agreement with Google Inc. to create digital copies of books from the Libraries' collections.
The original agreement—which assures discovery, preservation and access to extraordinary resources at The University of Texas at Austin—has been amended to reflect changes made possible by Google's pending settlement with authors and publishers groups.
"The new agreement between the University of Texas Libraries and Google insures that our participation in the project will fulfill our initial primary goals of discovery, preservation and access," says Vice Provost and Libraries Director Fred Heath. "Additional provisions will enhance local access while allowing for the introduction of rich materials from our collections to a broad audience."
The Libraries' partnership with Google is part of the Google Books Library Project, started in December 2004, to digitize volumes drawn from the collections of respected institutions around the globe, including the University of Michigan, Stanford University, Oxford University, the New York Public Library and more. Through this historic collaboration, millions of books from the collections of the University of Texas Libraries and other partner institutions will be discoverable online.
"As the university's Commission of 125 has noted, the citizens of Texas expect our flagship university to 'actively address pressing public problems of Texas, the nation, and the world,'" says Heath. "In this age of rapidly expanding information resources, it is essential that the university leverage the reach of the Internet to make its collections more readily available to students, faculty and citizens—regardless of their location."
Particular materials from collections at the Libraries—especially items from the Nettie Lee Benson Latin American Collection—are now available in varying amounts, depending on copyright status, through Google Book Search. Under the settlement, public domain works will still be available in their full text and millions of in-copyright, out-of-print works will be available to be previewed and accessed online by readers. The subscription program proposed by the settlement will provide for subscriber institutions to allow their students and patrons to access the full texts of all the works included in the subscription database.
For more information, visit the University of Texas Libraries-Google Digitization Program online."
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/07/09/libraries_google_search/
Court Rules DC & WB Didn't Violate Superman Licensing Agreement w/ Siegels; ComicBooksResources.com, 7/9/09
ComicBooksResources.com; Court Rules DC & WB Didn't Violate Superman Licensing Agreement w/ Siegels:
"Another court decision has been made in the Siegel family’s tense relationship with DC Comics. By virtue of previous decisions, the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel have been co-owners with DC Comics of the Superman copyright from 1999 until now. In 2008, the Siegels alleged that DC, in licensing the Superman characters to Warner Bros. Entertainment for audiovisual projects including “Smallville” and “Superman Returns,” violated the terms of their profit-sharing agreement.
The plaintiffs felt that because Warner Bros. Entertainment and DC Comics are both part of the same corporate entity, the licensing fees paid to DC Comics in the period between 1999 and 2002 (for the aforementioned "Smallville" and "Superman Returns" projects) were below market value. Essentially, the Siegels argued that DC Comics gave Warner Bros. Entertainment a "sweetheart deal," which would result in DC (and due to their co-ownership, the Siegels) not receiving as much money as they would in a traditionally “fair market deal.”
In today’s decision, the court ruled that DC and Warner Bros. Entertainment did indeed participate in a “fair market deal,” and that the Siegels are not entitled to any payments beyond the terms of the audiovisual licenses as they presently stand."
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21944
"Another court decision has been made in the Siegel family’s tense relationship with DC Comics. By virtue of previous decisions, the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel have been co-owners with DC Comics of the Superman copyright from 1999 until now. In 2008, the Siegels alleged that DC, in licensing the Superman characters to Warner Bros. Entertainment for audiovisual projects including “Smallville” and “Superman Returns,” violated the terms of their profit-sharing agreement.
The plaintiffs felt that because Warner Bros. Entertainment and DC Comics are both part of the same corporate entity, the licensing fees paid to DC Comics in the period between 1999 and 2002 (for the aforementioned "Smallville" and "Superman Returns" projects) were below market value. Essentially, the Siegels argued that DC Comics gave Warner Bros. Entertainment a "sweetheart deal," which would result in DC (and due to their co-ownership, the Siegels) not receiving as much money as they would in a traditionally “fair market deal.”
In today’s decision, the court ruled that DC and Warner Bros. Entertainment did indeed participate in a “fair market deal,” and that the Siegels are not entitled to any payments beyond the terms of the audiovisual licenses as they presently stand."
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21944
K.K.R. and Bertelsmann May Make Sweet Music; New York Times, 7/9/09
New York Times; K.K.R. and Bertelsmann May Make Sweet Music:
"The fund run by Henry Kravis is teaming with the German media group Bertelsmann to pounce on some of the choicest bits of the music business — copyrights to songs.
Given the turbulence in the recorded music sector, and the ownership of libraries like Michael Jackson’s up in the air, they’ll likely have a wealth of assets from which to choose, the publication suggests.
Widespread digital distribution of music has hampered the ability of companies like Warner Music Group and EMI to make money from their traditional activity of finding new artists and marketing their tunes. Yet, their copyright businesses continue to produce profit, Breakingviews notes. In the quarter that ended in March, Warner’s publishing division posted 40 percent operating margins, four times those of its recorded music division."
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/kkr-and-bertelsmann-may-make-sweet-music-together/?scp=1&sq=copyright%20emi&st=cse
"The fund run by Henry Kravis is teaming with the German media group Bertelsmann to pounce on some of the choicest bits of the music business — copyrights to songs.
Given the turbulence in the recorded music sector, and the ownership of libraries like Michael Jackson’s up in the air, they’ll likely have a wealth of assets from which to choose, the publication suggests.
Widespread digital distribution of music has hampered the ability of companies like Warner Music Group and EMI to make money from their traditional activity of finding new artists and marketing their tunes. Yet, their copyright businesses continue to produce profit, Breakingviews notes. In the quarter that ended in March, Warner’s publishing division posted 40 percent operating margins, four times those of its recorded music division."
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/kkr-and-bertelsmann-may-make-sweet-music-together/?scp=1&sq=copyright%20emi&st=cse
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Music Labels Reach Online Royalty Deal; New York Times, 7/7/09
Claire Cain Miller via New York Times; Music Labels Reach Online Royalty Deal:
"On Tuesday, after a two-year battle, record labels and online radio stations agreed on new royalty rates for streaming music online. Many of the music sites had argued that the old rates were so high they were being forced out of business.
“This is definitely the agreement that we’ve been waiting for,” said Tim Westergren, the founder of Pandora, one of the most popular Internet radio sites.
The conflict began in March 2007, when the federal Copyright Royalty Board ruled that all so-called webcasters needed to pay a fee, set to increase to 0.19 cent a song next year, each time they streamed a song. Webcasters said the fees would eat up most of their revenue, which mostly comes from online advertising.
The new agreement treats sites differently depending on their size and business model. It applies to the period from 2006 through 2015 for big sites and through 2014 for small sites. The sites in question often provide customized streams of music, but listeners do not get to directly choose which songs they hear, and they are not permitted to store the music on their computers...
Webcasters also agreed to give more detailed information about the songs they play and how many people listen to them to SoundExchange, the nonprofit organization that collects and distributes digital royalties on behalf of artists and labels."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/internet/08radio.html?_r=1&hpw
"On Tuesday, after a two-year battle, record labels and online radio stations agreed on new royalty rates for streaming music online. Many of the music sites had argued that the old rates were so high they were being forced out of business.
“This is definitely the agreement that we’ve been waiting for,” said Tim Westergren, the founder of Pandora, one of the most popular Internet radio sites.
The conflict began in March 2007, when the federal Copyright Royalty Board ruled that all so-called webcasters needed to pay a fee, set to increase to 0.19 cent a song next year, each time they streamed a song. Webcasters said the fees would eat up most of their revenue, which mostly comes from online advertising.
The new agreement treats sites differently depending on their size and business model. It applies to the period from 2006 through 2015 for big sites and through 2014 for small sites. The sites in question often provide customized streams of music, but listeners do not get to directly choose which songs they hear, and they are not permitted to store the music on their computers...
Webcasters also agreed to give more detailed information about the songs they play and how many people listen to them to SoundExchange, the nonprofit organization that collects and distributes digital royalties on behalf of artists and labels."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/internet/08radio.html?_r=1&hpw
Monday, July 6, 2009
Science moves from the stacks to the Web; print too pricey; Ars Technica, 7/6/09
John Timmer via Ars Technica; Science moves from the stacks to the Web; print too pricey: If information isn't online, it may as well not exist. In the latest sign that the world of traditional print has become a world of hurt, the American Chemical Society is reported to be planning to switch to an online-only publishing model for its journals:
"A recent decision by a prominent academic publisher to switch to digital-only distribution was apparently motivated by simple economics: print no longer made financial sense.
The publisher in question is the American Chemical Society, which, in addition to being a professional society, produces a few dozen journals...
With online content, literature searches can be squeezed in among the frequent but short breaks that occur within experiments. If anything, avoiding a trip to the library allows people to work harder.
And, in many ways, online content is simply better. Instead of the one-size-fits-all constraints on images imposed by print, visual data can be shown in high quality online, allowing interested parties the opportunity to get more detail in those cases that are important to them. The rise of supplemental data—related information that can't be squeezed into the word limits enforced by most journals—has also made online reading essential. Supplemental data started out as a way to include video (which doesn't translate to print) or peripheral data that was once omitted entirely via the phrase "data not shown." Now, supplemental data are often longer than the actual publication and contain information that is essential to its interpretation.
Finally, online publications are easier to integrate with everything else we do online: look for definitions of terms, search for related content, brush up on background, etc.
That's not to say nothing is lost in the transition away from print. Print makes it easier to stay up on the latest news and editorial material that many journals include, and it probably does a better job of enabling the (occasional) serendipitous identification of relevant information.
Still, the scientific community as a whole has embraced online publishing, and other fields are likely to do the same. A number of publishers have responded by creating online-only editions of their properties, or moving individual journals away from print. A couple of publishers—the Public Library of Science and Biomed Central—have also made online, open access publishing central to their strategy from the start. But, to my knowledge, this is the first time that a major academic publisher has chosen to transition away from print so completely."
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/07/academic-publisher-reportedly-going-online-only.ars
"A recent decision by a prominent academic publisher to switch to digital-only distribution was apparently motivated by simple economics: print no longer made financial sense.
The publisher in question is the American Chemical Society, which, in addition to being a professional society, produces a few dozen journals...
With online content, literature searches can be squeezed in among the frequent but short breaks that occur within experiments. If anything, avoiding a trip to the library allows people to work harder.
And, in many ways, online content is simply better. Instead of the one-size-fits-all constraints on images imposed by print, visual data can be shown in high quality online, allowing interested parties the opportunity to get more detail in those cases that are important to them. The rise of supplemental data—related information that can't be squeezed into the word limits enforced by most journals—has also made online reading essential. Supplemental data started out as a way to include video (which doesn't translate to print) or peripheral data that was once omitted entirely via the phrase "data not shown." Now, supplemental data are often longer than the actual publication and contain information that is essential to its interpretation.
Finally, online publications are easier to integrate with everything else we do online: look for definitions of terms, search for related content, brush up on background, etc.
That's not to say nothing is lost in the transition away from print. Print makes it easier to stay up on the latest news and editorial material that many journals include, and it probably does a better job of enabling the (occasional) serendipitous identification of relevant information.
Still, the scientific community as a whole has embraced online publishing, and other fields are likely to do the same. A number of publishers have responded by creating online-only editions of their properties, or moving individual journals away from print. A couple of publishers—the Public Library of Science and Biomed Central—have also made online, open access publishing central to their strategy from the start. But, to my knowledge, this is the first time that a major academic publisher has chosen to transition away from print so completely."
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/07/academic-publisher-reportedly-going-online-only.ars
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Video: Land Down Under ripoff claim; Sydney Morning Herald, 6/24/09
Video [1 min. 53 sec.]: Was Men at Work's Land Down Under ripped off children's classic 'Kookaburra Sits in an Old Gumtree'? Listen and see via Sydney Morning Herald; Land Down Under ripoff claim:
http://media.smh.com.au/national/national-news/land-down-under-ripoff-claim-601909.html
http://media.smh.com.au/national/national-news/land-down-under-ripoff-claim-601909.html
Authors throw the book at pirates; Sydney Morning Herald, 6/8/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Authors throw the book at pirates:
"FEEL like reading Australian author Colleen McCullough's Thorn Birds, but don't want to pay for a copy?
Then just hop onto a site like Wattpad.com and the book is available free as an electronic download. While this might be a bonus for readers, it is a disaster for authors, who get no royalties from the downloads.
Like the music industry, which has fought and partly won the battle over free music downloads from sites like Kazaa and Limewire, the publishing industry is about to face a similar struggle with piracy as electronic books become a reality.
The copies of McCullough's works were the most flagrant breaches of copyright the Herald found on sites set up to allow file sharing. But other Australian authors' work are also available.
David Malouf's 1985 work Five Stories from the Antipodes is available in Russian from Scribd. And for a month, John Birmingham's science fiction work Weapons of Choice, the first in the Axis of Time trilogy, was available from the Suvudu Free Library.
Birmingham's agent in the US, Russell Galen, at Scovil Chickak Galen, said he believed the free download had been authorised by the publisher as a marketing tool for his new novel Without Warning, recently released in hard cover.
But for many authors, the morphing of these sites from file sharing sites into fully digital bookshops/libraries is just one more issue they must confront in the rapidly evolving world of digital books...
Amazon's approach to the e-book market is very much "a walled garden" similar to the early days of the Apple iTunes store. Amazon controls books available for purchase from its electronic bookstore. It only publishes books for which publishers give permission, it sets the price and they can only be downloaded to a Kindle or on an iPhone using Kindle software.
Google has announced it would begin selling electronic versions of new books online later this year, in a direct challenge to Amazon.
Google sent shockwaves through the industry in 2005 when it announced plans to scan millions of books through its Google Book search service. This allows people to browse and search millions of texts in libraries around the world.
Google has limited full downloads to books out of copyright, and only snippets are available from copyrighted books, but it has led to a brawl over who has the right to digitise a book: the author? The traditional publisher? Or anyone?
After all, books are available in libraries. Why not in a digital library? On the other hand shouldn't the author have control over digital publication of his or her work, because once it is on the internet it can be copied at the click of a mouse? Last October Google reached a settlement with authors and publishers who filed a class action alleging copyright infringement over the Google Book project, in effect acknowledging that authors had copyright.
Under the settlement Google agreed to establish an independent "Book Rights Registry" which will provide revenue from sales and advertising to authors and publishers who agree to digitise their books. Publishers and authors are now in the process of opting in or out of the Google settlement.
The executive director of the Australian Society of Authors, Jeremy Fisher, said the Google settlement was an important acknowledgement that authors owned the copyright. But there is still seething resentment about the way Google has gone about digitising copyright material without permission.
Ms Capel, McCullough's agent, said she had not yet opted in on behalf of her clients because it is a bit like "paying a burglar to get your stuff back"...
The Australian Society of Authors provides advice for writers on how to seek redress if their works are digitised without authorisation. In the US there are take-down laws that can be activated and similarly in Australia, Mr Fisher said.
"Other countries though are more problematic. We have had success in having unauthorised works taken down, but it takes time."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/books/authors-throw-the-book-at-pirates/2009/06/07/1244313033953.html
"FEEL like reading Australian author Colleen McCullough's Thorn Birds, but don't want to pay for a copy?
Then just hop onto a site like Wattpad.com and the book is available free as an electronic download. While this might be a bonus for readers, it is a disaster for authors, who get no royalties from the downloads.
Like the music industry, which has fought and partly won the battle over free music downloads from sites like Kazaa and Limewire, the publishing industry is about to face a similar struggle with piracy as electronic books become a reality.
The copies of McCullough's works were the most flagrant breaches of copyright the Herald found on sites set up to allow file sharing. But other Australian authors' work are also available.
David Malouf's 1985 work Five Stories from the Antipodes is available in Russian from Scribd. And for a month, John Birmingham's science fiction work Weapons of Choice, the first in the Axis of Time trilogy, was available from the Suvudu Free Library.
Birmingham's agent in the US, Russell Galen, at Scovil Chickak Galen, said he believed the free download had been authorised by the publisher as a marketing tool for his new novel Without Warning, recently released in hard cover.
But for many authors, the morphing of these sites from file sharing sites into fully digital bookshops/libraries is just one more issue they must confront in the rapidly evolving world of digital books...
Amazon's approach to the e-book market is very much "a walled garden" similar to the early days of the Apple iTunes store. Amazon controls books available for purchase from its electronic bookstore. It only publishes books for which publishers give permission, it sets the price and they can only be downloaded to a Kindle or on an iPhone using Kindle software.
Google has announced it would begin selling electronic versions of new books online later this year, in a direct challenge to Amazon.
Google sent shockwaves through the industry in 2005 when it announced plans to scan millions of books through its Google Book search service. This allows people to browse and search millions of texts in libraries around the world.
Google has limited full downloads to books out of copyright, and only snippets are available from copyrighted books, but it has led to a brawl over who has the right to digitise a book: the author? The traditional publisher? Or anyone?
After all, books are available in libraries. Why not in a digital library? On the other hand shouldn't the author have control over digital publication of his or her work, because once it is on the internet it can be copied at the click of a mouse? Last October Google reached a settlement with authors and publishers who filed a class action alleging copyright infringement over the Google Book project, in effect acknowledging that authors had copyright.
Under the settlement Google agreed to establish an independent "Book Rights Registry" which will provide revenue from sales and advertising to authors and publishers who agree to digitise their books. Publishers and authors are now in the process of opting in or out of the Google settlement.
The executive director of the Australian Society of Authors, Jeremy Fisher, said the Google settlement was an important acknowledgement that authors owned the copyright. But there is still seething resentment about the way Google has gone about digitising copyright material without permission.
Ms Capel, McCullough's agent, said she had not yet opted in on behalf of her clients because it is a bit like "paying a burglar to get your stuff back"...
The Australian Society of Authors provides advice for writers on how to seek redress if their works are digitised without authorisation. In the US there are take-down laws that can be activated and similarly in Australia, Mr Fisher said.
"Other countries though are more problematic. We have had success in having unauthorised works taken down, but it takes time."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/books/authors-throw-the-book-at-pirates/2009/06/07/1244313033953.html
Phone ringtones a "public performance"? EFF, AT&T say no; Ars Technica, 7/2/09
Matthew Lasar via Ars Technica; Phone ringtones a "public performance"? EFF, AT&T say no: ASCAP argues that ringtones are "public performances" of music under the Copyright Act and need to have a license. EFF, AT&T, Verizon and others tell a federal court that the idea is ridiculous; after all, you don't need a public performance license to drive around town in a convertible with the radio on:
"Needless to say, EFF et al's amicus filing calls ASCAP's arguments specious and dangerous, potentially making every consumer a copyright violator whenever they receive a mobile call on the street. Section 110(4) of the Copyright Act, EFF contends, makes it clear that a consumer does not engage in a public performance when, for example, she:
• Rolls down the window of her car while the stereo is playing;
• Sings "Happy Birthday" at a private gathering in a public park;
• Hums a tune while walking on a public sidewalk; or
• Listens to music on the radio while sitting on the beach.
"ASCAP has attempted to mollify consumers with press statements that its members would never pursue individuals for these everyday activities," EFF concludes. "But ASCAP's forbearance is hardly an adequate substitute for the absolute statutory privilege enjoyed by consumers pursuant to Section 110(4)." And even if cell phone users are never dinged for "public ringing," they'll surely pay higher prices for ringtones if ASCAP wins this case.
Similarly, CTIA takes issue with the public performance argument. "The playing of a ringtone does not involve a transmission," the trade group says, "is not at all akin to a public concert or dance, and is no more a public performance than the commonplace act of playing a CD in a car with the windows (or top) down."
So now it's up to the "rate court," aka the Southern District of New York, to sift through all these takes on "performance" and come up with a wireless fee policy for ringtones. In the meantime, savor the moment—one of the few when you'll find AT&T and these public interest groups on the same legal page."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/telcos-and-reform-groups-slam-ascap-on-ringtone-grab.ars
"Needless to say, EFF et al's amicus filing calls ASCAP's arguments specious and dangerous, potentially making every consumer a copyright violator whenever they receive a mobile call on the street. Section 110(4) of the Copyright Act, EFF contends, makes it clear that a consumer does not engage in a public performance when, for example, she:
• Rolls down the window of her car while the stereo is playing;
• Sings "Happy Birthday" at a private gathering in a public park;
• Hums a tune while walking on a public sidewalk; or
• Listens to music on the radio while sitting on the beach.
"ASCAP has attempted to mollify consumers with press statements that its members would never pursue individuals for these everyday activities," EFF concludes. "But ASCAP's forbearance is hardly an adequate substitute for the absolute statutory privilege enjoyed by consumers pursuant to Section 110(4)." And even if cell phone users are never dinged for "public ringing," they'll surely pay higher prices for ringtones if ASCAP wins this case.
Similarly, CTIA takes issue with the public performance argument. "The playing of a ringtone does not involve a transmission," the trade group says, "is not at all akin to a public concert or dance, and is no more a public performance than the commonplace act of playing a CD in a car with the windows (or top) down."
So now it's up to the "rate court," aka the Southern District of New York, to sift through all these takes on "performance" and come up with a wireless fee policy for ringtones. In the meantime, savor the moment—one of the few when you'll find AT&T and these public interest groups on the same legal page."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/telcos-and-reform-groups-slam-ascap-on-ringtone-grab.ars
Friday, July 3, 2009
Two pop thinkers and their fight about zero; Times Online, 7/1/09
Antonia Senior via Times Online; Two pop thinkers and their fight about zero: Can the online generation expect everything from music to newspapers to be free? Two leading authors furiously disagree:
"There was a life before the internet. It’s hard to imagine now, but when people wanted to find stuff out or read things, they had to stand up, walk to a bookshelf and brush away the dust. And, get this, people would, once upon a time, expect to pay for the movies they watched, the books they read or music they listened to.
The notion of media being free online, whether legally or illegally, is at the centre of Chris Anderson’s new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price. Anderson’s first book, The Long Tail, was much fêted. But his second work has attracted a fierce critic in the shape of Malcolm Gladwell, the lauded pop-thinker and author of the seminal books The Tipping Point, Blink and Outliers...
[Anderson] began to be more interested in “freemium”: the idea that any product has two versions — the free and the premium. If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is. In the early days of the internet, freemium was the model most media outlets tried. Give consumers the bait, hook them in, and convert them to cash. But they didn’t convert. As Anderson says, the gap in the consumer’s mind between 0p and 1p is infinitely greater than the gap between 1p and £1.
The next model tried was the freeconomy model. There was a rush to give away all content free. Old-fashioned media subsidised new, waiting for the advertisers to come in and plug the funding gap. But they didn’t. Media outlets are in a bind. A quick suicide if they do not embrace the internet, a slow death if they do. They are moving back towards freemium, but a reimagined version.
“The gaming industry,” Anderson says, “ is the one getting it right. They all tend to use the same model. Use free to build the biggest possible audience, then convert about 10-20 per cent to paid, using something that’s non-punitive.” Online gamers can play free, but can pay for cheats that save time, or cool add-ons for their avatars.
The logic of Anderson’s argument, which suggests that only the best-content providers will be able to monetise their free content, leads to conclusions that he shies away from. Only a few will be able to make the conversion from free to a hybrid of free and paid, and there will be copious casualties across a range of media, from record labels to newspapers.
Gladwell, like Anderson, is a journalist, and perhaps wants to shoot the messenger. He may not like Anderson’s take on the way that the expectation of free goods is dictating the economics of the internet. But that does not mean Anderson is wrong. The brutal truth is that if consumers cannot be induced to pay for content, and the advertising does not pick up, much of the media as we know it is doomed."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6612954.ece
"There was a life before the internet. It’s hard to imagine now, but when people wanted to find stuff out or read things, they had to stand up, walk to a bookshelf and brush away the dust. And, get this, people would, once upon a time, expect to pay for the movies they watched, the books they read or music they listened to.
The notion of media being free online, whether legally or illegally, is at the centre of Chris Anderson’s new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price. Anderson’s first book, The Long Tail, was much fêted. But his second work has attracted a fierce critic in the shape of Malcolm Gladwell, the lauded pop-thinker and author of the seminal books The Tipping Point, Blink and Outliers...
[Anderson] began to be more interested in “freemium”: the idea that any product has two versions — the free and the premium. If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is. In the early days of the internet, freemium was the model most media outlets tried. Give consumers the bait, hook them in, and convert them to cash. But they didn’t convert. As Anderson says, the gap in the consumer’s mind between 0p and 1p is infinitely greater than the gap between 1p and £1.
The next model tried was the freeconomy model. There was a rush to give away all content free. Old-fashioned media subsidised new, waiting for the advertisers to come in and plug the funding gap. But they didn’t. Media outlets are in a bind. A quick suicide if they do not embrace the internet, a slow death if they do. They are moving back towards freemium, but a reimagined version.
“The gaming industry,” Anderson says, “ is the one getting it right. They all tend to use the same model. Use free to build the biggest possible audience, then convert about 10-20 per cent to paid, using something that’s non-punitive.” Online gamers can play free, but can pay for cheats that save time, or cool add-ons for their avatars.
The logic of Anderson’s argument, which suggests that only the best-content providers will be able to monetise their free content, leads to conclusions that he shies away from. Only a few will be able to make the conversion from free to a hybrid of free and paid, and there will be copious casualties across a range of media, from record labels to newspapers.
Gladwell, like Anderson, is a journalist, and perhaps wants to shoot the messenger. He may not like Anderson’s take on the way that the expectation of free goods is dictating the economics of the internet. But that does not mean Anderson is wrong. The brutal truth is that if consumers cannot be induced to pay for content, and the advertising does not pick up, much of the media as we know it is doomed."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6612954.ece
Arizona State Sued Over Kindle E-Textbook Usage; Library Journal, 7/2/09
Lynn Blumenstein via Library Journal; Arizona State Sued Over Kindle E-Textbook Usage:
"Arizona State University (ASU), Tempe, is being sued by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and the American Council of the Blind (ACB) over the use of Amazon’s Kindle DX electronic reading device as a means of distributing electronic textbooks to its students, because the new ereader's menu isn't accessible to the blind.
Disabilities Act violation?The plaintiffs claim that such usage violates Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 because the device cannot be used by blind students. The NFB and ACB also filed complaints with the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
NFB acknowledges that the Kindle DX features text-to-speech technology that can read textbooks aloud to blind students. The menu limitation, however, makes it impossible for a blind user to purchase books from Amazon’s Kindle store, select a book to read, activate the text-to-speech feature, and use the advanced reading functions available on the Kindle DX, according to NFB...
Five other universities are deploying the Kindle DX as part of a pilot project to assess the role of electronic textbooks and reading devices in the classroom: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Pace University, New York, NY; Princeton University, NJ; and Reed College, Portland, OR."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6668651.html
"Arizona State University (ASU), Tempe, is being sued by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and the American Council of the Blind (ACB) over the use of Amazon’s Kindle DX electronic reading device as a means of distributing electronic textbooks to its students, because the new ereader's menu isn't accessible to the blind.
Disabilities Act violation?The plaintiffs claim that such usage violates Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 because the device cannot be used by blind students. The NFB and ACB also filed complaints with the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
NFB acknowledges that the Kindle DX features text-to-speech technology that can read textbooks aloud to blind students. The menu limitation, however, makes it impossible for a blind user to purchase books from Amazon’s Kindle store, select a book to read, activate the text-to-speech feature, and use the advanced reading functions available on the Kindle DX, according to NFB...
Five other universities are deploying the Kindle DX as part of a pilot project to assess the role of electronic textbooks and reading devices in the classroom: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Pace University, New York, NY; Princeton University, NJ; and Reed College, Portland, OR."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6668651.html
Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) Reintroduced in Senate; Library Journal, 7/2/09
Andrew Richard Albanese, Publishers Weekly via Library Journal; Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) Reintroduced in Senate:
"It looks like there’s a new copyright battle brewing in Congress after U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Joe Lieberman, (I-CT) reintroduced the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), a bill that would require every federal department and agency with an annual extramural research budget of $100 million or more to make their research available to the public within six months of publication.
The bill sets up a direct showdown—or perhaps a stalemate—with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), who in February of this year, introduced the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (HR 801) an opposing bill supported by publishers that would prohibit the federal government from requiring copyright transfer in connection with receiving federal funding.
Reintroduction
This is the second time around for both bills. The publisher-supported HR 801 was first introduced in September, 2008, in response to the implementation of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) open access mandate, effective as of April 2008, which requires NIH grantees to make their resulting research publicly available within a year. Publishers have bitterly opposed the NIH mandate on both procedural grounds, and on principle.
Procedurally, publishers claim passing the mandate in an omnibus funding bill was wrong, and Conyers, HR 801’s sponsor, has complained that the NIH mandate slighted his Judiciary committee’s jurisdiction, calling it “a change slipped through the appropriations process in the dark of night.” On principle, publishers claim the NIH mandate takes unfair advantage of publishers’ efforts, such as editing and peer-review, and diminishes copyright.
OA on the offensive?
First introduced in 2006, FRPAA represents an even broader, more aggressive mandate to offer public access to taxpayer-funded research across all agencies. Although the initial bill went nowhere legislatively, supporters say it generated critical support for OA policies, including the NIH’s.
The FRPAA would apply to all unclassified research funded by agencies including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Transportation, Environmental Protection, as well as the National Science Foundation and NASA.
Reintroducing FRPAA in 2009 would seem to be a smart political play for OA advocates—going from defense, with HR 801, to offense with the NIH mandate, and FRPAA. OA advocates, however, stress that the bill’s reintroduction is not a strategy—the FRPAA, they say, can pass.
This is partly because the NIH mandate has been successful so far, said Open access proponent Peter Suber. Second, he notes, when FRPAA first went to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in 2006, Lieberman was the committee’s ranking member—he now chairs the committee.
Last but not least, the bill’s aim syncs with President Obama’s pledge to open up government. “Cornyn and Lieberman are not interested in being a symbolic foil to Conyers,” Suber noted. “They want public access to publicly-funded research, and they think this is the time to try again.”
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6668699.html
"It looks like there’s a new copyright battle brewing in Congress after U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Joe Lieberman, (I-CT) reintroduced the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), a bill that would require every federal department and agency with an annual extramural research budget of $100 million or more to make their research available to the public within six months of publication.
The bill sets up a direct showdown—or perhaps a stalemate—with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), who in February of this year, introduced the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (HR 801) an opposing bill supported by publishers that would prohibit the federal government from requiring copyright transfer in connection with receiving federal funding.
Reintroduction
This is the second time around for both bills. The publisher-supported HR 801 was first introduced in September, 2008, in response to the implementation of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) open access mandate, effective as of April 2008, which requires NIH grantees to make their resulting research publicly available within a year. Publishers have bitterly opposed the NIH mandate on both procedural grounds, and on principle.
Procedurally, publishers claim passing the mandate in an omnibus funding bill was wrong, and Conyers, HR 801’s sponsor, has complained that the NIH mandate slighted his Judiciary committee’s jurisdiction, calling it “a change slipped through the appropriations process in the dark of night.” On principle, publishers claim the NIH mandate takes unfair advantage of publishers’ efforts, such as editing and peer-review, and diminishes copyright.
OA on the offensive?
First introduced in 2006, FRPAA represents an even broader, more aggressive mandate to offer public access to taxpayer-funded research across all agencies. Although the initial bill went nowhere legislatively, supporters say it generated critical support for OA policies, including the NIH’s.
The FRPAA would apply to all unclassified research funded by agencies including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Transportation, Environmental Protection, as well as the National Science Foundation and NASA.
Reintroducing FRPAA in 2009 would seem to be a smart political play for OA advocates—going from defense, with HR 801, to offense with the NIH mandate, and FRPAA. OA advocates, however, stress that the bill’s reintroduction is not a strategy—the FRPAA, they say, can pass.
This is partly because the NIH mandate has been successful so far, said Open access proponent Peter Suber. Second, he notes, when FRPAA first went to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in 2006, Lieberman was the committee’s ranking member—he now chairs the committee.
Last but not least, the bill’s aim syncs with President Obama’s pledge to open up government. “Cornyn and Lieberman are not interested in being a symbolic foil to Conyers,” Suber noted. “They want public access to publicly-funded research, and they think this is the time to try again.”
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6668699.html
Thursday, July 2, 2009
District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?; TechDirt, 7/2/09
Mike Masnick via TechDirt; District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?:
"The rest of the discussion on the four factors fair use test is rather troubling...
Stunningly, the judge even points out that the stories have similar arcs (which isn't surprising), but to claim that because of a similar story arc there's infringement is incredibly troubling for pretty much any writer. After all, people write stories with similar arcs all the time.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbing of all, is her finding on the fourth prong, concerning the impact on the market for the copyrighted work, she actually finds that this weighs against fair use. Again, the logic simply does not add up. The judge admits that it probably would not negatively impact the actual demand for Catcher in the Rye, she actually ignores the fact that the opposite would likely occur. If anything, it will drive more people to go out and buy copies of the original to read (or, more likely in many cases to re-read) to go along with this new book. The judge's reasoning is that this book would harm the market for an actual sequel, but again, that's difficult to square with reality. If JD Salinger announced he was writing a sequel... that would make tremendous news, and it would be quite clear that people would rush to get the "real" sequel. Even if he were to license it (which appears to be the judge's main concern) to someone else to write (which seems insanely unlikely given Salinger's actions to date), people would quickly learn of the "authorized" vs. "unauthorized" versions. It's difficult to see how it would harm the market at all.
This is a very troubling ruling that seems to go against the very basics of copyright law in many, many ways. Hopefully, the ruling does not stand for very long."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/0125045432.shtml
"The rest of the discussion on the four factors fair use test is rather troubling...
Stunningly, the judge even points out that the stories have similar arcs (which isn't surprising), but to claim that because of a similar story arc there's infringement is incredibly troubling for pretty much any writer. After all, people write stories with similar arcs all the time.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbing of all, is her finding on the fourth prong, concerning the impact on the market for the copyrighted work, she actually finds that this weighs against fair use. Again, the logic simply does not add up. The judge admits that it probably would not negatively impact the actual demand for Catcher in the Rye, she actually ignores the fact that the opposite would likely occur. If anything, it will drive more people to go out and buy copies of the original to read (or, more likely in many cases to re-read) to go along with this new book. The judge's reasoning is that this book would harm the market for an actual sequel, but again, that's difficult to square with reality. If JD Salinger announced he was writing a sequel... that would make tremendous news, and it would be quite clear that people would rush to get the "real" sequel. Even if he were to license it (which appears to be the judge's main concern) to someone else to write (which seems insanely unlikely given Salinger's actions to date), people would quickly learn of the "authorized" vs. "unauthorized" versions. It's difficult to see how it would harm the market at all.
This is a very troubling ruling that seems to go against the very basics of copyright law in many, many ways. Hopefully, the ruling does not stand for very long."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/0125045432.shtml
Jammie Thomas Decides To Appeal Constitutionality Of $1.92 Million Damages Award; TechDirt, 7/2/09
Mike Masnick via TechDirt; Jammie Thomas Decides To Appeal Constitutionality Of $1.92 Million Damages Award:
"Thomas' lawyer has announced that Thomas has decided to appeal, questioning the constitutionality of the statutory damages awarded, which was the obvious attack point."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/0049325431.shtml
"Thomas' lawyer has announced that Thomas has decided to appeal, questioning the constitutionality of the statutory damages awarded, which was the obvious attack point."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/0049325431.shtml
U.S. Confirms Investigation of Google Books Deal; New York Times, 7/2/09
Miguel Helft via New York Times; U.S. Confirms Investigation of Google Books Deal:
"Antitrust experts said the letter was the latest indication that the Justice Department is seriously examining complaints that the agreement would grant Google the exclusive right to profit from millions of so-called “orphan works,” books that are out of print and whose authors or rights holders are unknown or cannot be found.
“This is the next step in the notion that this is a serious issue, so serious that the Justice Department needs to notify the court,” said Gary L. Reback, a lawyer at Carr & Ferrell, and the author of a recent book on antitrust issues. “It sets the stage for the department to come into the court to present a problem.”...
In a response, United States District Judge Denny Chin of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, who is charged with reviewing the settlement, set a deadline of Sept. 18 for the government to present its views in writing.
Judge Chin has scheduled a hearing on the settlement for Oct. 7 and said the government could also lay out its views orally at that time.
Opponents of the settlement hailed the department’s letter, saying it was a sign that the government was listening to their complaints.
“We are heartened that the D.O.J. is taking the concerns that we have expressed seriously,” said Peter Brantley, the director of access for the Internet Archive. Mr. Brantley’s organization is spearheading an effort to digitize books from libraries and make them broadly available, in competition with Google’s own digitization project. It has argued that the settlement would make it more difficult for the Internet Archive to pursue its plan.
Google and the other parties to the settlement have vigorously defended it.
“It’s important to note that this agreement is nonexclusive and, if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S.,” Gabriel Stricker, a Google spokesman, said in a statement. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/technology/companies/03google.html?_r=1&ref=technology
"Antitrust experts said the letter was the latest indication that the Justice Department is seriously examining complaints that the agreement would grant Google the exclusive right to profit from millions of so-called “orphan works,” books that are out of print and whose authors or rights holders are unknown or cannot be found.
“This is the next step in the notion that this is a serious issue, so serious that the Justice Department needs to notify the court,” said Gary L. Reback, a lawyer at Carr & Ferrell, and the author of a recent book on antitrust issues. “It sets the stage for the department to come into the court to present a problem.”...
In a response, United States District Judge Denny Chin of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, who is charged with reviewing the settlement, set a deadline of Sept. 18 for the government to present its views in writing.
Judge Chin has scheduled a hearing on the settlement for Oct. 7 and said the government could also lay out its views orally at that time.
Opponents of the settlement hailed the department’s letter, saying it was a sign that the government was listening to their complaints.
“We are heartened that the D.O.J. is taking the concerns that we have expressed seriously,” said Peter Brantley, the director of access for the Internet Archive. Mr. Brantley’s organization is spearheading an effort to digitize books from libraries and make them broadly available, in competition with Google’s own digitization project. It has argued that the settlement would make it more difficult for the Internet Archive to pursue its plan.
Google and the other parties to the settlement have vigorously defended it.
“It’s important to note that this agreement is nonexclusive and, if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S.,” Gabriel Stricker, a Google spokesman, said in a statement. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/technology/companies/03google.html?_r=1&ref=technology
Justice Department Formalizes Probe of Google Books Settlement; Wired, 7/2/09
John C. Abell via Wired; Justice Department Formalizes Probe of Google Books Settlement:
"The settlement, between Google and book authors and publishers, allows the search giant to [sic] to create the worlds’ largest digital library by scanning millions of books housed in the nation’s research libraries. Depending on the copyright status of the book, Google shows snippets to full-texts of the books online and in search results. That prompted the Author’s Guild to sue Google in 2005, leading to a settlement in 2007 that covers all book copyright holders. That deal gives Google various legal rights to scan, index, display and sell all books in print online.
A number of parties have objected to the terms of the deal, including Microsoft, consumer groups and the heirs of Philip K. Dick. The main objection to the deal is the way in which so-called orphan works are treated. Under the terms of the agreement Google is protected from copyright infringement from authors who abandoned their books by not registering in its books database. If they show up later, all they can do is collect a little cash, change their book price or ask Google to stop selling the book. Otherwise infringement can be up to $150,000 per violation."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/justice-department-formalizes-probe-of-google-books-settlement/
"The settlement, between Google and book authors and publishers, allows the search giant to [sic] to create the worlds’ largest digital library by scanning millions of books housed in the nation’s research libraries. Depending on the copyright status of the book, Google shows snippets to full-texts of the books online and in search results. That prompted the Author’s Guild to sue Google in 2005, leading to a settlement in 2007 that covers all book copyright holders. That deal gives Google various legal rights to scan, index, display and sell all books in print online.
A number of parties have objected to the terms of the deal, including Microsoft, consumer groups and the heirs of Philip K. Dick. The main objection to the deal is the way in which so-called orphan works are treated. Under the terms of the agreement Google is protected from copyright infringement from authors who abandoned their books by not registering in its books database. If they show up later, all they can do is collect a little cash, change their book price or ask Google to stop selling the book. Otherwise infringement can be up to $150,000 per violation."
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/justice-department-formalizes-probe-of-google-books-settlement/
DOJ Officially Opens Investigation Into Google Book Search; PC World, 7/2/09
Via PC World; DOJ Officially Opens Investigation Into Google Book Search:
"The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed on Thursday that it is investigating a settlement involving Google Book Search for possible antitrust violations, following months of speculation that the agency had its eye on the service.
In a filing to the judge overseeing the settlement of a lawsuit filed by The Authors Guild against Google, the DOJ informed the court that it has opened an investigation into the proposed settlement after reviewing public comments of concern. Those comments suggest that the agreement might violate the Sherman Act, a U.S. antitrust law, the DOJ said.
"The United States has reached no conclusions as to the merit of those concerns or more broadly what impact this settlement may have on competition. However, we have determined that the issues raised by the proposed settlement warrant further inquiry," the letter reads."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/167830/doj_officially_opens_investigation_into_google_book_search.html
"The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed on Thursday that it is investigating a settlement involving Google Book Search for possible antitrust violations, following months of speculation that the agency had its eye on the service.
In a filing to the judge overseeing the settlement of a lawsuit filed by The Authors Guild against Google, the DOJ informed the court that it has opened an investigation into the proposed settlement after reviewing public comments of concern. Those comments suggest that the agreement might violate the Sherman Act, a U.S. antitrust law, the DOJ said.
"The United States has reached no conclusions as to the merit of those concerns or more broadly what impact this settlement may have on competition. However, we have determined that the issues raised by the proposed settlement warrant further inquiry," the letter reads."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/167830/doj_officially_opens_investigation_into_google_book_search.html
Holden Caulfield Stays Young: Salinger Wins Copyright Suit; Wall Street Journal Law Blog, 7/1/09
Ashby Jones via Wall Street Journal Law Blog; Holden Caulfield Stays Young: Salinger Wins Copyright Suit:
"U.S. District Court judge Deborah Batts followed up on her temporary restraining order from last month, and permanently banned publication of an unauthorized sequel to J.D. Salinger’s uber-famous novel, Catcher in the Rye. Click here for the NYT article; here for the opinion; here and here for previous LB coverage of the case.
Judge Batts ruled that the novel, penned by an American living in Sweden who used the pseudonym J.D. California, did not fit into the fair use exception in copyright law because the book did not constitute a critical parody that “transformed” the original."
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/01/holden-caulfield-stays-young-salinger-wins-copyright-suit/
"U.S. District Court judge Deborah Batts followed up on her temporary restraining order from last month, and permanently banned publication of an unauthorized sequel to J.D. Salinger’s uber-famous novel, Catcher in the Rye. Click here for the NYT article; here for the opinion; here and here for previous LB coverage of the case.
Judge Batts ruled that the novel, penned by an American living in Sweden who used the pseudonym J.D. California, did not fit into the fair use exception in copyright law because the book did not constitute a critical parody that “transformed” the original."
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/01/holden-caulfield-stays-young-salinger-wins-copyright-suit/
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Intersting development in Georgia State case; Scholarly Communications @ Duke Blog, 7/1/09
Kevin Smith via Scholarly Communications @ Duke Blog; Intersting [sic] development in Georgia State case:
"The copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Georgia State University by three major publishers has been in a relatively quiet phase recently...Nevertheless, there was a development in Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Georgia State University last week that could significantly change the stakes for the rest of the academic world as it watches this case unfold...
For the rest of us, this means that the decision about fair use, if the case gets that far, will be a lot more relevant to e-reserve and course management systems use around the country. That, of course, could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how the decision goes. But it seems the decision will be based on policy and practice a lot closer to what many schools use (assuming, of course, that the new policy really does indicate changes in practice). Presumably a ruling in favor of fair use is a little more likely now that it will be decided on the basis of this more pragmatic policy. And such a ruling would more clearly support wide-spread practices in higher education. On the other hand, a ruling against Georgia State, if it happens, would be much harder for the rest of us to explain away and distinguish from our own practices."
http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2009/07/01/intersting-development-in-georgia-state-case/
"The copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Georgia State University by three major publishers has been in a relatively quiet phase recently...Nevertheless, there was a development in Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Georgia State University last week that could significantly change the stakes for the rest of the academic world as it watches this case unfold...
For the rest of us, this means that the decision about fair use, if the case gets that far, will be a lot more relevant to e-reserve and course management systems use around the country. That, of course, could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how the decision goes. But it seems the decision will be based on policy and practice a lot closer to what many schools use (assuming, of course, that the new policy really does indicate changes in practice). Presumably a ruling in favor of fair use is a little more likely now that it will be decided on the basis of this more pragmatic policy. And such a ruling would more clearly support wide-spread practices in higher education. On the other hand, a ruling against Georgia State, if it happens, would be much harder for the rest of us to explain away and distinguish from our own practices."
http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2009/07/01/intersting-development-in-georgia-state-case/
Ruling for Salinger, Judge Bans ‘Rye’ Sequel; New York Times, 7/1/09
Sewell Chan via New York Times; Ruling for Salinger, Judge Bans ‘Rye’ Sequel:
"In a victory for the reclusive writer J. D. Salinger, a federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely banned publication in the United States of a new book by a Swedish author that contains a 76-year-old version of Holden Caulfield, the protagonist of “The Catcher in the Rye.”
The judge, Deborah A. Batts, of United States District Court in Manhattan, had granted a 10-day temporary restraining order last month against the author, Fredrik Colting, who wrote the new novel under the pen name J. D. California.
In a 37-page ruling filed on Wednesday, Judge Batts issued a preliminary injunction — indefinitely banning the publication, advertising or distribution of the book in this country — after considering the merits of the case. The book has been published in Britain.
“I am pretty blown away by the judge’s decision,” Mr. Colting said in an e-mail message after the ruling. “Call me an ignorant Swede, but the last thing I thought possible in the U.S. was that you banned books.” Mr. Colting and his lawyer, Edward H. Rosenthal, said they would appeal. The decision means that “members of the public are deprived of the chance to read the book and decide for themselves whether it adds to their understanding of Salinger and his work,” Mr. Rosenthal said...
In a copyright infringement lawsuit filed June 1, lawyers for Mr. Salinger contended that the new work was derivative of “Catcher” and Holden Caulfield, and infringed on Mr. Salinger’s copyright.
The work by Mr. Colting, 33, centers on a 76-year-old “Mr. C,” the creation of a writer named Mr. Salinger. Although the name Holden Caulfield does not appear in the book, Mr. C is clearly Holden, one of the best-known adolescent figures in American fiction, aged 60 years.
(The similarities between the characters were not much in dispute. As Judge Batts wrote in her ruling, “Both narratives are told from the first-person point of view of a sarcastic, often uncouth protagonist who relies heavily on slang, euphemisms and colloquialisms, makes constant digression and asides, refers to readers in the second person, constantly assures the reader that he is being honest and that he is giving them the truth.”)
Mr. Colting’s lawyers argued, among other things, that the new novel, titled “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,” did not violate copyright laws because it amounted to a critical parody that had the effect of transforming the original work.
Judge Batts rejected that argument, writing:
To the extent Defendants contend that 60 Years and the character of Mr. C direct parodic comment or criticism at Catcher or Holden Caulfield, as opposed to Salinger himself, the Court finds such contentions to be post-hoc rationalizations employed through vague generalizations about the alleged naivety of the original, rather than reasonably perceivable parody...
While the case could still go to trial, Judge Batts’s ruling means that Mr. Colting’s book cannot be published in the United States pending the resolution of the litigation, which could drag on for months or years."
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/judge-rules-for-salinger-in-copyright-suit/?hp
"In a victory for the reclusive writer J. D. Salinger, a federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely banned publication in the United States of a new book by a Swedish author that contains a 76-year-old version of Holden Caulfield, the protagonist of “The Catcher in the Rye.”
The judge, Deborah A. Batts, of United States District Court in Manhattan, had granted a 10-day temporary restraining order last month against the author, Fredrik Colting, who wrote the new novel under the pen name J. D. California.
In a 37-page ruling filed on Wednesday, Judge Batts issued a preliminary injunction — indefinitely banning the publication, advertising or distribution of the book in this country — after considering the merits of the case. The book has been published in Britain.
“I am pretty blown away by the judge’s decision,” Mr. Colting said in an e-mail message after the ruling. “Call me an ignorant Swede, but the last thing I thought possible in the U.S. was that you banned books.” Mr. Colting and his lawyer, Edward H. Rosenthal, said they would appeal. The decision means that “members of the public are deprived of the chance to read the book and decide for themselves whether it adds to their understanding of Salinger and his work,” Mr. Rosenthal said...
In a copyright infringement lawsuit filed June 1, lawyers for Mr. Salinger contended that the new work was derivative of “Catcher” and Holden Caulfield, and infringed on Mr. Salinger’s copyright.
The work by Mr. Colting, 33, centers on a 76-year-old “Mr. C,” the creation of a writer named Mr. Salinger. Although the name Holden Caulfield does not appear in the book, Mr. C is clearly Holden, one of the best-known adolescent figures in American fiction, aged 60 years.
(The similarities between the characters were not much in dispute. As Judge Batts wrote in her ruling, “Both narratives are told from the first-person point of view of a sarcastic, often uncouth protagonist who relies heavily on slang, euphemisms and colloquialisms, makes constant digression and asides, refers to readers in the second person, constantly assures the reader that he is being honest and that he is giving them the truth.”)
Mr. Colting’s lawyers argued, among other things, that the new novel, titled “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,” did not violate copyright laws because it amounted to a critical parody that had the effect of transforming the original work.
Judge Batts rejected that argument, writing:
To the extent Defendants contend that 60 Years and the character of Mr. C direct parodic comment or criticism at Catcher or Holden Caulfield, as opposed to Salinger himself, the Court finds such contentions to be post-hoc rationalizations employed through vague generalizations about the alleged naivety of the original, rather than reasonably perceivable parody...
While the case could still go to trial, Judge Batts’s ruling means that Mr. Colting’s book cannot be published in the United States pending the resolution of the litigation, which could drag on for months or years."
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/judge-rules-for-salinger-in-copyright-suit/?hp
Buyer of Pirate Bay, a File-Sharing Site, Plans to Go Legal; New York Times, 7/1/09
Eric Pfanner via New York Times; Buyer of Pirate Bay, a File-Sharing Site, Plans to Go Legal:
"Global Gaming Factory, a publicly traded company based in Stockholm, said it would pay 60 million Swedish kronor, or $7.75 million, for the [Pirate Bay] site and hoped to turn it into a legal source of free music, movies and other content, using a novel, untested business model.
It would be a radical change. The Pirate Bay, with its Jolly Roger logo, has been the music and movie industries’ most prominent target in the battle against illegal file-sharing. To keep content free but appease content owners, Global Gaming Factory wants to generate revenue from a new, ultra-fast file-sharing system that uses networks of computers to help move large digital files.
Mr. Pandeya said the network could be used to ease the strain on Internet service providers, which have complained that file-sharing traffic is clogging up their networks. He envisions charging Internet service providers. The Pirate Bay could also generate revenue from advertising, he said.
Some of the proceeds would be returned to copyright owners, he said, while participants who agreed to allow the use of their computers to help share files would also be paid...
Recording companies, however, have grown more flexible about the kinds of businesses they are willing to license. The Universal Music Group, for instance, recently announced an agreement with a British Internet service provider, Virgin Media, to make available unlimited downloads of music for a monthly fee, with no copyright protection...
But [Mr. Pandeya] said the company had no intention of violating copyrights. “It has to be legal from Day 1,” he said. “We are on the stock market; we can’t start playing games.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/technology/companies/01pirate.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=pirate%20bay&st=cse
"Global Gaming Factory, a publicly traded company based in Stockholm, said it would pay 60 million Swedish kronor, or $7.75 million, for the [Pirate Bay] site and hoped to turn it into a legal source of free music, movies and other content, using a novel, untested business model.
It would be a radical change. The Pirate Bay, with its Jolly Roger logo, has been the music and movie industries’ most prominent target in the battle against illegal file-sharing. To keep content free but appease content owners, Global Gaming Factory wants to generate revenue from a new, ultra-fast file-sharing system that uses networks of computers to help move large digital files.
Mr. Pandeya said the network could be used to ease the strain on Internet service providers, which have complained that file-sharing traffic is clogging up their networks. He envisions charging Internet service providers. The Pirate Bay could also generate revenue from advertising, he said.
Some of the proceeds would be returned to copyright owners, he said, while participants who agreed to allow the use of their computers to help share files would also be paid...
Recording companies, however, have grown more flexible about the kinds of businesses they are willing to license. The Universal Music Group, for instance, recently announced an agreement with a British Internet service provider, Virgin Media, to make available unlimited downloads of music for a monthly fee, with no copyright protection...
But [Mr. Pandeya] said the company had no intention of violating copyrights. “It has to be legal from Day 1,” he said. “We are on the stock market; we can’t start playing games.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/technology/companies/01pirate.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=pirate%20bay&st=cse
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Supreme Court Allows Wider DVR Use; New York Times, 6/30/09
Stephanie Clifford via New York Times; Supreme Court Allows Wider DVR Use:
"The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a blow to the television networks when it declined to hear a case about a digital video recorder technology, opening the gate for wider use of DVR systems.
The case began in 2006 when Cablevision Systems, the New York-area cable operator, announced plans for what is called a network DVR system. With it, a customer would use a remote control to digitally record a program like “60 Minutes” but instead of storing the show in the customer’s at-home DVR box, the technology would store the show on a faraway Cablevision server.
The technology would let Cablevision convert set-top boxes into boxes with DVR capabilities without requiring an installation or new equipment.
“It opens up the possibility of offering a DVR experience to all of our digital cable customers,” Tom Rutledge, Cablevision’s chief operating officer, said in a statement. Programmers including Turner Broadcasting System’s Cartoon Network, CNN and television networks sued Cablevision, saying the system violated copyright law. In March 2007, a lower court agreed, ruling that Cablevision “would be engaging in unauthorized reproductions and transmissions of plaintiffs’ copyrighted programs.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York reversed that decision in August 2008. The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, but the Supreme Court’s refusal essentially reinforced the Second Circuit’s decision.
Patrick Ross, the executive director of the Copyright Alliance, an industry group that includes the Motion Picture Association of America and Time Warner, said a recording stored in a network was different from one stored in a consumer’s set-top box.
“This appears to be a very clever way for a licensee of creative works to develop new distribution methods that, it would argue, do not require licenses,” said Mr. Ross, whose group filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/technology/30cable.html?scp=1&sq=dvr&st=cse
"The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a blow to the television networks when it declined to hear a case about a digital video recorder technology, opening the gate for wider use of DVR systems.
The case began in 2006 when Cablevision Systems, the New York-area cable operator, announced plans for what is called a network DVR system. With it, a customer would use a remote control to digitally record a program like “60 Minutes” but instead of storing the show in the customer’s at-home DVR box, the technology would store the show on a faraway Cablevision server.
The technology would let Cablevision convert set-top boxes into boxes with DVR capabilities without requiring an installation or new equipment.
“It opens up the possibility of offering a DVR experience to all of our digital cable customers,” Tom Rutledge, Cablevision’s chief operating officer, said in a statement. Programmers including Turner Broadcasting System’s Cartoon Network, CNN and television networks sued Cablevision, saying the system violated copyright law. In March 2007, a lower court agreed, ruling that Cablevision “would be engaging in unauthorized reproductions and transmissions of plaintiffs’ copyrighted programs.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York reversed that decision in August 2008. The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, but the Supreme Court’s refusal essentially reinforced the Second Circuit’s decision.
Patrick Ross, the executive director of the Copyright Alliance, an industry group that includes the Motion Picture Association of America and Time Warner, said a recording stored in a network was different from one stored in a consumer’s set-top box.
“This appears to be a very clever way for a licensee of creative works to develop new distribution methods that, it would argue, do not require licenses,” said Mr. Ross, whose group filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/technology/30cable.html?scp=1&sq=dvr&st=cse
Software Firm Buys Swedish File-Sharing Site; New York Times, 6/30/09
AP via New York Times; Software Firm Buys Swedish File-Sharing Site:
"The Pirate Bay is one of the world’s largest file-sharing venues with more than 20 million users worldwide. In April, four men connected with the site were sentenced to one-year prison sentences for violations of copyright law.
A Swedish court found that the four had helped millions of people download copyright-protected material like films, music and computer games.
While the Pirate Bay doesn’t host copyright-protected material, it directs users to content such as films, music and computer games through so-called torrent files.
Global Gaming Factory X said it intended to start a new business model that will make it possible to compensate both content operators and copyright owners."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/technology/companies/01pirate.html?_r=1&hpw
"The Pirate Bay is one of the world’s largest file-sharing venues with more than 20 million users worldwide. In April, four men connected with the site were sentenced to one-year prison sentences for violations of copyright law.
A Swedish court found that the four had helped millions of people download copyright-protected material like films, music and computer games.
While the Pirate Bay doesn’t host copyright-protected material, it directs users to content such as films, music and computer games through so-called torrent files.
Global Gaming Factory X said it intended to start a new business model that will make it possible to compensate both content operators and copyright owners."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/technology/companies/01pirate.html?_r=1&hpw
Monday, June 29, 2009
Play it again: Tenenbaum team tries to toss MediaSentry evidence; Ars Technica, 6/29/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Play it again: Tenenbaum team tries to toss MediaSentry evidence:
"The year's second major P2P trial kicks off in one month, and Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson wants to mount some of the same attacks that failed in the first case. Nesson argues that all of the RIAA's MediaSentry investigative evidence must be banned from trial, as the company violated wiretap law and private detective licensing law."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/second-times-the-charm-tenenbaum-team-try-to-toss-mediasentry-evidence.ars
"The year's second major P2P trial kicks off in one month, and Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson wants to mount some of the same attacks that failed in the first case. Nesson argues that all of the RIAA's MediaSentry investigative evidence must be banned from trial, as the company violated wiretap law and private detective licensing law."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/second-times-the-charm-tenenbaum-team-try-to-toss-mediasentry-evidence.ars
Google Book Search Bibliography; Charles W. Bailey, Jr., 6/29/09
Charles W. Bailey, Jr.; Google Book Search Bibliography [current through 6/29/09]:
"This bibliography presents selected English-language articles and other works that are useful in understanding Google Book Search. It primarily focuses on the evolution of Google Book Search and the legal, library, and social issues associated with it. Where possible, links are provided to works that are freely available on the Internet, including e-prints in disciplinary archives and institutional repositories. Note that e-prints and published articles may not be identical.
See the Google Book Search Library Partners page for a list of library participants.
An archive of prior versions of the bibliography is available."
http://www.digital-scholarship.org/gbsb/gbsb.htm
"This bibliography presents selected English-language articles and other works that are useful in understanding Google Book Search. It primarily focuses on the evolution of Google Book Search and the legal, library, and social issues associated with it. Where possible, links are provided to works that are freely available on the Internet, including e-prints in disciplinary archives and institutional repositories. Note that e-prints and published articles may not be identical.
See the Google Book Search Library Partners page for a list of library participants.
An archive of prior versions of the bibliography is available."
http://www.digital-scholarship.org/gbsb/gbsb.htm
Blount Says Orphan Works No Reason to Block Google Settlement; Benefits Touted; Publishers Weekly, 6/25/09
Jim Milliott via Publishers Weekly; Blount Says Orphan Works No Reason to Block Google Settlement; Benefits Touted:
"Wednesday afternoon, the publishers’ partner in the deal, the Authors Guild, posted a letter on its Web site from [Authors] Guild president Roy Blount Jr. talking about orphan works and the benefits the settlement will bring to authors, publishers and readers.
Blount played down concerns expressed by some over orphan works , writing, “ I can’t see any reason to dissent from the settlement over the matter of orphan books.” "
http://www.publishersweekly.com/index.asp?layout=talkbackCommentsFull&talk_back_header_id=6607570&articleid=CA6667338
"Wednesday afternoon, the publishers’ partner in the deal, the Authors Guild, posted a letter on its Web site from [Authors] Guild president Roy Blount Jr. talking about orphan works and the benefits the settlement will bring to authors, publishers and readers.
Blount played down concerns expressed by some over orphan works , writing, “ I can’t see any reason to dissent from the settlement over the matter of orphan books.” "
http://www.publishersweekly.com/index.asp?layout=talkbackCommentsFull&talk_back_header_id=6607570&articleid=CA6667338
Should There Be A Penalty For Falsely Claiming Copyright Over Public Domain Material?; TechDirt, 6/26/09
Mike Masnick via TechDirt; Should There Be A Penalty For Falsely Claiming Copyright Over Public Domain Material?:
"Slashdot and The Register point us to a new paper by Jason Mazzone about "copyfraud" -- or the ability of someone to claim copyright on something that is in the public domain. The issue, Mazzone points out, is that there's no penalty for falsely claiming copyright on something, so there's plenty of incentive to claim something is still covered even if it's not."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090626/1421065375.shtml
"Slashdot and The Register point us to a new paper by Jason Mazzone about "copyfraud" -- or the ability of someone to claim copyright on something that is in the public domain. The issue, Mazzone points out, is that there's no penalty for falsely claiming copyright on something, so there's plenty of incentive to claim something is still covered even if it's not."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090626/1421065375.shtml
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Is It Time for RealNetworks to Switch Gears?; New York Times, 6/28/09
Brad Stone via New York Times; Is It Time for RealNetworks to Switch Gears?:
"Now Real is waging a new war. Last fall, it introduced software called RealDVD that lets people overcome Hollywood’s anticopying software to make backups of the DVDs they own. Six major Hollywood studios and Real are now fighting over the technology in a federal court in Northern California. A preliminary decision from a judge is expected soon, but the case, and Real’s antitrust claims against the movie studios, could drag on for years.
Real’s cause — to let people make personal copies of movies they own — would appeal to average people, just like the company’s last crusade to sell music for the iPod. But is it a cause worth fighting for, particularly when there are more important challenges in Real’s core businesses? Many shareholders and pessimistic Wall Street analysts do not think so."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/business/28stream.html?scp=1&sq=real%20networks&st=cse
"Now Real is waging a new war. Last fall, it introduced software called RealDVD that lets people overcome Hollywood’s anticopying software to make backups of the DVDs they own. Six major Hollywood studios and Real are now fighting over the technology in a federal court in Northern California. A preliminary decision from a judge is expected soon, but the case, and Real’s antitrust claims against the movie studios, could drag on for years.
Real’s cause — to let people make personal copies of movies they own — would appeal to average people, just like the company’s last crusade to sell music for the iPod. But is it a cause worth fighting for, particularly when there are more important challenges in Real’s core businesses? Many shareholders and pessimistic Wall Street analysts do not think so."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/business/28stream.html?scp=1&sq=real%20networks&st=cse
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Copyfraud: Poisoning the public domain; The Register, 6/26/09
Charles Eicher via The Register; Copyfraud: Poisoning the public domain: How web giants are stealing the future of knowledge:
"The public domain is the greatest resource in human history: eventually all knowledge will become part of it. Its riches serve all mankind, but it faces a new threat. Vast libraries of public domain works are being plundered by claims of "copyright". It's called copyfraud - and we'll discover how large corporations like Google, Yahoo, and Amazon have structured their businesses to assist it and profit from it."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/copyfraud/
"The public domain is the greatest resource in human history: eventually all knowledge will become part of it. Its riches serve all mankind, but it faces a new threat. Vast libraries of public domain works are being plundered by claims of "copyright". It's called copyfraud - and we'll discover how large corporations like Google, Yahoo, and Amazon have structured their businesses to assist it and profit from it."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/copyfraud/
Into the Fray; New York Times Book Review, 6/19/09
Book Review: Ross Douthat on Mark Helprin's Digital Barbarians: A Writer's Manifesto, via New York Times Book Review; Into the Fray:
"In 2007, [Mark Helprin] published an essay in the Op-Ed section of this newspaper arguing for the continuing extension of copyright, so that the rights to a novel or poem could be passed down not only to the author’s children, but to his children’s children’s children as well. Since a more latitudinarian copyright regime is a cause célèbre for a certain class of Internetista, his argument ignited a storm of criticism, and the comments appended to the online version of the article ran into the hundreds of thousands. And since this was, after all, the Internet, most of them were stupid.
Helprin could have ignored the barrage; he could have sifted it for arguments worth replying to. Instead, he decided to write a furious treatise against the comment-happy horde. The resulting book, “Digital Barbarism: A Writer’s Manifesto,” is a vindication of the aphorism about the perils of wrestling with a pig. (You get dirty; the pig likes it.) Helprin can be a wonderful wordsmith, and there are many admirable passages and strong arguments in this book. But the thread that binds the work together is hectoring, pompous and enormously tedious...
Here it’s worth contrasting “Digital Barbarism” with a book by one of the “crapulous professors” in question — Stanford’s Lawrence Lessig, whose “Free Culture,” a 2004 brief against the current state of copyright law, provides a touchstone for the movement Helprin hates. Lessig is not a tenth the writer that Helprin is, but he has other gifts — the ability to argue in a calm and ordered fashion; the capacity to at least pretend to give the other side its due; and the ability to avoid fevered prose and name-calling while making a controversial case. He may be a Mad Hatter, but he comes across as deeply sane, and it’s hard to imagine a reader new to this debate who wouldn’t find “Free Culture” more convincing than “Digital Barbarism.”
This doesn’t mean that Lessig is right and Helprin is not. On the broader question of Internet culture, Helprin’s pessimistic vision has a great deal to recommend it. Where the critics of copyright perceive the Internet age as a potential Renaissance being blocked by overconsolidated corporations, Helprin worries, plausibly, that the spirit of perpetual acceleration threatens to carry all before it, frenzying our politics, barbarizing our language and depriving us of the kind of artistic greatness that isn’t available on Twitter feeds. The fact that he gave in to the frenzy himself is regrettable, but it doesn’t make him wrong.
On the narrower question of how and whether copyright law should be adjusted, meanwhile — and it is a narrow question, the claims of both sides notwithstanding — there might actually be a middle ground. Helprin is persuasive when he argues that copyright’s disappearance would be a slow-motion disaster, and plausible when he argues that the direct costs of letting his descendants continue to profit from sales of “A Soldier of the Great War” are minor or even nonexistent. But Lessig and company are equally plausible when they suggest that the copyright laws that protect the Helprin family’s intellectual property can be misused, usually by lawyered-up corporations, to block the kind of creative borrowing and reworking that early generations of artists took for granted.
Why not, then, simultaneously extend copyright and narrow its scope? Let the Helprins continue to earn royalties into the distant future, but let adaptations, derivations, parodies and borrowing flower more quickly and completely than the current system allows. Leave the Tolkiens the rights to “The Hobbit”in perpetuity, but not the right to prevent two enterprising film companies from going forward with competing adaptations. Leave the Mitchells the rights to “Gone With the Wind,” but not the right to tie up a would-be parodist in court for years on end because they don’t like what she’s doing to their Scarlett. Leave the Lucas family the right to “Stars Wars,” but not the right to prevent me from writing my own competing version of Anakin Skywalker’s life story.
Maybe this sort of system would turn out to be impractical. But it’s only one of the many bridges one could imagine between a principled defense of artistic property rights and a principled defense of artistic freedom. It’s a shame that Helprin was too busy wrestling with the monkeys and mouth-breathing morons to try building it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/books/review/Douthat-t.html
"In 2007, [Mark Helprin] published an essay in the Op-Ed section of this newspaper arguing for the continuing extension of copyright, so that the rights to a novel or poem could be passed down not only to the author’s children, but to his children’s children’s children as well. Since a more latitudinarian copyright regime is a cause célèbre for a certain class of Internetista, his argument ignited a storm of criticism, and the comments appended to the online version of the article ran into the hundreds of thousands. And since this was, after all, the Internet, most of them were stupid.
Helprin could have ignored the barrage; he could have sifted it for arguments worth replying to. Instead, he decided to write a furious treatise against the comment-happy horde. The resulting book, “Digital Barbarism: A Writer’s Manifesto,” is a vindication of the aphorism about the perils of wrestling with a pig. (You get dirty; the pig likes it.) Helprin can be a wonderful wordsmith, and there are many admirable passages and strong arguments in this book. But the thread that binds the work together is hectoring, pompous and enormously tedious...
Here it’s worth contrasting “Digital Barbarism” with a book by one of the “crapulous professors” in question — Stanford’s Lawrence Lessig, whose “Free Culture,” a 2004 brief against the current state of copyright law, provides a touchstone for the movement Helprin hates. Lessig is not a tenth the writer that Helprin is, but he has other gifts — the ability to argue in a calm and ordered fashion; the capacity to at least pretend to give the other side its due; and the ability to avoid fevered prose and name-calling while making a controversial case. He may be a Mad Hatter, but he comes across as deeply sane, and it’s hard to imagine a reader new to this debate who wouldn’t find “Free Culture” more convincing than “Digital Barbarism.”
This doesn’t mean that Lessig is right and Helprin is not. On the broader question of Internet culture, Helprin’s pessimistic vision has a great deal to recommend it. Where the critics of copyright perceive the Internet age as a potential Renaissance being blocked by overconsolidated corporations, Helprin worries, plausibly, that the spirit of perpetual acceleration threatens to carry all before it, frenzying our politics, barbarizing our language and depriving us of the kind of artistic greatness that isn’t available on Twitter feeds. The fact that he gave in to the frenzy himself is regrettable, but it doesn’t make him wrong.
On the narrower question of how and whether copyright law should be adjusted, meanwhile — and it is a narrow question, the claims of both sides notwithstanding — there might actually be a middle ground. Helprin is persuasive when he argues that copyright’s disappearance would be a slow-motion disaster, and plausible when he argues that the direct costs of letting his descendants continue to profit from sales of “A Soldier of the Great War” are minor or even nonexistent. But Lessig and company are equally plausible when they suggest that the copyright laws that protect the Helprin family’s intellectual property can be misused, usually by lawyered-up corporations, to block the kind of creative borrowing and reworking that early generations of artists took for granted.
Why not, then, simultaneously extend copyright and narrow its scope? Let the Helprins continue to earn royalties into the distant future, but let adaptations, derivations, parodies and borrowing flower more quickly and completely than the current system allows. Leave the Tolkiens the rights to “The Hobbit”in perpetuity, but not the right to prevent two enterprising film companies from going forward with competing adaptations. Leave the Mitchells the rights to “Gone With the Wind,” but not the right to tie up a would-be parodist in court for years on end because they don’t like what she’s doing to their Scarlett. Leave the Lucas family the right to “Stars Wars,” but not the right to prevent me from writing my own competing version of Anakin Skywalker’s life story.
Maybe this sort of system would turn out to be impractical. But it’s only one of the many bridges one could imagine between a principled defense of artistic property rights and a principled defense of artistic freedom. It’s a shame that Helprin was too busy wrestling with the monkeys and mouth-breathing morons to try building it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/books/review/Douthat-t.html
RIAA Claims Jammie Thomas Jury Is A Representative Sample Of Views On File Sharing; TechDirt, 6/25/09
Mike Masnick via TechDirt; RIAA Claims Jammie Thomas Jury Is A Representative Sample Of Views On File Sharing:
"That's when the RIAA tried to claim that the Jammie Thomas jury provides a representative sample of "music industry outsiders" whose verdict disproves the theories of certain "pundits" who believe the digital economy should be a "new wild west" where "the rule of law" is not obeyed.
Talk about misrepresenting.
First of all, I don't know of many "pundits" who think that the digital economy should be a new wild west at all. I think that many of them are actually just focused on preserving individual rights against a constant landgrab by an industry whose history has shown it to not be above removing right after right after right from people. The RIAA and its supporters have taken content out of the public domain, making a government go back on a bargain it struck with content creators, much to the detriment of society, but very much to the benefit of a few record label execs and their lobbyists and lawyers. That's stealing from the public. It's taking a bargain and changing the terms. People don't want a wild west. They want the culture we were promised, and they want their individual freedoms.
Furthermore, calling the very specific nature of the Jammie Thomas trial a referendum on file sharing is ridiculous. Her case had a very specific set of circumstances unlike many others -- and even we (a "reliable critic" according to the RIAA) felt that she never should have gone to trial, as the evidence against her seemed strong."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090623/1651345334.shtml
"That's when the RIAA tried to claim that the Jammie Thomas jury provides a representative sample of "music industry outsiders" whose verdict disproves the theories of certain "pundits" who believe the digital economy should be a "new wild west" where "the rule of law" is not obeyed.
Talk about misrepresenting.
First of all, I don't know of many "pundits" who think that the digital economy should be a new wild west at all. I think that many of them are actually just focused on preserving individual rights against a constant landgrab by an industry whose history has shown it to not be above removing right after right after right from people. The RIAA and its supporters have taken content out of the public domain, making a government go back on a bargain it struck with content creators, much to the detriment of society, but very much to the benefit of a few record label execs and their lobbyists and lawyers. That's stealing from the public. It's taking a bargain and changing the terms. People don't want a wild west. They want the culture we were promised, and they want their individual freedoms.
Furthermore, calling the very specific nature of the Jammie Thomas trial a referendum on file sharing is ridiculous. Her case had a very specific set of circumstances unlike many others -- and even we (a "reliable critic" according to the RIAA) felt that she never should have gone to trial, as the evidence against her seemed strong."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090623/1651345334.shtml
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Authors Guild defends Google Books settlement; L.A. Times, 6/25/09
L.A. Times; Authors Guild defends Google Books settlement:
"The Authors Guild, which hasn't said much since last fall after it settled its lawsuit with Google over the search company's book scanning project, today issued a statement defending the settlement against recent criticism.
Specifically, the letter by author and Guild President Roy Blount Jr. addresses the topic of orphan books, which are works that are out-of-print and unclaimed by any copyright holders. You can read the entire letter here."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/06/googlebookssettlementauthorsguild.html
"The Authors Guild, which hasn't said much since last fall after it settled its lawsuit with Google over the search company's book scanning project, today issued a statement defending the settlement against recent criticism.
Specifically, the letter by author and Guild President Roy Blount Jr. addresses the topic of orphan books, which are works that are out-of-print and unclaimed by any copyright holders. You can read the entire letter here."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/06/googlebookssettlementauthorsguild.html
Monday, June 22, 2009
What's next for Jammie Thomas-Rasset?; Ars Technica, 6/21/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; What's next for Jammie Thomas-Rasset?:
"Jammie Thomas-Rasset has at least six options for moving forward after the massive $80,000 per song judgment handed down against her. We take a look at the possibility of paying the award, settling, declaring bankruptcy, reducing the award, appealing the case, and changing the law...
Judge [ Michael] Davis feels the same way and has already "implored" 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."
University of California law professor Pam Samuelson, an expert on statutory damages and copyright law, also called for reform in a fascinating paper released in April 2009.
In reference to the first Thomas-Rasset judgment, Samuelson concluded, "Some jurors in the Thomas case wanted to award $750 per infringed song, while others argued for $150,000 per song; why they compromised on $9250 per song is a mystery. In today’s world where the average person in her day-to-day life interacts with many copyrighted works in a way that may implicate copyright law, the dangers posed by the lack of meaningful constraints on statutory damage awards are particularly acute."
One key suggestion for reform: allowing judges to revise damage awards to below the current $750 minimum threshold in such cases.
Had the amount been a "mere" $750 a song, for an $18,000 total fine, the Thomas-Rasset case would have offered little incentive to reform the law. But when the first of the RIAA's 30,000+ actions goes to trial and the plaintiffs emerge with a $1.92 million award... legislators may take notice."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/whats-next-for-jammie-thomas-rasset.ars
"Jammie Thomas-Rasset has at least six options for moving forward after the massive $80,000 per song judgment handed down against her. We take a look at the possibility of paying the award, settling, declaring bankruptcy, reducing the award, appealing the case, and changing the law...
Judge [ Michael] Davis feels the same way and has already "implored" 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."
University of California law professor Pam Samuelson, an expert on statutory damages and copyright law, also called for reform in a fascinating paper released in April 2009.
In reference to the first Thomas-Rasset judgment, Samuelson concluded, "Some jurors in the Thomas case wanted to award $750 per infringed song, while others argued for $150,000 per song; why they compromised on $9250 per song is a mystery. In today’s world where the average person in her day-to-day life interacts with many copyrighted works in a way that may implicate copyright law, the dangers posed by the lack of meaningful constraints on statutory damage awards are particularly acute."
One key suggestion for reform: allowing judges to revise damage awards to below the current $750 minimum threshold in such cases.
Had the amount been a "mere" $750 a song, for an $18,000 total fine, the Thomas-Rasset case would have offered little incentive to reform the law. But when the first of the RIAA's 30,000+ actions goes to trial and the plaintiffs emerge with a $1.92 million award... legislators may take notice."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/whats-next-for-jammie-thomas-rasset.ars
How Good (or Not Evil) Is Google?; New York Times, 6/22/09
David Carr via New York Times; How Good (or Not Evil) Is Google?:
"Among other adventures, Google’s motives were called into question after it scanned in millions of books without permission, prompting the Authors Guild and publishers to file a class-action suit. The proposed $125 million settlement will lead to a book registry financed by Google and a huge online archive of mostly obscure books, searched and served up by Google.
So is that a big win for a culture that increasingly reads on screen — or a land grab of America’s most precious intellectual property?..
"Google is, broadly, the Wal-Mart of the Internet, a huge force that can set terms and price — in this case free — except Google is not selling hammers and CDs, it is operating at the vanguard of intellectual property...
But others, like the Justice Department and a number of state attorneys general, have taken an acute interest in the proposed book settlement that Google negotiated over its right to scan millions of books, many of them out of print. Revenue will be split with any known holders of the copyright, but it is the company’s dominion over so-called orphan works that has intellectual property rights advocates livid.
“It’s disgusting,” said Peter Brantley, director of access for the Internet Archive, which has been scanning books as well. “We all share the general goal of getting more books online, but the class-action settlement gives them a release of any claims of infringement in using those works. For them to say that is not a barrier to entry for other people who might scan in those works is a crock.”
The scanned book project is certainly consistent with the company’s mission, which is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
“What I think is great about books is that people just don’t go to libraries that much, but they are in front of the computer all day,” Mr. [Eric] Schmidt [Google's chief executive] said. “And now they have access. If you are sitting and trying to finish a term paper at 2 in the morning, Google Books saved your rear end. That is a really oh-my-God kind of change.”
The government has not yet made this argument — filings are due in the case in September — but others have pointed out that Google has something of a monopoly because the company went ahead and scanned seven million books without permission.“To be very precise, we did not require permission to make those copies,” Mr. Schmidt said, suggesting that by scanning and making just a portion of those works available, the company was well within the provisions of fair use.
In a later meeting, Mr. [Sergey] Brin [Google's co-founder] waved his hand when it was suggested that the company’s decision to scan books and then reach a settlement had created a barrier to entry for others. (Google also has a separate commercial initiative to work with publishers to sell more current works.)
“I didn’t see anyone lining up to scan books when we did it, or even now,” Mr. Brin said. “Some of them are motivated by near-term business disputes, and they don’t see this as an achievement for humanity.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/business/media/22carr.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20evil&st=cse
"Among other adventures, Google’s motives were called into question after it scanned in millions of books without permission, prompting the Authors Guild and publishers to file a class-action suit. The proposed $125 million settlement will lead to a book registry financed by Google and a huge online archive of mostly obscure books, searched and served up by Google.
So is that a big win for a culture that increasingly reads on screen — or a land grab of America’s most precious intellectual property?..
"Google is, broadly, the Wal-Mart of the Internet, a huge force that can set terms and price — in this case free — except Google is not selling hammers and CDs, it is operating at the vanguard of intellectual property...
But others, like the Justice Department and a number of state attorneys general, have taken an acute interest in the proposed book settlement that Google negotiated over its right to scan millions of books, many of them out of print. Revenue will be split with any known holders of the copyright, but it is the company’s dominion over so-called orphan works that has intellectual property rights advocates livid.
“It’s disgusting,” said Peter Brantley, director of access for the Internet Archive, which has been scanning books as well. “We all share the general goal of getting more books online, but the class-action settlement gives them a release of any claims of infringement in using those works. For them to say that is not a barrier to entry for other people who might scan in those works is a crock.”
The scanned book project is certainly consistent with the company’s mission, which is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
“What I think is great about books is that people just don’t go to libraries that much, but they are in front of the computer all day,” Mr. [Eric] Schmidt [Google's chief executive] said. “And now they have access. If you are sitting and trying to finish a term paper at 2 in the morning, Google Books saved your rear end. That is a really oh-my-God kind of change.”
The government has not yet made this argument — filings are due in the case in September — but others have pointed out that Google has something of a monopoly because the company went ahead and scanned seven million books without permission.“To be very precise, we did not require permission to make those copies,” Mr. Schmidt said, suggesting that by scanning and making just a portion of those works available, the company was well within the provisions of fair use.
In a later meeting, Mr. [Sergey] Brin [Google's co-founder] waved his hand when it was suggested that the company’s decision to scan books and then reach a settlement had created a barrier to entry for others. (Google also has a separate commercial initiative to work with publishers to sell more current works.)
“I didn’t see anyone lining up to scan books when we did it, or even now,” Mr. Brin said. “Some of them are motivated by near-term business disputes, and they don’t see this as an achievement for humanity.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/business/media/22carr.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=google%20evil&st=cse
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Universities Cope with New Anti-Piracy Requirement; Network World, 6/15/09
Joan Goodchild via Network World; Universities Cope with New Anti-Piracy Requirement:
"David Reis, director of IT security and policy at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, has been on what he calls a "nine-month journey" to figure out exactly how he's going to make sure his school doesn't break the law --even though they were never in trouble in the first place.
Reis' headaches began at the end of last summer, just after President Bush signed into law the Higher Education Opportunity Act, the first reauthorization of the Higher Education Act since 1998. The act included several new provisions, but the one that has Reis and others on college campuses concerned is a new requirement that schools ensure they are doing all they can to combat illegal file sharing among students. The new rules, according to the wording contained in the legislation, requires institutions to develop plans to "effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including through the use of a variety of technology-based deterrents." Schools must also "to the extent practicable, offer alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property." Any institute found to be non-compliant could lose federal funding.
The provision made its way through due to the heavy lobbying efforts of groups such as the Recording Industry Assocation of America and the Motion Picture Association of America. Until recently, the RIAA had been waging their fight to stop piracy among students by filing individual lawsuits against those accused of illegal file sharing. But recently the RIAA has said it has abandoned that strategy and will now focus efforts on working with Internet service providers to issue warnings to violators. They have also lauded this new provision in the HEOA.
But Reis said illegal file-sharing has never been a problem at Thomas Jefferson University and the requirement uses a broad brush to paint a picture that is inaccurate in many instances.
"We have not received one complaint about one student. Yet now we have to go out and incur the cost to solve a problem that we didn't really have," he said.
Reis estimates he will spend approximately $100,000 implementing new hardware and software in order to be in compliance with the regulation."
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/061509-universities-cope-with-new-anti-piracy.html
"David Reis, director of IT security and policy at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, has been on what he calls a "nine-month journey" to figure out exactly how he's going to make sure his school doesn't break the law --even though they were never in trouble in the first place.
Reis' headaches began at the end of last summer, just after President Bush signed into law the Higher Education Opportunity Act, the first reauthorization of the Higher Education Act since 1998. The act included several new provisions, but the one that has Reis and others on college campuses concerned is a new requirement that schools ensure they are doing all they can to combat illegal file sharing among students. The new rules, according to the wording contained in the legislation, requires institutions to develop plans to "effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including through the use of a variety of technology-based deterrents." Schools must also "to the extent practicable, offer alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property." Any institute found to be non-compliant could lose federal funding.
The provision made its way through due to the heavy lobbying efforts of groups such as the Recording Industry Assocation of America and the Motion Picture Association of America. Until recently, the RIAA had been waging their fight to stop piracy among students by filing individual lawsuits against those accused of illegal file sharing. But recently the RIAA has said it has abandoned that strategy and will now focus efforts on working with Internet service providers to issue warnings to violators. They have also lauded this new provision in the HEOA.
But Reis said illegal file-sharing has never been a problem at Thomas Jefferson University and the requirement uses a broad brush to paint a picture that is inaccurate in many instances.
"We have not received one complaint about one student. Yet now we have to go out and incur the cost to solve a problem that we didn't really have," he said.
Reis estimates he will spend approximately $100,000 implementing new hardware and software in order to be in compliance with the regulation."
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/061509-universities-cope-with-new-anti-piracy.html
Universities Struggling To Deal With Law Requiring Them To Fight File Sharing; TechDirt, 6/19/09
Mike Masnick via TechDirt; Universities Struggling To Deal With Law Requiring Them To Fight File Sharing:
"Well, the MPAA put out a report claiming that 44% of "losses" from file sharing came from college campuses. Of course, the number (like so many out of entertainment industry lobbyists) was entirely made up. In fact, it was so ridiculous that even the MPAA came out and publicly admitted the numbers were bogus and apologized! "
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090618/0337155278.shtml
"Well, the MPAA put out a report claiming that 44% of "losses" from file sharing came from college campuses. Of course, the number (like so many out of entertainment industry lobbyists) was entirely made up. In fact, it was so ridiculous that even the MPAA came out and publicly admitted the numbers were bogus and apologized! "
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090618/0337155278.shtml
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Federal Judge Mulls Copyright Status for Salinger's Holden Caulfield; Law.com, 6/18/09
Mark Hamblett via Law.com; Federal Judge Mulls Copyright Status for Salinger's Holden Caulfield:
"Marcia B. Paul of Davis Wright Tremaine, representing Salinger, won the first part of the hearing by convincing [Judge Deborah] Batts, who said she had read both books, that there was a "substantial similarity" between the two works.
Paul and the attorney for Colting and his publisher, Edward H. Rosenthal of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, disagreed over the degree of copyright protection that can be afforded the characters within a book.
Rosenthal said there is case law protecting ubiquitous animated figures such as Superman, but that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and other courts have not extended the law's protection to purely literary or "words on a page" characters.
Paul responded, "That's not the law. A sufficiently delineated character should be protected."...
"It is hard to separate Holden Caulfield from the book," [Judge Deborah Batts] said. "It would seem that Holden Caulfield is copyrightable."
The judge then turned to the question of whether "60 Years Later" is nonetheless protected by the fair use doctrine.
Here, the burden shifted to Rosenthal, who noted that the point of copyright protection is to "promote the progress of science and the arts ..."
"But not stealing," Batts interjected...
The argument that "60 Years Later" was a work of literary criticism was not helped by the fact that Colting, known as "John Doe" in the pleadings, had called the book "a sequel" before he had time to consult with lawyers for his U.S. publisher, SCB Distributors...
Paul also said fair use protection presumes good faith and fair dealing."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202431554331
"Marcia B. Paul of Davis Wright Tremaine, representing Salinger, won the first part of the hearing by convincing [Judge Deborah] Batts, who said she had read both books, that there was a "substantial similarity" between the two works.
Paul and the attorney for Colting and his publisher, Edward H. Rosenthal of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, disagreed over the degree of copyright protection that can be afforded the characters within a book.
Rosenthal said there is case law protecting ubiquitous animated figures such as Superman, but that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and other courts have not extended the law's protection to purely literary or "words on a page" characters.
Paul responded, "That's not the law. A sufficiently delineated character should be protected."...
"It is hard to separate Holden Caulfield from the book," [Judge Deborah Batts] said. "It would seem that Holden Caulfield is copyrightable."
The judge then turned to the question of whether "60 Years Later" is nonetheless protected by the fair use doctrine.
Here, the burden shifted to Rosenthal, who noted that the point of copyright protection is to "promote the progress of science and the arts ..."
"But not stealing," Batts interjected...
The argument that "60 Years Later" was a work of literary criticism was not helped by the fact that Colting, known as "John Doe" in the pleadings, had called the book "a sequel" before he had time to consult with lawyers for his U.S. publisher, SCB Distributors...
Paul also said fair use protection presumes good faith and fair dealing."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202431554331
Music-Pirate Mom Shown No Love By Jury To Tune Of $1.9 M; NPR's Two Way Blog, 6/19/09
Frank James via NPR's Two Way Blog; Music-Pirate Mom Shown No Love By Jury To Tune Of $1.9 M:
""The only thing worse than losing a copyright-infringement lawsuit that ends with a $122,000 [sic; $222,000] judgment against you is getting a retrial only to end up with a eye-popping $1.9 million judgment against you...
The Associated Press gives us this paragraph explaining why we should care:
This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/06/musicpirate_mom_shown_no_love.html
""The only thing worse than losing a copyright-infringement lawsuit that ends with a $122,000 [sic; $222,000] judgment against you is getting a retrial only to end up with a eye-popping $1.9 million judgment against you...
The Associated Press gives us this paragraph explaining why we should care:
This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/06/musicpirate_mom_shown_no_love.html
Bankruptcy could protect Jammie Thomas; CNet News, 6/19/09
Greg Sandoval via CNet News; Bankruptcy could protect Jammie Thomas:
"[I]n the past, when someone was found liable of willful copyright infringement, the law prevented the defendant from discharging, or wiping out the debt in bankruptcy court. Last year, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in the case of Barboza vs. New Form, that "willful" meant one thing in civil court and something else in bankruptcy court.
In trademark or copyright cases, "willful" means that a defendant knew what they were doing. According to the Ninth Circuit, bankruptcy laws mandate that for a debt to be non-dischargeable, a plaintiff must prove a defendant was "willful and malicious," meaning the person's intent was to cause harm.
Even entertainment lawyers agree that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Barboza makes it tougher for copyright owners to collect damages. Kathryn Bartow, an attorney with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a Los Angeles-based law firm that does extensive work for the major movie studios, wrote in a February issue of her firm's newsletter:
(Barboza) serves as a warning to trademark and copyright owners as well as the counsel who represent them in willful infringement cases. When presenting evidence and crafting jury instructions, beware. In willful infringement cases, to prevent an individual defendant from having its debt discharged in bankruptcy, the plaintiff should consider introducing sufficient evidence and including additional jury instructions to satisfy the Bankruptcy Code's definitions of 'willful and malicious.'
If the jury had only found Thomas-Rasset guilty of copyright infringement instead of willful infringement, it would have been easier for her to get rid of the debt...
For the RIAA, the size of the damages stamps it with the bully label and backfires when it comes to public relations. That's the opinion of Ben Sheffner, a former entertainment lawyer and copyright proponent. He says the jury award also potentially hurts the RIAA if someone decides to challenge the damages on constitutional grounds.
"On the plus side, the decision sent a strong message," Sheffner said. Twenty-four "average Minnesotans with no ties to the entertainment industry have now said what she did was wrong and she deserves a strong punishment. On the other side, the size of the monetary damages could be used as serious ammo against the music industry.""
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10269251-93.html
"[I]n the past, when someone was found liable of willful copyright infringement, the law prevented the defendant from discharging, or wiping out the debt in bankruptcy court. Last year, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in the case of Barboza vs. New Form, that "willful" meant one thing in civil court and something else in bankruptcy court.
In trademark or copyright cases, "willful" means that a defendant knew what they were doing. According to the Ninth Circuit, bankruptcy laws mandate that for a debt to be non-dischargeable, a plaintiff must prove a defendant was "willful and malicious," meaning the person's intent was to cause harm.
Even entertainment lawyers agree that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Barboza makes it tougher for copyright owners to collect damages. Kathryn Bartow, an attorney with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a Los Angeles-based law firm that does extensive work for the major movie studios, wrote in a February issue of her firm's newsletter:
(Barboza) serves as a warning to trademark and copyright owners as well as the counsel who represent them in willful infringement cases. When presenting evidence and crafting jury instructions, beware. In willful infringement cases, to prevent an individual defendant from having its debt discharged in bankruptcy, the plaintiff should consider introducing sufficient evidence and including additional jury instructions to satisfy the Bankruptcy Code's definitions of 'willful and malicious.'
If the jury had only found Thomas-Rasset guilty of copyright infringement instead of willful infringement, it would have been easier for her to get rid of the debt...
For the RIAA, the size of the damages stamps it with the bully label and backfires when it comes to public relations. That's the opinion of Ben Sheffner, a former entertainment lawyer and copyright proponent. He says the jury award also potentially hurts the RIAA if someone decides to challenge the damages on constitutional grounds.
"On the plus side, the decision sent a strong message," Sheffner said. Twenty-four "average Minnesotans with no ties to the entertainment industry have now said what she did was wrong and she deserves a strong punishment. On the other side, the size of the monetary damages could be used as serious ammo against the music industry.""
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10269251-93.html
Big music file-sharing penalties getting tuned out; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 6/20/09
Michael Fuoco via Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Big music file-sharing penalties getting tuned out:
"Moreover, it may soon be legal for P2P file-sharing. Major record labels are discussing the possibility of a new entity called Choruss in which blanket licenses would be granted to universities and someday residential ISPs for a fee that would authorize the music swapping.
As for now, the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry, is dealing with commercial, residential and university ISPs, informing them when one of their users is illegally file sharing, said RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth. The ISPs then inform the violators and take escalating action, which usually first involves cease-and-desist letters and can escalate to loss of service...
According to market research company NPD Group, legal downloading of digital music has now surpassed illegal file-sharing. Legal downloading has risen from 16 to 22 percent of Internet users while P2P downloading has decreased from 19 to 18 percent during that same period.
Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit group for consumer digital consumer rights, said RIAA may have lost more than it won in the trial when it comes to public relations.
"If you read between the lines, the recording industry is a little chagrined. They're not celebrating, saying this is what she deserved," he said. "They're sensitive this is an outrageous amount. Even people who are otherwise on their side wouldn't disagree. In some ways, this assists critics of the recording industry."
That's why something like Choruss is a much better approach than punishment in dealing reasonably with file sharing on the Internet, he said. Under the plan being discussed, universities would pay into a fund that would allow their students to "file share to their hearts content," Mr. von Lohmann said. "It's a future-looking piece. It takes policing out of this."
He said that in talking to college students, they all said they wouldn't mind paying $5 more a month in student activities fees for such a service.
"It's not that people won't pay but you can't create a system in which it is harder for them to pay than to do a free thing. At $5 a month, it will feel free to them."
Ms. Duckworth said Choruss is "an innovative way to deal with college online piracy, an interesting concept that is being shopped to different schools. All the major record labels are on board in discussing this, trying to figure out what works best."
She said the RIAA is realistic it will never completely stop illegal online sharing "because we know it's going to happen. We know there are going to be individuals who think music and content should be free.
"What we want to do is to deter casual file sharers, people who wouldn't do this all the time, and direct them to go in the right direction."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09171/978771-84.stm
"Moreover, it may soon be legal for P2P file-sharing. Major record labels are discussing the possibility of a new entity called Choruss in which blanket licenses would be granted to universities and someday residential ISPs for a fee that would authorize the music swapping.
As for now, the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry, is dealing with commercial, residential and university ISPs, informing them when one of their users is illegally file sharing, said RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth. The ISPs then inform the violators and take escalating action, which usually first involves cease-and-desist letters and can escalate to loss of service...
According to market research company NPD Group, legal downloading of digital music has now surpassed illegal file-sharing. Legal downloading has risen from 16 to 22 percent of Internet users while P2P downloading has decreased from 19 to 18 percent during that same period.
Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit group for consumer digital consumer rights, said RIAA may have lost more than it won in the trial when it comes to public relations.
"If you read between the lines, the recording industry is a little chagrined. They're not celebrating, saying this is what she deserved," he said. "They're sensitive this is an outrageous amount. Even people who are otherwise on their side wouldn't disagree. In some ways, this assists critics of the recording industry."
That's why something like Choruss is a much better approach than punishment in dealing reasonably with file sharing on the Internet, he said. Under the plan being discussed, universities would pay into a fund that would allow their students to "file share to their hearts content," Mr. von Lohmann said. "It's a future-looking piece. It takes policing out of this."
He said that in talking to college students, they all said they wouldn't mind paying $5 more a month in student activities fees for such a service.
"It's not that people won't pay but you can't create a system in which it is harder for them to pay than to do a free thing. At $5 a month, it will feel free to them."
Ms. Duckworth said Choruss is "an innovative way to deal with college online piracy, an interesting concept that is being shopped to different schools. All the major record labels are on board in discussing this, trying to figure out what works best."
She said the RIAA is realistic it will never completely stop illegal online sharing "because we know it's going to happen. We know there are going to be individuals who think music and content should be free.
"What we want to do is to deter casual file sharers, people who wouldn't do this all the time, and direct them to go in the right direction."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09171/978771-84.stm
Friday, June 19, 2009
US publication of book delayed in Salinger dispute; Associated Press, 6/17/09
Larry Neumeister via Associated Press; US publication of book delayed in Salinger dispute:
"U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts temporarily blocked publication of the book, "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye," until she rules whether the book transforms Salinger's original creation enough that it qualifies to be published as a "fair use" of a copyrighted work.
A ruling was anticipated in the next 10 days. The book was scheduled for U.S. release on Sept. 15 but the court dispute was likely to delay that...
She said she read both novels and agreed with Salinger that the new book was substantially similar to his own, published in 1951. Although there was little legal precedent to find that a character in a book with no drawings or photographs of him could be copyrighted, Batts said she believed Caufield could be.
"It's a portrait by words," she said. "It is difficult in fact to separate Holden Caulfield from the book
The hearing featured spirited arguments over whether Salinger's most famous literary character, Holden Caufield, is himself entitled to copyright protection and whether stopping publication of what some publicity materials referred to as a sequel would amount to a book ban.
[Fredrik] Colting, who lives near Gothenburg, Sweden, said in a court document that he did not "slavishly copy" Salinger when he wrote "60 Years Later," his first novel, under the pseudonym J.D. California.
"I am not a pirate," he wrote. He said he wrote the book as a critical exploration of the relationship between Salinger and his famous fictional character.
He said he used his book to transform "the precocious and authentic Holden into a 76-year-old man fraught with indecision and insecurity." The character, identified as "Mr. C," escapes from a retirement home and experiences similar to those Caulfield went through decades earlier.
He said his dedication of the book to Salinger was ironic.
"While I greatly admire Salinger as a writer, he is not the God-Author the public has created," Colting wrote. He also said it was a mistake that early copies of the book released in Great Britain included words promoting it as a sequel to Salinger's book.
During arguments Wednesday, Salinger lawyer Marcia Beth Paul called Colting's book "pure commercialism." She said 94 percent of the book was told in Caufield's voice and only 6 percent in Salinger's voice.
"This is a book about Holden Caulfield," Paul said. "It's a sequel, plain and simple."
She said it was wrong of the defendants to claim that blocking publication of the book because it infringes copyrights would be the same as banning a book. Salinger's book has frequently turned up on book ban lists.
"Make no mistake about it," Rosenthal charged in response. "This is banning the book."
He added: "To enjoin the book before a full exploration of the book is a prior restraint that raises very serious First Amendment questions.""
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBf9ALIEy3wQYsMPHAEVM370POkgD98SMA901
"U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts temporarily blocked publication of the book, "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye," until she rules whether the book transforms Salinger's original creation enough that it qualifies to be published as a "fair use" of a copyrighted work.
A ruling was anticipated in the next 10 days. The book was scheduled for U.S. release on Sept. 15 but the court dispute was likely to delay that...
She said she read both novels and agreed with Salinger that the new book was substantially similar to his own, published in 1951. Although there was little legal precedent to find that a character in a book with no drawings or photographs of him could be copyrighted, Batts said she believed Caufield could be.
"It's a portrait by words," she said. "It is difficult in fact to separate Holden Caulfield from the book
The hearing featured spirited arguments over whether Salinger's most famous literary character, Holden Caufield, is himself entitled to copyright protection and whether stopping publication of what some publicity materials referred to as a sequel would amount to a book ban.
[Fredrik] Colting, who lives near Gothenburg, Sweden, said in a court document that he did not "slavishly copy" Salinger when he wrote "60 Years Later," his first novel, under the pseudonym J.D. California.
"I am not a pirate," he wrote. He said he wrote the book as a critical exploration of the relationship between Salinger and his famous fictional character.
He said he used his book to transform "the precocious and authentic Holden into a 76-year-old man fraught with indecision and insecurity." The character, identified as "Mr. C," escapes from a retirement home and experiences similar to those Caulfield went through decades earlier.
He said his dedication of the book to Salinger was ironic.
"While I greatly admire Salinger as a writer, he is not the God-Author the public has created," Colting wrote. He also said it was a mistake that early copies of the book released in Great Britain included words promoting it as a sequel to Salinger's book.
During arguments Wednesday, Salinger lawyer Marcia Beth Paul called Colting's book "pure commercialism." She said 94 percent of the book was told in Caufield's voice and only 6 percent in Salinger's voice.
"This is a book about Holden Caulfield," Paul said. "It's a sequel, plain and simple."
She said it was wrong of the defendants to claim that blocking publication of the book because it infringes copyrights would be the same as banning a book. Salinger's book has frequently turned up on book ban lists.
"Make no mistake about it," Rosenthal charged in response. "This is banning the book."
He added: "To enjoin the book before a full exploration of the book is a prior restraint that raises very serious First Amendment questions.""
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBf9ALIEy3wQYsMPHAEVM370POkgD98SMA901
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)