Sunday, August 23, 2009

News Corp 'in talks on web news consortium'; Guardina, 8/21/09

Jason Deans via Guardian; News Corp 'in talks on web news consortium':

"News Corporation executives have met counterparts from rival newspapers including the New York Times and Washington Post to discuss forming a consortium to charge for online news content, according to a US report today.

Jonathan Miller, News Corp's chief digital officer, is believed to have talked to executives from the Times and Post, along with other major US newspaper publishers including Hearst and Tribune, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The meetings, held in recent weeks, were to discuss forming a consortium that would charge for news content on the web and mobile devices, reported the LA Times, which is published by Tribune.

Earlier this month the News Corp chairman and chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, revealed that the company planned to start charging for content on all its news websites in the US, UK and elsewhere in the next year.

"Quality journalism is not cheap," said Murdoch. "The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites."

Murdoch added that he had completed a review of the possibility of charging and that he was willing to take the risk of leading the industry towards a pay-per-view model: "I believe that if we're successful, we'll be followed fast by other media."...

He accepted that there could be a need for furious litigation to prevent stories and photographs being copied elsewhere: "We'll be asserting our copyright at every point."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/21/news-corp-online-news-consortium

Spain's magicians say television show that gives away secrets is a dirty trick; Guardian, 8/20/09

Giles Tremlett via Guardian; Spain's magicians say television show that gives away secrets is a dirty trick:

"Spain's magicians are up in arms over a television show hosted by a rebel prestidigitator who reveals many of the secrets behind their tricks.

The magicians have asked Spanish lawyers to come up with ways of challenging the Masked Magician and his programme Magic Without Secrets in court, claiming that their favourite tricks should be protected by intellectual property laws...

The last time a Spanish artist tried to claim a copyright to a "magical" act, they also failed to win compensation...

Magicians in Brazil reportedly were partially successful in a case against the same Masked Magician show when it was aired by a television station there, but lawyers said Spanish law offered little protection.

"The best thing is to keep your trick secret and not teach it to anyone else," said a Spanish lawyer, Andy Ramos on his blog.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/20/spain-television-masked-magician-tricks

Google's book project faces growing opposition; Guardian, 8/19/09

Ed Pilkington via Guardian; Google's book project faces growing opposition:

"The latest objection, filed with the Manhattan court today, comes from a Washington-based lawyer and writer who specialises in class-action law and monopolies. In his 47-page complaint, Scott Gant argues that potentially millions of authors in America and around the world are being coerced into accepting the deal without being fully informed about its implications.

"Anyone taking part in this project should be doing so as a conscious choice to participate knowing fully what they are doing. In fact, people are being forced to hand over to Google some of their intellectual property often with no understanding of what that means," Gant said.

Under US class-action law, authors and publishers who do not specifically opt out of the settlement are deemed to have signed up to it. But Gant points out that as an author himself — he wrote a book on the digital information revolution called We're All Journalists Now: The Transformation of the Press and Reshaping of the Law in the Internet Age — he has never received any legal notice about the case.

Google announced its plans five years ago, arguing that the project to build up an online archive of millions of books that are out of print was part of its mission to "organise the world's information". It has already scanned at least 7m books, using cameras able to convert up to 1,000 pages an hour.

Most of the books, which must have been published before 5 January this year, have come from libraries and publishers in the US. Google has so far struck partnerships with 29 of the world's biggest libraries, including those of Harvard and Stanford and the Bodleian in Oxford."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/19/google-internet-digital-book

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Chinese Court Jails and Fines Pirates of Windows Software; New York Times, 8/22/09

Associated Press via New York Times; Chinese Court Jails and Fines Pirates of Windows Software:

"A court in eastern China has sentenced four people to prison and ordered payment of about 11 million renminbi ($1.6 million) in fines for distributing pirated versions of Microsoft’s Windows XP and other software.

The Business Software Alliance, an industry trade group, lauded the court’s decision as the first successful prosecution of large-scale, online software piracy in China. Microsoft likewise applauded the handling of the case.

“It shows the government is really taking action,” Liu Fengming, vice president for the greater China region for Microsoft, said in a statement."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/technology/22piracy.html?scp=2&sq=piracy&st=cse

Stephenie Meyer Sued for Copyright Infringement; New York Times, 8/22/09

Dave Itzkoff via New York Times; Stephenie Meyer Sued for Copyright Infringement:

"An author who accused Stephenie Meyer, the writer of the best-selling “Twilight” novels, of plagiarism has filed suit against her, Reuters reported.

Earlier this month, a lawyer for Jordan Scott, the author of the 2006 vampire novel “The Nocturne,” sent a cease-and-desist letter to Ms. Meyer’s publisher, Hachette Book Group, that said her work contains many situations that are similar to those in Ms. Meyer’s 2008 book “Breaking Dawn,” the fourth entry in her series about a romance between a mortal woman and an undead vampire. A lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court in California reiterated those similarities, noting, for example, that both books contained passages about a wedding and an after-wedding sex scene on a beach. Hachette Book Group said that Ms. Meyer had based “Breaking Dawn” on an earlier, unpublished sequel to “Twilight” that she wrote. The publisher called the suit a “publicity stunt to further Ms. Scott’s career,” and said it expected the court would dismiss it, according to Reuters."

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/stephenie-meyer-sued-for-plagiarism/?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse

Friday, August 21, 2009

Why is the Antitrust Division Investigating the Google Book Search Settlement?; Huffington Post, 8/19/09

Pamela Samuelson via Huffington Post; Why is the Antitrust Division Investigating the Google Book Search Settlement?:

"As I explained last Monday, the settlement is audacious because it uses the legal jujitsu of the class action procedure to give Google a breathtaking license to all in-copyright books. The agreement authorizes Google to create a digital library of these books and to commercialize most of them. Google will compensate rights holders for commercialization of these books either directly if they signed up with the Google partner program or indirectly through a newly created Book Rights Registry (BRR) whose job is to distribute money to rights holders signed up with BRR.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division announced in late April 2009 that it was investigating whether the settlement agreement is, as some critics charge, an agreement that will unreasonably restrain trade or create a monopoly that would enable Google to extract monopoly rents from the books and further entrench Google's dominance in the search market.

Antitrust analysis generally starts with a definition of the affected market. The market for digital books is currently rather small, but it is growing. Many predict that it will become a major market in the future. Clearly, Amazon and Barnes & Noble, as well as Google, can negotiate with rights holders of in-print books to make these books available in digital form (although the settlement would give Google the right to scan the books first and negotiate later). Google argues that Amazon and other digital booksellers can also license rights to sell digital books from the BRR. And of course, anyone can sell or give away public domain books...

My concerns about the competition-policy consequences of the settlement center on the market for institutional subscriptions. The settlement gives Google the right to have and make available the contents of a universal library of books. Anyone else could build a digital library with public domain books and whatever other books it could license from publishers or BRR. But no one else can offer a comparably comprehensive institutional subscription service because only Google has a license to all out-of-print books. Google's optimistic estimate is that only 10 percent of the books in the corpus will really be "orphans," but 10 percent is still roughly two million books. Suppose the real percentage of orphans is closer to 30 percent and another 20 percent of those whom BRR tries to sign up tell the BRR reps to get lost...

Under the Bush Administration, the DOJ would likely have done nothing about the GBS settlement. But the Obama Administration takes antitrust seriously. We will know very soon what DOJ plans to do, for the judge presiding over the settlement agreement has asked DOJ to report on its antitrust analysis by September 18."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/why-is-the-antitrust-divi_b_258997.html

Life in a Google Book Search World; Inside Higher Ed, 8/12/09

Inside Higher Ed; Life in a Google Book Search World:

While the settlement gives lawyers and scholars fodder for debating the intricacies of often arcane antitrust law provisions, its real-world implications for university research libraries are already apparent, according to Jonathan Band, legal counsel for the Library Copyright Alliance, which represents thousands of libraries in three major associations. Speaking at a panel on the Google settlement at the National Press Club here Tuesday, Band said it is obvious that any library that hopes to remain competitive will be forced to purchase an institutional subscription from Google Book Search.

“[The university’s] faculty will insist upon it,” he said. “Its students will insist upon it.”

“There’s a product they have to have, and in essence there’s one supplier,” Band added.

The cost of institutional subscriptions, which will last for a limited period before renewal is necessary, will differ across institutions based in part on enrollment numbers, according to the settlement. Libraries that purchase subscription services will gain access to the full text of Google’s entire library, which now contains more than 7 million books. The search engine’s immodest goal from the outset, however, has been to eventually put the world’s written history at the public’s fingertips.

For all the concerns that Google’s Book Search provokes, there seems little argument that the basic concept -- broad-based access to knowledge -- serves an inherent good. Researchers are unsurprisingly excited by the possibilities presented by a searchable full-text database of obscure, forgotten works. But it is Google’s potential hold on those obscure works that most worries James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at New York Law School.

Grimmelmann is particularly concerned about the Google settlement’s treatment of so-called “orphan” works, a term used to describe books for whom the copyright owner may be unknown or nonexistent. Since copyright endures for 70 years beyond an author’s death, it's possible that an author’s grandchild or other relative may unknowingly hold a copyright, making it practically impossible to track him or her down.

Under the settlement, Google is permitted to presume it has the consent of any as-yet-undiscovered copyright owner -- insulating the company from costly legal challenges that another would-be book digitizer might invoke when scanning orphan works.
In the context of competition, the orphan works are “the thing [Google has] that no competitor could hope to match,” Grimmelmann said.

Grimmelmann’s concerns about orphan works are misguided and overblown, according to David Balto, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “Orphan” status is only bestowed upon books for which publishers see no viable market, and whose “parents” are “indifferent,” he said. Essentially, such works have little value, and therefore hardly give Google an advantage, Balto said.

While Grimmelmann readily praised the potential benefit of Google’s digitization project, he said the project’s social good does not erase his concerns about Google’s unfair advantage.

“We wouldn’t say a monopolist should be excused of particular acts of monopoly because it does other good things,” he said."

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/12/google

Microsoft, Yahoo Unite Against Google Book Search; InformationWeek, 8/21/09

Thomas Claburn via InformationWeek; Microsoft, Yahoo Unite Against Google Book Search:

A new coalition opposed to Google's Book Search settlement has been formed.

"The major areas of contention revolve around issues of privacy, exclusivity, and indemnification from liability. Critics of the settlement want Google to commit to: offering online readers the same privacy protection enjoyed by offline readers; an open registry system rather than one controlled by two publishing industry groups; and indemnification from copyright claims for those who want to scan orphaned works -- books for which the copyright holder cannot be found -- as Google has done.

In May, Google said that it planned "to build and support a digital book ecosystem to allow our partner publishers to make their books available for purchase from any Web-enabled device," showing that Google Book Search will become a platform for Google book sales. This presumably explains Amazon's reported decision to join the coalition opposing the settlement.

To Google, Microsoft's public opposition seems incongruous because the company shuttered its Live Book Search project last year "to focus on search verticals with high commercial intent, such as travel...

Google insiders have acknowledged being surprised by the breadth of the opposition to the Book Search settlement and the company has recently been more energetic about making its views known."

http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/google/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219401064

Tech groups join fight against Google books; London Times, 8/21/09

Mike Harvey via London Times; Tech groups join fight against Google books:

"Critics say that the deal gives Google the unimpeded ability to set prices for libraries, once they scan books and put them on the Internet. They also say that it would also allow Google — and only Google — to digitise so-called orphan works, which could pose an antitrust concern. Orphan works are books or other materials that are still covered by US copyright law, but on which ownership rights are not clear.

Google took issue with the criticism. Gabriel Stricker, a spokesman for the company said: "The agreement is not exclusive. If improved by the court, it will expand access to millions of books in the US."

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article6805993.ece

Tech's Heavyweights Put Google's Books Deal In Crosshairs; Wall Street Journal, 8/21/09

Jessica E. Vascallero and Geoffrey A. Folwer via Wall Street Journal; Tech's Heavyweights Put Google's Books Deal In Crosshairs:

"Three technology heavyweights and some library associations are joining a coalition led by a prominent Silicon Valley lawyer to challenge Google Inc.'s settlement with authors and publishers.

Peter Brantley, a director at coalition co-founder Internet Archive said the group, whose members will be formally disclosed in the next couple of weeks, is being co-led by Gary Reback, a Silicon Valley lawyer involved in the Department of Justice's antitrust investigation against Microsoft Corp. last decade. Microsoft, Amazon.com Inc. and Yahoo Inc. have agreed to join the group. Mr. Reback did not reply to requests for comment.

Microsoft and Yahoo confirmed their participation. Amazon declined to comment.

The coalition is the latest sign that Google's rapid ascent has made it a prime target for competitors, just as Microsoft was reviled as the industry's bully in the 1990s.

Google defended the settlement, struck last October with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. "The Google Books settlement is injecting more competition into the digital books space, so it's understandable why our competitors might fight hard to prevent more competition," a Google spokesman said in a statement...

Since last year, a broad group of authors, librarians, European publishers and privacy advocates have argued that the settlement gives Google an unfair copyright immunity in offering future services around digital books that would be tough for other businesses to match."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125080725309147713.html

Google Rivals Will Oppose Book Settlement; New York Times, 8/21/09

Miguel Helft via New York Times; Google Rivals Will Oppose Book Settlement:

"Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo are planning to join a coalition of nonprofit groups, individuals and library associations to oppose a proposed class-action settlement giving Google the rights to commercialize digital copies of millions of books...

Gary L. Reback, an antitrust lawyer in Silicon Valley, who is acting as counsel to the coalition, said that Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo had all agreed to join the group, which is tentatively called the Open Book Alliance. The group, led by Mr. Reback and the Internet Archive, a nonprofit group that has been critical of the settlement, plans to make a case to the Justice Department that the arrangement is anticompetitive. Members of the alliance will most likely file objections with the court independently.

“This deal has enormous, far-reaching anticompetitive consequences that people are just beginning to wake up to,” said Mr. Reback, a lawyer with Carr & Ferrell, a firm in Palo Alto, Calif. In the 1990s, Mr. Reback helped persuade the Justice Department to file its landmark antitrust case against Microsoft.

Some library associations and groups representing authors are also planning to join the coalition, he said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/technology/internet/21google.html?scp=2&sq=google%20book%20search&st=cse

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Murdoch closes paper as free news squeeze begins; CNN.com, 8/20/09

CNN.com; Murdoch closes paper as free news squeeze begins:

"Rupert Murdoch's News International, which plans to begin charging for online content, said Thursday it was to close its free London newspaper as part of cost-cutting measures.

The Londonpaper, which employs 60 editorial staff, will cease publication within a month, according to a statement...

Rupert Murdoch said earlier this year his News Corp. media empire would begin charging for online content on its portfolio of titles including The Wall Street Journal, the London Times and the New York Post.

"We are now in the midst of an epochal debate over the value of content and it is clear to many newspapers that the current model is malfunctioning," he told analysts in May."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/08/20/murdoch.paper/index.html

Major Objection to Google Book Search Settlement Is Filed; Publishers Weekly, 8/19/09

Andrew Albanese via Publishers Weekly; Major Objection to Google Book Search Settlement Is Filed:

"The Google Book Search settlement has its first significant objection. On Wednesday morning author and attorney Scott Gant filed a 50-page objection with the court that claims the sweeping deal is an illegal expansion of class-action law. In a copy of the brief shared with PW, Gant, a Harvard-educated lawyer with more than a decade of class-action litigation experience, and the author of We're All Journalists Now: The Transformation of the Press and Reshaping of the Law in The Internet Age (Free Press), argues that the settlement is a “predominantly commercial transaction,” that “cannot be imposed through the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,” the order that authorizes class action.

Among his arguments, Gant asserts that the settlement:

Fails to satisfy notice requirements imposed by Rule 23 and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause

Fails to provide putative class members with adequate compensation

Fails to satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23

Would vest Google with significant market power which it could not acquire without the settlement.

Raises serious antitrust issues that must be considered as part of this Court’s review of the Proposed Settlement.

Gant’s most damaging argument, however, may be that the settlement fails to safeguard the due process rights of absent class members as required by law—a potentially fatal blow to the settlement, because if upheld by the court, it would remove a critical foundation of the deal, under which Google would essentially obtain a license to works without the specific consent of the copyright holder."

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6678673.html?industryid=47152

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Lawyer and Author Adds His Objections to Settling the Google Book Lawsuit; New York Times, 8/19/09

Miguel Helft and Motoko Rich via New York Times; Lawyer and Author Adds His Objections to Settling the Google Book Lawsuit:

"In the latest objection, Scott E. Gant, an author and partner at Boies Schiller & Flexner, a prominent Washington law firm, plans to file a sweeping opposition to the settlement on Wednesday urging the court to reject it.

This is a predominantly commercial transaction and one that should be undertaken through the normal commercial process, which is negotiation and informed consent,” Mr. Gant said in an interview. Google and its partners are “trying to ram this through so that millions of copyright holders will have no idea that this is happening.”

Unlike most previous objections to the project, which focused on policy issues and recommended modifications to the settlement, Mr. Gant argues that the agreement, which gives Google commercial rights to millions of books without having to negotiate for them individually, amounts to an abuse of the class-action process. He also contends that it does not sufficiently compensate authors and does not adequately notify and represent all the authors affected.

Legal experts, who had not seen the filing but heard a description of it, said it could be the most direct attack on the agreement so far.

It may be the most fundamental challenge to the settlement yet,” said James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School, a critic of the agreement whose blog tracks filings and commentary related to it...

“I opted out of the settlement just on ornery grounds,” said Christopher Buckley, author of “Thank You for Smoking” and “Losing Mum and Pup,” a memoir. He said he was suspicious of the claims by Google and the Authors Guild that the settlement would help breathe new life into out-of-print works. “I think books either stay in print or don’t pretty much on their own,” he said.

He said he was skeptical that the agreement was increasing the public good. “Whenever I hear capitalism proclaiming noble motives,” he said, “something makes me check my wallet.” "

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/technology/internet/19google.html

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

More Pushback Against the Google Book Search Settlement; Library Journal, 8/11/09

Norman Oder via Library Journal; More Pushback Against the Google Book Search Settlement:

"The Google Book Search Settlement, heading for a court hearing in October but also the subject of a Department of Justice antitrust inquiry, is beginning to generate more skepticism from arbiters of the public interest...

Questions of fairness

Samuelson questions whether the AAP and AG were fair representatives of the larger classes, and whether the Book Rights Registry can represent “the thousands of times larger and more diverse class of authors and publishers of books from all over the world.”

She noted, for example, that many academic authors “would much rather make their works available on an open access basis than to sign up with the Registry.”

Her subsequent column will explore why the Antitrust Division is investigating. In response, Law professor Mike Madison predicted, “The Justice Department will, in the end, facilitate a deal that gives other book scanning projects a release regarding orphan works that is comparable to what Google is getting via the settlement.”

Should authors opt out?

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that agency William Morris Endeavor has advised authors it represents to opt out of the settlement because it would “bind copyright owners in any book published prior to January 9, 2009 to its terms.”

The Authors Guild responded that William Morris was off-base."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6675916.html

National Writers Union Opposes Google Book Settlement; Wired.com's Epicenter, 8/13/09

Ryan Singel via Wired.com's Epicenter; National Writers Union Opposes Google Book Settlement:

"Add yet another voice to the chorus of protests over a proposed settlement of a class-action copyright suit that clears Google to transform the world’s dusty library tomes into the bookstore and online library of the future.

This time, the National Writers Union — which represents some 1,500 freelance writers — described a proposed deal as “grossly unfair to writers.”...

But Google should not have digitized books without authors’ permission, said Larry Goldbetter, the president of the National Writers Union, which operates as a local of the United Auto Workers. Google argues such scanning is covered by the Fair Use provision of copyright law, which allows for transformative and partial uses of copyright material.

“[W]riters whose copyrights were violated might receive a check for between $60 and $300 for each book and $15 per article,” he added. “Compared to the number and seriousness of the violations, the amount being offered by Google to each writer is ridiculously low.”"

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/08/national-writers-union-opposes-google-book-settlement/

Monday, August 17, 2009

Courts put DVD ripping on shaky ground; ZDNet.com, 8/14/09

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes via ZDNet.com; Courts put DVD ripping on shaky ground:

"Two court decisions send a message that both DVD ripping and DVD ripping hardware/software is illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=5184

Superman Creator's Heirs Win Rights to Early Stories; Am Law Litigation Daily, 8/14/09

Ross Todd via Am Law Litigation Daily; Superman Creator's Heirs Win Rights to Early Stories:

"A federal district court judge in Riverside, Calif., ruled Wednesday that the heirs of Superman cocreator Jerry Siegel are co-owners of copyrights to the first two weeks of Superman daily newspaper strips and other early Superman material. The ruling is the latest in an ongoing dispute between the heirs and DC Comics and Warner Brothers.

Judge Stephen Larson's decision allows the Siegels to recapture stories of Superman's origins on planet Krypton, his launch as a baby into space, and his crash-landing on Earth. Warner Brothers and DC still own copyrights to other elements of the Superman character, including his ability to fly, some other superpowers, the term "kryptonite," and the villain Lex Luthor. Here's a copy of Larson's 92-page decision."

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestTAL.jsp?id=1202433059625

Podcast: Lawrence Lessig "The Google Book Search Settlement: Static Good, Dynamic Bad?", Berkman workshop on the Google book search settlement,7/31/09

Podcast: Lawrence Lessig "The Google Book Search Settlement: Static Good, Dynamic Bad?", Berkman workshop on the Google book search settlement:

http://blip.tv/file/2471815

U.C. Professors Air Google Book Search Settlement Concerns; eWeek.com, 8/17/09

Clint Boulton via eWeek.com; U.C. Professors Air Google Book Search Settlement Concerns:

"Eighteen faculty members for the University of California say they are concerned about the Google Book Search settlement. Though the professors aren't opposing the deal, they are seeking changes that will prevent price-gouging, as well as mechanisms to let academic authors of orphan books license their books to the public domain or Creative Commons. They also share the privacy concerns voiced earlier by the ACLU and EFF."

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/UC-Professors-Air-Google-Book-Search-Settlement-Concerns-862110/

Sunday, August 16, 2009

The Sincerest Form of Lawsuit Bait; New York Times, 8/16/09

Charles McGrath via New York Times; The Sincerest Form of Lawsuit Bait:

"But Mr. Colting’s book has nevertheless become a literary cause célèbre, with a number of legal experts, including one from The New York Times, seeking to overturn the judge’s decision. The argument is that the Colting text is “transformative”: that instead of being a mere rip-off, it adds something original and substantive to Mr. Salinger’s version. This is the same principle Alice Randall appealed to in 2001 when she fought the estate of Margaret Mitchell over her right to publish “The Wind Done Gone,” her parody of “Gone With the Wind,” told from the point of view of Scarlett’s half-sister, a slave. The case was eventually settled when Ms. Randall’s publisher agreed to make a donation to Morehouse College, in Ms. Mitchell’s hometown, Atlanta.

Something similar happened with “Lo’s Diary,” by Pia Pera, which retells Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita” from Lo’s point of view and argues, incidentally, that Humbert did not kill Quilty. Dmitri Nabokov, the author’s son and a zealous protector of his father’s legacy, initially objected but then came around for a percentage of the royalties, which he donated to PEN, the writers’ group...

Luckily, “Jane Eyre” was in the public domain, as was “Hamlet” when John Updike wrote “Gertrude and Claudius,” a prequel that re-imagines the “Hamlet story” from the point of view of the guilty couple and explains at last why Gertrude and Claudius got together in the first place: he was master of some sweaty sexual techniques apparently unknown to his brother.

Books that are still in copyright are a more complicated challenge for the would-be writer of prequels and sequels. This is partly because a lot of money is sometimes at stake. The Mitchell estate was so fussy about protecting “Gone With the Wind” because the franchise is a gold mine. Alexandra Ripley’s “Scarlett,” an authorized sequel, was a huge best seller in 1991, even though the critics sniffed at it. Living authors, moreover, are understandably attached to their characters and creations and may not want to think of them as demented, say, or having problems with bladder control. Where do you draw the line between critique or parody and outright exploitation?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/weekinreview/16mcgrath.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=jane%20austen&st=cse

Podcast [3 min. 44 sec.]: Google Deal With Publishers Raises Privacy Concerns; NPR, 8/13/09

Podcast [3 min. 44 sec.] via NPR; Google Deal With Publishers Raises Privacy Concerns:

"Novelist Jonathan Lethem says Google should be "congratulated" for its effort. Lethem adds, "This is the moment to take a look and say, 'Why isn't it as private as the world we're being asked to leave behind, the world of physical books?' "

Lethem wonders whether future readers will have the same kind of relationship with books that he had. "When I was on this very private, very eccentric, intense journey as a younger person, it was crucial that it be a solitary practice," he says. But if future readers have reason to think they're leaving a digital trail, he adds, it might deprive the reading experience of its intimacy.

Lethem is one of several authors — including Michael Chabon and Cory Doctorow — who have signed on to a campaign to pressure Google Books to offer greater privacy guarantees for its readers. The effort was organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"They know which books you search for," says Cindy Cohn, legal director for the foundation. "They know which books you browse through; they know how long you spend on each page."

It's the same kind of information that's produced by someone surfing the Web. But Cohn believes books should enjoy greater privacy.

The EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California want Google to keep reader data for less time than normal Web searches. Ideally, they say, the data should be deleted after a month. "

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111797207

More Seek Privacy from Google Book Search Settlement; Electronic Frontier Foundation, 8/14/09

Richard Esguerra via Electronic Frontier Foundation; More Seek Privacy from Google Book Search Settlement:

"Copyright scholar Pam Samuelson recently investigated the scope of the settlement in an editorial titled "The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement," noting that "...Google has negotiated a settlement agreement designed to give it a compulsory license to all books in copyright throughout the world forever."

The massive potential reach of Google's service makes the company's relative silence on privacy all the more problematic. A New York Times editorial praises the potential of more equitable, complete access to the world's knowledge, but cautions against the immense power that Google will then have:

"Google could collect data on what books people read and create a dossier of their political views and other information. Google should generally do a better job of showing how it will respect privacy, and [Google Book Search] is no exception."

Libraries are keenly familiar with the fact that intellectual freedom depends on the ability to read books privately -- there is a long-standing tradition of libraries upholding the privacy of patrons and defending against invasive requests for reading histories. The American Library Association recently participated in a panel discussion of the Google Book Search Settlement and expressed concerns about the chilling effects proliferated by a lack of privacy protections:

"[Dr. Inouye, Director of the ALA Office for Information Technology Policy,] went on to say that inadequate privacy protections could also produce a chilling effect on intellectual freedom, as users are less likely to explore particular lines of inquiry if they feel uncomfortable with uncertain information gathering techniques employed by Google or the Book Rights Registry. As a contrast to the paltry user privacy protections in the settlement, Inouye noted the extensive sections outlining cumbersome security provisions inserted to make sure rightholders content is secure.""

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/more-seek-privacy-google-book-search-settlement

The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement; Huffington Post, 8/10/09

Pamela Samuelson via Huffington Post; The Audacity of the Google Book Search Settlement:

"Sorry, Kindle. The Google Book Search settlement will be, if approved, the most significant book industry development in the modern era. Exploiting an opportunity made possible by lawsuits brought by a small number of plaintiffs on one narrow issue, Google has negotiated a settlement agreement designed to give it a compulsory license to all books in copyright throughout the world forever. This settlement will transform the future of the book industry and of public access to the cultural heritage of mankind embodied in books. How audacious is that? "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/the-audacity-of-the-googl_b_255490.html

Friday, August 14, 2009

After University of Kansas Approves Open Access, SPARC Pushes for More; Library Journal, 8/13/09

Norman Oder via Library Journal; After University of Kansas Approves Open Access, SPARC Pushes for More:

"First public university in U.S. to adopt OA; will use KU Scholar Works:

In June, the University of Kansas, Lawrence, became the first public university in the United States to adopt an open access (OA) regarding scholarly research, and SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) is offering resources to encourage other universities to take the plunge.

Under the faculty-initiated policy, faculty members will send digital copies of their articles to KU ScholarWorks, created in 2005, which houses more than 4400 articles. Professors can seek a waiver via a process to developed by a Senate task force in the coming academic year...

“Granting the university the right to deposit a copy of scholarly journal articles in an open digital repository extends the reach of the scholarship, providing the widest possible audience and increasing its possible impact,” said Lorraine J. Haricombe, dean of libraries.

SPARC effortNoting that many faculty members and administrators remain unfamiliar with OA, SPARC now offers a suite of web-based tools concerning issues like copyright, journal sustainability, disciplinary differences, and author rights.

Publicly available tools include the SPARC guide to implementing a campus open-access policy; background on the Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences policy (passed in February 2008), the first in which U.S. faculty voted unanimously for OA as a default; and videos from the SPARC-ACRL forum on the Harvard policy.

Also available by request are two documents based on previous OA campaigns: “Campus open-access policy ‘Choice Points’,” which concerns policy options and recommended steps; and “Responses to common misconceptions about campus open-access policies.”

A group of expert advisers is also available as a resource. “It has become increasingly clear to me that the many efforts on university campuses to draft, promote, and implement open-access policies can benefit from the experiences of others who have been through the process,” said Stuart Shieber, Director of Harvard’s Office of Scholarly Communication."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6676597.html

Textbook Publisher to Rent to College Students; New York Times, 8/14/09

Tamar Lewin via New York Times; Textbook Publisher to Rent to College Students:

"In the rapidly evolving college textbook market, one of the nation’s largest textbook publishers, Cengage Learning, announced Thursday that it would start renting books to students this year, at 40 percent to 70 percent of the sale price.

Students who choose Cengage’s rental option will get immediate access to the first chapter of the book electronically, in e-book format, and will have a choice of shipping options for the printed book. When the rental term — 60, 90 or 130 days — is over, students can either return the textbook or buy it...

Besides giving students a new option, rentals give both publishers and textbook authors a way to continue earning money from their books after the first sale, something they do not get from the sale of used textbooks.

Our authors will get royalties on second and third rentals, just as they would on a first sale,” said Ronald G. Dunn, president and chief executive of Cengage, formerly Thomson Learning. “There’s a tremendous amount of activity around rentals now, but we’re the first higher-education publisher to move in this direction.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/education/14textbook.html?_r=1&hp

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Sony Plans to Adopt Common Format for E-Books; New York Times, 8/13/09

Brad Stone via New York Times; Sony Plans to Adopt Common Format for E-Books:

"On Thursday, Sony Electronics, which sells e-book devices under the Reader brand, plans to announce that by the end of the year it will sell digital books only in the ePub format, an open standard created by a group including publishers like Random House and HarperCollins.

Sony will also scrap its proprietary anticopying software in favor of technology from the software maker Adobe that restricts how often e-books can be shared or copied.

After the change, books bought from Sony’s online store will be readable not just on its own device but on the growing constellation of other readers that support ePub...

“People need to remember, when they buy books that come with digital rights management, they don’t have the freedoms they normally would have with a book,” said Holmes Wilson, campaigns manger of the Free Software Foundation, which obtained the signatures of nearly 4,000 authors and tech pundits on a petition saying Amazon’s anticopying software was a “clear threat to the free exchange of ideas.”

Companies like Sony and Adobe do not want to abandon anticopying measures, fearing that piracy of books would run rampant. Rather, they want to push the e-book industry toward common standards to avoid a replay of Apple’s domination of the digital music business.

Early this decade, Apple sold music from its iTunes store that was protected by its own FairPlay software and could be played only on the iPod.

The result was what is known as “lock-in.” Apple built up extraordinary market power and leverage to dictate terms to the major music labels on matters like the price of digital songs. Then, as now, second-tier players banded together to promote the increased flexibility and choice that open standards gave to consumers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/technology/internet/13reader.html?_r=1&hpw

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Op-Ed: Is Google playing by the book?; Christian Science Monitor, 8/7/09

Op-Ed: Christian Science Monitor; Is Google playing by the book?:

The search giant is on its way to becoming the world's digital library, but a private monopoly raises questions.:

"The idea of digitizing the world's written record and making it freely available to everyone is exhilarating. The ability of a student in Alabama or Albania to have access to the contents of the world's libraries online at their fingertips, for example, is a powerful concept and just one of the ways a free and open Web can lift humanity.

But history shows that when a company – even one with talent and good intentions – acts like a monopoly, it is subject to abuses. Despite the potentially monumental effects of this settlement, it has had little public scrutiny. Yet it needs a rigorous examination.

If it stands, the agreement must include long-term safeguards that allow public access to the full collection at reasonable cost, maintain the rights of copyright holders, and ensure the necessary privacy of those who use the service."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0807/p08s01-comv.html

Saturday, August 8, 2009

As Classrooms Go Digital, Textbooks Are History; New York Times, 8/8/09

Tamar Lewin via New York Times; As Classrooms Go Digital, Textbooks Are History:

"Textbooks have not gone the way of the scroll yet, but many educators say that it will not be long before they are replaced by digital versions — or supplanted altogether by lessons assembled from the wealth of free courseware, educational games, videos and projects on the Web.

“Kids are wired differently these days,” said Sheryl R. Abshire, chief technology officer for the Calcasieu Parish school system in Lake Charles, La. “They’re digitally nimble. They multitask, transpose and extrapolate. And they think of knowledge as infinite.

“They don’t engage with textbooks that are finite, linear and rote,” Dr. Abshire continued. “Teachers need digital resources to find those documents, those blogs, those wikis that get them beyond the plain vanilla curriculum in the textbooks...

But the digital future is not quite on the horizon in most classrooms. For one thing, there is still a large digital divide. Not every student has access to a computer, a Kindle electronic reader device or a smartphone, and few districts are wealthy enough to provide them. So digital textbooks could widen the gap between rich and poor.

“A large portion of our kids don’t have computers at home, and it would be way too costly to print out the digital textbooks,” said Tim Ward, assistant superintendent for instruction in California’s 24,000-student Chaffey Joint Union High School District, where almost half the students are from low-income families.

Many educators expect that digital textbooks and online courses will start small, perhaps for those who want to study a subject they cannot fit into their school schedule or for those who need a few more credits to graduate...

The move to open-source materials is well under way in higher education — and may be accelerated by President Obama’s proposal to invest in creating free online courses as part of his push to improve community colleges.

Around the world, hundreds of universities, including M.I.T. and King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia, now use and share open-source courses. Connexions, a Rice University nonprofit organization devoted to open-source learning, submitted an algebra text to California. ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/education/09textbook.html?_r=1&hp

Friday, August 7, 2009

Disability Group Boosts Google Book Search; Wired's Epicenter, 8/7/09

Ryan Singel via Wired's Epicenter; Disability Group Boosts Google Book Search:

"Google’s Book Search program will help the blind and wheelchair-bound read more, a disability group told a federal judge Wednesday, giving Google some much needed support in its attempt to create the online library and bookstore of the future.

The American Association of People with Disabilities told federal court judge Denny Chin that “vast numbers of books will be opened up for many people for the first time ever,” citing the fact that Google Book Search will digitize books into formats that can be used by specialized readers. The nonprofit group asked the court to approve the controversial copyright settlement that Google struck in 2007 to settle a class action lawsuit filed by authors and publishers.

That’s good news for the search and advertising giant, given the settlement is under investigation by the Justice Department and is facing stiff opposition from rights groups and some authors."

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/08/disability-group-boosts-google-book-search/

Library Organizations Urge DoJ To Take Proactive Role in Google Book Search Settlement; Library Journal, 8/6/09

Norman Oder via Library Journal; Library Organizations Urge DoJ To Take Proactive Role in Google Book Search Settlement:

Groups express concerns about pricing, composition of Book Rights Registry:

"Letter follows up on May meeting.

DoJ should treat settlement as consent decree.

OCA asks Google to request delay in hearing."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6675219.html

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Men at Work loses first stage of copyright lawsuit; Boston Globe, 7/30/09

Kristen Gelineau via Boston Globe; Men at Work loses first stage of copyright lawsuit:

"A music publisher that has accused Australian band Men at Work of stealing the melody to their 1980s smash hit "Down Under" from a campfire song won the first stage of its lawsuit on Thursday seeking royalties from the Aussie anthem.

A federal judge ruled that publisher Larrikin Music owns the copyright to the tune of "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree" -- a Girl Guide favorite from New Zealand to Canada. The judge's ruling clears the way for a further hearing about whether Men at Work is guilty of copyright infringement.

Larrikin claims the distinctive flute riff in "Down Under" was copied from the refrain of "Kookaburra," a song about the native Australian bird written in 1934 by a teacher named Marion Sinclair for a Girl Guides competition. Sinclair died in 1988.

Lawyers for Men at Work's recording companies -- Sony BMG Music Entertainment and EMI Songs Australia -- reject that claim."

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2009/07/30/men_at_work_loses_first_stage_of_copyright_lawsuit/

New Entry in E-Books a Paper Tiger; New York Times, 8/6/09

David Pogue via New York Times; New Entry in E-Books a Paper Tiger:

"You get five free out-of-copyright books to start you off (“Dracula,” “Sense and Sensibility” and so on)...

Besides, if you want free, out-of-copyright books, you can get them on the Kindle, too. They await at Gutenberg.org and other free sites...

And remember, you can never lend, resell or pass on an A or B e-book. You’re buying into proprietary, copy-protected formats — which can have its downsides. Last month, for example, Amazon erased “1984” and “Animal Farm” from its customers’ Kindles by remote control, having discovered a problem with the rights. Amazon refunded the price, but the sense of violation many customers felt was a disturbing wake-up call...

Buying a “free” book entails a 1-cent charge on your credit card, which is refunded at checkout (huh?)...

Barnes & Noble’s e-book initiative has some bright spots: the iPhone and Windows apps are mostly excellent, the concept of free access to public-domain books is sound and being able to read your e-books on your laptop is a no-brainer.

But over all, this is a 1.0 effort — which, incidentally, the company acknowledges. It vows to address the shortcomings."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/technology/personaltech/06pogue.html?_r=1&hpw

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Students Reach Settlement in Turnitin Suit; Chronicle of Higher Education's Wired Campus, 8/3/09

Erica Hendry via Chronicle of Higher Education's Wired Campus; Students Reach Settlement in Turnitin Suit:

"A two-year battle over copyright infringement between four students and Turnitin, a commerical plagiarism-detection service, came to an apparent end last Friday in a settlement that prohibits either party from taking further legal action.

The high-school students first sued iParadigms, Turnitin's parent company, in 2007 for copyright infringement, saying the company took their papers against their will and then made a profit from them.The students' high schools required them to use the service, which scans papers for plagiarism and then adds them to its database, which students argued could easily be hacked.

But the students and their lawyers were handed two decisions against them -- first from the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., in March 2008 and again this April from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit."

http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Students-Reach-Settlement-in/7569/

Free culture or "digital barbarism"? A novelist on copyright; Ars Technica, 8/4/09

Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Free culture or "digital barbarism"? A novelist on copyright:

"In his newest book, novelist Mark Helprin sets out to single-handedly defend copyright from the barbarian freetard hordes. He advocates long-term copyright extensions and happily insults anyone who disagrees with him by comparing them to Idi Amin and Adolf Eichmann. The result is almost... uncivilized...

Given his temperament, it is unsurprising that he is no fan of "giving works back to the community," which happens when they fall out of copyright. But he recognizes that no less an authority than the Constitution says that copyrights are "for limited times" and are meant for the advancement of the community's art and science. What to do? In the op-ed, Helprin made a modest proposal.

"The genius of the framers in making this provision is that it allows for infinite adjustment. Congress is free to extend at will the term of copyright. It last did so in 1998, and should do so again, as far as it can throw. Would it not be just and fair for those who try to extract a living from the uncertain arts of writing and composing to be freed from a form of confiscation not visited upon anyone else? The answer is obvious, and transcends even justice. No good case exists for the inequality of real and intellectual property, because no good case can exist for treating with special disfavor the work of the spirit and the mind."

Or, to sum up: Just keep on extending copyright, baby!"

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/08/one-mans-stand-against-digital-barbarism.ars

New petition demands an end to Kindle DRM, faces long odds; Ars Technica, 8/4/09

Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; New petition demands an end to Kindle DRM, faces long odds:

"It was that decision to link the Kindle hardware and store with a new DRM scheme that led the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to add the Kindle to its "Defective by Design" anti-DRM campaign.

The group has now launched a petition asking Amazon to "remove all DRM, including any ability to control or access the user's library, from the Kindle... Whatever Amazon's reasons for imposing this control may be, they are not as important as the public's freedom to use books without interference or supervision."

The Foundation took particular exception to two decisions that Amazon made. First was the company's decision to address publisher concerns about the Kindle's text-to-speech feature by giving book publishers a way to disable the automated reading of their titles. Second was Amazon's almost unimaginably bad decision to remove already purchased books from customers' devices—and not just any books, but the George Orwell titles 1984 and Animal Farm...

These issues are certainly troubling, and the FSF is right to call Amazon to account for them. But to most consumers, the bigger concern about DRM is vendor lock-in...

The shift to electronic books provides obvious advantages in convenience and portability (every Ars staffer who owns a Kindle swears by it), but those books can only be read on devices that support Kindle DRM. Just as with music, people run the risk of making a significant investment into a product that they cannot resell and which may well become obsolete or unreadable in a decade—or whenever they decide to switch e-reader brands. "

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/08/new-petition-demands-an-end-to-kindle-drm.ars

Copyright Fight Over Famous Wall Street Bull Statue; Tech Dirt, 8/5/09

Mike Masnick via Tech Dirt; Copyright Fight Over Famous Wall Street Bull Statue:

"What is it with statues and copyright claims lately? Following closely on stories about copyright claims against a town's statue of a mermaid (since resolved) and a still ongoing fight over a photo and US postage stamp of the DC Korean War monument, comes the news that the guy who created the famous (infamous?) Wall Street "bull" statue, is suing both the publisher and authors of a new book about the fall of Lehman Bros., for using a photo of the statue on the cover of the book."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090804/0116455762.shtml

Sony to Cut E-Book Prices and Offer New Readers; New York Times, 8/5/09

Brad Stone and Motoko Rich via New York Times; Sony to Cut E-Book Prices and Offer New Readers:

"Sony’s price cut on digital books and the new devices may not be enough to help it catch up to Amazon. One significant drawback to Sony’s new devices is that, unlike the Kindle, they cannot connect wirelessly to an e-book store. Owners of Sony Readers must plug their devices into a computer to buy and download books.

The new Readers also cannot access magazines or newspapers, and Sony has yet to develop a version of its reading software for other devices like the iPhone. Mr. Haber from Sony said that the company was working on developing all of these features."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/technology/personaltech/05sony.html?_r=1&hpw

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Stephenie Meyer's publisher denies 'Breaking Dawn' plagiarism claim; Entertainment Weekly, 8/4/09

Mandi Bierly via Entertainment Weekly; Stephenie Meyer's publisher denies 'Breaking Dawn' plagiarism claim:

"Author Stephenie Meyer has been accused of plagiarizing small portions of Breaking Dawn, the fourth book in her Twilight series, from a novel called The Nocturne by Jordan Scott...

Scott’s attorney, J. Craig Williams, told EW he intends to file a motion for a preliminary injunction stopping the distribution of Breaking Dawn. In a statement, he added, “Jordan Scott began creating The Nocturne in 2003. As she developed the book, originally published in 2006, she regularly posted passages and chapters on her web site, www.jordanscott.com. In reviewing Stephenie Meyer’s Breaking Dawn, released in 2008, we found a number of instances where the text, characters and story line contain substantial similarities to Jordan Scott’s original work. We seek an admission from Ms. Meyer that our client’s copyright was infringed and that Breaking Dawn and all derivative works be discontinued.”"

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/08/04/stephnie-meyer-breaking-dawn/

Press Release: Library Groups Advise DOJ on Proposed Google Book Search Settlement; Association of Research Libraries, 7/30/09

Press Release: Library Groups Advise DOJ on Proposed Google Book Search Settlement; Association of Research Libraries:

"The American Library Association (ALA), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) sent a letter to William Cavanaugh, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division yesterday, requesting the Division to advise the court presiding over the Google Book Settlement to supervise the implementation of the settlement closely, particularly the pricing of institutional subscriptions and the selection of the Book Rights Registry board members.

The letter, which was sent following a meeting the library groups had with the Antitrust Division, also recommended that the Division itself actively monitor the parties’ compliance with the settlement’s provisions."

http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/googledoj.shtml

Google pushes for new law on orphan books; CNet News, 7/31/09

Tom Krazit via CNet News; Google pushes for new law on orphan books:

"If those organizations attacking Google's book search settlement with publishers spent as much time lobbying Congress for better laws concerning those issues, perhaps the controversy would go away, Google's chief Book Search engineer suggested Thursday night.

Google's quest to convince the world it has nothing to fear by its settlement with publishers came to the Computer History Museum Thursday where Dan Clancy, engineering director for Google Book Search, defended the settlement before a few hundred attendees who submitted written questions to John Hollar, president and CEO of the museum...

The Internet Archive has been one of the more prominent critics of Google's Book Search settlement, and distributed a statement prior to Thursday's event saying just that. "...no one else has the same legal protections that Google has. Would the parties to the settlement amend the settlement to extend legal liability indemnification to any and all digitizers of orphan works? If not, why not leave orphans out of the settlement and compel a legislative solution instead of striking a private deal in a district court?"

Under the settlement, the Books Rights Registry is allowed to cut deals with other companies or organizations looking to digitize books, but they are not allowed to extend the same privileges Google enjoys with respect to orphan works, which Clancy estimated as about 10 percent of the books that are out of print but still protected by copyright.

That's why a legislative solution that fixes the problems concerning orphan works is the best outcome for everyone with a stake in book digitization, and Google is leaning on Congress to get such a law passed, Clancy said. Given the pressing issues before Congress at the moment--not to mention the complexity of copyright law--finding champions for such legislation has been difficult, he said.

Google thinks that by obtaining the right to digitize orphan works, it will stimulate demand for digital book scanning that eventually forces Congress to act. Any law passed to loosen restrictions on the use of orphan works would take precedent over Google's settlement."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10300887-93.html

Op-Ed: Nancy Sinatra; New York Times, 8/4/09

Op-Ed: Nancy Sinatra; New York Times:

"Terrestrial radio is the only radio platform that still doesn’t have to pay these royalties. Internet radio and satellite radio pay artists when they play their records, so do cable television music channels. In fact, AM and FM radio stations that stream their signal online pay performance royalties.

The United States is one of a small number of countries where artists and musicians are not compensated when their music is played on over-the-air radio. Because the United States doesn’t have performance royalties, radio stations in countries that do collect them do not have to pay American artists. In many of these countries, American artists make up as much as 50 percent of radio airplay, and this prevents millions of dollars — industry estimates are $100 million a year — from flowing into our economy.

I believe in a performance royalty because recording artists and musicians from every generation deserve to be compensated for their art."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/opinion/04sinatra.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=sinatra&st=Search

Podcast [7 min. 56 sec.]: $675K fine for music downloads; CNN, 8/4/09

Podcast [7 min. 56 sec.]: $675K fine for music downloads:

A college student who shared music he downloaded talks about the $675,000 fine:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/08/04/am.tenenbaum.music.fine.cnn

Monday, August 3, 2009

The Google Book Settlement and the Fair Use Counterfactual; Social Science Research Network, 7/22/09

Matthew Sag, DePaul University College of Law via Social Science Research Network; The Google Book Settlement and the Fair Use Counterfactual:

"Abstract:

This Article compares the Settlement to the most likely outcome of the litigation the settlement resolves. The counterfactual I explore in some detail assumes that the court would have found that the digitization necessary to construct the Google book search engine was protected by copyright law’s fair use doctrine. Although this issue is now unlikely to be litigated, it is nonetheless essential to almost any frame of analysis of the Settlement.

I argue that the fair use issues in relation to the Google Book Search Library Project have been largely misunderstood. Although Google had a very strong set of arguments relating to fair use, it was not likely to receive the courts unqualified approval for its massive digitization effort. Instead, the most likely outcome of the litigation was that book digitization would qualify as a fair use so long as copyright owners were given the opportunity to opt out of inclusion in the book database and that opportunity was made freely available at a cost that was essentially trivial.

From this perspective, the terms of the settlement did not differ significantly from the most likely outcome of the litigation. Essentially, the opt out that fair use would likely have required has been replaced by the ability of copyright owners to opt out of the class-action settlement and the significant opt-out and modification opportunities within the settlement itself.

This Article contains a detailed discussion of the terms of the Settlement. "

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1437812

Sunday, August 2, 2009

In a Mermaid Statue, Danes Find Something Rotten in State of Michigan; Wall Street Journal, 7/27/09

Timothy Aeppel via Wall Street Journal; In a Mermaid Statue, Danes Find Something Rotten in State of Michigan:

Small Town's Ode to Ethnic Culture Draws Call From 'the Art Police' Over Licensing:

"This town's statue of Hans Christian Andersen's "Little Mermaid" is a symbol of its proud Danish heritage. Now some are saying she doesn't have permission to be in the country.

Nobody disputes the sculpture -- installed in 1994 as part of Greenville's annual Danish Festival -- was inspired by the famous one in Copenhagen.

The problem is that this ode to the old country allegedly infringes the copyright of Danish artist Edvard Eriksen. In May, just as preparations for this year's Danish-themed festivities were getting under way, the town got a letter from the Artists Rights Society -- a New York-based organization that enforces copyrights on behalf of artists, including Andy Warhol and Picasso. The letter said that the statue is an "unauthorized reproduction" and had to come down. If not, the town would have to pay a licensing fee."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124865622123982685.html

Copyright Cops Go After Town For Creating Little Mermaid Statue; Tech Dirt, 7/31/09

Mike Masnick via Tech Dirt; Copyright Cops Go After Town For Creating Little Mermaid Statue:

"Dan sends in yet another story about copyright gone wrong. Apparently the small town of Greenville Michigan has a strong Danish heritage, and wanted to show that off with some artifact representing Denmark. It chose the iconic Little Mermaid statue, based on Hans Christian Andersen's story, and a similar iconic statue in Denmark. Apparently, however, the family of the artist who created the statue in Denmark is trying to clamp down and is demanding a lump sum payment or that the statue be taken down. The actual artist died in 1959... but thanks to recent extensions in copyright (yippee), copyright now lasts life plus seventy years.

Of course, I'm wondering if the statue even violates the copyright at all. While the town says it was inspired by the one in Denmark, the actual statue is different:

At about 30 inches high, it's half the size of the original and has a different face and other distinct features, including larger breasts. "We've gotten a lot of heat about that too," he says.

Considering that so much of the statue is different, is it even a copyright violation at all?"

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0337175728.shtml

Will Google Book Search Settlement Increase Access for Underserved Communities?; Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 7/31/09

Lois Elfman via Diverse Issues in Higher Education; Will Google Book Search Settlement Increase Access for Underserved Communities?:

"“Access is the big concern,” said Steven D. Jamar, professor of law at Howard University School of Law and associate director of Howard’s Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice, which on Wednesday held a panel discussion on the settlement. “Just because you’ve digitized doesn’t make it available.

Lateef Mtima, professor of law at Howard University School of Law and director of IIPSJ, has long noted that copyright protections have repeatedly been used to keep underserved members of the population from having access to a great deal of material.

For us, the digital divide has always been a constitutional copyright issue,” Mtima said. “We are at a point that it is possible for many of those underserved and marginalized people in society to finally have the kind of access to all the creative expression and literary works - that was just not possible before.”

Among the panelists at Howard was Charlie Brown, adviser to the president of the National Federation for the Blind. The settlement agreement provides access for the visually impaired.

Mtima is concerned that some copyright constituents will take advantage of the opportunities that the settlement agreement presents and try to shape it in a way that will continue to deny access to the underserved. Authors and publishers do have a right to opt their books out and not allow them to be digitized. There are also issues about copyright holders such as photographers or illustrators trying to prevent their work from being digitized with a book’s text, potentially leaving a book incomplete.

“It’s perfectly fine for people to raise a variety of questions and points that indicate that this project is not perfect,” Mtima said. “Those of us who are genuinely interested in the intellectual property law and copyright protection as an engine for social justice and social advancement in society it’s our job to keep the conversation in the right context and keep our thumbs on the right priorities.”

He added that he’s very pleased to see that there will be copyright protections for Black authors whose works have often been celebrated but often uncompensated. But tangential issues cannot override the incredible benefit of having vast amounts of knowledge accessible at virtually everyone’s fingertips. It is also important that there be sufficient numbers of terminals in urban libraries and affordable prices for smaller institutions."

http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12796.shtml

Op-Ed: New York Times: Swan Songs?, 7/31/09

Op-Ed: Charles M. Blow via New York Times; Swan Songs?:

"The problem is that if people can get the music they want for free, why would they ever buy it, or even steal it? They won’t. According to a March study by the NPD Group, a market research group for the entertainment industry, 13- to 17-year-olds “acquired 19 percent less music in 2008 than they did in 2007.” CD sales among these teenagers were down 26 percent and digital purchases were down 13 percent.

And a survey of British music fans, conducted by the Leading Question/Music Ally and released last month, found that the percentage of 14- to 18-year-olds who regularly share files dropped by nearly a third from December 2007 to January 2009. On the other hand, two-thirds of those teens now listen to streaming music “regularly” and nearly a third listen to it every day.

This is part of a much broader shift in media consumption by young people. They’re moving from an acquisition model to an access model.

Even if they choose to buy the music, the industry has handicapped its ability to capitalize on that purchase by allowing all songs to be bought individually, apart from their albums. This once seemed like a blessing. Now it looks more like a curse.

In previous forms, you had to take the bad with the good. You may have only wanted two or three songs, but you had to buy the whole 8-track, cassette or CD to get them. So in a sense, these bad songs help finance the good ones. The resulting revenue provided a cushion for the artists and record companies to take chances and make mistakes. Single song downloads helped to kill that.

A study last year conducted by members of PRS for Music, a nonprofit royalty collection agency, found that of the 13 million songs for sale online last year, 10 million never got a single buyer and 80 percent of all revenue came from about 52,000 songs. That’s less than one percent of the songs.

So it was no surprise that The Financial Times reported on Monday that Apple is working with the four largest labels to seduce people into buying more digital albums. It’s too little too late."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/opinion/01blow.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=charles%20blow&st=cse

Oy Tenenbaum! RIAA wins $675,000, or $22,500 per song; Ars Technica, 7/31/09

Ben Sheffner via Ars Technica; Oy Tenenbaum! RIAA wins $675,000, or $22,500 per song:

After a brief deliberation, a federal jury has ruled that PhD student Joel Tenenbaum willfully infringed on the record labels' copyrights, awarding them $675,000 in damages, $22,500 for each of the 30 songs in question. Ars reports with reaction from Tenenbaum and his attorney, Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson.

"A Boston federal jury has ordered Joel Tenenbaum to pay a total of $675,000—$22,500 per song—to the major record labels for willfully infringing 30 songs by downloading and distributing them over the KaZaA peer-to-peer network. The figure is closer to the $222,000 award in the first Jammie Thomas-Rasset trial than the $1.92 million figure from the second trial.

The verdict came down at late Friday afternoon after a little more than three hours of deliberation."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/o-tenenbaum-riaa-wins-675000-or-22500-per-song.ars

My Kindle ate my homework: lawsuit filed over 1984 deletion; Ars Technica, 7/31/09

John Timmer via Ars Technica; My Kindle ate my homework: lawsuit filed over 1984 deletion:

A suit filed on Amazon's home turf claims that the company's recent deletion of e-books from consumers' Kindles violates its contract with users and constitutes computer fraud.

"Amazon attracted a lot of unwanted attention when it used its Kindle e-book reader's always-on network connection to delete copies of works by George Orwell that had been sold without a proper license. The company has since apologized to its users and promised that it will never happen again, but those steps aren't enough for some. A lawsuit has been filed in Seattle that seeks class action status for Kindle owners and Orwell readers, alleging that Amazon has done everything from committing computer fraud to eating a high school student's homework.

One of the plaintiffs, Justin Gawronski, has a compelling story about his experience with Amazon's memory hole. Apparently, he was reading his copy of 1984 as a summer assignment for school, and had been using one of the Kindle's selling points—the ability to attach notes to specific parts of the e-book text—to prepare for his return to school. Since he was actively reading the work when Amazon pulled the plug, he actually got to watch the work vanish from his screen. He's left with a file of notes that are divorced from the text that they reference. A second plaintiff is named, but he just seems to have gotten poor customer service when he complained about the deletion.

But the firm that filed the suit clearly expects that these two individuals are hardly alone, and it seeks class-action status, with three different degrees of harm. The first is simply Kindle owners, who have allegedly seen their device's resale value drop due to Amazon's actions. The second is those that lost a copy of a digital work, and the final class are those, like Gawronski, that have put effort into annotating a work, only to see the underlying text vanish."

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/07/my-kindle-ate-my-homework-lawsuit-filed-over-1984-deletion.ars