Friday, October 23, 2009

EFF Urges Court to Ensure Fairness in Google Book Search Amendment Process; Electronic Frontier Foundation, 10/22/09

Cindy Cohn, Electronic Frontier Foundation; EFF Urges Court to Ensure Fairness in Google Book Search Amendment Process:

"EFF today led a coalition of authors, publishers, companies and nonprofit organizations in sending a letter to the judge overseeing the Google Book Search settlement urging the Court to ensure that those concerned about the settlement receive adequate notice of, and have sufficient time to study and comment on, any amended settlement agreement that Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers present.

Those following the twists and turns of the Google Book Search settlement will recall that the original Fairness Hearing scheduled for October 7, 2009, was put off because of what the Court called: "significant issues, as demonstrated not only by the number of objections, but also by the fact that the objectors include countries, states, non-profit organizations, and prominent authors and law professors." The Court received over 400 submissions about the settlement, including the EFF-led coalition of authors and publishers concerned about reader privacy, as well as significant concerns raised by the Department of Justice.

As a result, the parties have promised the Court that they will submit an amended settlement on November 9, 2009. Today's letter arises from the parties' discussions with the Court in which they have suggested that the amendments to the already complex agreement be subject to limited notice and ability to comment and a truncated schedule ending with a Fairness Hearing in late December or early November. It states: "We signatories raised different specific concerns and issues about this settlement from a number of different vantage points. We are united, however, in our concern that the parties' requests to limit notice and the time and scope of objections will be unfair to us and to other class members."

The Google Book Settlement is simply too important -- and too complex -- to be rushed through the court approval processes without sufficient opportunity for analysis and comment."

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/eff-urges-court-ensure-fairness-google-book-search

Thursday, October 22, 2009

HathiTrust Launching Full-Text Library of Books; Information Today, 10/22/09

Barbara Quint, Information Today; HathiTrust Launching Full-Text Library of Books:

"With all the controversy still swirling around Google Books and its post-settlement offerings, an alternative route to the millions of digitized books and journals supplied by leading Google Book Search library partners has arrived. The HathiTrust (www.hathitrust.org) is a collaboration of 25 research libraries already participating in Google Book Search to produce a shared digital repository for preservation and access to a curated collection. By mid-November, the HathiTrust Digital Library will have a full-featured, full-text search service for 4.3-5 million items. The searches will retrieve bibliographic citations and page references, including those for in-copyright books. Content will extend beyond the digitized copies of books returned to early library partners by Google. HathiTrust is pushing to acquire other digitized special collections from its members, as well as making arrangements for opening access to university press books.

Begun in October 2008, HathiTrust members currently include the 10 University of California system libraries, plus the California Digital Library, Indiana University, Michigan State University, Northwestern University, The Ohio State University, Penn State University, Purdue University, The University of Chicago, University of Illinois, University of Illinois at Chicago, The University of Iowa, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the University of Virginia. The depository currently includes digitized volumes from the University of Michigan, University of California, Indiana University, and the University of Wisconsin."

http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/NewsBreaks/HathiTrust-Launching-FullText-Library-of-Books-57575.asp

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

A New Electronic Reader, the Nook, Enters the Market; New York Times, 10/21/09

Motoko Rich, New York Times; A New Electronic Reader, the Nook, Enters the Market:

"As widely expected, Barnes & Noble unveiled its Nook electronic reading device at a splashy news conference on Tuesday to generally positive views from the publishing community, and offered some details about its whispered-about lending capabilities.

The Nook electronic reading device from Barnes & Noble was unveiled Tuesday, offering a competitor to the Kindle.

As much as anything, publishers seemed relieved that Barnes & Noble, which operates the nation’s largest chain of bookstores, had produced a credible alternative to Amazon’s Kindle. The Nook, priced at $259, went on sale Tuesday afternoon at nook.com, at a price that matched the latest edition of the Kindle. The Nook will ship starting in late November.

Amazon currently dominates the market for electronic readers. Estimates vary, but according to the Codex Group, a consultant to the publishing industry, Amazon has sold about 945,000 units, compared with 525,000 units of the Sony Reader...

One of the differentiating factors of the Nook is that customers can “lend” books to friends. But customers may lend out any given title only one time for a total of 14 days and they cannot read it on their own Nook while it is lent."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/technology/21nook.html?scp=1&sq=nook&st=cse

E-Book Fans Keep Format in Spotlight; New York Times, 10/21/09

Brad Stone, New York Times; E-Book Fans Keep Format in Spotlight:

"The publishing industry has been under a dark cloud recently.

Sales are down this year, despite prominent books by Dan Brown and Edward M. Kennedy. Wal-Mart and Amazon are locked in a war for e-commerce dominance, creating new worries among publishers and authors about dwindling profits.

But amid the gloom, some sellers and owners of electronic reading devices are making the case that people are reading more because of e-books.

Amazon for example, says that people with Kindles now buy 3.1 times as many books as they did before owning the device. That factor is up from 2.7 in December 2008. So a reader who had previously bought eight books from Amazon would now purchase, on average, 24.8 books, a rise from 21.6 books.

“You are going to see very significant industry growth rates as a result of the convenience of this kind of reading,” said Jeffrey P. Bezos, chief executive of Amazon."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/technology/21books.html?scp=1&sq=e-books&st=cse

In Book-Pricing Battle, How Low Can They Go?; New York Times, 10/21/09

Motoko Rich, New York Times; In Book-Pricing Battle, How Low Can They Go?:

"On Monday Target began offering customers who ordered any of six soon-to-be published books on its Web site the same $8.99 price that Wal-Mart has been offering since Friday for 10 titles on its Web site.

Wal-Mart.com had originally offered the books for $10, then dropped to $9 on Friday after Amazon.com had matched its $10 price. When Amazon also went to $9, Wal-Mart cut its price by just a penny. And sure enough, when Target.com, the newcomer to the price war, matched that $8.99 on six of the books, Wal-Mart responded on Tuesday by dropping its price on those books to $8.98."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/books/21price.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=motoko%20rich%20penny%20war&st=cse

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Google book digitization prompts the EU to rethink copyright; Ars Technica, 10/19/09

John Timmer, Ars Technica; Google book digitization prompts the EU to rethink copyright:

"The legal settlement that would sanctify Google's book digitization efforts may be on hold, but that hasn't stopped the sniping over digitization in general, and Google's specific role in vending e-books. The Frankfurt Book Fair, a major publishing event, is playing host to the latest skirmishes over what role Google and other organizations should play in controlling access to digitized material. Google continues to insist that it's doing the world a favor by preserving knowledge and bringing lost books back to the public, but at least some European academics are blasting the company's statements as propaganda. In the meantime, however, the EU itself has used the Fair to announce an effort to update its copyright laws and launch its own pan-European digital library.

The Google book settlement was not well received within the EU, in part because of the same sorts of competition concerns that caused the US Department of Justice to weigh in against it. But Europeans had some distinct concerns, as Google has scanned copies of European works that reside in US Libraries, even though these were never licensed for US distribution. This unlicensed content was especially problematic given the settlement's structure, which would allow Google to distribute the works unless their owners explicitly opted out.

Google eventually made some concessions in an attempt to mollify its European critics, and these seem to have at least produced some fruitful discussions. Today, the European Commission released a statement entitled "Copyright in the Knowledge Economy" that suggests that the EU may be ready to tackle copyright reform for digital works.

The document describes extensive consultations with stakeholders, including libraries and publishers, and discusses the impact that digitization could have on improving access to orphaned works, preserving content, and making works accessible to the disabled. Although all of these are presented as a public good, the documents and statements by Commissioners that accompanied its release make it clear that Google was a major impetus for this effort. The company is mentioned by name several times, and Commissioner Viviane Reding said that updating the rules governing books had acquired a degree of urgency due to Google's actions: "If we act swiftly, pro-competitive European solutions on books digitisation may well be sooner operational than the solutions presently envisaged under the Google Books Settlement in the United States."

Of course, acting swiftly may be a relative thing, given that the EU has yet to even harmonize the rules governing copyrighted books among its member states...

[T]he EU government also had an open access announcement to make at the meeting. It's gone back and digitized all 50 years of its own documents, and has placed all 12 million pages online at the EU Bookshop. The documents are available to the public for free in PDF form, and will eventually appear in the Europeana digital archive."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/google-book-digitization-prompts-the-eu-to-rethink-copyright.ars

Google Books Settlement: The Chinese Chapter; Wall Street Journal, 10/20/09

Juliet Ye, Wall Street Journal; Google Books Settlement: The Chinese Chapter:

"Google’s troubles in China seem to have taken a new turn as a result of the company’s plan to create a vast digital library of books.

The China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS) has called on Chinese writers to stand up for their legal rights in the face of Web search giant Google’s proposed book settlement, according to a post published on the official Web site of Chinese Writers’ Association (CWA).
CWWCS claimed to have found copyrighted works written by a number of Chinese writers scanned and posted to Google’s digital library, Google Books."

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/10/20/google-books-settlement-the-chinese-chapter/

Monday, October 19, 2009

Google's e-book plan slammed as 'hysterical garbage'; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/19/09

Sydney Morning Herald; Google's e-book plan slammed as 'hysterical garbage':

""Garbage" and "hysterical propaganda" was one angry reaction at the world's biggest book fair this year when Google, the world's biggest internet search service, defended plans to turn millions of books into electronic literature available online.

The row erupted at the 61st international Frankfurt Book Fair, a major annual literary event.

A literature professor from Germany's Heidelberg University responded sharply to Google Books, a massive project to give the world access to books otherwise hard or impossible to obtain.

Describing Google's claims as "just a whole garbage of hysterical propaganda," Professor Roland Reuss warned of a threat to traditional publishing, saying at a forum on the issue: "You revolutionize the market but the cost is that the producers of goods in this market will be demolished."

Google's head of Print Content Partnerships in Britain, Santiago de la Mora, responded: "We're solving one of the big problems in the world, that is books are pretty much dead in the sense that they are not being found."

"We're bringing these books back to life, making them more visible to 1.8 billion internet users in a very controlled way," de la Mora said.

Google Books is facing big legal problems in the United States, Europe and elsewhere around the globe over the key issue of copyright laws."

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/googles-ebook-plan-slammed-as-hysterical-garbage-20091019-h3ha.html

The Copyright Wars; Letters to Editor, New York Times, 10/16/09

Letters to Editor, New York Times re Lewis Hyde 10/4/09 NYTimes essay "Advantage Google"; The Copyright Wars:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/books/review/Letters-t-THECOPYRIGHT_LETTERS.html?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse

ACTA Text Revealed To 42 Select Insiders; Intellectual Property Watch, 10/15/09

Intellectual Property Watch; ACTA Text Revealed To 42 Select Insiders:

"In the weeks leading up to the next negotiating session (first week of November in Seoul) of the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, 42 Washington, DC-area insiders, mostly from industry, were invited by the United States Trade Representatives to see copies of its text on the internet, according to a new report.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request to the USTR, think-tank Knowledge Ecology International received copies [pdf] of the non-disclosure agreements the insiders signed prior to viewing the ACTA text.

The list included several members of software industry group the Business Software Alliance, online auction site eBay, internet media giant Google, conservative media conglomerate News Corporation, and nongovernmental group Public Knowledge, among others.

A full list of names of those who saw the draft, and their affiliations, is available on the KEI website here."

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/10/15/acta-text-revealed-to-42-select-insiders/

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Burberry sues Pets At Home over designs for dog accessories; Guardian, 10/18/09

Simon Bowers, Guardian; Burberry sues Pets At Home over designs for dog accessories:

"The famous Burberry check, which made a triumphant return to London Fashion Week last month, is the subject of a legal row between the high fashion house and pet accessories chain Pets At Home.

Burberry is suing the retail chain claiming material used on items such as dog coats and baskets sold in the retailers' 250 stores had used a plaid design amounting to a copyright infringement. Products are understood to have been pulled from shops, but the dispute has yet to be resolved."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/18/burberry-sues-pets-at-home

Texas Instruments: Don't hack your calculators, or else; Guardian, 10/15/09

Bobbie Johnson, Guardian; Texas Instruments: Don't hack your calculators, or else:

""This is not about copyright infringement. This is about running your own software on your own device - a calculator you legally bought," said EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick. "Yet TI still issued empty legal threats in an attempt to shut down discussion of this legitimate tinkering. Hobbyists are taking their own tools and making them better, in the best tradition of American innovation.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/15/texas-instruments-calculator

Do Libraries Need Permission To Lend Out Ebooks?; Techdirt, 10/16/09

Mike Masnick, Techdirt; Do Libraries Need Permission To Lend Out Ebooks?:

"Some publishers are refusing to allow libraries to lend out their ebooks...which makes me wonder why the publishers have any say in the matter. Thanks to the right of first sale, a library should be able to lend out an ebook if it's legally purchased it without having to get the publisher's permission."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091015/1511426550.shtml

Google starts new chapter in the battle for e-books; Independent, 10/17/09

Independent; Google starts new chapter in the battle for e-books:

"Google has opened a new flank in the war for the e-book market as executives this week flew to Germany to sweet-talk publishers into joining their imminent online book store.

The latest drive to dominate digital titles could set it up for a bitter battle with Amazon. Some, however, believe the announcement was little than a political manoeuvre by the web giant, which is also embroiled with publishers in court battles over its Google Book Search project to digitally archive the world's libraries.

The rise of the e-book has dominated talk at the Frankfurt Book Fair this week, and it hit fever pitch when the technology giant revealed its plans for Google Editions next year.
A spokesman for the web giant said: "Google's whole business is based around helping people find the information they need. A large amount of information is not on websites, it is in books, and we want to make sure that these books are not forgotten."

The plan is to launch an online bookstore with about 500,000 titles available to anyone with a web browser in the first half of next year. Google will sell the books itself – taking 37 per cent of the revenues and handing the rest to the publishers – or act as an access point for users to buy through another online retailer with Google keeping a small share of the sales. It wants to create partnerships with thousands of publishers around the world, and paved the way with its pitch in Frankfurt."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/google-starts-new-chapter-in-the-battle-for-ebooks-1804446.html

Google Editions Embraces Universal E-book Format; PC World, 10/16/09

Ian Paul, PC World; Google Editions Embraces Universal E-book Format:

"Google will launch an e-book store called Google Editions with a "don't be evil" twist. Unlike Google's biggest competitors, Amazon and Barnes & Noble, which rely heavily on restrictive DRM, Google's store will not be device-specific--allowing for e-books purchased through Google Editions to be read on the far greater number of e-book readers that will flood the market in 2010.

Google's e-books will be accessible through any Web-enabled computer, e-reader, or mobile phone instead of a dedicated device. This will allow content to be unchained from expensive devices such as Amazon's Kindle e-book reader. However, as democratizing as this sounds, it's still unclear how many people are ready to curl up with a Google Editions title on their laptop or smartphone, instead of the traditional paper format.

Google Editions: The Basics

The new e-book store will launch sometime during the first half of 2010, and will have about 500,000 titles at launch. Under Google's payment scheme, publishers will receive about 63 percent of the gross sales, and Google will keep the remaining 37 percent."

http://www.pcworld.com/article/173789/google_editions_embraces_universal_ebook_format.html

‘Hope’ Poster Artist Admits Error; New York Times, 10/17/09

Associated Press via New York Times; ‘Hope’ Poster Artist Admits Error:

"The artist who designed the famous Barack Obama ''HOPE'' poster has admitted he didn't use the Associated Press photo he originally said his work was based on but instead used a picture the news organization has claimed was his source.

Shepard Fairey, a Los Angeles-based street artist with a long, often proud history of breaking rules, said in a statement Friday that he was wrong about which photo he used and that he tried to hide his error. It was not immediately clear whether he would drop his lawsuit against the AP over the use of the photo.

''In an attempt to conceal my mistake, I submitted false images and deleted other images,'' said Fairey, who has been involved in countersuits with the AP, which has alleged copyright infringement. ''I sincerely apologize for my lapse in judgment, and I take full responsibility for my actions, which were mine alone.''

He said he was taking steps to correct the information and regretted that he didn't come forward sooner."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/17/arts/AP-US-AP-Poster-Artist.html

A.P. Says Shepard Fairey Lied About ‘Hope’ Poster; New York Times, 10/16/09

Anahad O'Connor, New York Times; A.P. Says Shepard Fairey Lied About ‘Hope’ Poster:

"Lawyers for the visual artist who created the famous “Hope” poster of Barack Obama have acknowledged that he lied about which photograph he based the poster on and that he fabricated evidence in an effort to bolster his lawsuit against The Associated Press, according to a statement released by The A.P. on Friday night.

The artist, Shepard Fairey, is best known for his iconic poster of Mr. Obama — head cocked to one side, eyes pointed skyward — that gained international recognition during the presidential election. The A.P. sought credit and compensation from Mr. Fairey earlier this year, claiming that the poster was based on one of its photographs and that Mr. Fairey needed permission to use it. Mr. Fairey then filed suit against The A.P. in February, citing fair-use exceptions to copyright law, which prompted The A.P. to file a countersuit in March, claiming “misappropriation.”

But in a statement released Friday night, Srinandan R. Kasi, The A.P.’s general counsel, said that Mr. Fairey’s lawyers had acknowledged he lied when he claimed in court papers that he used a different photograph of Mr. Obama than the one The A.P. has alleged.

“Fairey’s lies about which photo was the source image were discovered after the AP had spent months asking Fairey’s counsel for documents regarding the creation of the posters, including copies of any source images that Fairey used,” Mr. Kasi said. “Fairey’s counsel has now admitted that Fairey tried to destroy documents that would have revealed which image he actually used.”
Lawyers for Mr. Fairey also acknowledged that he created fake documents to conceal which image he used and fake stencil patterns of the “Hope” and “Progress” posters, Mr. Kasi said. The statement hinted at turmoil between Mr. Fairey and his lawyers, and suggested The A.P. would continue its battle with the artist.

“Fairey’s counsel informed the AP that they intended to seek the Courts permission to withdraw as counsel for Fairey and his related entities,” Mr. Kasi said. “The AP intends to vigorously pursue its countersuit alleging that Fairey willfully infringed the AP’s copyright in the close-up photo of then-Sen. Obama by using it without permission to create the Hope and Progress posters and related products, including T-shirts and sweatshirts that have led to substantial revenue.”

Update 12:55 a.m. A lawyer for Mr. Fairey, Anthony Falzone, wrote in an e-mail message early Saturday morning: “This is a very unfortunate situation. I hope it does not obscure the underlying issues of fair use and free expression at the center of this case. But as Mr. Fairey’s attorney, it would not be appropriate for me to comment beyond that.”"

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/ap-says-shepard-fairey-lied-about-hope-poster/?scp=6&sq=copyright&st=cse

Friday, October 16, 2009

A Legal Blast From the Past: Course-Pack Company Loses Copyright Lawsuit; Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/15/09

Eric Kelderman, Chronicle of Higher Education; A Legal Blast From the Past: Course-Pack Company Loses Copyright Lawsuit:

"Norman Miller, who owns the company Excel Test Preparation, Coursepacks & Copies, in Ann Arbor, Mich., might have benefited from knowing more about James M. Smith and his company, Michigan Document Services, which also operated in Ann Arbor.

In 1996 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against Mr. Smith's company, saying it had infringed on publishers' copyrights by providing course packs and anthologies of excerpted materials to students at his copy shop.

The ruling affirmed a 1991 federal-court decision against Kinko's Copy Centers for similar infractions and seemed to settle the matter, legally, that a for-profit entity could not reproduce such material under the "fair use" provision of the law without getting permission or paying copyright fees to the publishers.

The U.S. District Court in Ann Arbor referred to that decision in its ruling Wednesday against Mr. Miller, who was being sued by a group of five publishing companies: Blackwell Publishing, Elsevier, Oxford University Press, Sage Publications, and John Wiley & Sons."

http://chronicle.com/article/A-Legal-Blast-From-the-Past-/48824/

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Google Books Is Not a Library; Huffington Post, 10/13/09

Pamela Samuelson, Huffington Post; Google Books Is Not a Library:

"Sergey Brin published an op-ed in the New York Times last Friday likening the Google Book initiative to the famous ancient library of Alexandria. Brin suggested that Google Books would be "a library to last forever," unlike its Alexandrian counterpart that was ravaged by fire...

Unlike the Alexandria library or modern public libraries, the Google Book Search (GBS) initiative is a commercial venture that aims to monetize millions of out-of-print books, many of which are "orphans," that is, books whose rights holders cannot readily be found after a diligent search...

If Google Books was just a library, as Brin claims, library associations would not have submitted briefs expressing reservations about the GBS settlement to the federal judge who will be deciding whether to approve the deal. Libraries everywhere are terrified that Google will engage in price-gouging when setting prices for institutional subscriptions to GBS contents. Google is obliged to set prices in conjunction with a newly created Registry that will represent commercial publishers and authors. Prices for these subscriptions are to be set based on the number of books in the corpus, the services available, and prices of comparable products and services (of which there are none). Given that major research libraries today often pay in excess of $4 million a year for access to several thousand journals, they have good reason to be concerned that Google will eventually seek annual fees in excess of this for subscriptions to millions of GBS books. This is because Google will have a de facto monopoly on out-of-print books. The DOJ has raised concerns that price-setting terms of the GBS deal are anti-competitive.

Besides, Google can sell the GBS corpus to anyone without anyone's consent at any time once the settlement is approved...

Brin and Google's CEO Eric Schmidt have also been saying publicly that anyone can do what Google did--scanning millions of books to make a corpus of digitized books. They perceive Google to have just been bolder and more forward-looking than its rivals in this respect. But this claim is preposterous: By settling a lawsuit about whether scanning books to index them is copyright infringement or fair use, Google is putting at risk the next guy's fair use defense for doing the same...

Brin forgot to mention another significant difference between GBS and traditional libraries: their policies on patron privacy. The proposed settlement agreement contains numerous provisions that anticipate monitoring of uses of GBS content; so far, though, Google has been unwilling to make meaningful commitments to protect user privacy. Traditional libraries, by contrast, have been important guardians of patron privacy...

Anyone aspiring to create a modern equivalent of the Alexandrian library would not have designed it to transform research libraries into shopping malls, but that is just what Google will be doing if the GBS deal is approved as is."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not-a-lib_b_317518.html

Libraries and Readers Wade Into Digital Lending; New York Times, 10/15/09

Motoko Rich, New York Times; Libraries and Readers Wade Into Digital Lending:

"Pam Sandlian Smith, library director of the Rangeview Library District, which serves a suburban community north of Denver, said that instead of purchasing a set number of digital copies of a book, she would prefer to buy one copy and pay a nominal licensing fee each time a patron downloaded it.

Publishers, inevitably, are nervous about allowing too much of their intellectual property to be offered free. Brian Murray, the chief executive of HarperCollins Publishers Worldwide, said Ms. Smith’s proposal was “not a sustainable model for publishers or authors.”

Some librarians object to the current pricing model because they often pay more for e-books than do consumers who buy them on Amazon or in Sony’s online store. Publishers generally charge the same price for e-books as they do for print editions, but online retailers subsidize the sale price of best sellers by marking them down to $9.99."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/books/15libraries.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=libraries%20rich&st=cse

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Pioneers to publish 'personalised papers'; Guardian, 10/14/09

Roy Gleenslade, Guardian; Pioneers to publish 'personalised papers':

"Despite the advance of the net, newsprint newspaper innovation continues apace. Here's a zany idea, for example, dreamed up by two young German entrepreneurs.

They plan to publish papers tailored to readers' individual wishes, and then have them delivered to their doors before 8am.

Customers will choose what topics they want to read about - be it sport, politics, fashion, whatever - and receive news only on their chosen subjects.

The articles will be selected from major German papers, such as Handelsblatt, Bild and Tagesspiegel, foreign titles such as the International Herald Tribune or the New York Times, as well as major blogs and a variety of internet news sources.

The newspaper, called niiu, will carry articles in both English and German and is aimed primarily at students, say newsprint pioneers Hendrik Tiedemann, 27, and Wanja Soeren Oberhof, 23...

But what about the copyright problem? AFP doesn't report on that. Did their reporter even ask? And what realistic chances has it of succeeding? My hunch: virtually none."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/14/newspapers-germany

Still Hoping to Sell Music by the Month; New York Times, 10/14/09

Brad Stone, New York Times; Still Hoping to Sell Music by the Month:

"The idea of selling monthly subscriptions to a vast catalog of online music has met with only limited success. That isn’t stopping a new batch of entrepreneurs from trying to make it work.

The latest and perhaps most surprising entrants to the field are the European entrepreneurs Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis. In 2001, they created and financed Kazaa, one of the original peer-to-peer file-sharing services that hurt the music industry. The two have created and financed a secretive start-up called Rdio, with offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/technology/internet/14music.html?_r=1

Sex Pistols threaten ice-cream firm over 'God Save the Cream' strapline; Guardian, 10/14/09

Mark Sweney, Guardian; Sex Pistols threaten ice-cream firm over 'God Save the Cream' strapline:

Lawyers demand that company stops using Sex Pistols-related imagery on T-shirts, deck chairs and online material

"The company launched its "guerilla ice-cream installation" in Selfridges in September and also uses the phrase "God Save the Cream" in advertising online, on a Facebook profile and the official company website, and in an ad campaign at the Oxford Street department store.

The company also uses a guitar instrumental featuring parts of the national anthem. Promotional material by Selfridges describes the company as "More Sid & Nancy than Ben & Jerry".

Lawyers representing the band are understood to have written a letter to the company demanding that it stop using the Sex Pistols-related strapline and imagery on T-shirts, deck chairs and promotional material online – including the snippet of a guitar version of the national anthem.

There is also understood to be a demand for damages for allegedly "passing off and copyright infringement" based on the fees the band is able to get for licensing its imagery.

"We are a bit dumbfounded that a group that made its reputation for being banned is trying to ban one of our ice creams and claim copyright over the national anthem and the Queen," said Matt O'Connor, founder of the Icecreamists."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/14/sex-pistols-ice-cream

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Samuelson Says Google Book Search Settlement Doesn’t Fully Reflect “Public Trust Responsibilities”; New York Times, 10/13/09

Norman Oder, New York Times; Samuelson Says Google Book Search Settlement Doesn’t Fully Reflect “Public Trust Responsibilities”:

"“You create a public good this substantial, guess what: public trust responsibilities come with it.” So said University of California law professor Pamela Samuelson Friday during a keynote lunch at the D is for Digitize conference, held at New York Law School.

And Google and the plaintiffs, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, have not responded sufficiently, she said, noting concerns about price-gouging for institutional subscriptions and user privacy. With Samuelson on the dais was Paul Courant, the University of Michigan library dean, a Ph.D economist and self-described “faux librarian,”whose library was the first to agree to have its works scanned by Google and supports the project.

“I think the public trust responsibilities are and ought to be widely shared,” Courant said. His bottom line: the benefits of the deal are worth the costs."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6701727.html?desc=topstory

Anka Given Credit for Jackson Song; New York Times, 10/13/09

Ben Sisario, New York Times; Anka Given Credit for Jackson Song:

"When Michael Jackson’s new single, “This Is It,” was released on Sunday night, many listeners were surprised by its resemblance to “I Never Heard,” a 1991 track by the R&B singer Safire, which gave songwriting credit to Mr. Jackson and Paul Anka.

But no one was more surprised than Mr. Anka, who said in an interview on early in the day on Monday that he had not been contacted about the use of the song and that he was not given proper writing credit for the single, which now credits only Mr. Jackson as a writer.

“They have a major, major problem on their hands,” he said. “They will be sued if they don’t correct it."

For Mr. Anka, the song has a long and painful history. He said in an interview that he and Mr. Jackson wrote and recorded it in 1983 in Mr. Anka’s studio in Carmel, Calif., and that it was intended as a duet for Mr. Anka’s album “Walk a Fine Line.” But shortly after it was recorded, Mr. Jackson took the tapes, Mr. Anka said. He threatened to sue to get them back, he said, and now has the original multitrack tapes in his possession, along with documentation that the copyright for the song was held by both."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/arts/music/13anka.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=anka&st=cse

Monday, October 12, 2009

Press Release re Orphan Works Best Practices; Society of American Archivists (SAA), 10/12/09

Peter Hirtle, Press Release re Orphan Works Best Practices:

"The Society of American Archivists (SAA) has issued Orphan Works: Statement of Best Practices, a 16-page report that provides what professional archivists consider the best methods to use when attempting to identify and locate copyright holders. The statement, which primarily focuses on unpublished materials because they are usually found in archives, is available on the association's website as a PDF at http://www.archivists.org/standards/"

Google Co-Founder Defends Book Search Settlement, Draws Criticism; Library Journal, 10/12/09

Norman Oder, Library Journal; Google Co-Founder Defends Book Search Settlement, Draws Criticism:

Says "agreement limits consumer choice in out-of-print books...as much as it limits consumer choice in unicorns."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6701481.html

From ‘Cabaret’ to Kanye, Songs of ‘Glee’ Are a Hit; New York Times, 10/12/09

Edward Wyatt, New York Times; From ‘Cabaret’ to Kanye, Songs of ‘Glee’ Are a Hit:

"Ryan Murphy, the creator of the series, said in an interview in May that the search for music has been an integral part of the script development. “Each episode has a theme at its core,” he said. “After I write the script, I will choose songs that help to move the story along.”

Clearing the rights to the music for the series has not been a problem, he added. “I can’t think of one artist we’ve gone after or a song I wanted that has been denied.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12glee.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=glee&st=cse

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Musicians Starting To Assert Copyright Termination Rights Against Record Labels; Techdirt, 10/9/09

Mike Masnick, Techdirt; Musicians Starting To Assert Copyright Termination Rights Against Record Labels:

"There's been a lot of attention recently to the news that the heirs of comic book artist Jack Kirby are alerting companies of plans to take back the copyright on various Kirby characters, using the termination rights in the Copyright Act. This followed a very long and drawn out lawsuit involving a similar attempt over Superman. The details are really complex, but copyright law allows the original creator (or heirs if that creator has passed away) certain opportunities to basically negate a deal that was signed early on to hand over the copyright on certain works. The idea was to help protect artists who signed bad deals, but in practice, it's just been a total mess.

Still, given the success of the Superman saga in getting at least some of the copyrights back, suddenly lots of people are looking to see what other copyrights can be reclaimed. Apparently, a bunch of musicians are now lining up to try to regain their rights from the labels starting in 2013 (the first year musical works are eligible). As the article notes, with record labels still too clueless to figure out how to successfully build business models around new acts, many still rely on sales of old music to bring in a lot of their revenue. If the labels lose the copyrights on much of that music... well... let's just say suddenly The Pirate Bay may be the least of their concerns."

http://www.techdirt.com/

Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?; TechDirt, 10/9/09

Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Is Balance The Right Standard For Judging Copyright Law?:

http://www.techdirt.com/

Music biz still in need of "radical overhaul" to thrive; Ars Technica, 9/30/09

Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica; Music biz still in need of "radical overhaul" to thrive:

The music industry is stuck in a rut and it needs to make some radical changes if it wants to stop bleeding money, according to Forrester. The firm has several suggestions for how to overhaul music products and insists that they must be consumer-friendly, not business-oriented.

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/09/music-biz-still-in-need-of-radical-overhaul-to-thrive.ars

Kindle now $259, available worldwide with wireless delivery; Ars Technica, 10/11/09

Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica; Kindle now $259, available worldwide with wireless delivery:

The Kindle 2 keeps having its price tag slashed this year, and Amazon has done it again in preparation for the holidays and to keep up with the competition. The company has also begun offering a global wireless feature, allowing users to buy e-books in more than 100 countries.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/10/kindle-now-259-available-worldwide-with-wireless-delivery.ars

Amazon Kindle 2: Centuries of evolved beauty rinsed away; Guardian, 10/10/09

Nicholson Baker, Guardian; Amazon Kindle 2: Centuries of evolved beauty rinsed away:

This week Amazon announced the UK launch of its latest generation of e-reader. But don't all rush at once, warns one American writer – despite the hype, the Kindle 2 is still no match for the book

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/10/amazon-kindle-uk-launch-book

Google digital library plan opposed by Angela Merkel; Guardian, 10/11/09

Jamie Doward and Paul Harris, Guardian; Google digital library plan opposed by Angela Merkel:

"German chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday waded into the row over Google's plans to build a massive digital library.

The move was a remarkable intervention from a leading world politician in a growing dispute about the threat posed by the internet, and Google in particular, to publishing companies, authors and also newspapers.

In her weekly video podcast, before the opening of the Frankfurt Book Fair this week, Merkel appealed for more international co-operation on copyright protection and said her government opposed Google's drive to create online libraries full of scanned books.

"The German government has a clear position: copyrights have to be protected on the internet," Merkel said, adding that there were "considerable dangers" for copyright protection online.

Merkel, who will officially open the world's largest book fair in Germany's financial capital on Tuesday, said there was a need to discuss the issue in greater detail."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/11/google-digital-library-merkel-opposition

Friday, October 9, 2009

"Libraries, Publishers and Leading Advocates Join Open Book Alliance in Calling for Open, Transparent Settlement Process", Reuters, 10/6/09

Reuters; Libraries, Publishers and Leading Advocates Join Open Book Alliance in Calling for Open, Transparent Settlement Process in Google Book Search Case:

"Dozens of leading academic,library, consumer advocacy, organized labor and publishing organizationsjoined the Open Book Alliance today in calling on Google and its litigationpartners to create an open and transparent process to negotiate a settlementin the Google Book Search case.
The parties published an open letter toGoogle, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers,demanding that they include key stakeholders to represent the broad range ofpublic interests in the mass digitization of books. Google and its partnersabandoned a previous settlement proposed in the case after the U.S. Departmentof Justice and others criticized the deal and recommended that the courtreject it, but Google and the plaintiff publishers continue to negotiatebehind closed doors on a revised settlement proposal.

The letter, available at http://www.openbookalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Open-Letter-Oct-6-09.pdf,states in part:

"The Department of Justice identified scores of serious problems with theproposed settlement, which cannot be fixed with simple alterations to theagreement. Other stakeholders raised even more objections, which the partieshave largely ignored. In order to address these very real and very complexchallenges, negotiations on this issue must involve a broad range ofstakeholders in an open and transparent manner."

Joining the Open Book Alliance in calling on Google and its partners to openthe process in service of the public interest are leading library associationssuch as the New York Library Association, the Ohio Library Council, the NewJersey Library Association, and the Special Libraries Association; publisherssuch as the Council of Literary and Magazine Presses and Sarabande Books;writers' representatives such as the National Writers Union/UAW Local 1981;and many others concerned that Google will unfairly monopolize the massdigitization of books, raising prices for consumers and limiting access toimportant literary works.

The letter signatories universally support the goal of book digitization -making books searchable, readable and downloadable. They insist, however, thatGoogle and a few publishing groups not be permitted to be the sole controllersof this major cultural development, saying:

"Discussion and debate about the right way to digitize the world's writtenworks must proceed through a robust process that includes input from allstakeholders, including authors, libraries, independent publishers, consumeradvocates, state Attorneys General, the Justice Department, and Congress.""

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS168494+06-Oct-2009+PRN20091006

Google's Sergey Brin lashes out at critics of $125m book deal; Guardian, 10/9/09

Bobbie Johnson, Guardian; Google's Sergey Brin lashes out at critics of $125m book deal:

"Google co-founder Sergey Brin has hit out at critics who derailed the company's $125m deal with American publishers to give it the right to digitise millions of books...

In a column published in the New York Times, Brin - who founded the internet giant with Larry Page in 1998 - hit out at those objectors, called many of their accusations "myths" while dismissing other concerns as fantasy...

Brin's comments come a day after he came in for fierce criticism from Brewster Kahle, the founder of the non-profit Internet Archive, which has been working to secure a change in copyright law to help digitisation projects. In particular, the archive has been working to clarify the status of so-called "orphan" works - books whose copyright holder remains unknown - by pushing new legislation through the US Congress.

Under Google's proposal, the Californian internet company would have gained the exclusive right to sell advertising or access to orphan works - something Kahle felt was inappropriate.

"Many of us are objecting because we have been working together for years on the mass scanning of out-of-print books – and have worked to get books online for far longer than Google – and Google's 'settlement' could hurt our efforts," he wrote in a blog post on Wednesday. "A major part of our efforts have concentrated on changing the law so everyone would benefit."

"There is an alternative, and they know it — orphan works legislation — that up until the last session of Congress had been working its way through the house and senate. It was not perfect, but was getting close to what we need. Best yet, it passed one house — at least until Google effectively sideswiped the process with their settlement proposal."

In his editorial, Brin admitted that Google would have exclusive rights over such material, at least in the short term - but then suggested that Google's deal would actually help attempts to force through a legislative change.

"While new projects will not immediately have the same rights to orphan works, the agreement will be a beacon of compromise in case of a similar lawsuit, and it will serve as a precedent for orphan works legislation, which Google has always supported and will continue to support.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/09/google-books-brin

OpEd: A Library to Last Forever; New York Times, 10/9/09

Sergey Brin, New York Times; OpEd: A Library to Last Forever:

"In the Insurance Year Book 1880-1881, which I found on Google Books, Cornelius Walford chronicles the destruction of dozens of libraries and millions of books, in the hope that such a record will “impress the necessity of something being done” to preserve them. The famous library at Alexandria burned three times, in 48 B.C., A.D. 273 and A.D. 640, as did the Library of Congress, where a fire in 1851 destroyed two-thirds of the collection.

I hope such destruction never happens again, but history would suggest otherwise. More important, even if our cultural heritage stays intact in the world’s foremost libraries, it is effectively lost if no one can access it easily. Many companies, libraries and organizations will play a role in saving and making available the works of the 20th century. Together, authors, publishers and Google are taking just one step toward this goal, but it’s an important step. Let’s not miss this opportunity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/opinion/09brin.html

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Fighting for the right to download: Sydney Morning Herald, 10/9/09

Jarrad Mitchell, Sydney Morning Herald; Fighting for the right to download:

"It is about time the Australian public rose from the couch. Seemingly overnight, technology has once again made criminals of the majority (recording TV shows was technically illegal until 2006). It might have happened slowly in your household, or perhaps you've been a pirate for a while now.

If, after reading the above passage, you're thinking, “Criminal? Not me!” then listen up: we're all criminals now.

If you don't believe me, just go to the movies where you'll see a hip little advertisement that talks about how, while you wouldn't steal a car, downloading pirated movies is a crime.

Now I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that any law that renders the vast majority of the public criminal is just a little bit ridiculous. But surely there is a good reason for all this hype, right? The answer lies in exploring why we even have copyright."

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/fighting-for-the-right-to-download-20091009-gpnl.html

Japan court acquits file-share software creator; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/8/09

Sydney Morning Herald; Japan court acquits file-share software creator:

"A Japanese high court on Thursday acquitted the creator of a popular file-sharing software program of copyright violations, overturning an earlier conviction.

"It was a very fair judgement," Isamu Kaneko, the 39-year-old developer of the Winny "peer-to-peer" program, told reporters after the Osaka High Court in western Japan handed down the verdict.

"This will obviously have a good impact" on software development, he said.

Winny, which Kaneko had made available on his website, enables users to exchange files such as computer games and movies over the Internet for free, making Kaneko a cyberspace icon in Japan.

He had pleaded not guilty, arguing that holding programmers responsible for copyright infringement would hamper technological development.

In December 2006, the Kyoto District Court had convicted Kaneko, ruling that he made the software available on the Internet while knowing it would be widely used for illegal purposes.

The Kyoto court had refused a call from prosecutors for a one-year prison sentence but fined him 1.5 million yen (17,000 US dollars) in Japan's first ruling on file-sharing software.

Chief judge Masazo Ogura at the Osaka High Court said Thursday that Kaneko had been aware of the possibility that the software might be used for inappropriate purposes but had not recommended users to do so."

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/japan-court-acquits-fileshare-software-creator-20091008-goql.html

iiNet launches counter attack in copyright case; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/8/09

Miriam Steffens, Sydney Morning Herald; iiNet launches counter attack in copyright case:

"IN THE movie industry's landmark case over illegal film downloads, internet service provider iiNet has launched its counter-attack, calling the movie studios' claims of tens of thousands of copyright infringements over its network ''highly exaggerated'' and ''out of kilter''.

As hearings went into their second day in the Federal Court yesterday, iiNet's lawyer, Richard Cobden, SC, outlined the Perth internet company's line of defence. Lambasting the film studios' ''exuberant rhetoric,'' iiNet maintains it was not doing anything different from its larger rivals such as Telstra and Optus selling access to the internet, and had done nothing that would amount to willingly allowing its customers to download pirated movies."

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/iinet-launches-counter-attack-in-copyright-case-20091008-gnv5.html

YouTube pacts heighten copyright vigilance; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/8/09

Sydney Morning Herald; YouTube pacts heighten copyright vigilance:

"YouTube on Wednesday said it will be able to quickly track snippets from live television shows thanks to new partnerships with three broadcast video delivery specialty firms.

Google has been working to assuage piracy worries of film and television studios since the Mountain View, California, Internet powerhouse bought YouTube in 2006 in a deal valued at 1.65 billion US dollars.

YouTube said alliances with broadcast video delivery and management titans Harmonic, Telestream, and Digital Rapids will let it speedily recognize content from live events posted at the video-sharing service.

Many media companies will be able to give YouTube reference files, or "fingerprints," of video almost as soon as it is produced so fresh content can be identified, product manager George Salem said in an official blog post.

"Our partners will be able to provide us with reference files in a few minutes, allowing them to block, leave up, or monetize videos of their live events on YouTube in near real time," Salem said."

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/youtube-pacts-heighten-copyright-vigilance-20091008-gnio.html

Illegal downloads case gets its own medicine; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/7/09

Miriam Steffens, Sydney Morning Herald; Illegal downloads case gets its own medicine:

THE opening salvo in the landmark case by Australian and US film studios against the internet access provider iiNet over illegal film downloads featured gunshots in the Federal Court yesterday when lawyers showed a bank robbery scene from The Dark Knight to illustrate the copyright piracy the company is alleged to allow its customers.

Tony Bannon, SC, barrister for the 34 claimants, which include Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox, Village Roadshow and Kerry Stokes's Seven Network, said in his opening submission that a year of investigations into iiNet showed 94,942 instances where users made unauthorised copies of titles such as Harry Potter and the Batman movies available using file-sharing software such as BitTorrent.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/illegal-downloads-case-gets-its-own-medicine-20091006-gldl.html

ISP takes on Hollywood studios over copyright; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/7/09

Miriam Steffens, Sydney Morning Herald; ISP takes on Hollywood studios over copyright:

"IN THE movie industry's landmark case over illegal film downloads, internet service provider iiNet has launched its counter-attack, calling the movie studios' claims of tens of thousands of copyright infringements over its network ''highly exaggerated'' and ''out of kilter''.

As hearings went into their second day in the Federal Court yesterday, iiNet's lawyer, Richard Cobden, SC, outlined the Perth internet company's line of defence. Lambasting the film studios' ''exuberant rhetoric,'' iiNet maintains it was not doing anything different from its larger rivals such as Telstra and Optus selling access to the internet, and had done nothing that would amount to willingly allowing its customers to download pirated movies.

Thirty-four entertainment companies, including Hollywood studios Paramount, Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox as well as Australia's Village Roadshow and Kerry Stokes's Seven Network, have accused the company of authorising copyright infringements by not cutting off accounts of users who repeatedly downloaded illegal copies of films and TV programs through file-sharing software such as BitTorrent.

The court battle is not only critical to the future of iiNet, but to the internet industry as a whole, which is seeking to avoid having to police its users to prevent illegal downloading."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/isp-takes-on-hollywood-studios-over-copyright-20091007-gn5a.html

Amazon settles suit over deleted Orwell books; Sydney Morning Herald, 10/2/09

Sydney Morning Herald; Amazon settles suit over deleted Orwell books:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/amazon-settles-suit-over-deleted-orwell-books-20091002-gey5.html

Shorter copyright would free creativity; Guardian, 10/7/09

Victor Keegan, Guardian; Shorter copyright would free creativity:

"Disney made its early money by reworking ideas in the public domain such as Cinderella and the fairytales of the brothers Grimm – themselves collectors rather than originators of folk tales. It then turned turtle and used copyright to boost profits without having to do anything. But suppose copyright had been restricted to 20 years, as for patents?...

If we want to nurture Britain's amazing creative talents then we must have much shorter copyrights to bring into the public domain millions of orphaned books to reduce prices and to enable music, books and films to be enjoyed and reworked by others. In Shakespeare's time, when there was no protection for copyright at all, writers stole passages and ideas from each other. Today's copyright laws would have suffocated much Elizabethan and Jacobean creativity. Artists who claim that income from books and records is their pension are deluded. The vast majority of income from books and records comes immediately after publication."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/07/shorter-copyright-term

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Focusing In On The Value: Google Books Provides An Amazing Resource; TechDirt, 10/2/09

Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Focusing In On The Value: Google Books Provides An Amazing Resource:

"With all of the fighting over the Google Book settlement, it seems that an awful lot of people have lost sight of the key issue, which is that the tool itself, Google's Book Search, is amazing. "

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091002/0331316405.shtml

Copyright Dispute Ensnares Creator of Copyright Shield; Wall Street Journal, 10/1/09

Geoffrey A. Fowler, Wall Street Journal; Copyright Dispute Ensnares Creator of Copyright Shield:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125435298036654255.html