Mike Masnick, Tech Dirt; Psystar Loses Big To Apple:
"When Psystar first started selling PCs with Apple OS's installed on them, we knew there would be a lawsuit -- though it took a bit more time than we expected. Originally, Psystar tried to claim that Apple was violating antitrust law, which seemed like a wasted path for exploration -- and, indeed, a court rejected that claim. Then Psystar went back to more reasonable defenses... or so we thought.
The court hearing the case didn't seem to think any of Psystar's main lines of defense had any validity at all and granted summary judgment to Apple on all of the major points, saying that a trial wasn't even necessary. The "fair use" claim was already weak, and the judge noted that Psystar didn't even try to discuss any of the four factors generally used in determining fair use. The two (I thought) stronger claims were that (a) the right of first sale applied, and once Psystar purchased OSX legally, it could resell it, provided it was only installed on that one computer, and (b) that Apple went too far in its EULA terms, which demanded that OS X could only work on a Mac. Unfortunately, the judge didn't agree to either one, though I find the judge's reasoning perplexing and hardly convincing."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1813376929.shtml
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Ruling for Apple against Psystar means clone-makers have no legal recourse; Guardian, 11/14/09
Charles Arthur, Guardian; Ruling for Apple against Psystar means clone-makers have no legal recourse:
"Psystar, the little company in Florida that seemed for a while to be based in the back of a truck while it made Apple clones based on PC hardware, has lost all its claims against Apple in a legal victory that is an important ruling against would-be clone makers.
The company had already filed for bankruptcy - specifically, Chapter 11 protection, which protects a business from creditors while it restructures - back in May. But in the ruling (via BusinessWeek, via Groklaw) Judge William Alsup ruled that Apple's end user licence agreement (EULA) on its Mac OSX software is legal and can be interpreted broadly - that when it says you can't install on non-Mac hardware, that's what it means; it doesn't mean that you could argue that it's a bit limiting on you.
The PDF of the ruling explains that the problem comes down to this line: "Psystar has modified Mac OS X to run on its computers and has sold them to the public."
Psystar had claimed that "first sale doctrine" in the US means that the buyer (Psystar) can sell something on, regardless of whether the original owner (Apple) likes it. But the modification - "Psystar then replaced the Mac OS X 'bootloader'", to quote the finding of facts - means that first sale doctrine doesn't apply any more."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/14/apple-psystar-cloning-licence-judges-ruling
"Psystar, the little company in Florida that seemed for a while to be based in the back of a truck while it made Apple clones based on PC hardware, has lost all its claims against Apple in a legal victory that is an important ruling against would-be clone makers.
The company had already filed for bankruptcy - specifically, Chapter 11 protection, which protects a business from creditors while it restructures - back in May. But in the ruling (via BusinessWeek, via Groklaw) Judge William Alsup ruled that Apple's end user licence agreement (EULA) on its Mac OSX software is legal and can be interpreted broadly - that when it says you can't install on non-Mac hardware, that's what it means; it doesn't mean that you could argue that it's a bit limiting on you.
The PDF of the ruling explains that the problem comes down to this line: "Psystar has modified Mac OS X to run on its computers and has sold them to the public."
Psystar had claimed that "first sale doctrine" in the US means that the buyer (Psystar) can sell something on, regardless of whether the original owner (Apple) likes it. But the modification - "Psystar then replaced the Mac OS X 'bootloader'", to quote the finding of facts - means that first sale doctrine doesn't apply any more."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/14/apple-psystar-cloning-licence-judges-ruling
NZ left out of revised $US125m Google Books deal; National Business Review, 11/16/09
Chris Keall, National Business Review; NZ left out of revised $US125m Google Books deal:
"Google has narrowed the scope of its $US125 million settlement with publishers of out-of-print titles released as free e-books through its ad-funded Book Search service.
The settlement, originally announced in October last year, will now only cover books that are registered with the US copyright office, or originally published in the UK, Canada or Australia.
The revised deal came after pressure from the US Department of Justice. The European Union had also been circling.
In a statement released soon after the revised deal was announced late Saturday New Zealand time, Google said the deal was narrowed to the four countries “which share a common legal heritage and similar book industry practices.”
Martin Taylor, director of Auckland publisher Addenda and founder of the Digital Publishing Forum, had an alternative definition.
“The revised terms are notable for the exclusion of works from many countries that objected to its original settlement proposal,” said Mr Taylor in a blog post over the weekend.
“Interestingly, many of those from countries excluded from the deal might now be asking themselves, ‘Why can’t we be in, too?’ Perhaps this is part of the clever psychology of the deal, creating an apparent ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ so that the excluded parties feel obliged to open negotiations with Google,” added Mr Taylor."
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-left-out-revised-us125m-google-books-deal-114962
"Google has narrowed the scope of its $US125 million settlement with publishers of out-of-print titles released as free e-books through its ad-funded Book Search service.
The settlement, originally announced in October last year, will now only cover books that are registered with the US copyright office, or originally published in the UK, Canada or Australia.
The revised deal came after pressure from the US Department of Justice. The European Union had also been circling.
In a statement released soon after the revised deal was announced late Saturday New Zealand time, Google said the deal was narrowed to the four countries “which share a common legal heritage and similar book industry practices.”
Martin Taylor, director of Auckland publisher Addenda and founder of the Digital Publishing Forum, had an alternative definition.
“The revised terms are notable for the exclusion of works from many countries that objected to its original settlement proposal,” said Mr Taylor in a blog post over the weekend.
“Interestingly, many of those from countries excluded from the deal might now be asking themselves, ‘Why can’t we be in, too?’ Perhaps this is part of the clever psychology of the deal, creating an apparent ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ so that the excluded parties feel obliged to open negotiations with Google,” added Mr Taylor."
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-left-out-revised-us125m-google-books-deal-114962
Selling Lessons Online Raises Cash and Questions; New York Times, 11/15/09
Winnie Hu, New York Times; Selling Lessons Online Raises Cash and Questions:
"Between Craigslist and eBay, the Internet is well established as a marketplace where one person’s trash is transformed into another’s treasure. Now, thousands of teachers are cashing in on a commodity they used to give away, selling lesson plans online for exercises as simple as M&M sorting and as sophisticated as Shakespeare.
While some of this extra money is going to buy books and classroom supplies in a time of tight budgets, the new teacher-entrepreneurs are also spending it on dinners out, mortgage payments, credit card bills, vacation travel and even home renovation, leading some school officials to raise questions over who owns material developed for public school classrooms.
“To the extent that school district resources are used, then I think it’s fair to ask whether the district should share in the proceeds,” said Robert N. Lowry, deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents.
The marketplace for educational tips and tricks is too new to have generated policies or guidelines in most places. In Fairfax County, Va., officials had been studying the issue when they discovered this fall that a former football coach was selling his playbook and instructional DVDs online for $197; they investigated but let him keep selling.
A high school English teacher in upstate New York said her bosses barred her from selling plans used in her classroom; she spoke on the condition that she not be named.
Beyond the unresolved legal questions, there are philosophical ones."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/education/15plans.html
"Between Craigslist and eBay, the Internet is well established as a marketplace where one person’s trash is transformed into another’s treasure. Now, thousands of teachers are cashing in on a commodity they used to give away, selling lesson plans online for exercises as simple as M&M sorting and as sophisticated as Shakespeare.
While some of this extra money is going to buy books and classroom supplies in a time of tight budgets, the new teacher-entrepreneurs are also spending it on dinners out, mortgage payments, credit card bills, vacation travel and even home renovation, leading some school officials to raise questions over who owns material developed for public school classrooms.
“To the extent that school district resources are used, then I think it’s fair to ask whether the district should share in the proceeds,” said Robert N. Lowry, deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents.
The marketplace for educational tips and tricks is too new to have generated policies or guidelines in most places. In Fairfax County, Va., officials had been studying the issue when they discovered this fall that a former football coach was selling his playbook and instructional DVDs online for $197; they investigated but let him keep selling.
A high school English teacher in upstate New York said her bosses barred her from selling plans used in her classroom; she spoke on the condition that she not be named.
Beyond the unresolved legal questions, there are philosophical ones."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/education/15plans.html
Saturday, November 14, 2009
New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music; TechDirt, 11/13/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music:
"In the recent debate in the UK about copyright extension for performances, one of the key points raised by many who were against the proposal was that economic studies suggested that it would really only help a few big superstars (who probably were well enough off already) while harming up-and-coming artists greatly. Christian Zimmerman points us to a recent economics paper by Francisco Alcala and Miguel Gonzalez-Maestre that models why this happens, and points out that copyright extension actually serves to decrease incentives for the creation of new content. The full paper (pdf) basically points out that extending copyright really only helps the superstar performers, since, for everyone else, the economic value of the content is exhausted by the time the extension would matter. That's pretty obvious. But the more troubling part is that this also then negatively impacts the market for new artists, because money and attention that might have gone towards new works end up going instead to those older works."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091104/0328256794.shtml
"In the recent debate in the UK about copyright extension for performances, one of the key points raised by many who were against the proposal was that economic studies suggested that it would really only help a few big superstars (who probably were well enough off already) while harming up-and-coming artists greatly. Christian Zimmerman points us to a recent economics paper by Francisco Alcala and Miguel Gonzalez-Maestre that models why this happens, and points out that copyright extension actually serves to decrease incentives for the creation of new content. The full paper (pdf) basically points out that extending copyright really only helps the superstar performers, since, for everyone else, the economic value of the content is exhausted by the time the extension would matter. That's pretty obvious. But the more troubling part is that this also then negatively impacts the market for new artists, because money and attention that might have gone towards new works end up going instead to those older works."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091104/0328256794.shtml
Newspaper Industry Lawyers Attack Fair Use, Claim Google Is Illegal; TechDirt, 11/13/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Newspaper Industry Lawyers Attack Fair Use, Claim Google Is Illegal:
"Hmm. So, on Monday Rupert Murdoch suggests that the courts would reject fair use as a concept, and by Friday two newspaper industry lawyers just happen to have an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal explaining how Google violates copyright law by caching the websites it indexes. If the names of the lawyers -- Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown -- sound vaguely familiar, that's because they're the same two lawyers who, six months ago, wrote a laughably ridiculous editorial (that time for the Washington Post) proposing special new copyright laws to save newspapers, while destroying pretty much everything that makes the internet useful. Of course, both the Washington Post and the WSJ conveniently left out the fact that these two lawyers regularly represent newspapers and other media and entertainment firms -- even as that seems rather relevant (what happened to those FTC disclosure laws?). While I do actually agree with the lawyers that it's a shame the focus on the Google Book Search settlement avoided the big fair use question, I think they're entirely wrong to suggest that Google itself violates copyright law."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1357386926.shtml
"Hmm. So, on Monday Rupert Murdoch suggests that the courts would reject fair use as a concept, and by Friday two newspaper industry lawyers just happen to have an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal explaining how Google violates copyright law by caching the websites it indexes. If the names of the lawyers -- Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown -- sound vaguely familiar, that's because they're the same two lawyers who, six months ago, wrote a laughably ridiculous editorial (that time for the Washington Post) proposing special new copyright laws to save newspapers, while destroying pretty much everything that makes the internet useful. Of course, both the Washington Post and the WSJ conveniently left out the fact that these two lawyers regularly represent newspapers and other media and entertainment firms -- even as that seems rather relevant (what happened to those FTC disclosure laws?). While I do actually agree with the lawyers that it's a shame the focus on the Google Book Search settlement avoided the big fair use question, I think they're entirely wrong to suggest that Google itself violates copyright law."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1357386926.shtml
[OpEd] Google and the Copyright Wars; Wall Street Journal, 11/13/09
[OpEd] Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown, Wall Street Journal; Google and the Copyright Wars:
"Search engine caching—the process through which automated crawlers travel across the Internet, sweep up the contents of Web sites, and index them into searchable databases—is so fundamental to how information is distributed today that it's too big for any one case. It's a policy question that Congress has to tackle to give copyright owners a fair share of the revenue that their content generates on the Web.
The "snippets" of text that appear on your screen after you've entered a term in a search engine are produced from a complete copy stored in a search engine's server. True, the search results are only a few lines of text. But copyright is not limited to "display" rights. It includes exclusive rights to "reproduction" as well. And that surely means the storing of the complete text.
The search engines argue that they do not have to pay rights holders because the full copies they index are for a purpose different from the original. In addition, they say that they help make Web sites more valuable by driving readers to them. Publishers certainly like the traffic. But since only a few search engines control the market, publishers have had little choice but to play by their rules.
Google has consistently compared itself to the neighborhood library. When it was sued by Agence France Presse for copyright violations in 2005—a case that also settled before any judge ruled on the fair use issue—Google described itself "as important to the web as a card catalog is to a library." A public library, Google said in Agence France Presse v. Google Inc., "would be of limited use without an index or some other means to organize and find particular volumes of interest."
The copyright code allows public libraries to copy texts as long as there is no "direct or indirect commercial advantage." But that does not describe what search engines do. They use the complete copies they take for free to sell the advertising that has made them enormously profitable. This has a direct impact on book publishers, and on the publishers of magazines and newspapers that are losing the advertising that once supported them. According to Ken Auletta's recently released book "Googled," its search business alone now takes in 40% of all advertising across the Internet.
Consistent with the handling of copying by libraries, indexing without any commercial gain should be protected as fair use. But it should not be controversial to legislate that once the cache is monetized for the benefit of the search engine, the line of copyright infringement is crossed. The absence of such defined rules gave Google a green light to proceed with its book scanning project and establish itself as the proprietor of the world's largest digital bookstore.
In the last year, many fresh ideas have begun to circulate on how to help the publishing industry transition profitably to the online world. But without legal reform to back up these new business models, publishers will not have the bargaining power to make the search engines into true partners willing to compensate them meaningfully for their copyrights."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704402404574523454258004332.html?mod=djemITP
"Search engine caching—the process through which automated crawlers travel across the Internet, sweep up the contents of Web sites, and index them into searchable databases—is so fundamental to how information is distributed today that it's too big for any one case. It's a policy question that Congress has to tackle to give copyright owners a fair share of the revenue that their content generates on the Web.
The "snippets" of text that appear on your screen after you've entered a term in a search engine are produced from a complete copy stored in a search engine's server. True, the search results are only a few lines of text. But copyright is not limited to "display" rights. It includes exclusive rights to "reproduction" as well. And that surely means the storing of the complete text.
The search engines argue that they do not have to pay rights holders because the full copies they index are for a purpose different from the original. In addition, they say that they help make Web sites more valuable by driving readers to them. Publishers certainly like the traffic. But since only a few search engines control the market, publishers have had little choice but to play by their rules.
Google has consistently compared itself to the neighborhood library. When it was sued by Agence France Presse for copyright violations in 2005—a case that also settled before any judge ruled on the fair use issue—Google described itself "as important to the web as a card catalog is to a library." A public library, Google said in Agence France Presse v. Google Inc., "would be of limited use without an index or some other means to organize and find particular volumes of interest."
The copyright code allows public libraries to copy texts as long as there is no "direct or indirect commercial advantage." But that does not describe what search engines do. They use the complete copies they take for free to sell the advertising that has made them enormously profitable. This has a direct impact on book publishers, and on the publishers of magazines and newspapers that are losing the advertising that once supported them. According to Ken Auletta's recently released book "Googled," its search business alone now takes in 40% of all advertising across the Internet.
Consistent with the handling of copying by libraries, indexing without any commercial gain should be protected as fair use. But it should not be controversial to legislate that once the cache is monetized for the benefit of the search engine, the line of copyright infringement is crossed. The absence of such defined rules gave Google a green light to proceed with its book scanning project and establish itself as the proprietor of the world's largest digital bookstore.
In the last year, many fresh ideas have begun to circulate on how to help the publishing industry transition profitably to the online world. But without legal reform to back up these new business models, publishers will not have the bargaining power to make the search engines into true partners willing to compensate them meaningfully for their copyrights."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704402404574523454258004332.html?mod=djemITP
[Court Document] Revised Google Book Search settlement, submitted to court 11/14/09
[Court Document, 377 pages] Revised Google Book Search settlement, submitted to court by Google, AAP, and Authors Guild, 11/14/09:
http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended_settlement/amended_settlement_redline.pdf
http://thepublicindex.org/docs/amended_settlement/amended_settlement_redline.pdf
Revised Google Settlement Offers Minor Changes on Antitrust Issue, No Response on Library Pricing; Library Journal, 11/14/09
Norman Oder, Library Journal; Revised Google Settlement Offers Minor Changes on Antitrust Issue, No Response on Library Pricing:
Most foreign language books out; showdown coming with Department of Justice about orphan works?
Most foreign language books out; showdown coming with Department of Justice about orphan works?
- More than one free terminal authorized at public libraries
- No discussion of pricing of institutional database
- Open Book Alliance: fundamental flaws not addressed
Shortly before midnight last night, Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers released a revised version (PDF) of the Google Book Search Settlement, with some clear concessions to foreign rightsholders (as noted by Publishers Weekly), a vague—and, to critics, fatally inadequate—concession on orphan works. There was also no response to library concerns about pricing of the potentially monopolistic institutional database—an issue that Google representatives say can't be addressed in the settlement.
The one notable response to criticisms from the library community was an agreement that, as Google representatives had already stated, more than one free public access terminal per library building may be authorized.
The revised settlement also incorporates some other concerns raised by the library community and similarly interested parties. The settlement will allow for Creative Commons licensing, which means that rightsholders—notably academics—can ensure their works are available for no cost. And Google won't "provide personally identifiable information about end users to the Registry other than as required by law or valid legal process...
Orphan works
New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann noted that, while foreign, non-Anglophone books had been taken out and the parties had made some tweaks here and there, the "heart of the settlement’s promise, peril, and problems has always been its treatment of unclaimed works—a category that contains the orphan works. Settlement 1.0 allowed Google to use and sell them on an opt-out basis, and Settlement 2.0 does the same. That gave Google exclusive access to a market segment that no one else can enter, and thus raised antitrust concerns."
University of Michigan Library dean Paul Courant, a settlement supporter, had recently expressed support for "a revised settlement (as suggested by the U.S. Department of Justice) that provided competitors with the ability to use the orphan works on the same terms as Google, or legislation with similar consequence.
"That didn't happen. "The DOJ all but invited Google and the plaintiffs to empower the Registry to license Google’s competitors; they declined that all-but-invitation," Grimmelmann commented. "They’re going to try to tough this one out; the DOJ will have to decide whether to back down or to fight, as this amended settlement doesn’t give it one of the central changes it asked for."
Grimmelmann noted that the agreement sets up a scenario in which Google competitors could scan orphan works should Congress change copyright law. Such a speculative possibility, he observed, "doesn’t create actual competition now." And, if Congress does create a statutory licensing system, "why do we need the class action [lawsuit]?"
His conclusion: despite "meaningful, if modest improvements," the central issue has not been addressed.
From Google
Google's point man Dan Clancy issued a statement: "The changes we've made in our amended agreement address many of the concerns we've heard (particularly in limiting its international scope), while at the same time preserving the core benefits of the original agreement: opening access to millions of books while providing rightsholders with ways to sell and control their work online.""
Terms of Digital Book Deal With Google Revised; New York Times, 11/14/09
Brad Stone and Miguel Helft, New York Times; Terms of Digital Book Deal With Google Revised:
"Google and groups representing book publishers and authors filed a modified version of their controversial books settlement with a federal court on Friday. The changes would pave the way for other companies to license Google’s vast digital collection of copyrighted out-of-print books, and might resolve Google’s conflicts with European governments.
The settlement, for a 2005 lawsuit over Google’s ambitious plan to digitize books from major American libraries, outlined a plan to create a comprehensive database of in-print and out-of-print works. But the original agreement, primarily between Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, drew much criticism.
The Justice Department and others said Google was potentially violating copyright law, setting itself up to unfairly control access to electronic versions of older books and depriving authors and their heirs of proper compensation.
The revisions to the settlement primarily address the handling of so-called orphan works, the millions of books whose rights holders are unknown or cannot be found. The changes call for the appointment of an independent fiduciary, or trustee, who will be solely responsible for decisions regarding orphan works.
The trustee, with Congressional approval, can grant licenses to other companies who also want to sell these books, and will oversee the pool of unclaimed funds that they generate. If the money goes unclaimed for 10 years, according to the revised settlement, it will go to philanthropy and to an effort to locate rights holders. In the original settlement, unclaimed funds reverted to known rights holders after five years.
The changes also restrict the Google catalog to books published in the United States, Britain, Australia or Canada. That move is intended to resolve objections from the French and German governments, which complained that the settlement did not abide by copyright law in those countries.
The revised settlement could make it easier for other companies to compete with Google in offering their own digitized versions of older library books because it drops a provision that was widely interpreted as ensuring that no other company could get a better deal with authors and publishers than the one Google had struck.
“We’re disappointed that we won’t be able to provide access to as many books from as many countries through the settlement as a result of our modifications, but we look forward to continuing to work with rightsholders from around the world to fulfill our longstanding mission of increasing access to all the world’s books,” the engineering director for Google Book Search, Dan Clancy, wrote in a blog post on the company’s Web site.
In the next week, Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is expected to set a date for a fairness hearing, where arguments from both sides will be heard about whether or not to approve the settlement.
The changes have not placated all opponents of the original settlement. In a blog post on Friday night, the Open Book Alliance, a coalition whose members include Yahoo, Microsoft and Amazon, referred to the changes as a “sleight of hand” and said they did not address the “fundamental flaws” addressed by critics.
“This settlement remains a set-piece designed to serve the private commercial interests of Google and its partners,” wrote Peter Brantley, co-founder of the alliance.
But the parties are hoping they will placate the concerns raised by the Justice Department, which in September asked a federal judge to reject the original $125 million agreement. While the decision on whether to approve the deal will be in the hands of Judge Chin, the Justice Department’s opinion is an important factor.
Gina Talamona, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said that the department would review the filing, and that its investigation into possible anticompetitive practices involving the rights to digital books was continuing.
Google and its partners had hailed the original agreement, signed in October 2008, as a public good. They said it would allow Google to create an immense digital library that would expand access to millions of out-of-print books, while creating new ways for authors and publishers to profit from digital versions of their works.
Google’s library would be searchable online, and users would have free access to 20 percent of the text in each book. Google would also sell subscriptions to the entire collection to universities and other institutions. Every public library in the United States would be able to offer its patrons free access to the full collection at one terminal. Users would be able to buy access to full texts at home. Google, authors and publishers would split all revenue generated through the system.
As part of the settlement, Google would pay to establish a Books Rights Registry, to be run by representatives of authors and publishers, that would administer payments.
But earlier this year, academics, legal scholars and some librarians expressed concern that the settlement would grant Google a virtual monopoly over orphan works, making it nearly impossible for anyone else to build a comprehensive digital library. Some librarians feared that without competition, Google would be free to raise prices arbitrarily.
Other critics said the agreement turned copyright law on its head by granting Google the license to profit from works unless rights holders objected. Some argued that orphan works authors and foreign authors were not properly represented by the Authors Guild. The proposed settlement prompted several hundred filings with the court, the vast majority opposing all or parts of the deal.
In a Sept. 18 filling, the Justice Department echoed many of the concerns. While saying that the settlement provided many benefits, it urged Judge Chin to reject it, saying it raised antitrust, class-action and copyright issues. But the Justice Department also encouraged the parties to work to modify the agreement to salvage its benefits and overcome its problems.
The Justice Department filing prompted the parties to withdraw the original agreement and revise it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/technology/internet/14books.html?_r=1&hp
"Google and groups representing book publishers and authors filed a modified version of their controversial books settlement with a federal court on Friday. The changes would pave the way for other companies to license Google’s vast digital collection of copyrighted out-of-print books, and might resolve Google’s conflicts with European governments.
The settlement, for a 2005 lawsuit over Google’s ambitious plan to digitize books from major American libraries, outlined a plan to create a comprehensive database of in-print and out-of-print works. But the original agreement, primarily between Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, drew much criticism.
The Justice Department and others said Google was potentially violating copyright law, setting itself up to unfairly control access to electronic versions of older books and depriving authors and their heirs of proper compensation.
The revisions to the settlement primarily address the handling of so-called orphan works, the millions of books whose rights holders are unknown or cannot be found. The changes call for the appointment of an independent fiduciary, or trustee, who will be solely responsible for decisions regarding orphan works.
The trustee, with Congressional approval, can grant licenses to other companies who also want to sell these books, and will oversee the pool of unclaimed funds that they generate. If the money goes unclaimed for 10 years, according to the revised settlement, it will go to philanthropy and to an effort to locate rights holders. In the original settlement, unclaimed funds reverted to known rights holders after five years.
The changes also restrict the Google catalog to books published in the United States, Britain, Australia or Canada. That move is intended to resolve objections from the French and German governments, which complained that the settlement did not abide by copyright law in those countries.
The revised settlement could make it easier for other companies to compete with Google in offering their own digitized versions of older library books because it drops a provision that was widely interpreted as ensuring that no other company could get a better deal with authors and publishers than the one Google had struck.
“We’re disappointed that we won’t be able to provide access to as many books from as many countries through the settlement as a result of our modifications, but we look forward to continuing to work with rightsholders from around the world to fulfill our longstanding mission of increasing access to all the world’s books,” the engineering director for Google Book Search, Dan Clancy, wrote in a blog post on the company’s Web site.
In the next week, Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is expected to set a date for a fairness hearing, where arguments from both sides will be heard about whether or not to approve the settlement.
The changes have not placated all opponents of the original settlement. In a blog post on Friday night, the Open Book Alliance, a coalition whose members include Yahoo, Microsoft and Amazon, referred to the changes as a “sleight of hand” and said they did not address the “fundamental flaws” addressed by critics.
“This settlement remains a set-piece designed to serve the private commercial interests of Google and its partners,” wrote Peter Brantley, co-founder of the alliance.
But the parties are hoping they will placate the concerns raised by the Justice Department, which in September asked a federal judge to reject the original $125 million agreement. While the decision on whether to approve the deal will be in the hands of Judge Chin, the Justice Department’s opinion is an important factor.
Gina Talamona, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said that the department would review the filing, and that its investigation into possible anticompetitive practices involving the rights to digital books was continuing.
Google and its partners had hailed the original agreement, signed in October 2008, as a public good. They said it would allow Google to create an immense digital library that would expand access to millions of out-of-print books, while creating new ways for authors and publishers to profit from digital versions of their works.
Google’s library would be searchable online, and users would have free access to 20 percent of the text in each book. Google would also sell subscriptions to the entire collection to universities and other institutions. Every public library in the United States would be able to offer its patrons free access to the full collection at one terminal. Users would be able to buy access to full texts at home. Google, authors and publishers would split all revenue generated through the system.
As part of the settlement, Google would pay to establish a Books Rights Registry, to be run by representatives of authors and publishers, that would administer payments.
But earlier this year, academics, legal scholars and some librarians expressed concern that the settlement would grant Google a virtual monopoly over orphan works, making it nearly impossible for anyone else to build a comprehensive digital library. Some librarians feared that without competition, Google would be free to raise prices arbitrarily.
Other critics said the agreement turned copyright law on its head by granting Google the license to profit from works unless rights holders objected. Some argued that orphan works authors and foreign authors were not properly represented by the Authors Guild. The proposed settlement prompted several hundred filings with the court, the vast majority opposing all or parts of the deal.
In a Sept. 18 filling, the Justice Department echoed many of the concerns. While saying that the settlement provided many benefits, it urged Judge Chin to reject it, saying it raised antitrust, class-action and copyright issues. But the Justice Department also encouraged the parties to work to modify the agreement to salvage its benefits and overcome its problems.
The Justice Department filing prompted the parties to withdraw the original agreement and revise it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/technology/internet/14books.html?_r=1&hp
Google, Plaintiffs Submit Revised Book Search Settlement; PC World, 11/14/09
Elizabeth Heichler, PC World; Google, Plaintiffs Submit Revised Book Search Settlement:
"Right up against a deadline to submit a revised settlement agreement to a judge overseeing a lawsuit filed against Google by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, the parties filed their second take near midnight on Friday. The original settlement agreement had come under fire from many parties but most notably from the U.S. Department of Justice, whose withering and broad critique of the deal led the judge to demand revisions in the proposal...
Google listed the following revisions in a statement issued early Saturday:
-- The settlement will only include books that were either registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or published in the U.K., Australia, or Canada. Rightsholders in those countries are joining the case as named plaintiffs.
-- The Book Rights Registry that Google and the plaintiffs had agreed to establish will search for rightsholders who have not yet come forward and to hold revenue on their behalf. The settlement now also specifies that a portion of the revenue generated from unclaimed works may, after five years, be used to locate rightsholders, but will no longer be used for the Registry's general operations or redistributed to other rightsholders. The Book Rights Registry is intended to manage a royalty system to compensate authors and publishers from the sale of digitized books.
-- Explicitly written into the settlement is the provision, offered by Google in September, that any book retailer will be able to sell consumers online access to the out-of-print books covered by the settlement, including unclaimed books.
-- The revision clarifies that rightsholders can choose to make their books available for free or allow re-use under Creative Commons or other licenses. Rightsholders can also choose to modify or remove restrictions placed on Google's display of their books, such as limits on the number of pages that users can print.
-- The Registry is now free to license to other parties without ever extending the same terms to Google.
The Open Book Alliance immediately came out against the revised settlement, issuing a statement early on Saturday claiming that the new proposal does not address "the fundamental flaws illuminated by the Department of Justice and other critics that impact public interest."
"By performing surgical nip and tuck, Google, the AAP, and the AG are attempting to distract people from their continued efforts to establish a monopoly over digital content access and distribution; usurp Congress's role in setting copyright policy; lock writers into their unsought registry, stripping them of their individual contract rights; put library budgets and patron privacy at risk; and establish a dangerous precedent by abusing the class action process," Open Book Alliance co-chair Peter Brantley said in the statement."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/182214/google_plaintiffs_submit_revised_book_search_settlement.html
"Right up against a deadline to submit a revised settlement agreement to a judge overseeing a lawsuit filed against Google by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, the parties filed their second take near midnight on Friday. The original settlement agreement had come under fire from many parties but most notably from the U.S. Department of Justice, whose withering and broad critique of the deal led the judge to demand revisions in the proposal...
Google listed the following revisions in a statement issued early Saturday:
-- The settlement will only include books that were either registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or published in the U.K., Australia, or Canada. Rightsholders in those countries are joining the case as named plaintiffs.
-- The Book Rights Registry that Google and the plaintiffs had agreed to establish will search for rightsholders who have not yet come forward and to hold revenue on their behalf. The settlement now also specifies that a portion of the revenue generated from unclaimed works may, after five years, be used to locate rightsholders, but will no longer be used for the Registry's general operations or redistributed to other rightsholders. The Book Rights Registry is intended to manage a royalty system to compensate authors and publishers from the sale of digitized books.
-- Explicitly written into the settlement is the provision, offered by Google in September, that any book retailer will be able to sell consumers online access to the out-of-print books covered by the settlement, including unclaimed books.
-- The revision clarifies that rightsholders can choose to make their books available for free or allow re-use under Creative Commons or other licenses. Rightsholders can also choose to modify or remove restrictions placed on Google's display of their books, such as limits on the number of pages that users can print.
-- The Registry is now free to license to other parties without ever extending the same terms to Google.
The Open Book Alliance immediately came out against the revised settlement, issuing a statement early on Saturday claiming that the new proposal does not address "the fundamental flaws illuminated by the Department of Justice and other critics that impact public interest."
"By performing surgical nip and tuck, Google, the AAP, and the AG are attempting to distract people from their continued efforts to establish a monopoly over digital content access and distribution; usurp Congress's role in setting copyright policy; lock writers into their unsought registry, stripping them of their individual contract rights; put library budgets and patron privacy at risk; and establish a dangerous precedent by abusing the class action process," Open Book Alliance co-chair Peter Brantley said in the statement."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/182214/google_plaintiffs_submit_revised_book_search_settlement.html
Singing a different tune; Economist, 11/12/09
Economist; Singing a different tune:
The battle against online music piracy is turning. A return to growth will take a good deal longer
"While it is by no means over, the struggle against music piracy is going better than at any point since the appearance of Napster, a file-sharing service, ten years ago.
It has been a brutal decade. In many countries music sales to consumers have fallen by more than a third...
The music business is now doing two things right. First, it has built a better stick. Most countries have virtually abandoned the practice of suing people for downloading copyrighted files. The favoured approach these days is known as “graduated response” or “three strikes and you’re out”. People who are suspected of trading media illegally are sent warnings. If they fail to stop, their internet-service provider (ISP) may slow their connection. If that fails to deter, they may be temporarily cut off...
Almost everywhere in the developed world, such laws are being debated. Even where they are not (America, for example), ISPs are working quietly with the record industry to similar ends.
The trouble with the old practice of suing people for swapping music is that it is slow, expensive and limited. In most countries, being prosecuted for file-sharing is a little like being struck by lightning. The exception is Germany, where a cheap, efficient legal system has made it possible to launch some 100,000 prosecutions. In the past two years the proportion of German internet users who share files illegally has dropped significantly. It now stands at 6%, according to Jupiter Research—less than in any other big European country...
The second change is that the industry is offering tastier carrots. These days the music associations talk less about lawsuits and more about cultivating alternatives to piracy. The past year has seen rapid growth of digital music services that accept the post-Napster consensus that music should be free, or at least appear to be free...
The recorded-music business is not about to lurch into growth. A big proportion of revenues—more than half just about everywhere—still comes from CD albums, which are gradually falling out of favour. Start-ups like Spotify need to turn more freeloaders into paying subscribers if they are to survive and start providing a serious income stream to record companies and artists. And there are still plenty of ways of sneakily copying music.
John Kennedy, head of the IFPI, points out that piracy was rife even before file-sharing. The goal is not to eradicate it—that is impossible—but to tilt the playing field towards legitimate services. That finally seems to be happening. "
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845087
The battle against online music piracy is turning. A return to growth will take a good deal longer
"While it is by no means over, the struggle against music piracy is going better than at any point since the appearance of Napster, a file-sharing service, ten years ago.
It has been a brutal decade. In many countries music sales to consumers have fallen by more than a third...
The music business is now doing two things right. First, it has built a better stick. Most countries have virtually abandoned the practice of suing people for downloading copyrighted files. The favoured approach these days is known as “graduated response” or “three strikes and you’re out”. People who are suspected of trading media illegally are sent warnings. If they fail to stop, their internet-service provider (ISP) may slow their connection. If that fails to deter, they may be temporarily cut off...
Almost everywhere in the developed world, such laws are being debated. Even where they are not (America, for example), ISPs are working quietly with the record industry to similar ends.
The trouble with the old practice of suing people for swapping music is that it is slow, expensive and limited. In most countries, being prosecuted for file-sharing is a little like being struck by lightning. The exception is Germany, where a cheap, efficient legal system has made it possible to launch some 100,000 prosecutions. In the past two years the proportion of German internet users who share files illegally has dropped significantly. It now stands at 6%, according to Jupiter Research—less than in any other big European country...
The second change is that the industry is offering tastier carrots. These days the music associations talk less about lawsuits and more about cultivating alternatives to piracy. The past year has seen rapid growth of digital music services that accept the post-Napster consensus that music should be free, or at least appear to be free...
The recorded-music business is not about to lurch into growth. A big proportion of revenues—more than half just about everywhere—still comes from CD albums, which are gradually falling out of favour. Start-ups like Spotify need to turn more freeloaders into paying subscribers if they are to survive and start providing a serious income stream to record companies and artists. And there are still plenty of ways of sneakily copying music.
John Kennedy, head of the IFPI, points out that piracy was rife even before file-sharing. The goal is not to eradicate it—that is impossible—but to tilt the playing field towards legitimate services. That finally seems to be happening. "
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845087
Friday, November 13, 2009
My next book; Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars, 11/03/09
William Patry, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars; My next book:
"All this leads me to the title of this post, "My Next Book." Regardless of how unfair I think it is to judge Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars for not being prescriptive, the fact remains that at least some people wanted a prescriptive book. In Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars I criticize some in the copyright industries for not responding to consumer demand. Having made that criticism, it would be hypocritical not to apply it to myself. As a result, I have decided to write a purely prescriptive book, tentatively called "How to Fix Copyright." It will be about 200 pages, and cover core issues internationally, that is, important common issues facing all countries. I will explain why I think there is a problem and then offer my view on how to solve each problem. I will finish the manuscript in 6 months and try to get it in print as soon as the publisher can, responsibly, after that. I hope too that people might now try to read Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars for what it tries to do; feel free to comment on how well or poorly it does so."
http://moralpanicsandthecopyrightwars.blogspot.com/2009/11/my-next-book.html
"All this leads me to the title of this post, "My Next Book." Regardless of how unfair I think it is to judge Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars for not being prescriptive, the fact remains that at least some people wanted a prescriptive book. In Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars I criticize some in the copyright industries for not responding to consumer demand. Having made that criticism, it would be hypocritical not to apply it to myself. As a result, I have decided to write a purely prescriptive book, tentatively called "How to Fix Copyright." It will be about 200 pages, and cover core issues internationally, that is, important common issues facing all countries. I will explain why I think there is a problem and then offer my view on how to solve each problem. I will finish the manuscript in 6 months and try to get it in print as soon as the publisher can, responsibly, after that. I hope too that people might now try to read Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars for what it tries to do; feel free to comment on how well or poorly it does so."
http://moralpanicsandthecopyrightwars.blogspot.com/2009/11/my-next-book.html
Serbia's New Draft Copyright Law - A Partial Diff; Copyright Watch, 11/12/09
Danny OBrien, Copyright Watch; Serbia's New Draft Copyright Law - A Partial Diff:
"Disability Exceptions
The new Serbian law has an explicit exception for "persons with invalidity" (Article 54):
For the needs of the persons with invalidity, it is allowed, without the permission of the author and without payment of the remuneration, to copy and distribute the work protected by copyright, if such a work does not exist in the required form, if its use is in direct connection with the invalidity of persons concerned and in the scope that is required by a specific kind of invalidity providing the copying and distribution has not been made for the sake of realizing direct or indirect commercial gain.
Disability exceptions are at the forefront of current discussions of international copyright, with WIPO currently debating a proposed Treaty on Improved Access for Blind, Visually Impaired and other Reading Disabled Persons to normalize these exceptions across the world.
Serbia's proposed provisions score plus points for not restricting the scope of their exception to just those with reading disabilities or the blind. Modern technology means that content can be improved for a whole range of sensory disabilities (like signing books for the many people born with hearing disabilities who develop reading problems).
Unfortunately, the Article makes no mention of one of the key limiting factors for many with disabilities right now: bypassing the digital rights management restrictions on existing digital content to transform it by themselves into a new, accessible form. Article 208 contains Serbia's anti-circumvention provisions, similar to the United State's DMCA; it's not clear from a first glance that those with disabilites can legally access their own media if they have to bypass DRM to transform it."
http://www.copyright-watch.org/blog/serbias-new-draft-copyright-law-a-partial-diff
"Disability Exceptions
The new Serbian law has an explicit exception for "persons with invalidity" (Article 54):
For the needs of the persons with invalidity, it is allowed, without the permission of the author and without payment of the remuneration, to copy and distribute the work protected by copyright, if such a work does not exist in the required form, if its use is in direct connection with the invalidity of persons concerned and in the scope that is required by a specific kind of invalidity providing the copying and distribution has not been made for the sake of realizing direct or indirect commercial gain.
Disability exceptions are at the forefront of current discussions of international copyright, with WIPO currently debating a proposed Treaty on Improved Access for Blind, Visually Impaired and other Reading Disabled Persons to normalize these exceptions across the world.
Serbia's proposed provisions score plus points for not restricting the scope of their exception to just those with reading disabilities or the blind. Modern technology means that content can be improved for a whole range of sensory disabilities (like signing books for the many people born with hearing disabilities who develop reading problems).
Unfortunately, the Article makes no mention of one of the key limiting factors for many with disabilities right now: bypassing the digital rights management restrictions on existing digital content to transform it by themselves into a new, accessible form. Article 208 contains Serbia's anti-circumvention provisions, similar to the United State's DMCA; it's not clear from a first glance that those with disabilites can legally access their own media if they have to bypass DRM to transform it."
http://www.copyright-watch.org/blog/serbias-new-draft-copyright-law-a-partial-diff
Europe split on Google book plans; BBC News, 11/13/09
David Reid, BBC News; Europe split on Google book plans:
Google plans to put millions of the world's books online and create the world's largest virtual library by 2010.
"The European Union has its own project to digitise library collections which was first mooted as a counter to Google.
The Europeana project aims to keep art, culture and out-of-print books free from commercial control.
Not everyone is opposed to Google's plans - some libraries view the firm's commercial ambitions as a chance to get their collections digitised for free.
Patrick Bazin, director of the library in the French city of Lyon, explained that if libraries do not digitize their collections, they run the risk of disappearing from the cultural landscape.
He added that Google's investment could be used to his library's advantage.
"Our aim is not to supply a private company with digital versions of our books, but to have digital versions so we can build a digital library.
"We estimated that to digitise the 500,000 books we are going to would cost us 60m euros. We don't have 60m euros," he explained."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8357773.stm
Google plans to put millions of the world's books online and create the world's largest virtual library by 2010.
"The European Union has its own project to digitise library collections which was first mooted as a counter to Google.
The Europeana project aims to keep art, culture and out-of-print books free from commercial control.
Not everyone is opposed to Google's plans - some libraries view the firm's commercial ambitions as a chance to get their collections digitised for free.
Patrick Bazin, director of the library in the French city of Lyon, explained that if libraries do not digitize their collections, they run the risk of disappearing from the cultural landscape.
He added that Google's investment could be used to his library's advantage.
"Our aim is not to supply a private company with digital versions of our books, but to have digital versions so we can build a digital library.
"We estimated that to digitise the 500,000 books we are going to would cost us 60m euros. We don't have 60m euros," he explained."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8357773.stm
Google, book publishers to reveal new settlement; Associated Press, 11/13/09
Associated Press; Google, book publishers to reveal new settlement:
"The future of Google's plans to scan and sell millions of books online could begin to take shape Friday.
Google Inc. and book publishers are expected to show a federal judge in New York a new settlement in the copyright lawsuit over Google's book-scanning project.
Monday had been the deadline for a new deal, but they got an extension to Friday."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdFC6FPR3nJfAKfpAUEEsmkZjqWAD9BUQ5582
"The future of Google's plans to scan and sell millions of books online could begin to take shape Friday.
Google Inc. and book publishers are expected to show a federal judge in New York a new settlement in the copyright lawsuit over Google's book-scanning project.
Monday had been the deadline for a new deal, but they got an extension to Friday."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdFC6FPR3nJfAKfpAUEEsmkZjqWAD9BUQ5582
Copyright laws must fit online evolution; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/11/09
Lance Kavanaugh, (senior product counsel, YouTube, is in Australia this week to discuss copyright issues), Sydney Morning Herald; Copyright laws must fit online evolution:
New business models will need new content ownership rules.
"PEOPLE around the world want to connect and interact with content online. We expect to be able to sit at our computer, or walk along with our mobile phone, and have content at our fingertips. The internet enables just that, and in doing so has shifted community expectations about access to content.
It is challenging for traditional copyright laws to adapt to the online environment, as was noted by WIPO director-general Francis Gurry in his address to the National Press Club in August.
In Mr Gurry's words: ''It is not necessarily by putting teenagers in jail that we are going to be able to deal with this extremely serious problem.''
Managing copyright online presents some of the most difficult technical and legal challenges on the internet - in part because global rights ownership and management are exceedingly complicated.
For example, music videos often have many different content owners who own different components of the video and audio. One party may own the video, another party the soundtrack and yet another the musical composition. You get the picture.
As a lawyer for YouTube, I am familiar with the challenges and excited about the potential solutions. I believe it's important that content owners, service providers and the public tackle this proactively. We see a lot of focus on combating copyright infringement. But do we see enough focus on the experimentation that is happening with new business models and the copyright tools that will make those new business models possible?"
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/copyright-laws-must-fit-online-evolution-20091109-i5hl.html
New business models will need new content ownership rules.
"PEOPLE around the world want to connect and interact with content online. We expect to be able to sit at our computer, or walk along with our mobile phone, and have content at our fingertips. The internet enables just that, and in doing so has shifted community expectations about access to content.
It is challenging for traditional copyright laws to adapt to the online environment, as was noted by WIPO director-general Francis Gurry in his address to the National Press Club in August.
In Mr Gurry's words: ''It is not necessarily by putting teenagers in jail that we are going to be able to deal with this extremely serious problem.''
Managing copyright online presents some of the most difficult technical and legal challenges on the internet - in part because global rights ownership and management are exceedingly complicated.
For example, music videos often have many different content owners who own different components of the video and audio. One party may own the video, another party the soundtrack and yet another the musical composition. You get the picture.
As a lawyer for YouTube, I am familiar with the challenges and excited about the potential solutions. I believe it's important that content owners, service providers and the public tackle this proactively. We see a lot of focus on combating copyright infringement. But do we see enough focus on the experimentation that is happening with new business models and the copyright tools that will make those new business models possible?"
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/copyright-laws-must-fit-online-evolution-20091109-i5hl.html
Google Battles For Book Rights; Forbes, 11/12/09
Oxford Analytica, via Forbes; Google Battles for Book Rights:
"A settlement between Google and a U.S. court on the digitization of books is expected this week, after Google presents a new version of its proposed settlement with the Association of American Publishers and the Authors' Guild. If approved, it will enable the full roll-out of Google Books in the U.S. market.
However, in October, the European Commission announced that it wanted to resolve the copyright problem in advance of the U.S. company, which had hitherto set the pace on this issue...
New approach. The Commission has recently taken the initiative on issues of digitization and copyright. Interestingly, while Information Commissioner Vivien Reding has talked much about the possibilities for an E.U. approach to the issue, the Commission's paper makes no direct mention of Google. Perhaps the Commission is trying to walk a line between its own enthusiasm for an E.U. solution, and the clear hostility of some member states towards Google Books. This new stance is in contrast to Reding's earlier "pro-Google" stance and may be related to her concerns to secure a further term in the Commission.
Outlook. While a U.S. settlement for Google looks likely to be reached this week, it may not be acceptable to critics at home and abroad. This provides an opportunity for the Commission to push forward with a European regime for digitized libraries. This will depend on the member states' willingness to harmonize copyright rules, a process where progress in the past has been slow."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/google-books-settlement-business-oxford-europe.html
"A settlement between Google and a U.S. court on the digitization of books is expected this week, after Google presents a new version of its proposed settlement with the Association of American Publishers and the Authors' Guild. If approved, it will enable the full roll-out of Google Books in the U.S. market.
However, in October, the European Commission announced that it wanted to resolve the copyright problem in advance of the U.S. company, which had hitherto set the pace on this issue...
New approach. The Commission has recently taken the initiative on issues of digitization and copyright. Interestingly, while Information Commissioner Vivien Reding has talked much about the possibilities for an E.U. approach to the issue, the Commission's paper makes no direct mention of Google. Perhaps the Commission is trying to walk a line between its own enthusiasm for an E.U. solution, and the clear hostility of some member states towards Google Books. This new stance is in contrast to Reding's earlier "pro-Google" stance and may be related to her concerns to secure a further term in the Commission.
Outlook. While a U.S. settlement for Google looks likely to be reached this week, it may not be acceptable to critics at home and abroad. This provides an opportunity for the Commission to push forward with a European regime for digitized libraries. This will depend on the member states' willingness to harmonize copyright rules, a process where progress in the past has been slow."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/google-books-settlement-business-oxford-europe.html
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Ebook entrepreneur Neil Jones takes on the big guys; Guardian, 11/12/09
Katie Allen, Guardian; Ebook entrepreneur Neil Jones takes on the big guys:
"With authors who want to control their own publishing in mind, [Neil Jones] founded Interead and developed the Coolerbooks.com ebook site. He wanted to sell the Sony Reader to accompany the downloads but Sony could not guarantee supply, so he created the Cool-er ereader instead. After a few months in the market, worldwide sales of the Cool-er (which costs £189 in the UK) have soared...
He is confident that his brightly coloured devices, which have been called the iPods of the ebook world, will be number two in America by next autumn in terms of sales, and number one in the UK.
As he takes on the likes of Sony and Amazon – whose Kindle reader launched internationally in October – Jones has been looking into research on David and Goliath battles throughout history. He thinks the odds for the small guy are pretty good. Outside the battlefield, he cites the business example of Virgin Atlantic, currently celebrating its 25th year. "Twenty-five years ago, who would have given Virgin Atlantic any chance against the likes of British Airways?"...
Interead's ebook site recently became the first ebookstore outside the US to offer 500,000 of the public domain books (books that have fallen out of copyright) available from Google Books.
Jones says Interead's latest example of thinking differently is the US retail launch of its reader on the QVC shopping channel. "We know the majority of our market is women – women read more," he says."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/12/small-business-ereaders-neil-jones-profile
"With authors who want to control their own publishing in mind, [Neil Jones] founded Interead and developed the Coolerbooks.com ebook site. He wanted to sell the Sony Reader to accompany the downloads but Sony could not guarantee supply, so he created the Cool-er ereader instead. After a few months in the market, worldwide sales of the Cool-er (which costs £189 in the UK) have soared...
He is confident that his brightly coloured devices, which have been called the iPods of the ebook world, will be number two in America by next autumn in terms of sales, and number one in the UK.
As he takes on the likes of Sony and Amazon – whose Kindle reader launched internationally in October – Jones has been looking into research on David and Goliath battles throughout history. He thinks the odds for the small guy are pretty good. Outside the battlefield, he cites the business example of Virgin Atlantic, currently celebrating its 25th year. "Twenty-five years ago, who would have given Virgin Atlantic any chance against the likes of British Airways?"...
Interead's ebook site recently became the first ebookstore outside the US to offer 500,000 of the public domain books (books that have fallen out of copyright) available from Google Books.
Jones says Interead's latest example of thinking differently is the US retail launch of its reader on the QVC shopping channel. "We know the majority of our market is women – women read more," he says."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/12/small-business-ereaders-neil-jones-profile
Closing chapter of Google Books saga near; CNet, 11/09/09
Tom Krazit, CNet; Closing chapter of Google Books saga near:
"Every book project is a series of deadlines. Google's faces an important one Monday.
Google and representatives for author and publisher groups are due to submit a revised Google Book Search settlement in New York federal court Monday. It's been a long year since they first reached a settlement they deemed "historic," which would have granted Google unique rights to continue scanning out-of-print yet copyright-protected books as it builds out a digital library containing more than 10 million books, which also includes public domain works as well as books scanned through partnerships with publishers.
However, opposition to the settlement grew in the months following its release, and the intervention of the Department of Justice in September forced the parties to rework the settlement. Google has sought to downplay the changes that are in the works, but the filing will showcase just how much Google and author groups have had to bend in order to satisfy the government.
It's not clear how widespread the changes will be. The Justice Department objected to several items it found "serious in isolation, and, taken together, raise cause for concern." The principal objection seemed to concern the Books Rights Registry, a nonprofit organization set up by Google and the author groups to distribute royalty payments from Google Book Search to authors. The group's directors will be picked by the parties, and while Google insists that anyone else who wants to scan out-of-print books can negotiate with the Registry, some objectors are concerned that they won't be able to get the same deal that Google has received.
The main problem, however, is that the settlement effectively sets copyright law precedent by affirming Google's position that it was, and is, allowed to scan books that are out of print but protected by copyright under fair-use rights. This does not sit well with many, and ahead of the revised settlement's release, Google's loudest opponents made their case that Google and author groups should defer to Congress on this issue.
"Congress must retain the exclusive authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to set copyright policy," declared the Open Book Alliance, a group that includes the Internet Archive, Microsoft, Amazon, and Yahoo.
The revised settlement is expected to be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York late on Monday. It's believed that Judge Denny Chin will order some sort of waiting period for interested parties to review the settlement before holding a final hearing, perhaps in early 2010."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10392768-2.html
"Every book project is a series of deadlines. Google's faces an important one Monday.
Google and representatives for author and publisher groups are due to submit a revised Google Book Search settlement in New York federal court Monday. It's been a long year since they first reached a settlement they deemed "historic," which would have granted Google unique rights to continue scanning out-of-print yet copyright-protected books as it builds out a digital library containing more than 10 million books, which also includes public domain works as well as books scanned through partnerships with publishers.
However, opposition to the settlement grew in the months following its release, and the intervention of the Department of Justice in September forced the parties to rework the settlement. Google has sought to downplay the changes that are in the works, but the filing will showcase just how much Google and author groups have had to bend in order to satisfy the government.
It's not clear how widespread the changes will be. The Justice Department objected to several items it found "serious in isolation, and, taken together, raise cause for concern." The principal objection seemed to concern the Books Rights Registry, a nonprofit organization set up by Google and the author groups to distribute royalty payments from Google Book Search to authors. The group's directors will be picked by the parties, and while Google insists that anyone else who wants to scan out-of-print books can negotiate with the Registry, some objectors are concerned that they won't be able to get the same deal that Google has received.
The main problem, however, is that the settlement effectively sets copyright law precedent by affirming Google's position that it was, and is, allowed to scan books that are out of print but protected by copyright under fair-use rights. This does not sit well with many, and ahead of the revised settlement's release, Google's loudest opponents made their case that Google and author groups should defer to Congress on this issue.
"Congress must retain the exclusive authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to set copyright policy," declared the Open Book Alliance, a group that includes the Internet Archive, Microsoft, Amazon, and Yahoo.
The revised settlement is expected to be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York late on Monday. It's believed that Judge Denny Chin will order some sort of waiting period for interested parties to review the settlement before holding a final hearing, perhaps in early 2010."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10392768-2.html
Judge Rules Shepard Fairey Can Get New Lawyer; New York Times, 11/10/09
Melena Ryzik, New York Times; Judge Rules Shepard Fairey Can Get New Lawyer:
"The street artist Shepard Fairey has won the right to a new lawyer in his ongoing suit against The Associated Press over the image that became his celebrated Barack Obama “Hope” poster. In a pretrial hearing, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein also allowed that lawyers for The A.P. can depose Mr. Fairey and his outgoing lawyers before the end of the year, The A.P. reported. The agency and the artist are countersuing each other over the rights to the image, a photo taken in April 2006 at an event at the National Press Club in Washington. Mr. Fairey recently admitted that he had lied publicly and to his own lawyers about which image he had used, which caused them to abandon his case.
He later added that he still believed that his work fell under fair-use guidelines and did not infringe on the A.P.’s copyright, a claim which his new lawyer, Geoffrey Stewart, supported, and that the agency refuted."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/judge-rules-shepard-fairey-can-get-new-lawyer/?scp=1&sq=fairey&st=cse
"The street artist Shepard Fairey has won the right to a new lawyer in his ongoing suit against The Associated Press over the image that became his celebrated Barack Obama “Hope” poster. In a pretrial hearing, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein also allowed that lawyers for The A.P. can depose Mr. Fairey and his outgoing lawyers before the end of the year, The A.P. reported. The agency and the artist are countersuing each other over the rights to the image, a photo taken in April 2006 at an event at the National Press Club in Washington. Mr. Fairey recently admitted that he had lied publicly and to his own lawyers about which image he had used, which caused them to abandon his case.
He later added that he still believed that his work fell under fair-use guidelines and did not infringe on the A.P.’s copyright, a claim which his new lawyer, Geoffrey Stewart, supported, and that the agency refuted."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/judge-rules-shepard-fairey-can-get-new-lawyer/?scp=1&sq=fairey&st=cse
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
As Hollywood Insists Canada Is A Den Of Copyright Thieves, Movie Business Is Thriving; TechDirt, 11/11/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; As Hollywood Insists Canada Is A Den Of Copyright Thieves, Movie Business Is Thriving:
"For years, Hollywood has pushed a totally ridiculous claim that Canada is somehow a den of copyright thieves, and it needs to make its copyright laws much more strict. This fantasy has worked on journalists and politicians, who insist that the movie industry is dying in Canada due to rampant piracy. Except someone forgot to inform the real world. An anonymous reader sends over the news that the owners of Cineplex in Canada are reporting record box office sales and revenue, even with the current economic downturn."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091110/1202446880.shtml
"For years, Hollywood has pushed a totally ridiculous claim that Canada is somehow a den of copyright thieves, and it needs to make its copyright laws much more strict. This fantasy has worked on journalists and politicians, who insist that the movie industry is dying in Canada due to rampant piracy. Except someone forgot to inform the real world. An anonymous reader sends over the news that the owners of Cineplex in Canada are reporting record box office sales and revenue, even with the current economic downturn."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091110/1202446880.shtml
What is Acta and what should I know about it?; Guardian, 11/11/09
Bobbie Johnson, Guardian; What is Acta and what should I know about it?:
""Unlike other high-powered government meetings – which are often accompanied by protests and brouhaha – Acta, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, has been progressing for two years without much fanfare.
Supporters say the treaty will help create a broad consensus on how to deal with counterfeit goods: the kind of legislation usually aimed at criminals who mass-manufacture and sell pirate DVDs, or flood the market with dangerous fake products such as batteries and electrical equipment. In truth, the treaty also contains suggestions for the control of internet content that some believe could radically alter the nature of copyright law worldwide.
According to information that leaked from a secret meeting in South Korea last week, officials are proposing new ways to deal with intellectual property infringement online, including a global three-strikes law that could effectively override any British laws, regardless of whether or not the controversial Mandelson plan goes through parliament...
On top of all this, say campaigners, Acta is being thrashed out in total secrecy – leaving everyone guessing at what laws might be on the way. Professor Michael Geist, a prominent legal expert at the University of Ottowa, says this cloak-and-dagger approach is part of a wider set of problems with the treaty.
"A copyright agreement is being treated akin to nuclear secrets, with virtually no transparency but for a few leaks that have emerged," he told CBC. "As a policy-making matter, it's enormously problematic – but then the provisions associated with the treaty are even more problematic."...
The US government appears to be pushing for three strikes – despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European parliament," said Gwen Hinze of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, adding that the leaks "confirmed everything that we feared"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/11/acta-trade-agreement
""Unlike other high-powered government meetings – which are often accompanied by protests and brouhaha – Acta, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, has been progressing for two years without much fanfare.
Supporters say the treaty will help create a broad consensus on how to deal with counterfeit goods: the kind of legislation usually aimed at criminals who mass-manufacture and sell pirate DVDs, or flood the market with dangerous fake products such as batteries and electrical equipment. In truth, the treaty also contains suggestions for the control of internet content that some believe could radically alter the nature of copyright law worldwide.
According to information that leaked from a secret meeting in South Korea last week, officials are proposing new ways to deal with intellectual property infringement online, including a global three-strikes law that could effectively override any British laws, regardless of whether or not the controversial Mandelson plan goes through parliament...
On top of all this, say campaigners, Acta is being thrashed out in total secrecy – leaving everyone guessing at what laws might be on the way. Professor Michael Geist, a prominent legal expert at the University of Ottowa, says this cloak-and-dagger approach is part of a wider set of problems with the treaty.
"A copyright agreement is being treated akin to nuclear secrets, with virtually no transparency but for a few leaks that have emerged," he told CBC. "As a policy-making matter, it's enormously problematic – but then the provisions associated with the treaty are even more problematic."...
The US government appears to be pushing for three strikes – despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European parliament," said Gwen Hinze of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, adding that the leaks "confirmed everything that we feared"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/11/acta-trade-agreement
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The ACTA Internet provisions: DMCA goes worldwide; Ars Technica, 11/08/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; The ACTA Internet provisions: DMCA goes worldwide:
New details about the Internet section of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) have leaked, and critics are already claiming that they mandate "three strikes" policies and will put an end to Flickr and YouTube. The reality is less sensational but just as important: ACTA is really about taking the DMCA global.
"The statements are strong, but the document they are based on is not. As the ACTA countries (Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Korea, the US, etc.) meet in South Korea this week to hash out the provisions of the treaty dealing with the Internet, multiple reports began to circulate based on "sources" and a leaked document from the EU. Turns out, though, that all of these sources were actually the same one: the leaked EU document, which is now widely available for download (PDF)...
The real problem here is not for US residents, but for everyone else. ACTA is clearly an attempt to bring DMCA ideas like "notice and takedown" to other countries that don't currently use them. For instance, some other countries currently use and prefer a "notice and notice" scheme in which an ISP is not required to takedown allegedly infringing material after receiving a simple notice, but only to forward that notice on to the relevant subscriber.
Extending the anticircumvention language to the rest of the world will also be novel (in a bad way) for other countries, which could follow the US path of allowing DRM to trump copyright law and fair use rights. (Which is why it's pleasing to see that the US negotiators are open to fair use and to country-by-country exceptions to such rules.)...
ACTA is looking a good deal less scary than when it first appeared, but that's no reason for the public to back off its attempts to see what's being negotiated in its name."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/the-acta-internet-provisions-dmca-goes-worldwide.ars
New details about the Internet section of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) have leaked, and critics are already claiming that they mandate "three strikes" policies and will put an end to Flickr and YouTube. The reality is less sensational but just as important: ACTA is really about taking the DMCA global.
"The statements are strong, but the document they are based on is not. As the ACTA countries (Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Korea, the US, etc.) meet in South Korea this week to hash out the provisions of the treaty dealing with the Internet, multiple reports began to circulate based on "sources" and a leaked document from the EU. Turns out, though, that all of these sources were actually the same one: the leaked EU document, which is now widely available for download (PDF)...
The real problem here is not for US residents, but for everyone else. ACTA is clearly an attempt to bring DMCA ideas like "notice and takedown" to other countries that don't currently use them. For instance, some other countries currently use and prefer a "notice and notice" scheme in which an ISP is not required to takedown allegedly infringing material after receiving a simple notice, but only to forward that notice on to the relevant subscriber.
Extending the anticircumvention language to the rest of the world will also be novel (in a bad way) for other countries, which could follow the US path of allowing DRM to trump copyright law and fair use rights. (Which is why it's pleasing to see that the US negotiators are open to fair use and to country-by-country exceptions to such rules.)...
ACTA is looking a good deal less scary than when it first appeared, but that's no reason for the public to back off its attempts to see what's being negotiated in its name."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/the-acta-internet-provisions-dmca-goes-worldwide.ars
An 'Aha Moment' About Ridiculous Trademarks, As Oprah And Mutual Of Omaha Fight Over 'Aha Moment'; TechDirt, 11/10/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; An 'Aha Moment' About Ridiculous Trademarks, As Oprah And Mutual Of Omaha Fight Over 'Aha Moment':
"Reader Trails writes in with news of the latest ridiculousness from the world of trademark law, where Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions and insurance giant Mutual of Omaha got into a bit of a spat over the term "aha moment," with both companies claiming rights over the phrase. Apparently Winfrey regularly uses the phrase "an aha moment" on her television program. Mutual of Omaha came up with a marketing campaign around "official sponsor of the aha moment" and attempted to trademark the phrase. Oprah/Harpo didn't object to the original trademark application, though they later found out about it and legal proceedings began. While none of the press reports seem to point this out, it appears that Oprah had not trademarked the phrase herself, though, she did finally apply for the trademark on "aha moment" in June of this year (nearly a year after Mutual of Omaha's application. The two sides have now "settled," but this conceivably means that anyone else who uses the phrase in areas that potentially compete with Oprah or Mutual of Omaha might find themselves in trouble as well."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091110/0741356873.shtml
"Reader Trails writes in with news of the latest ridiculousness from the world of trademark law, where Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions and insurance giant Mutual of Omaha got into a bit of a spat over the term "aha moment," with both companies claiming rights over the phrase. Apparently Winfrey regularly uses the phrase "an aha moment" on her television program. Mutual of Omaha came up with a marketing campaign around "official sponsor of the aha moment" and attempted to trademark the phrase. Oprah/Harpo didn't object to the original trademark application, though they later found out about it and legal proceedings began. While none of the press reports seem to point this out, it appears that Oprah had not trademarked the phrase herself, though, she did finally apply for the trademark on "aha moment" in June of this year (nearly a year after Mutual of Omaha's application. The two sides have now "settled," but this conceivably means that anyone else who uses the phrase in areas that potentially compete with Oprah or Mutual of Omaha might find themselves in trouble as well."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091110/0741356873.shtml
Murdoch threatens to sue BBC; Guardian, 11/10/09
Roy Greenslade, Guardian; Murdoch threatens to sue BBC:
"Further to yesterday's story about Rupert Murdoch's search engine sabre-rattling, Murdoch could block Google searches entirely, he also launched yet another assault on the BBC.
During the Sky News Australia interview, Murdoch was asked how he will be able to make his plan work to charge for all News Corporation-owned news websites when the likes of the BBC and others internationally provided free news content on its website.
"But we are better," he replied. "If you look at them, most of their stuff is stolen from the newspapers now, and we'll be suing them for copyright.
"They will have to spend a lot more money on a lot more reporters to cover the world when they can't steal from newspapers.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-bbc
"Further to yesterday's story about Rupert Murdoch's search engine sabre-rattling, Murdoch could block Google searches entirely, he also launched yet another assault on the BBC.
During the Sky News Australia interview, Murdoch was asked how he will be able to make his plan work to charge for all News Corporation-owned news websites when the likes of the BBC and others internationally provided free news content on its website.
"But we are better," he replied. "If you look at them, most of their stuff is stolen from the newspapers now, and we'll be suing them for copyright.
"They will have to spend a lot more money on a lot more reporters to cover the world when they can't steal from newspapers.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-bbc
For whom the net tolls; Guardian, 11/10/09
Cory Doctorow, Guardian; For whom the net tolls:
Rupert Murdoch wants to remake the web as a toll both, with him in the collector's seat, but the net won't shift to his will
"What, exactly, is Rupert Murdoch thinking? First, he announces that all of Newscorp's websites will erect paywalls like the one employed by the Wall Street Journal (however, Rupert managed to get the details of the WSJ's wall wrong – no matter, he's a "big picture" guy). Then, he announced that Google and other search engines were "plagiarists" who "rip off" Newscorp's content, and that once the paywalls are up (a date that keeps slipping farther into the future, almost as though the best IT people work for someone who's not Rupert "I Hate the Net" Murdoch!) he'll be blocking Google and the other "parasites" from his sites, making all of Newscorp's properties invisible to search engines. Then, as a kind of loonie cherry atop a banana split with extra crazy sauce, Rupert announces that "fair use is illegal" and he'll be abolishing it shortly.
What is he thinking? We'll never know, of course, but I have a theory...
Now, what about fair use being illegal? At a guess, I'd say that some Richelieu figure in Newscorp's legal department has been passing some evil whispers to Rupert about international copyright law. Specifically, about the Berne Convention – a centuries-old copyright accord that's been integrated into many other trade agreements, including the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and its "three-step test" for whether a copyright exemption is legal.
Copyright exemptions are all the rights that copyright gives to the public, not to creators or publishers, and "three-steps" describes the principles that Berne signatory countries must look to when crafting their own copyright exemptions.
Three steps limits copyright exemptions to:
1. certain special cases …
2. which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work; and …
3. do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.
Now, arguably, many countries fair dealing or fair use rules don't meet these criteria (the US rules on VCRs, book lending, cable TV, jukeboxes, radio plays, and a hundred other cases are favourite villains in these discussions; but many European rules are also difficult to cram into the three-steps frame). And I've certainly heard many corporate law mover-shakers announce that with the right lawsuit, you could get trade courts to force this country or that country to get rid of its fair dealing or fair use provisions.
But this view of international copyright lacks an appreciation of the subtleties of international trade, namely: big, powerful countries can ignore trade courts and treaty rules when it's in their interest to do so, because no one can afford to stop trading with them.
The US gets $1 trillion added to its GDP every year thanks to liberal fair use rules. If the WTO says that it has to ban video recorders or eliminate compulsory licenses on music compositions (or shut down search engines!), it will just ignore the WTO. The US is an old hand at ignoring the United Nations. The US owes billions to the UN in back-dues and shows no signs of repaying it. The fact that the WTO looks upon the US with disapproval will cause precisely nothing to happen in the American legislative branch.
And, if the WTO tries to get other countries to embargo the US, it will quickly learn that China and other factory states can't afford to stop shipping plastic gewgaws, pocket-sized electronics, and cheap textiles to America. And furthermore, other countries can't afford to boycott China – because those countries can't afford to allow a plastic gewgaw and cheap textile gap to emerge with America.
Of course, the elimination of fair use would present many problems to Newscorp – because, as with all media companies, Newscorp relies heavily on copyright exemptions to produce its own programming. I'm sure that if there's a lawyer who's put this idea into Rupert's head that she knows this, but I'm likewise sure that she's perfectly willing to expand the legal department to the thousands of lawyers it would take to negotiate permission for all those uses if fair use goes away. Especially if all those lawyers report to her.
That's my theory: Rupert isn't a technophobic loon who will send his empire to the bottom of the ocean while waging war on search engines. Instead, he's an out-of-touch moustache-twirler who's set his sights on remaking the web as a toll booth (with him in the collector's seat), and his plan hinges on a touchingly naive approach to geopolitics. Either way, old Rupert shows every sign of degenerating into a colourful Howard Hughes figure in a housecoat, demanding that reality shift to his will."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-charging-for-internet
Rupert Murdoch wants to remake the web as a toll both, with him in the collector's seat, but the net won't shift to his will
"What, exactly, is Rupert Murdoch thinking? First, he announces that all of Newscorp's websites will erect paywalls like the one employed by the Wall Street Journal (however, Rupert managed to get the details of the WSJ's wall wrong – no matter, he's a "big picture" guy). Then, he announced that Google and other search engines were "plagiarists" who "rip off" Newscorp's content, and that once the paywalls are up (a date that keeps slipping farther into the future, almost as though the best IT people work for someone who's not Rupert "I Hate the Net" Murdoch!) he'll be blocking Google and the other "parasites" from his sites, making all of Newscorp's properties invisible to search engines. Then, as a kind of loonie cherry atop a banana split with extra crazy sauce, Rupert announces that "fair use is illegal" and he'll be abolishing it shortly.
What is he thinking? We'll never know, of course, but I have a theory...
Now, what about fair use being illegal? At a guess, I'd say that some Richelieu figure in Newscorp's legal department has been passing some evil whispers to Rupert about international copyright law. Specifically, about the Berne Convention – a centuries-old copyright accord that's been integrated into many other trade agreements, including the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and its "three-step test" for whether a copyright exemption is legal.
Copyright exemptions are all the rights that copyright gives to the public, not to creators or publishers, and "three-steps" describes the principles that Berne signatory countries must look to when crafting their own copyright exemptions.
Three steps limits copyright exemptions to:
1. certain special cases …
2. which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work; and …
3. do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.
Now, arguably, many countries fair dealing or fair use rules don't meet these criteria (the US rules on VCRs, book lending, cable TV, jukeboxes, radio plays, and a hundred other cases are favourite villains in these discussions; but many European rules are also difficult to cram into the three-steps frame). And I've certainly heard many corporate law mover-shakers announce that with the right lawsuit, you could get trade courts to force this country or that country to get rid of its fair dealing or fair use provisions.
But this view of international copyright lacks an appreciation of the subtleties of international trade, namely: big, powerful countries can ignore trade courts and treaty rules when it's in their interest to do so, because no one can afford to stop trading with them.
The US gets $1 trillion added to its GDP every year thanks to liberal fair use rules. If the WTO says that it has to ban video recorders or eliminate compulsory licenses on music compositions (or shut down search engines!), it will just ignore the WTO. The US is an old hand at ignoring the United Nations. The US owes billions to the UN in back-dues and shows no signs of repaying it. The fact that the WTO looks upon the US with disapproval will cause precisely nothing to happen in the American legislative branch.
And, if the WTO tries to get other countries to embargo the US, it will quickly learn that China and other factory states can't afford to stop shipping plastic gewgaws, pocket-sized electronics, and cheap textiles to America. And furthermore, other countries can't afford to boycott China – because those countries can't afford to allow a plastic gewgaw and cheap textile gap to emerge with America.
Of course, the elimination of fair use would present many problems to Newscorp – because, as with all media companies, Newscorp relies heavily on copyright exemptions to produce its own programming. I'm sure that if there's a lawyer who's put this idea into Rupert's head that she knows this, but I'm likewise sure that she's perfectly willing to expand the legal department to the thousands of lawyers it would take to negotiate permission for all those uses if fair use goes away. Especially if all those lawyers report to her.
That's my theory: Rupert isn't a technophobic loon who will send his empire to the bottom of the ocean while waging war on search engines. Instead, he's an out-of-touch moustache-twirler who's set his sights on remaking the web as a toll booth (with him in the collector's seat), and his plan hinges on a touchingly naive approach to geopolitics. Either way, old Rupert shows every sign of degenerating into a colourful Howard Hughes figure in a housecoat, demanding that reality shift to his will."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-charging-for-internet
Monday, November 9, 2009
Google, Plaintiffs Blow Book Search Settlement Deadline; PC World, 11/09/09
Juan Carlos Perez, PC World; Google, Plaintiffs Blow Book Search Settlement Deadline:
"Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) need more time to revise the proposed settlement of the copyright infringement lawsuits the author and publisher organizations brought against Google over its Book Search program.
Google and the plaintiffs were supposed to file the revised agreement with the court on Monday, but instead they have asked the judge to give them until the end of the week.
"The parties have sent a letter to the court asking for an extension of time until this Friday, November 13 for the filing of the amended settlement agreement," said Judy Platt, an AAP spokeswoman, via e-mail.
At press time, Judge Denny Chin from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York hadn't decided whether to grant the extension requested today."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/181752/google_plaintiffs_blow_book_search_settlement_deadline.html
"Google, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) need more time to revise the proposed settlement of the copyright infringement lawsuits the author and publisher organizations brought against Google over its Book Search program.
Google and the plaintiffs were supposed to file the revised agreement with the court on Monday, but instead they have asked the judge to give them until the end of the week.
"The parties have sent a letter to the court asking for an extension of time until this Friday, November 13 for the filing of the amended settlement agreement," said Judy Platt, an AAP spokeswoman, via e-mail.
At press time, Judge Denny Chin from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York hadn't decided whether to grant the extension requested today."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/181752/google_plaintiffs_blow_book_search_settlement_deadline.html
Murdoch could block Google searches entirely; Guardian, 11/09/09
Bobbie Johnson, Guardian; Murdoch could block Google searches entirely:
"Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.
In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.
In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.
"I think we will, but that's when we start charging," he said...
Murdoch added that he did not agree with the idea that search engines fell under "fair use" rules - an argument many aggregator websites use as part of their legal justification for reproducing excerpts of news stories online.
"There's a doctrine called fair use, which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether... but we'll take that slowly.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/murdoch-google
"Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.
In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.
In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.
"I think we will, but that's when we start charging," he said...
Murdoch added that he did not agree with the idea that search engines fell under "fair use" rules - an argument many aggregator websites use as part of their legal justification for reproducing excerpts of news stories online.
"There's a doctrine called fair use, which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether... but we'll take that slowly.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/murdoch-google
Fears copyright trade agreement could criminalise the internet; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/10/09
Ari Sharp, Sydney Morning Herald; Fears copyright trade agreement could criminalise the internet:
"INTERNET companies warn that a secretive trade agreement being negotiated could lead to new criminal charges as part of a global effort to protect copyright and thwart piracy.
Australia is among more than a dozen countries that for more than two years have been formulating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which seeks to put pressure on internet service providers to take greater responsibility for cracking down on copyright breaches.
There has been little information about the progress of negotiations - a sixth round concluded last week in South Korea - prompting speculation there would be sweeping changes introduced to protect copyright holders by imposing penalties on users and internet service providers...
While Australia already has some of the strongest copyright protection laws in the world, the Internet Industry Association's chief executive, Peter Coroneos, said he had concerns over the potential consequences.
''There are many internet users that might be in a very grey area in terms of their own behaviour for want of alternatives they would prefer to have,'' he said, referring in particular to people illegally downloading music and movies...
The next round of negotiations will be in Mexico in January."
http://www.smh.com.au/national/fears-copyright-trade-agreement-could-criminalise-the-internet-20091109-i5gk.html
"INTERNET companies warn that a secretive trade agreement being negotiated could lead to new criminal charges as part of a global effort to protect copyright and thwart piracy.
Australia is among more than a dozen countries that for more than two years have been formulating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which seeks to put pressure on internet service providers to take greater responsibility for cracking down on copyright breaches.
There has been little information about the progress of negotiations - a sixth round concluded last week in South Korea - prompting speculation there would be sweeping changes introduced to protect copyright holders by imposing penalties on users and internet service providers...
While Australia already has some of the strongest copyright protection laws in the world, the Internet Industry Association's chief executive, Peter Coroneos, said he had concerns over the potential consequences.
''There are many internet users that might be in a very grey area in terms of their own behaviour for want of alternatives they would prefer to have,'' he said, referring in particular to people illegally downloading music and movies...
The next round of negotiations will be in Mexico in January."
http://www.smh.com.au/national/fears-copyright-trade-agreement-could-criminalise-the-internet-20091109-i5gk.html
French Publisher Sues Google Over Book Project; American Lawyer, via Law.com, 11/06/09
Richard Lloyd, American Lawyer, via Law.com; French Publisher Sues Google Over Book Project:
"Les Éditions de La Martinière filed suit in France in 2006 to stop Google's scanning operation, claiming that even though the vast majority of the scanning is done in the United States, the law being broken is French.
"It is an infernal machine, it never stops. It is a disgrace. It is cultural rape," huffed Serge Eyrolles, to the media, in the best tradition of French aesthetes, at a press conference in September. Eyrolles is the president of the Syndicat National de l'Edition, a group of French publishers that is also supporting the litigation. The publisher wants $25 million in damages, fines of around $150,000 for every reference to a La Martinière book on Google Book Search, and about $150,000 for every day that the books remain online after a judgment is handed down.
Google's lawyer, Herbert Smith partner Alexandra Neri, is having none of it. She describes Eyrolles's outburst as "a declaration from a Greek tragedy," adding prosaically, "New Internet services often draw passion."
The crux is whether French or U.S. copyright law should apply, says Yann Colin of Paris boutique Franklin, who represents La Martinière and writers group the Société des Gens de Lettres. Soon after Google started scanning books in the U.S. in 2004, chief executive officer Eric Schmidt announced that the company was taking advantage of the "fair use" doctrine, which enabled it to make available online an excerpt from every scanned book without the publishers' permission. Such a concept doesn't exist under French law."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435216020
"Les Éditions de La Martinière filed suit in France in 2006 to stop Google's scanning operation, claiming that even though the vast majority of the scanning is done in the United States, the law being broken is French.
"It is an infernal machine, it never stops. It is a disgrace. It is cultural rape," huffed Serge Eyrolles, to the media, in the best tradition of French aesthetes, at a press conference in September. Eyrolles is the president of the Syndicat National de l'Edition, a group of French publishers that is also supporting the litigation. The publisher wants $25 million in damages, fines of around $150,000 for every reference to a La Martinière book on Google Book Search, and about $150,000 for every day that the books remain online after a judgment is handed down.
Google's lawyer, Herbert Smith partner Alexandra Neri, is having none of it. She describes Eyrolles's outburst as "a declaration from a Greek tragedy," adding prosaically, "New Internet services often draw passion."
The crux is whether French or U.S. copyright law should apply, says Yann Colin of Paris boutique Franklin, who represents La Martinière and writers group the Société des Gens de Lettres. Soon after Google started scanning books in the U.S. in 2004, chief executive officer Eric Schmidt announced that the company was taking advantage of the "fair use" doctrine, which enabled it to make available online an excerpt from every scanned book without the publishers' permission. Such a concept doesn't exist under French law."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435216020
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Thinking About Real Copyright Reform; TechDirt, 11/06/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Thinking About Real Copyright Reform:
"Michael Scott alerts us to a recent paper by professor and copyright expert Jessica Litman about "Real Copyright Reform."...
Litman makes similar arguments that have been made recently by James Boyle and William Patry (among others), wondering why there is little investigation into the actual impact of changes in copyright law, rather than just assuming that "stronger protections" lead to better results, when so much of the evidence suggests otherwise. And, of course, all of this harkens back to the speeches by Thomas Macauley [sic] from over a century and a half ago, back when he was able to point to the lack of evidence from those who wished to extend copyright law...
Litman goes on to suggest that the fact that so many people out there don't have any respect for copyright law at all is pretty clearly the fault of the current copyright holders who have twisted and abused the law to the point that people just don't respect it. So, her ideas for copyright reform are based on bringing back "legitimacy" to copyright law by focusing on four principles:
1. Radically simplifying copyright law
2. Empowering content creators (rather than intermediaries and distributors)
3. Empowering readers, listeners and viewers (who, after all, are supposed to be part of the beneficiaries of copyright law)
4. Disintermediating copyright away from the middlemen who seem to control the law today
To then accomplish this, she suggests the following steps:
1. Focus on commercial exploitation (rather than personal use)
2. Simplify what copyright covers (rather than breaking out each separate exclusive right within copyright)
3. Reconnect creators to their copyright (via a termination right that lets them take copyrights back from third parties)
4. Clearly recognize readers' (or viewers', listeners', users', etc) rights
5. Get rid of existing compulsory license (and similar) intermediaries, such as ASCAP, BMI, SoundExchange and others
It's definitely an interesting proposal, though I think there are some serious problems with it."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0406366692.shtml
"Michael Scott alerts us to a recent paper by professor and copyright expert Jessica Litman about "Real Copyright Reform."...
Litman makes similar arguments that have been made recently by James Boyle and William Patry (among others), wondering why there is little investigation into the actual impact of changes in copyright law, rather than just assuming that "stronger protections" lead to better results, when so much of the evidence suggests otherwise. And, of course, all of this harkens back to the speeches by Thomas Macauley [sic] from over a century and a half ago, back when he was able to point to the lack of evidence from those who wished to extend copyright law...
Litman goes on to suggest that the fact that so many people out there don't have any respect for copyright law at all is pretty clearly the fault of the current copyright holders who have twisted and abused the law to the point that people just don't respect it. So, her ideas for copyright reform are based on bringing back "legitimacy" to copyright law by focusing on four principles:
1. Radically simplifying copyright law
2. Empowering content creators (rather than intermediaries and distributors)
3. Empowering readers, listeners and viewers (who, after all, are supposed to be part of the beneficiaries of copyright law)
4. Disintermediating copyright away from the middlemen who seem to control the law today
To then accomplish this, she suggests the following steps:
1. Focus on commercial exploitation (rather than personal use)
2. Simplify what copyright covers (rather than breaking out each separate exclusive right within copyright)
3. Reconnect creators to their copyright (via a termination right that lets them take copyrights back from third parties)
4. Clearly recognize readers' (or viewers', listeners', users', etc) rights
5. Get rid of existing compulsory license (and similar) intermediaries, such as ASCAP, BMI, SoundExchange and others
It's definitely an interesting proposal, though I think there are some serious problems with it."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0406366692.shtml
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Beatles catalog is temporarily banned from music website BlueBeat; LA Times,
Randy Lewis and Todd Martens, LA Times; Beatles catalog is temporarily banned from music website BlueBeat:
Capitol Records this week filed a suit against BlueBeat, which says that songs produced by digital regeneration are akin to songs performed by cover bands and do not run afoul of copyright law.
"A federal court in Los Angeles this week issued a temporary restraining order against a music website that recently had been offering the entire Beatles catalog for downloading at 25 cents per song. The Santa Cruz-based BlueBeat earlier in the week was hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit by EMI's Capitol Records, the group's U.S. label.
The order set back a novel legal argument by BlueBeat that songs produced through digital regeneration are akin to songs performed by cover bands and therefore do not run afoul of copyright law. BlueBeat had argued in court filings that its downloads were legal because the company had created entirely new versions by computer through a process called "psychoacoustic simulations" that makes the re-created songs sound just like the original recordings.
"We analyze them and then synthesize new songs, just as you would read a book and write an article," said BlueBeat Chief Executive Hank Risan. The site's "intention is to create a live performance, as if you are there listening to the actual performers doing the work as opposed to a copy or a phonorecord or CD of the work."
But the court didn't buy it. On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge John F. Walter sided with EMI. "Plaintiffs have . . . produced sufficient evidence demonstrating that [the] defendants copied protected elements of their recordings," the ruling said. "Indeed, screen shots from BlueBeat's website show track titles with the same names as the plaintiff's copyrighted works.""
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-bluebeat7-2009nov07,0,5668337.story
Capitol Records this week filed a suit against BlueBeat, which says that songs produced by digital regeneration are akin to songs performed by cover bands and do not run afoul of copyright law.
"A federal court in Los Angeles this week issued a temporary restraining order against a music website that recently had been offering the entire Beatles catalog for downloading at 25 cents per song. The Santa Cruz-based BlueBeat earlier in the week was hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit by EMI's Capitol Records, the group's U.S. label.
The order set back a novel legal argument by BlueBeat that songs produced through digital regeneration are akin to songs performed by cover bands and therefore do not run afoul of copyright law. BlueBeat had argued in court filings that its downloads were legal because the company had created entirely new versions by computer through a process called "psychoacoustic simulations" that makes the re-created songs sound just like the original recordings.
"We analyze them and then synthesize new songs, just as you would read a book and write an article," said BlueBeat Chief Executive Hank Risan. The site's "intention is to create a live performance, as if you are there listening to the actual performers doing the work as opposed to a copy or a phonorecord or CD of the work."
But the court didn't buy it. On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge John F. Walter sided with EMI. "Plaintiffs have . . . produced sufficient evidence demonstrating that [the] defendants copied protected elements of their recordings," the ruling said. "Indeed, screen shots from BlueBeat's website show track titles with the same names as the plaintiff's copyrighted works.""
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-bluebeat7-2009nov07,0,5668337.story
Friday, November 6, 2009
James Joyce Estate Agrees to Pay Plaintiff's Fees in Fair Use Dispute; National Law Journal, via Law.com, 9/30/09
Karen Sloan, National Law Journal, via Law.com; James Joyce Estate Agrees to Pay Plaintiff's Fees in Fair Use Dispute:
"The estate of author James Joyce has agreed to pay $240,000 in legal costs incurred by a Stanford University scholar following a fair use legal battle over a book about Joyce's daughter.
The settlement ends more than a decade of wrangling over Carol Shloss' book "Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake," which was to include copyrighted material from the celebrated author. Shloss was represented by attorneys from Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project; Keker & Van Nest; and Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin.
Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project, said the latest settlement brings to a close one of the more prominent academic fair use cases in recent years, which garnered interest in part because of the Joyce estate's aggressive approach to protecting copyrighted material. Other Joyce scholars for years have clashed with the estate -- controlled by the author's grandson Stephen James Joyce and trustee Sean Sweeney -- while attempting to excerpt his writing. Falzone said Shloss' legal success should give others the confidence to pursue their fair use rights.
"It really sends a message to people in Carol's position," Falzone said of the settlement. "Often what happens is that the mere threat of legal action is enough to scare [academics] off, and it leads to self-sensorship."
In a written statement, Shloss said that literary estates need to be cautious. "If they don't pay attention to the rights of scholars, authors and researchers, they may end up paying just as the Joyce estate did," she said.
Shloss' success won't create a legal precedent, however, since her ability to publish excepts of Joyce's letters and published works and her collection of legal fees from the Joyce estate were reached through settlements. "
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434181383&pos=ataglance
"The estate of author James Joyce has agreed to pay $240,000 in legal costs incurred by a Stanford University scholar following a fair use legal battle over a book about Joyce's daughter.
The settlement ends more than a decade of wrangling over Carol Shloss' book "Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake," which was to include copyrighted material from the celebrated author. Shloss was represented by attorneys from Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project; Keker & Van Nest; and Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin.
Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project, said the latest settlement brings to a close one of the more prominent academic fair use cases in recent years, which garnered interest in part because of the Joyce estate's aggressive approach to protecting copyrighted material. Other Joyce scholars for years have clashed with the estate -- controlled by the author's grandson Stephen James Joyce and trustee Sean Sweeney -- while attempting to excerpt his writing. Falzone said Shloss' legal success should give others the confidence to pursue their fair use rights.
"It really sends a message to people in Carol's position," Falzone said of the settlement. "Often what happens is that the mere threat of legal action is enough to scare [academics] off, and it leads to self-sensorship."
In a written statement, Shloss said that literary estates need to be cautious. "If they don't pay attention to the rights of scholars, authors and researchers, they may end up paying just as the Joyce estate did," she said.
Shloss' success won't create a legal precedent, however, since her ability to publish excepts of Joyce's letters and published works and her collection of legal fees from the Joyce estate were reached through settlements. "
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434181383&pos=ataglance
EU agrees on Internet, telecoms user rights; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/6/09
Sydney Morning Herald; EU agrees on Internet, telecoms user rights:
"The European parliament and EU nations have agreed new rules to improve the rights to European mobile phone and Internet users, and offer more protection against illegal Internet porn and copyright abuse.
EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding announced the compromise deal, reached late Thursday, after European governments agreed to EU parliament demands to balance a crackdown on illegal downloaders with broader rights for Internet users.
Following a "strong request" from the parliament, and after lengthy negotiations, the future rules state that any national measures regarding restrictions to access to Internet services and applications must be "appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society."
Reding welcomed the deal as "good news for Europe's citizens."...
Under the draft bill, authorities would no longer be able to cut off Internet services to users without providing evidence of illegal downloading or other activity.
The draft law will also boost privacy and consumer rights, make it easier for customers to switch telecoms providers and increase competition for Internet and phone services.
An earlier bill had been rejected by the parliament amid uproar over a draft French anti-piracy law which had suggested that Internet connections of users of peer-to-peer services could be cut without the prior intervention of judicial authorities.
The revised deal stresses that "citizens in the EU are entitled to a prior fair and impartial procedure, including the right to be heard, and they have a right to an effective and timely judicial review.""
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/eu-agrees-on-internet-telecoms-user-rights-20091106-i0pp.html
"The European parliament and EU nations have agreed new rules to improve the rights to European mobile phone and Internet users, and offer more protection against illegal Internet porn and copyright abuse.
EU Telecoms Commissioner Viviane Reding announced the compromise deal, reached late Thursday, after European governments agreed to EU parliament demands to balance a crackdown on illegal downloaders with broader rights for Internet users.
Following a "strong request" from the parliament, and after lengthy negotiations, the future rules state that any national measures regarding restrictions to access to Internet services and applications must be "appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society."
Reding welcomed the deal as "good news for Europe's citizens."...
Under the draft bill, authorities would no longer be able to cut off Internet services to users without providing evidence of illegal downloading or other activity.
The draft law will also boost privacy and consumer rights, make it easier for customers to switch telecoms providers and increase competition for Internet and phone services.
An earlier bill had been rejected by the parliament amid uproar over a draft French anti-piracy law which had suggested that Internet connections of users of peer-to-peer services could be cut without the prior intervention of judicial authorities.
The revised deal stresses that "citizens in the EU are entitled to a prior fair and impartial procedure, including the right to be heard, and they have a right to an effective and timely judicial review.""
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/eu-agrees-on-internet-telecoms-user-rights-20091106-i0pp.html
Judge orders US music website to drop Beatles songs; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/6/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Judge orders US music website to drop Beatles songs:
"A judge on Thursday ordered a California online music service to stop delivering Beatles songs to users, according to a copy of the ruling posted online.
US District Court Judge John Walter in Los Angeles sided with British music giant EMI, which filed suit this week accusing Bluebeat.com and its parent company Media Rights Technologies of infringing on its rights to Beatles songs.
Walter brushed aside Bluebeat's contention that it wasn't violating copyright laws because Beatles tunes at its website were re-recorded "audio visual performances with related sounds."
Bluebeat did not submit any reliable evidence to support its claim that it "independently developed their own original sounds," the judge said in his ruling.
Walter issued a restraining order barring Bluebeat from streaming or selling Beatles digital downloads of Beatles music and said he believed EMI was likely to win its legal case against the Internet firm."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/judge-orders-us-music-website-to-drop-beatles-songs-20091106-i1l9.html
"A judge on Thursday ordered a California online music service to stop delivering Beatles songs to users, according to a copy of the ruling posted online.
US District Court Judge John Walter in Los Angeles sided with British music giant EMI, which filed suit this week accusing Bluebeat.com and its parent company Media Rights Technologies of infringing on its rights to Beatles songs.
Walter brushed aside Bluebeat's contention that it wasn't violating copyright laws because Beatles tunes at its website were re-recorded "audio visual performances with related sounds."
Bluebeat did not submit any reliable evidence to support its claim that it "independently developed their own original sounds," the judge said in his ruling.
Walter issued a restraining order barring Bluebeat from streaming or selling Beatles digital downloads of Beatles music and said he believed EMI was likely to win its legal case against the Internet firm."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/judge-orders-us-music-website-to-drop-beatles-songs-20091106-i1l9.html
Why Do Canada And Europe Copyright Money?; TechDirt, 11/5/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Why Do Canada And Europe Copyright Money?:
"We've discussed in the past the odd idea that any government should be able to copyright anything it produces, but plenty of governments still do maintain things like "crown copyright" or other similar concepts for content they create. Yet, it looks like some countries have gone one step further. They copyright their money. Yes, Michael Scott points us to a blog post from an American law professor, Eric E. Johnson, who was on a trip to Canada and was surprised to discover that they have copyright notices on their paper currency. Of course, this should make you wonder: if you counterfeit some Canadian money are you also on the hook for copyright infringement violations? Or is there some other reason for the copyright notice. Are they afraid other nations might copy the design without compensation?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/0418556762.shtml
"We've discussed in the past the odd idea that any government should be able to copyright anything it produces, but plenty of governments still do maintain things like "crown copyright" or other similar concepts for content they create. Yet, it looks like some countries have gone one step further. They copyright their money. Yes, Michael Scott points us to a blog post from an American law professor, Eric E. Johnson, who was on a trip to Canada and was surprised to discover that they have copyright notices on their paper currency. Of course, this should make you wonder: if you counterfeit some Canadian money are you also on the hook for copyright infringement violations? Or is there some other reason for the copyright notice. Are they afraid other nations might copy the design without compensation?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/0418556762.shtml
Meet the Beatles... re-recording? Bluebeat claims its downloads are legal; Guardian, 11/5/09
Charles Arthur, Guardian; Meet the Beatles... re-recording? Bluebeat claims its downloads are legal:
A US company is offering digital downloads of the Beatles' music, the first in the world, putting it in the crosshairs of a lawsuit by EMI
"The Beatles songs are available for digital download, apparently legitimately. You have to go to an American site called Bluebeat which has possibly one of the worst download systems ever (a weird Java applet that insists on getting access to your computer), but they're there. And they really sound like the Beatles. In fact, hell, it is the Beatles.
This is puzzling, because the Beatles songs haven't been licensed for digital download to other sites. And, if you read the very extensive coverage on Wired, it seems that Apple Corps, the Beatles' management company, probably hasn't either. (I contacted Apple Corps earlier today but have not received a response.) EMI (the Beatles' publishers) has filed a lawsuit, Wired explains.
According to Wired, Bluebeat is claiming - in a bizarre court document - that it has made "re-recordings" of the songs using "psycho-acoustic simulation"...
For Bluebeat, though, it's a precipitous route towards calamity for a company that had probably been doing OK on its own. The lawsuit looks indefensible, will cost millions that it probably doesn't have, and is only going to give it short-term attention. Possibly this is what the company behind it, the mysterious Media Rights Technologies, Inc. of "PO Box 8447, Santa Cruz" (to quote the domain registration) is after.
Last word back to a lawyer contacted by Wired:
"They're hosed. That just doesn't make any sense," said Scott Mackenzie, a Dallas copyright attorney. "I don't even see the basis of their theory.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/05/beatles-bluebeat-emi-lawsuit-puzzle
A US company is offering digital downloads of the Beatles' music, the first in the world, putting it in the crosshairs of a lawsuit by EMI
"The Beatles songs are available for digital download, apparently legitimately. You have to go to an American site called Bluebeat which has possibly one of the worst download systems ever (a weird Java applet that insists on getting access to your computer), but they're there. And they really sound like the Beatles. In fact, hell, it is the Beatles.
This is puzzling, because the Beatles songs haven't been licensed for digital download to other sites. And, if you read the very extensive coverage on Wired, it seems that Apple Corps, the Beatles' management company, probably hasn't either. (I contacted Apple Corps earlier today but have not received a response.) EMI (the Beatles' publishers) has filed a lawsuit, Wired explains.
According to Wired, Bluebeat is claiming - in a bizarre court document - that it has made "re-recordings" of the songs using "psycho-acoustic simulation"...
For Bluebeat, though, it's a precipitous route towards calamity for a company that had probably been doing OK on its own. The lawsuit looks indefensible, will cost millions that it probably doesn't have, and is only going to give it short-term attention. Possibly this is what the company behind it, the mysterious Media Rights Technologies, Inc. of "PO Box 8447, Santa Cruz" (to quote the domain registration) is after.
Last word back to a lawyer contacted by Wired:
"They're hosed. That just doesn't make any sense," said Scott Mackenzie, a Dallas copyright attorney. "I don't even see the basis of their theory.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/05/beatles-bluebeat-emi-lawsuit-puzzle
Seamstress takes on might of Chanel over crochet pattern; Guardian, 11/6/09
Lizzy Davies, Guardian; Seamstress takes on might of Chanel over crochet pattern:
"A 61-year-old woman from a small town in eastern France is taking on the might of one of world's greatest fashion houses in a case that threatens to shake up the way the industry treats its skilled workers.
Carmen Colle, a former social worker who founded an ethical clothing company to provide employment for refugees, is waging a legal battle against Chanel over a crochet pattern which she claims was copied by designers at Rue Cambon.
Arguing that the sample was created by her own tailors and not by her former client, she is pushing for €2.5m (£2.2m) of damages for alleged counterfeit and breach of contract. Chanel insists the design was its own.
The case, which has taken four and a half years to come to court, is being watched closely by observers of the high fashion industry, who believe it could empower the petits mains who work as tailors and seamstresses for powerful brands in France.
Although businesses such as Colle's World Tricot, which supply handmade haute couture to some of fashion's leading names, often suggest ideas for designs, they rarely – if ever – ask for copyright, preferring to be given a large order from the client.
If Colle, who claims Chanel used her pattern without placing an order, wins her fight, she believes it could have widespread repercussions."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/05/seamstress-takes-on-chanel
"A 61-year-old woman from a small town in eastern France is taking on the might of one of world's greatest fashion houses in a case that threatens to shake up the way the industry treats its skilled workers.
Carmen Colle, a former social worker who founded an ethical clothing company to provide employment for refugees, is waging a legal battle against Chanel over a crochet pattern which she claims was copied by designers at Rue Cambon.
Arguing that the sample was created by her own tailors and not by her former client, she is pushing for €2.5m (£2.2m) of damages for alleged counterfeit and breach of contract. Chanel insists the design was its own.
The case, which has taken four and a half years to come to court, is being watched closely by observers of the high fashion industry, who believe it could empower the petits mains who work as tailors and seamstresses for powerful brands in France.
Although businesses such as Colle's World Tricot, which supply handmade haute couture to some of fashion's leading names, often suggest ideas for designs, they rarely – if ever – ask for copyright, preferring to be given a large order from the client.
If Colle, who claims Chanel used her pattern without placing an order, wins her fight, she believes it could have widespread repercussions."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/05/seamstress-takes-on-chanel
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.; Boing Boing, 11/3/09
Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing; Secret copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad.:
"The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:
* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
* That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)"
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html
"The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:
* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
* That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)"
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html
The Global Antitrust Battle Over Google's Library; Time, 10/31/09
Theo Emery, Time; The Global Antitrust Battle Over Google's Library:
"Who knew there was so much fight in those dusty books? When Google announced plans in 2004 to scan millions of tomes tucked into library stacks across the country, admirers embraced the ambitious project as a digital undertaking as visionary as Magellan's setting sail around the world. The project would throw open musty archives everywhere, putting hidden works on the Internet for all to use.
How things change. The library project is now embroiled in a ferocious legal free-for-all spanning the globe. At the battle's heart is Google's year-old settlement with groups representing authors and publishers who sued the company over its plans to digitize and copy books. In response to complaints by the settlement's many opponents, a federal judge in New York has asked Google to revise the settlement by Nov. 9. After that, opponents and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will carefully scrutinize the new deal.
The case presents a tangle of issues: how to create new markets for old books without shortchanging authors; how to nurture new technology without stifling competition; and how to preserve all that when one company — in this case, Google — is pioneering the revolution and could profit handsomely. One commentator, who supports the original settlement, has called it "the World Series of antitrust."...
Pamela Samuelson, a faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology who has raised concerns about the deal, called it an "extremely significant case" for the future of digital publishing. "The logic of the agreement, I think, is going to put Google in a very privileged position in the digital book market."
The original settlement appeared to be a fait accompli until last summer, when a sleepy copyright case, Authors Guild et al. vs. Google Inc., erupted into an intercontinental brawl. Hundreds of authors and publishers from the Netherlands to New Zealand have written to U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin, some expressing astonishment and outrage. France and Germany have protested; German Chancellor Angela Merkel singled out Google for criticism in a podcast this month.
Authors are on both sides of the barricades. Opponents of the settlement include silver-maned folk singer Arlo Guthrie and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, author of the so-called torture memos for President George W. Bush. The settlement counts The Joy Luck Club author Amy Tan and noir crime novelist Elmore Leonard among its supporters. The deal has many other supporters as well, from disability rights groups to Dr. Seuss Enterprises and the National Grange.
Fueled by writers, the debate has plenty of rhetorical flourishes. One incensed objector called Google a "Dickensian street pickpocket." The Open Book Alliance, a coalition that includes goliath rival Microsoft as well as the National Writers Union, likened Google to industrialist John D. Rockefeller and compared the settlement to a monopoly cartel controlling the future of digital publishing. "They have worked very hard to create the impression that this is like a freight train, and if you want to stand in front of it, you'll get run over," Gary Reback, an antitrust attorney who penned the legal brief for the Open Book Alliance, told TIME.
Last month the DOJ dropped perhaps the biggest bombshell. While saying that the settlement could breathe life into millions of unavailable works, the government also said the deal raised "significant legal concerns," and was the target of an antitrust probe...
What to make of it all? With e-books poised to take off, the case raises thorny questions. Will the deal benefit the public along with authors and publishers, while providing only minimal profit to Google? Or will it chart the course for future digital publishing and nudge Google ahead of rivals in the infancy of an emerging and potentially lucrative business? It is suspense worthy of a legal thriller — and Scott Turow is among the settlement's supporters."
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1933055,00.html
"Who knew there was so much fight in those dusty books? When Google announced plans in 2004 to scan millions of tomes tucked into library stacks across the country, admirers embraced the ambitious project as a digital undertaking as visionary as Magellan's setting sail around the world. The project would throw open musty archives everywhere, putting hidden works on the Internet for all to use.
How things change. The library project is now embroiled in a ferocious legal free-for-all spanning the globe. At the battle's heart is Google's year-old settlement with groups representing authors and publishers who sued the company over its plans to digitize and copy books. In response to complaints by the settlement's many opponents, a federal judge in New York has asked Google to revise the settlement by Nov. 9. After that, opponents and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will carefully scrutinize the new deal.
The case presents a tangle of issues: how to create new markets for old books without shortchanging authors; how to nurture new technology without stifling competition; and how to preserve all that when one company — in this case, Google — is pioneering the revolution and could profit handsomely. One commentator, who supports the original settlement, has called it "the World Series of antitrust."...
Pamela Samuelson, a faculty director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology who has raised concerns about the deal, called it an "extremely significant case" for the future of digital publishing. "The logic of the agreement, I think, is going to put Google in a very privileged position in the digital book market."
The original settlement appeared to be a fait accompli until last summer, when a sleepy copyright case, Authors Guild et al. vs. Google Inc., erupted into an intercontinental brawl. Hundreds of authors and publishers from the Netherlands to New Zealand have written to U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin, some expressing astonishment and outrage. France and Germany have protested; German Chancellor Angela Merkel singled out Google for criticism in a podcast this month.
Authors are on both sides of the barricades. Opponents of the settlement include silver-maned folk singer Arlo Guthrie and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, author of the so-called torture memos for President George W. Bush. The settlement counts The Joy Luck Club author Amy Tan and noir crime novelist Elmore Leonard among its supporters. The deal has many other supporters as well, from disability rights groups to Dr. Seuss Enterprises and the National Grange.
Fueled by writers, the debate has plenty of rhetorical flourishes. One incensed objector called Google a "Dickensian street pickpocket." The Open Book Alliance, a coalition that includes goliath rival Microsoft as well as the National Writers Union, likened Google to industrialist John D. Rockefeller and compared the settlement to a monopoly cartel controlling the future of digital publishing. "They have worked very hard to create the impression that this is like a freight train, and if you want to stand in front of it, you'll get run over," Gary Reback, an antitrust attorney who penned the legal brief for the Open Book Alliance, told TIME.
Last month the DOJ dropped perhaps the biggest bombshell. While saying that the settlement could breathe life into millions of unavailable works, the government also said the deal raised "significant legal concerns," and was the target of an antitrust probe...
What to make of it all? With e-books poised to take off, the case raises thorny questions. Will the deal benefit the public along with authors and publishers, while providing only minimal profit to Google? Or will it chart the course for future digital publishing and nudge Google ahead of rivals in the infancy of an emerging and potentially lucrative business? It is suspense worthy of a legal thriller — and Scott Turow is among the settlement's supporters."
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1933055,00.html
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
EMI sues US music website over Beatles tunes; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/5/09
Sydney Morning Herald; EMI sues US music website over Beatles tunes:
"British music giant EMI on Wednesday confirmed it is suing a California online music service that streams and digitally delivers Beatles songs to users.
EMI filed suit Tuesday in a US district court in Los Angeles, accusing Bluebeat.com of copyright infringement and demanding that Beatles music be removed from the website's playlists.
EMI owns the rights to Beatles recordings and collaborates with Apple Corps on distribution of the music.
EMI said that Bluebeat, which offers MP3 downloads of songs for 25 cents each, is not authorized sell Beatles tunes.
A visit to the Bluebeat website by AFP on Wednesday revealed a host of Beatles albums or individual songs that could be streamed for free listening or purchased as digital downloads.
Bluebeat did not return an AFP request for comment.
Apple Corps was the Beatles recording label and is controlled by surviving members of the legendary 1960s era band and spouses of the late John Lennon and George Harrison.
Apple Corps has been notoriously leery of making Beatles music available for digital download, eschewing even allowing songs to be delivered to iPod or iPhone devices through the globally popular iTunes online store.
Beatles music made a tentative step in September toward a digital future with the release of "The Beatles: Rock Band" videogame devoted to the group's music and performances."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/emi-sues-us-music-website-over-beatles-tunes-20091105-hyfw.html
"British music giant EMI on Wednesday confirmed it is suing a California online music service that streams and digitally delivers Beatles songs to users.
EMI filed suit Tuesday in a US district court in Los Angeles, accusing Bluebeat.com of copyright infringement and demanding that Beatles music be removed from the website's playlists.
EMI owns the rights to Beatles recordings and collaborates with Apple Corps on distribution of the music.
EMI said that Bluebeat, which offers MP3 downloads of songs for 25 cents each, is not authorized sell Beatles tunes.
A visit to the Bluebeat website by AFP on Wednesday revealed a host of Beatles albums or individual songs that could be streamed for free listening or purchased as digital downloads.
Bluebeat did not return an AFP request for comment.
Apple Corps was the Beatles recording label and is controlled by surviving members of the legendary 1960s era band and spouses of the late John Lennon and George Harrison.
Apple Corps has been notoriously leery of making Beatles music available for digital download, eschewing even allowing songs to be delivered to iPod or iPhone devices through the globally popular iTunes online store.
Beatles music made a tentative step in September toward a digital future with the release of "The Beatles: Rock Band" videogame devoted to the group's music and performances."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/emi-sues-us-music-website-over-beatles-tunes-20091105-hyfw.html
Lawyers sue, men plunder; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/2/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Lawyers sue, men plunder:
A throwaway line in a television quiz show was the prelude to a multimillion-dollar court battle that could change the way musicians go about creating music, writes Joel Gibson.
"The courts have been reluctant to interpret copyright law too heavily against new works, she said, for fear of stymying creativity - but the music industry will be anxiously awaiting the outcome of this case.
''It does create uncertainty about how people can reference other songs … It means you can never have a thought or write a song without looking over your shoulder. Musicians would have to start retro-fitting their songs with some kind of analysis.''
McKeough said the protection of creative works had to be balanced by the knowledge that ''nothing is truly original, there are so many songs in the world''.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/music/lawyers-sue-men-plunder/2009/11/01/1257010103921.html?page=4
A throwaway line in a television quiz show was the prelude to a multimillion-dollar court battle that could change the way musicians go about creating music, writes Joel Gibson.
"The courts have been reluctant to interpret copyright law too heavily against new works, she said, for fear of stymying creativity - but the music industry will be anxiously awaiting the outcome of this case.
''It does create uncertainty about how people can reference other songs … It means you can never have a thought or write a song without looking over your shoulder. Musicians would have to start retro-fitting their songs with some kind of analysis.''
McKeough said the protection of creative works had to be balanced by the knowledge that ''nothing is truly original, there are so many songs in the world''.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/music/lawyers-sue-men-plunder/2009/11/01/1257010103921.html?page=4
Stormtrooper battle returns to British courts; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/4/09
AP, via Sydney Morning Herald; Stormtrooper battle returns to British courts:
"The George Lucas empire struck back on Tuesday against a British prop designer who sold replicas of the Stormtrooper uniforms from the Star Wars movies.
Designer Andrew Ainsworth has fought a long legal battle against Lucasfilm Ltd, which sued him over the replica suits and helmets he sold through a website.
Ainsworth sculpted the Stormtrooper helmets for the first Star Wars movie in 1977 and later sold replicas of the moulded white uniforms, worn in the films by warriors of the evil Galactic Empire.
The case ended ambiguously at London's High Court last year. A judge ruled that Ainsworth had violated Lucas's US copyright, but rejected a copyright claim against him under British law, saying the costumes were not works of art."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/film/stormtrooper-battle-returns-to-british-courts/2009/11/04/1257247646143.html
"The George Lucas empire struck back on Tuesday against a British prop designer who sold replicas of the Stormtrooper uniforms from the Star Wars movies.
Designer Andrew Ainsworth has fought a long legal battle against Lucasfilm Ltd, which sued him over the replica suits and helmets he sold through a website.
Ainsworth sculpted the Stormtrooper helmets for the first Star Wars movie in 1977 and later sold replicas of the moulded white uniforms, worn in the films by warriors of the evil Galactic Empire.
The case ended ambiguously at London's High Court last year. A judge ruled that Ainsworth had violated Lucas's US copyright, but rejected a copyright claim against him under British law, saying the costumes were not works of art."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/film/stormtrooper-battle-returns-to-british-courts/2009/11/04/1257247646143.html
Google seeks to turn a profit from YouTube copyright clashes; Guardian, 11/1/09
Katie Allen, Guardian; Google seeks to turn a profit from YouTube copyright clashes:
Group is working to persuade music and video companies to cash in rather than clamp down when their content is uploaded
"Google is seeking to drag YouTube into profit by convincing music and film footage rights owners to make advertising revenue from their content rather than remove it from the video-sharing site for breach of copyright.
The company has been touting a fingerprinting system for rights holders that means YouTube can identify their material even when it has been altered and made part of user-generated content such as wedding videos or satirical clips.
First developed two years ago, the ContentID system is attracting record labels, TV producers and sports rights owners keen to make more money from the web. Google's computers compare all the material uploaded to YouTube – around 20 hours every minute – against "ID files" from a 100,000-hour library of reference material from the rights holders. The system creates reports of what is viewed where and how often.
Rights holders then have the choice to either block their content or make money from it. That means putting advertising alongside the video and sharing the revenues with YouTube, which takes a small cut. They can also make money by linking to sites selling DVDs, downloads and CDs of the original content.
Google declines to give a number but says the majority of rights holders choose to monetise their content. It points to Mr Bean as a recent beneficiary of the system."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/01/google-youtube-monetise-content
Group is working to persuade music and video companies to cash in rather than clamp down when their content is uploaded
"Google is seeking to drag YouTube into profit by convincing music and film footage rights owners to make advertising revenue from their content rather than remove it from the video-sharing site for breach of copyright.
The company has been touting a fingerprinting system for rights holders that means YouTube can identify their material even when it has been altered and made part of user-generated content such as wedding videos or satirical clips.
First developed two years ago, the ContentID system is attracting record labels, TV producers and sports rights owners keen to make more money from the web. Google's computers compare all the material uploaded to YouTube – around 20 hours every minute – against "ID files" from a 100,000-hour library of reference material from the rights holders. The system creates reports of what is viewed where and how often.
Rights holders then have the choice to either block their content or make money from it. That means putting advertising alongside the video and sharing the revenues with YouTube, which takes a small cut. They can also make money by linking to sites selling DVDs, downloads and CDs of the original content.
Google declines to give a number but says the majority of rights holders choose to monetise their content. It points to Mr Bean as a recent beneficiary of the system."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/01/google-youtube-monetise-content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)