Georg Szalai, Media Week, Victoria Espinel Confirmed as U.S. Copyright Czar:
"Industry representatives on Friday hailed a Thursday evening Senate vote that confirmed Victoria Espinel as the nation's first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator.
But they also called on Washington to help ensure her success in fighting intellectual property theft as President Obama's copyright czar.
"Intellectual property industries are an essential economic engine to the U.S. economy, and it is critical that the new IP Enforcement Coordinator now be given adequate resources to carry out her new responsibilities," said MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman.
He lauded Espinel as "a capable and experienced advocate for the artists and creators." She is a former assistant U.S. trade representative for intellectual property and innovation who also previously worked with the chief U.S. trade negotiator on IP issues before the World Trade Organization.
In a U.S. Chamber of Commerce blog post Friday, Rick Cotton, executive vp and general counsel at NBC Universal, also expressed hopes that the new top government post will have a big impact.
"Let's hope that today represents the high-water mark of IP theft," he said. Espinel's confirmation as the first IPEC "should help to see the tide begin to recede under the pressure of the Obama administration's commitment to protecting IP, producing new jobs and new industries that will benefit the nation for decades to come.""
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/content_display/news/digital-downloads/broadband/e3i6b9aa596485fe24d89a9b45a4ad30a7f
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Supplemental Notification of Authors and Publishers About Google Book Search Settlement Begins Today; PR Newswire, 12/14/09
PR Newswire, Supplemental Notification of Authors and Publishers About Google Book Search Settlement Begins Today:
"Distribution of the Supplemental Notice in the Google Book Search Settlement is now taking place. The Supplemental Notice summarizes the principal changes from the Original Settlement to the Amended Settlement. The Court overseeing the case preliminarily approved the Amended Settlement, and approved the Supplemental Notice, on November 19, 2009.
Please visit http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/ for detailed information, including the Supplemental Notice and revised key dates. The website is available in 36 languages.
The Court will hold a hearing on whether to grant final approval of the Amended Settlement on February 18, 2010.
SOURCE Google Book Search Settlement Administrator"
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/supplemental-notification-of-authors-and-publishers-about-google-book-search-settlement-begins-today-79212967.html
"Distribution of the Supplemental Notice in the Google Book Search Settlement is now taking place. The Supplemental Notice summarizes the principal changes from the Original Settlement to the Amended Settlement. The Court overseeing the case preliminarily approved the Amended Settlement, and approved the Supplemental Notice, on November 19, 2009.
Please visit http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/ for detailed information, including the Supplemental Notice and revised key dates. The website is available in 36 languages.
The Court will hold a hearing on whether to grant final approval of the Amended Settlement on February 18, 2010.
SOURCE Google Book Search Settlement Administrator"
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/supplemental-notification-of-authors-and-publishers-about-google-book-search-settlement-begins-today-79212967.html
Nicolas Sarkozy fights Google over classic books; Telegraph, 12/14/09
Henry Samuel, Telegraph; Nicolas Sarkozy fights Google over classic books:
Nicolas Sarkozy has vowed to keep Google's hands off France's classic books and national treasures by spending £680 million making them available on the internet.
"The French president made the announcement amid a row between the internet giant and publishers, who claim Google has breached their copyright by scanning books for its online library Google Books.
Mr Sarkozy said the sum would go towards the "digitisation of the content of our museums, our libraries and our cinematographic heritage".
He added: "There is no question of letting this heritage go."
The package was part of his government's "grand loan" – a £31 billion spending spree he detailed on Monday aimed at boosting France's economic growth and competitiveness.
The pledge followed Mr Sarkozy's warning last week that he would not allow Google to carry out a massive literary land grab on French and other European literature.
"We are not going to be stripped of our heritage for the benefit of a big company, no matter how friendly, big or American it is," he said.
"We are not going to be deprived of what generations and generations have produced in the French language just because we weren't capable of funding our own digitisation project."
Jean-Noël Jeanneney, a former chief of the national library recently warned recently that the French Revolution risked being given an "Anglo-Saxon" slant if Google prevailed – one in which "valiant British aristocrats triumphed over bloodthirsty Jacobins and the guillotine blotted out the rights of man."
Google, based in California, recently unveiled plans recently to scan books and make them digitally searchable online. It argues almost all the books digitised are in the public domain and that it will pay copyright on any still in private hands.
The Paris publishing group, La Martinière, took Google to court after it discovered the firm had scanned and archived books on which La Martinière holds the copyright. A ruling is expected on Friday. Seuil has also sued Google for copyright breach.
Marissa Maya, Google's number three last week last week denied stealing French heritage. "I think our service is very poorly understood," she said.
"The advantage of this work is precisely to conserve literature and allow people to access it. Right now we're simply the most advanced company in this area." In his speech at the Elysée yesterday, Mr Sarkozy said that public groups like Google could be part of the venture but the state would be very much in charge.
The money is expected to go to boosting Gallica, France's own book-scanning project, which is linked to Europeana, the EU's digital library."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6811462/Sarkozy-fights-Google-over-classic-books.html
Nicolas Sarkozy has vowed to keep Google's hands off France's classic books and national treasures by spending £680 million making them available on the internet.
"The French president made the announcement amid a row between the internet giant and publishers, who claim Google has breached their copyright by scanning books for its online library Google Books.
Mr Sarkozy said the sum would go towards the "digitisation of the content of our museums, our libraries and our cinematographic heritage".
He added: "There is no question of letting this heritage go."
The package was part of his government's "grand loan" – a £31 billion spending spree he detailed on Monday aimed at boosting France's economic growth and competitiveness.
The pledge followed Mr Sarkozy's warning last week that he would not allow Google to carry out a massive literary land grab on French and other European literature.
"We are not going to be stripped of our heritage for the benefit of a big company, no matter how friendly, big or American it is," he said.
"We are not going to be deprived of what generations and generations have produced in the French language just because we weren't capable of funding our own digitisation project."
Jean-Noël Jeanneney, a former chief of the national library recently warned recently that the French Revolution risked being given an "Anglo-Saxon" slant if Google prevailed – one in which "valiant British aristocrats triumphed over bloodthirsty Jacobins and the guillotine blotted out the rights of man."
Google, based in California, recently unveiled plans recently to scan books and make them digitally searchable online. It argues almost all the books digitised are in the public domain and that it will pay copyright on any still in private hands.
The Paris publishing group, La Martinière, took Google to court after it discovered the firm had scanned and archived books on which La Martinière holds the copyright. A ruling is expected on Friday. Seuil has also sued Google for copyright breach.
Marissa Maya, Google's number three last week last week denied stealing French heritage. "I think our service is very poorly understood," she said.
"The advantage of this work is precisely to conserve literature and allow people to access it. Right now we're simply the most advanced company in this area." In his speech at the Elysée yesterday, Mr Sarkozy said that public groups like Google could be part of the venture but the state would be very much in charge.
The money is expected to go to boosting Gallica, France's own book-scanning project, which is linked to Europeana, the EU's digital library."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6811462/Sarkozy-fights-Google-over-classic-books.html
Monday, December 14, 2009
Stanford Dissertations Moving from ProQuest to Google - An interview with Mimi Calter; Stanford University Libraries, 11/20/09
Mary Minow [Executive Editor of the Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Website], via Stanford University Libraries; Stanford Dissertations Moving from ProQuest to Google - An interview with Mimi Calter [Assistant University Librarian & Chief of Staff for Stanford University Libraries & Academic Information Resources]:
"Minow: Stanford is partnering with Google to make student dissertations available worldwide. What does Google bring to the table that simply using the Stanford Digital Repository on its own does not?
Calter: Google provides broad distribution. We'll be using the Stanford Digital Repository for preservation, and we'll be making the dissertations available through our online catalog, but working with Google dramatically increases the visibility of the materials. We think that visibility is an advantage for our students.
In the long run, we hope that other schools will join us in contributing their dissertations to Google, and that "Google Dissertations" will become the go-to resource for dissertations, theses and similar materials.
Minow: What is Stanford's policy on copyright and student dissertations? Are students required to give permission to the University to copy and distribute their dissertations?
Calter: Per Section 5.2 of the Research Policy Handbook (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/5-2.html), Stanford's students retain copyright in works they create as part of their coursework, including dissertations. Therefore, Stanford does need the students' permission to preserve and distribute those dissertations. As part of the standard submission process, students grant Stanford a license to do so. It is a license only, and students retain full copyright in their work.
The submission process also allows students to apply a Creative Commons license to their work. We hope that this addition will raise awareness of the Creative Commons option, and further increase the accessibility of these materials.
Minow: I understand that this move away from ProQuest means that Stanford student work will no longer be included in Dissertation Abstracts unless the student makes an affirmative effort to submit to ProQuest. What are the implications for the broader research world of such a step?
Calter: It is a concern, but our sense is that the wide availability and visibility of the dissertations through the Stanford catalog and Google will more than compensate for the lack of a listing in Dissertation Abstracts.
Minow: Google has been harvesting electronic dissertations for several years. How does Stanford's submission of the dissertations differ from Google's past practices?
Calter: The submission process that Stanford is using is similar to the one that publishers are using for Google Book Search. So we'll be submitting metadata along with the dissertation files, and expect to have more descriptive listings than just titles."
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/commentary_and_analysis/2009_11_calter.html
"Minow: Stanford is partnering with Google to make student dissertations available worldwide. What does Google bring to the table that simply using the Stanford Digital Repository on its own does not?
Calter: Google provides broad distribution. We'll be using the Stanford Digital Repository for preservation, and we'll be making the dissertations available through our online catalog, but working with Google dramatically increases the visibility of the materials. We think that visibility is an advantage for our students.
In the long run, we hope that other schools will join us in contributing their dissertations to Google, and that "Google Dissertations" will become the go-to resource for dissertations, theses and similar materials.
Minow: What is Stanford's policy on copyright and student dissertations? Are students required to give permission to the University to copy and distribute their dissertations?
Calter: Per Section 5.2 of the Research Policy Handbook (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/5-2.html), Stanford's students retain copyright in works they create as part of their coursework, including dissertations. Therefore, Stanford does need the students' permission to preserve and distribute those dissertations. As part of the standard submission process, students grant Stanford a license to do so. It is a license only, and students retain full copyright in their work.
The submission process also allows students to apply a Creative Commons license to their work. We hope that this addition will raise awareness of the Creative Commons option, and further increase the accessibility of these materials.
Minow: I understand that this move away from ProQuest means that Stanford student work will no longer be included in Dissertation Abstracts unless the student makes an affirmative effort to submit to ProQuest. What are the implications for the broader research world of such a step?
Calter: It is a concern, but our sense is that the wide availability and visibility of the dissertations through the Stanford catalog and Google will more than compensate for the lack of a listing in Dissertation Abstracts.
Minow: Google has been harvesting electronic dissertations for several years. How does Stanford's submission of the dissertations differ from Google's past practices?
Calter: The submission process that Stanford is using is similar to the one that publishers are using for Google Book Search. So we'll be submitting metadata along with the dissertation files, and expect to have more descriptive listings than just titles."
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/commentary_and_analysis/2009_11_calter.html
Public Knowledge Announces First Annual World's Fair Use Day (WFUD); Public Knowledge, 12/9/09
Mehan Jayasuriya, Public Knowledge; Public Knowledge Announces First Annual World's Fair Use Day (WFUD):
"We at Public Knowledge are thrilled to announce the first annual World's Fair Use Day (WFUD), a day-long celebration of creativity, innovation and remix culture to be held at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. on January 12th, 2010. Fair use is the legal right that allows creators to make limited uses of copyrighted materials for purposes like comment, criticism and education. At World's Fair Use Day, we'll demonstrate how fair uses of existing works, ranging from recontextualized audio mashups to documentary films, enrich our culture and contribute to the ongoing dialog on copyright. Speakers at the event will include Ben Huh (CEO of the Cheezburger Network, the publishing company behind ICanHasCheezburger and FailBlog), Dan Walsh (creator of the web comic "Garfield Minus Garfield"), Pennsylvania Congressman and mashup fan Mike Doyle, TechDirt founder Mike Masnick, mashup artist DJ Earworm and many more. The night before the main event, we'll kick things off with a "Movie Night," hosted by Mark Hosler of the pioneering audio collage band Negativland and featuring Brett Gaylor, director of RIP: A Remix Manifesto and Kembrew McLeod, director of Copyright Criminals. To view the full list of speakers and schedule and to RSVP, visit wfud.info."
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2806
"We at Public Knowledge are thrilled to announce the first annual World's Fair Use Day (WFUD), a day-long celebration of creativity, innovation and remix culture to be held at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. on January 12th, 2010. Fair use is the legal right that allows creators to make limited uses of copyrighted materials for purposes like comment, criticism and education. At World's Fair Use Day, we'll demonstrate how fair uses of existing works, ranging from recontextualized audio mashups to documentary films, enrich our culture and contribute to the ongoing dialog on copyright. Speakers at the event will include Ben Huh (CEO of the Cheezburger Network, the publishing company behind ICanHasCheezburger and FailBlog), Dan Walsh (creator of the web comic "Garfield Minus Garfield"), Pennsylvania Congressman and mashup fan Mike Doyle, TechDirt founder Mike Masnick, mashup artist DJ Earworm and many more. The night before the main event, we'll kick things off with a "Movie Night," hosted by Mark Hosler of the pioneering audio collage band Negativland and featuring Brett Gaylor, director of RIP: A Remix Manifesto and Kembrew McLeod, director of Copyright Criminals. To view the full list of speakers and schedule and to RSVP, visit wfud.info."
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2806
[OpEd] Twitter Tapping; New York Times, 12/13/09
[OpEd] New York Times; Twitter Tapping:
"The government is increasingly monitoring Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites for tax delinquents, copyright infringers and political protesters. A public interest group has filed a lawsuit to learn more about this monitoring, in the hope of starting a national discussion and modifying privacy laws as necessary for the online era.
Law enforcement is not saying a lot about its social surveillance, but examples keep coming to light. The Wall Street Journal reported this summer that state revenue agents have been searching for tax scofflaws by mining information on MySpace and Facebook. In October, the F.B.I. searched the New York home of a man suspected of helping coordinate protests at the Group of 20 meeting in Pittsburgh by sending out messages over Twitter.
In some cases, the government appears to be engaged in deception. The Boston Globe recently quoted a Massachusetts district attorney as saying that some police officers were going undercover on Facebook as part of their investigations.
Wired magazine reported last month that In-Q-Tel, an investment arm of the Central Intelligence Agency, has put money into Visible Technologies, a software company that crawls across blogs, online forums, and open networks like Twitter and YouTube to monitor what is being said.
This month the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law sued the Department of Defense, the C.I.A. and other federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act to learn more about their use of social networking sites.
The suit seeks to uncover what guidelines these agencies have about this activity, including information about whether agents are permitted to use fake identities or to engage in subterfuge, such as tricking people into accepting Facebook friend requests.
Privacy law was largely created in the pre-Internet age, and new rules are needed to keep up with the ways people communicate today. Much of what occurs online, like blog posting, is intended to be an open declaration to the world, and law enforcement is within its rights to read and act on what is written. Other kinds of communication, particularly in a closed network, may come with an expectation of privacy. If government agents are joining social networks under false pretenses to spy without a court order, for example, that might be crossing a line.
A national conversation about social networking and other forms of online privacy is long overdue. The first step toward having it is for the public to know more about what is currently being done. Making the federal government answer these reasonable Freedom of Information Act requests would be a good start."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/opinion/13sun2.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=twitter&st=cse
"The government is increasingly monitoring Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites for tax delinquents, copyright infringers and political protesters. A public interest group has filed a lawsuit to learn more about this monitoring, in the hope of starting a national discussion and modifying privacy laws as necessary for the online era.
Law enforcement is not saying a lot about its social surveillance, but examples keep coming to light. The Wall Street Journal reported this summer that state revenue agents have been searching for tax scofflaws by mining information on MySpace and Facebook. In October, the F.B.I. searched the New York home of a man suspected of helping coordinate protests at the Group of 20 meeting in Pittsburgh by sending out messages over Twitter.
In some cases, the government appears to be engaged in deception. The Boston Globe recently quoted a Massachusetts district attorney as saying that some police officers were going undercover on Facebook as part of their investigations.
Wired magazine reported last month that In-Q-Tel, an investment arm of the Central Intelligence Agency, has put money into Visible Technologies, a software company that crawls across blogs, online forums, and open networks like Twitter and YouTube to monitor what is being said.
This month the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law sued the Department of Defense, the C.I.A. and other federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act to learn more about their use of social networking sites.
The suit seeks to uncover what guidelines these agencies have about this activity, including information about whether agents are permitted to use fake identities or to engage in subterfuge, such as tricking people into accepting Facebook friend requests.
Privacy law was largely created in the pre-Internet age, and new rules are needed to keep up with the ways people communicate today. Much of what occurs online, like blog posting, is intended to be an open declaration to the world, and law enforcement is within its rights to read and act on what is written. Other kinds of communication, particularly in a closed network, may come with an expectation of privacy. If government agents are joining social networks under false pretenses to spy without a court order, for example, that might be crossing a line.
A national conversation about social networking and other forms of online privacy is long overdue. The first step toward having it is for the public to know more about what is currently being done. Making the federal government answer these reasonable Freedom of Information Act requests would be a good start."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/opinion/13sun2.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=twitter&st=cse
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Spying begins on UK web users; Short Sharp Science Blog, 12/9/09
Paul Marks, Short Sharp Science Blog; Spying begins on UK web users:
"We reported last week on plans to enforce copyright law by forcing internet service providers to spy on consumers to detect and report every piece of copied music, movies, e-books, games and software.
Now one UK ISP, Virgin Media, is trialling some of the technology needed to do that on about 1.6 million of its customers.
Provided by Detica, a subsidiary of defence firm BAE Systems, the system is being used to try and gauge the size of the alleged piracy problem.
CView, as the system is known, will take a snapshot of the scale of peer-to-peer music transfers over a few months.
It will do so by copying every packet of data that passes by, and looking for the digital signatures of data transferred using the popular bittorrent, gnutella, and edonkey file sharing protocols.
Whenever it finds a data packet that matches, it will extract the code these protocols use to identify the contents of the packet.
CView will then compare that code with a database of "musical fingerprints" to identify any music being shared, allowing it to work out if the data packet infringes copyright.
As a result, Virgin will find out how much file-sharing traffic is infringing copyright, and what the most-pirated tracks and albums are, the Register reports.
CView won't be able to finger individual users, because the IP addresses that identify each computer's connection will be stripped from every packet. But some Virgin customers are worried about the potential for it to be used for snooping at a later date.
CView's technology could conceivably be used to identify people accessing certain data, for example.
Or it could block certain content, in much the same way as China's "great firewall".
The anonymisation of the data in Virgin's assessment phase, and the fact that no humans see it, should mean the technology does not count as illegal interception, says Richard Clayton at the University of Cambridge's security lab.But he says on the security group's blog that "it may take some case law before anyone can say for sure"."
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/spying-begins-on-uk-web-users.html
"We reported last week on plans to enforce copyright law by forcing internet service providers to spy on consumers to detect and report every piece of copied music, movies, e-books, games and software.
Now one UK ISP, Virgin Media, is trialling some of the technology needed to do that on about 1.6 million of its customers.
Provided by Detica, a subsidiary of defence firm BAE Systems, the system is being used to try and gauge the size of the alleged piracy problem.
CView, as the system is known, will take a snapshot of the scale of peer-to-peer music transfers over a few months.
It will do so by copying every packet of data that passes by, and looking for the digital signatures of data transferred using the popular bittorrent, gnutella, and edonkey file sharing protocols.
Whenever it finds a data packet that matches, it will extract the code these protocols use to identify the contents of the packet.
CView will then compare that code with a database of "musical fingerprints" to identify any music being shared, allowing it to work out if the data packet infringes copyright.
As a result, Virgin will find out how much file-sharing traffic is infringing copyright, and what the most-pirated tracks and albums are, the Register reports.
CView won't be able to finger individual users, because the IP addresses that identify each computer's connection will be stripped from every packet. But some Virgin customers are worried about the potential for it to be used for snooping at a later date.
CView's technology could conceivably be used to identify people accessing certain data, for example.
Or it could block certain content, in much the same way as China's "great firewall".
The anonymisation of the data in Virgin's assessment phase, and the fact that no humans see it, should mean the technology does not count as illegal interception, says Richard Clayton at the University of Cambridge's security lab.But he says on the security group's blog that "it may take some case law before anyone can say for sure"."
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/spying-begins-on-uk-web-users.html
‘Missed Opportunity’ In File Sharing Case? Don’t Believe It; Wired, 12/8/09
David Kravets, Wired; ‘Missed Opportunity’ In File Sharing Case? Don’t Believe It:
"With the $675,000 judgment against Joel Tenenbaum now final, the inevitable finger pointing has begun.
Tenenbaum was only the second person in the nation to be sued by the RIAA for file sharing and to take the case all the way to jury trial, making it a closely watched case. It’s not surprising he lost, given that he admitted to sharing 30 songs on Kazaa and Limewire. But a few commentators have decided that Tenenbaum’s lawyer, Harvard’s Charles Nesson, is to blame for failing to offer the nuanced “fair use” defense invited by the judge...
What’s gone ignored, though, is that the defense invited by commentators and Judge Gertner wouldn’t have helped Nesson’s client in the least. Virtually none of the scenarios laid out in the ruling applied to 25-year-old Joel Tenenbaum, a classic copyright scofflaw who was neither space-shifting nor downloading music otherwise unavailable online.
“For the most part, he was downloading them and sharing them like the rest of the kids — and not particularly for sampling,” Nesson said in a telephone interview. “That is the bottom line.”...
Nesson’s performance wasn’t as stellar as it was in 1971, when he successfully defended Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case. Judge Gertner took the time to upbraid Nesson for his behavior.
“Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings on the web,” Gertner wrote, adding that Nesson and his defense team of Harvard students mounted a “chaotic” defense.
But if he’d lied about the facts — making Ars Technica and the L.A. Times happy — his client would be no better off.
The other defendant to go against the RIAA before a jury is Jammie Thomas-Rasset. A Minnesota jury dinged her $1.92 million for 24 songs this summer after jurors concluded she lied on the stand, testifying that perhaps others, including her children, were the actual copyright scofflaws.
Copyright reform advocates are perennially frustrated that their perfectly reasonable ideas of what qualifies as “fair use” online don’t get a chance to be heard in court. That’s no coincidence — the RIAA isn’t going to take a case to trial if it might produce a pro-consumer ruling. But the armchair barristers blaming Nesson for failing to carry their reform message to the Tenenbaum court are misguided.
Regardless of whether the Copyright Act is flawed, or Nesson was out to lunch, the simple fact is the RIAA had Tenenbaum dead to rights."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/nesson-2/#more-11854
"With the $675,000 judgment against Joel Tenenbaum now final, the inevitable finger pointing has begun.
Tenenbaum was only the second person in the nation to be sued by the RIAA for file sharing and to take the case all the way to jury trial, making it a closely watched case. It’s not surprising he lost, given that he admitted to sharing 30 songs on Kazaa and Limewire. But a few commentators have decided that Tenenbaum’s lawyer, Harvard’s Charles Nesson, is to blame for failing to offer the nuanced “fair use” defense invited by the judge...
What’s gone ignored, though, is that the defense invited by commentators and Judge Gertner wouldn’t have helped Nesson’s client in the least. Virtually none of the scenarios laid out in the ruling applied to 25-year-old Joel Tenenbaum, a classic copyright scofflaw who was neither space-shifting nor downloading music otherwise unavailable online.
“For the most part, he was downloading them and sharing them like the rest of the kids — and not particularly for sampling,” Nesson said in a telephone interview. “That is the bottom line.”...
Nesson’s performance wasn’t as stellar as it was in 1971, when he successfully defended Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case. Judge Gertner took the time to upbraid Nesson for his behavior.
“Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings on the web,” Gertner wrote, adding that Nesson and his defense team of Harvard students mounted a “chaotic” defense.
But if he’d lied about the facts — making Ars Technica and the L.A. Times happy — his client would be no better off.
The other defendant to go against the RIAA before a jury is Jammie Thomas-Rasset. A Minnesota jury dinged her $1.92 million for 24 songs this summer after jurors concluded she lied on the stand, testifying that perhaps others, including her children, were the actual copyright scofflaws.
Copyright reform advocates are perennially frustrated that their perfectly reasonable ideas of what qualifies as “fair use” online don’t get a chance to be heard in court. That’s no coincidence — the RIAA isn’t going to take a case to trial if it might produce a pro-consumer ruling. But the armchair barristers blaming Nesson for failing to carry their reform message to the Tenenbaum court are misguided.
Regardless of whether the Copyright Act is flawed, or Nesson was out to lunch, the simple fact is the RIAA had Tenenbaum dead to rights."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/nesson-2/#more-11854
Copyright Owners Fight Plan to Release E-Books for the Blind; Wired, 12/11/09
David Kravets, Wired; Copyright Owners Fight Plan to Release E-Books for the Blind:
"A broad swath of American enterprise ranging from major software makers to motion picture and music companies are joining forces to oppose a new international treaty that would make books more accessible to the blind.
On Monday, dozens of nations will meet in Geneva to consider adopting the WIPO Treaty for Sharing Accessible Formats of Copyrighted Works for Persons Who are Blind or Have other Reading Disabilities. The proposal (.pdf) before a subcommittee of the roughly 180 World Intellectual Property Organization members would sanction the cross-border sharing of DRM-protected digitized books that tens of thousands of blind and visually disabled people read with devices and tools like the Pac Mate, Book Port and Victor Reader.
“This treaty would be the first one that is not done for the copyright owner, but for the user of the works — for the blind to make a copyrighted work accessible,” says Manon Ress, a policy analyst at Knowledge Ecology International, a Washington, D.C.-based human rights lobby that helped spearhead the proposal.
But that prospect doesn’t sit well with American business. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest lobby representing 3 million businesses, argues that the plan being proposed by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay, “raises a number of serious concerns,” (.pdf) chief among them the specter that the treaty would spawn a rash of internet book piracy.
The treaty also creates a bad precedent by loosening copyright restrictions, instead of tightening them as every previous copyright treaty has done, said Brad Huther, a chamber director. Huther concluded in a Dec. 2 letter to the U.S. Copyright office that the international community “should not engage in pursuing a copyright-exemption based paradigm.”
Echoing that concern, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry of America told the Copyright Office last month that such a treaty would “begin to dismantle the existing global treaty structure of copyright law, through the adoption of an international instrument at odds with existing, longstanding and well-settled norms.”
The proposal before the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights could free up thousands of book titles to millions of blind people in WIPO-member nations — without payment to the publisher.
Many WIPO nations, most in the industrialized world including England, the United States and Canada, have copyright exemptions that usually allow non-profit companies to market copyrighted works without permission. They scan and digitize books into the so-called universal Daisy format, which includes features like narration and digitized Braille.
The Daisy Corp. Consortium, a Swiss-based international agency, controls formatting worldwide and has some 100 companies under its direction across the globe. The largest catalog rests in the United States, in which three non-profits, including the Library of Congress, host some half million digital titles produced by federal grants and donations.
As it now stands, none of the nations may allow persons outside their borders to access these works, which are usually doled out for little or no charge. The treaty seeks to free up the cross-border sharing of the books for the blind.
“People who oppose copyright exemptions oppose exemptions on principle that there should be no exemptions of copyright law,” says George Kerscher, Daisy’s general secretary. “They should have sole right and discretion to do what they want with their intellectual property. To a great extent, the opposition to the treaty is based on that principle.”
To receive any reading materials, the blind and disabled must prove their condition, he said. In the United States, Knowledge Ecology International estimates about 5 percent of published books have been transformed to the Daisy format.
Google is the only major U.S. corporation to side with the blind in the international tussle. In filings with the Copyright Office, the company called for American copyright holders to see past their doctrinal opposition to weakening copyright protections.
“We are concerned that some of the comments are simply stating opposition to a larger agenda of limitations and exceptions,” (.pdf) Google’s chief copyright officer, William Paltry, wrote this month. “We believe this is an unproductive approach to solving what is a discrete, long-standing problem that affects a group that needs and deserves the protections of the international community.”
Not surprisingly, U.S. book publishers are the harshest critics of the proposal. The Association of American Publishers, which represents about 300 publishers large and small, argue the treaty is not necessary. The publishers suggest the blind and disabled should pay for their materials –- the only way the market for such products could flourish.
“Under the proposed draft treaty, where it appears that privileged copies could be made even where accessible versions were commercially available, copyright owners would have understandable doubts about the wisdom of investing in the production of accessible versions for the market,” the association’s vice president, Allan Adler, wrote the Copyright Office on Dec. 4.
“Under these circumstances, publishers not unreasonably hesitate and wonder whether they can expect such a market to flourish when potential customers would still have the option of relying upon a statutory exception to get an accessible version of a work without having to pay for it,” (.pdf) Adler added.
Dan Burke, a 52-year-old blind man from Montana and a self-described “book worm,” does not agree with the publishers.
Burke, a victim of a retinal disease that blinded him decades ago, often acquires books and poems at Bookshare, an online nonprofit offering about 60,000 titles in exchange for $50 in annual dues and other volunteer work. Burke says none of the rank-and-file commercially available e-readers, including the Kindle, are adequately equipped for the blind.
“You have to be able to see to use these, to turn the machine on and navigate menus,” says Burke.
Amazon, however, said this week that it would soon produce a blind-accessible Kindle, one with an audible menu and large font for the visually impaired.
But Amazon, the Kindle’s maker, gives book authors the option of disabling the read-aloud function, notes Burke, a board member for the National Federation of the Blind, which supports the treaty. The Authors Guild, an advocacy group for writers, argued earlier this year that reading a book aloud counts as an unauthorized public performance.
“Information is what we want. Information is the power to become economically viable members of society,” Burke said. “This is a world in which if you don’t have money you usually don’t have access.”"
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/blind_block/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
"A broad swath of American enterprise ranging from major software makers to motion picture and music companies are joining forces to oppose a new international treaty that would make books more accessible to the blind.
On Monday, dozens of nations will meet in Geneva to consider adopting the WIPO Treaty for Sharing Accessible Formats of Copyrighted Works for Persons Who are Blind or Have other Reading Disabilities. The proposal (.pdf) before a subcommittee of the roughly 180 World Intellectual Property Organization members would sanction the cross-border sharing of DRM-protected digitized books that tens of thousands of blind and visually disabled people read with devices and tools like the Pac Mate, Book Port and Victor Reader.
“This treaty would be the first one that is not done for the copyright owner, but for the user of the works — for the blind to make a copyrighted work accessible,” says Manon Ress, a policy analyst at Knowledge Ecology International, a Washington, D.C.-based human rights lobby that helped spearhead the proposal.
But that prospect doesn’t sit well with American business. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest lobby representing 3 million businesses, argues that the plan being proposed by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay, “raises a number of serious concerns,” (.pdf) chief among them the specter that the treaty would spawn a rash of internet book piracy.
The treaty also creates a bad precedent by loosening copyright restrictions, instead of tightening them as every previous copyright treaty has done, said Brad Huther, a chamber director. Huther concluded in a Dec. 2 letter to the U.S. Copyright office that the international community “should not engage in pursuing a copyright-exemption based paradigm.”
Echoing that concern, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry of America told the Copyright Office last month that such a treaty would “begin to dismantle the existing global treaty structure of copyright law, through the adoption of an international instrument at odds with existing, longstanding and well-settled norms.”
The proposal before the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights could free up thousands of book titles to millions of blind people in WIPO-member nations — without payment to the publisher.
Many WIPO nations, most in the industrialized world including England, the United States and Canada, have copyright exemptions that usually allow non-profit companies to market copyrighted works without permission. They scan and digitize books into the so-called universal Daisy format, which includes features like narration and digitized Braille.
The Daisy Corp. Consortium, a Swiss-based international agency, controls formatting worldwide and has some 100 companies under its direction across the globe. The largest catalog rests in the United States, in which three non-profits, including the Library of Congress, host some half million digital titles produced by federal grants and donations.
As it now stands, none of the nations may allow persons outside their borders to access these works, which are usually doled out for little or no charge. The treaty seeks to free up the cross-border sharing of the books for the blind.
“People who oppose copyright exemptions oppose exemptions on principle that there should be no exemptions of copyright law,” says George Kerscher, Daisy’s general secretary. “They should have sole right and discretion to do what they want with their intellectual property. To a great extent, the opposition to the treaty is based on that principle.”
To receive any reading materials, the blind and disabled must prove their condition, he said. In the United States, Knowledge Ecology International estimates about 5 percent of published books have been transformed to the Daisy format.
Google is the only major U.S. corporation to side with the blind in the international tussle. In filings with the Copyright Office, the company called for American copyright holders to see past their doctrinal opposition to weakening copyright protections.
“We are concerned that some of the comments are simply stating opposition to a larger agenda of limitations and exceptions,” (.pdf) Google’s chief copyright officer, William Paltry, wrote this month. “We believe this is an unproductive approach to solving what is a discrete, long-standing problem that affects a group that needs and deserves the protections of the international community.”
Not surprisingly, U.S. book publishers are the harshest critics of the proposal. The Association of American Publishers, which represents about 300 publishers large and small, argue the treaty is not necessary. The publishers suggest the blind and disabled should pay for their materials –- the only way the market for such products could flourish.
“Under the proposed draft treaty, where it appears that privileged copies could be made even where accessible versions were commercially available, copyright owners would have understandable doubts about the wisdom of investing in the production of accessible versions for the market,” the association’s vice president, Allan Adler, wrote the Copyright Office on Dec. 4.
“Under these circumstances, publishers not unreasonably hesitate and wonder whether they can expect such a market to flourish when potential customers would still have the option of relying upon a statutory exception to get an accessible version of a work without having to pay for it,” (.pdf) Adler added.
Dan Burke, a 52-year-old blind man from Montana and a self-described “book worm,” does not agree with the publishers.
Burke, a victim of a retinal disease that blinded him decades ago, often acquires books and poems at Bookshare, an online nonprofit offering about 60,000 titles in exchange for $50 in annual dues and other volunteer work. Burke says none of the rank-and-file commercially available e-readers, including the Kindle, are adequately equipped for the blind.
“You have to be able to see to use these, to turn the machine on and navigate menus,” says Burke.
Amazon, however, said this week that it would soon produce a blind-accessible Kindle, one with an audible menu and large font for the visually impaired.
But Amazon, the Kindle’s maker, gives book authors the option of disabling the read-aloud function, notes Burke, a board member for the National Federation of the Blind, which supports the treaty. The Authors Guild, an advocacy group for writers, argued earlier this year that reading a book aloud counts as an unauthorized public performance.
“Information is what we want. Information is the power to become economically viable members of society,” Burke said. “This is a world in which if you don’t have money you usually don’t have access.”"
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/blind_block/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
Legal Battles Over E-Book Rights to Older Books; New York Times, 12/13/09
Motoko Rich, New York Times; Legal Battles Over E-Book Rights to Older Books:
"William Styron may have been one of the leading literary lions of recent decades, but his books are not selling much these days. Now his family has a plan to lure digital-age readers with e-book versions of titles like “Sophie’s Choice,” “The Confessions of Nat Turner” and Mr. Styron’s memoir of depression, “Darkness Visible.”
But the question of exactly who owns the electronic rights to such older titles is in dispute, making it a rising source of conflict in one of the publishing industry’s last remaining areas of growth.
Mr. Styron’s family believes it retains the rights, since the books were first published before e-books existed. Random House, Mr. Styron’s longtime publisher, says it owns those rights, and it is determined to secure its place — and continuing profits — in the Kindle era.
The discussions about the digital fate of Mr. Styron’s work are similar to the negotiations playing out across the book industry as publishers hustle to capture the rights to release e-book versions of so-called backlist books. Indeed, the same new e-book venture Mr. Styron’s family hopes to use has run into similar resistance from the print publisher of “Catch-22” by Joseph Heller.
On Friday, Markus Dohle, chief executive of Random House, sent a letter to dozens of literary agents, writing that the company’s older agreements gave it “the exclusive right to publish in electronic book publishing formats.”
Backlist titles, which continue to be reprinted long after their initial release, are crucial to publishing houses because of their promise of lucrative revenue year after year. But authors and agents are particularly concerned that traditional publishers are not offering sufficient royalties on e-book editions, which they point out are cheaper for publishers to produce. Some are considering taking their digital rights elsewhere, which could deal a financial blow to the hobbled publishing industry.
The tussle over who owns the electronic rights — and how much the authors should earn in digital royalties — potentially puts into play works by authors like Ralph Ellison and John Updike.
Some publishers have already made agreements with authors or their estates to release digital editions. All of Ernest Hemingway’s books, for example, are available in electronic versions from his print publisher, Scribner, a unit of Simon & Schuster.
But with only a small fraction of the thousands of books in print available in e-book form, there are many titles to be fought over.
“This is a wide open frontier right now,” said Maja Thomas, senior vice president for digital and audio publishing at the Hachette Book Group.
While most traditional publishers have included e-book rights in new author contracts for 15 years, many titles were originally published before e-books were explicitly included in contracts.
And with electronic readers like the Kindle from Amazon and the Nook from Barnes & Noble attracting new readers and sales of e-books growing exponentially, authors and publishers are trying to figure out how best to harness the new technology...
There is some precedent for arguments over e-book versions of backlist titles. In 2002, Random House sued RosettaBooks, an e-book publisher, for copyright infringement when Rosetta signed contracts with authors — including Mr. Styron — to release digital versions of previously published novels.
In its suit, Random House relied on wording in its contracts that granted it all rights to publish the works “in book form.” In its letter to agents on Friday, Random House invoked the same wording to defend its right to publish e-books of backlist titles.
In 2002, a federal judge in Manhattan denied Random House’s request for a preliminary injunction against RosettaBooks, ruling that “in book form” did not automatically include e-books. An appellate court similarly denied Random House’s request.
The case never went to trial. In a settlement, Random House granted Rosetta a license to release e-book versions of 51 titles. Under a different agreement with Mr. Styron, Rosetta also published two of his books, though its license to do so has since expired.
Agents say some authors and their estates are seeking alternative routes for e-books in part because they are dissatisfied with the digital royalty rate offered by most traditional publishers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/media/13ebooks.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=e-books&st=cse
"William Styron may have been one of the leading literary lions of recent decades, but his books are not selling much these days. Now his family has a plan to lure digital-age readers with e-book versions of titles like “Sophie’s Choice,” “The Confessions of Nat Turner” and Mr. Styron’s memoir of depression, “Darkness Visible.”
But the question of exactly who owns the electronic rights to such older titles is in dispute, making it a rising source of conflict in one of the publishing industry’s last remaining areas of growth.
Mr. Styron’s family believes it retains the rights, since the books were first published before e-books existed. Random House, Mr. Styron’s longtime publisher, says it owns those rights, and it is determined to secure its place — and continuing profits — in the Kindle era.
The discussions about the digital fate of Mr. Styron’s work are similar to the negotiations playing out across the book industry as publishers hustle to capture the rights to release e-book versions of so-called backlist books. Indeed, the same new e-book venture Mr. Styron’s family hopes to use has run into similar resistance from the print publisher of “Catch-22” by Joseph Heller.
On Friday, Markus Dohle, chief executive of Random House, sent a letter to dozens of literary agents, writing that the company’s older agreements gave it “the exclusive right to publish in electronic book publishing formats.”
Backlist titles, which continue to be reprinted long after their initial release, are crucial to publishing houses because of their promise of lucrative revenue year after year. But authors and agents are particularly concerned that traditional publishers are not offering sufficient royalties on e-book editions, which they point out are cheaper for publishers to produce. Some are considering taking their digital rights elsewhere, which could deal a financial blow to the hobbled publishing industry.
The tussle over who owns the electronic rights — and how much the authors should earn in digital royalties — potentially puts into play works by authors like Ralph Ellison and John Updike.
Some publishers have already made agreements with authors or their estates to release digital editions. All of Ernest Hemingway’s books, for example, are available in electronic versions from his print publisher, Scribner, a unit of Simon & Schuster.
But with only a small fraction of the thousands of books in print available in e-book form, there are many titles to be fought over.
“This is a wide open frontier right now,” said Maja Thomas, senior vice president for digital and audio publishing at the Hachette Book Group.
While most traditional publishers have included e-book rights in new author contracts for 15 years, many titles were originally published before e-books were explicitly included in contracts.
And with electronic readers like the Kindle from Amazon and the Nook from Barnes & Noble attracting new readers and sales of e-books growing exponentially, authors and publishers are trying to figure out how best to harness the new technology...
There is some precedent for arguments over e-book versions of backlist titles. In 2002, Random House sued RosettaBooks, an e-book publisher, for copyright infringement when Rosetta signed contracts with authors — including Mr. Styron — to release digital versions of previously published novels.
In its suit, Random House relied on wording in its contracts that granted it all rights to publish the works “in book form.” In its letter to agents on Friday, Random House invoked the same wording to defend its right to publish e-books of backlist titles.
In 2002, a federal judge in Manhattan denied Random House’s request for a preliminary injunction against RosettaBooks, ruling that “in book form” did not automatically include e-books. An appellate court similarly denied Random House’s request.
The case never went to trial. In a settlement, Random House granted Rosetta a license to release e-book versions of 51 titles. Under a different agreement with Mr. Styron, Rosetta also published two of his books, though its license to do so has since expired.
Agents say some authors and their estates are seeking alternative routes for e-books in part because they are dissatisfied with the digital royalty rate offered by most traditional publishers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/business/media/13ebooks.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=e-books&st=cse
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Unsettled: Questions about the Google Book Search Settlement | Peer to Peer Review; Library Journal, 12/10/09
Barbara Fister, Library Journal; Unsettled: Questions about the Google Book Search Settlement Peer to Peer Review:
"The most striking change is that the agreement covers a much smaller universe of scanned books, only those published in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia or registered in the US copyright office. Jonathan Brand, author of the third update to the aptly-titled Guide to the Perplexed, estimates "perhaps as much as 50% of the titles in the research libraries partnering with Google are not in English; and most of these foreign language titles probably were published outside the U.S. and were not registered with the Copyright Office."
Other issues that remain problematic in this amended settlement were nicely summed up in a series of posts at the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Deep Links blog, all of them related to core library values...
At this point I am as ambivalent as ever about Google's extraordinary "moon shot." From the start, I was concerned, as Rory Litwin was, about the transformation of libraries' collections, developed over decades, into a monopolistic commercial venture, one that depends on lowering privacy barriers to function. I was hopeful, back then, that it might establish a new understanding of fair use that would be of benefit to other digitization projects. I didn't foresee the development of a registry that would enable unprecedented exploitation of books—the majority of published books—that linger in an uncertain copyright limbo.
I was then and still remain skeptical that GBS will transform the way most people tap into the knowledge found in books. For scholars who mine vast research libraries for obscure nuggets, it holds promise, and the limitations of poor scanning, inadequate metadata, and now the exclusion of most works in languages other than English are of serious concern. But for the undergraduates I serve, ones who find our academic library of 300,000 volumes intimidating, its sheer size is actually a drawback.
As Ranganathan said, the library is a living organism. I'll leave the Panglossian vision of the universal, final library to others and get back to tending my own garden."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6711187.html
"The most striking change is that the agreement covers a much smaller universe of scanned books, only those published in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia or registered in the US copyright office. Jonathan Brand, author of the third update to the aptly-titled Guide to the Perplexed, estimates "perhaps as much as 50% of the titles in the research libraries partnering with Google are not in English; and most of these foreign language titles probably were published outside the U.S. and were not registered with the Copyright Office."
Other issues that remain problematic in this amended settlement were nicely summed up in a series of posts at the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Deep Links blog, all of them related to core library values...
At this point I am as ambivalent as ever about Google's extraordinary "moon shot." From the start, I was concerned, as Rory Litwin was, about the transformation of libraries' collections, developed over decades, into a monopolistic commercial venture, one that depends on lowering privacy barriers to function. I was hopeful, back then, that it might establish a new understanding of fair use that would be of benefit to other digitization projects. I didn't foresee the development of a registry that would enable unprecedented exploitation of books—the majority of published books—that linger in an uncertain copyright limbo.
I was then and still remain skeptical that GBS will transform the way most people tap into the knowledge found in books. For scholars who mine vast research libraries for obscure nuggets, it holds promise, and the limitations of poor scanning, inadequate metadata, and now the exclusion of most works in languages other than English are of serious concern. But for the undergraduates I serve, ones who find our academic library of 300,000 volumes intimidating, its sheer size is actually a drawback.
As Ranganathan said, the library is a living organism. I'll leave the Panglossian vision of the universal, final library to others and get back to tending my own garden."
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6711187.html
Friday, December 11, 2009
Chris Weitz Says 'New Moon' Bootlegging Arrest Is 'Terribly Unfair'; MTV.com, 12/9/09
Eric Ditzian, MTV.com; Chris Weitz Says 'New Moon' Bootlegging Arrest Is 'Terribly Unfair'
'I would like to do what I can to address this,' director says in e-mail.:
"There are those fans who were really excited about "New Moon," buying Robert Pattinson-emblazoned pillows and making elaborate scrapbooks for the stars, and then there are those fans who may have gone overboard in their excitement. Samantha Tumpach was busted in a Chicago movie theater for allegedly taping three minutes of the "Twilight" saga sequel inside a theater in late November and could face up to a three-year prison term for her actions; Tumpach has said she was essentially filming a home movie had no intention of distributing the footage.
Now Chris Weitz, the director of "New Moon," has come to Tumpach's defense, saying that the prospect of such a harsh sentence is unjust.
"Needless to say, the case seems to me terribly unfair and I would like to do what I can to address this," Weitz wrote in an e-mail to the Chicago Sun-Times.
Weitz also said that he's been in contact with Summit Entertainment, the studio behind the franchise, about his concerns but admitted there's little he can do since "the film is, after all, not my property."
Tumpach, 22, spent two days in jail following her arrest on a felony charge intended to dissuade bootleggers from recording films in a theaters and selling illegal copies. Last week, Tumpach told the Sun-Times she was recording her sister's surprise 29th birthday party celebrated with family members and shot three minutes of footage inside the theater. She said the recorded footage contained ads, previews and snippets of the film and that she had no intention of distributing the footage.
'There is, needless to say, a difference between trying to protect the copyright of a film and making an unfair example of someone who clearly seems not to have any intentions towards video piracy," Weitz said."
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1627907/story.jhtml
'I would like to do what I can to address this,' director says in e-mail.:
"There are those fans who were really excited about "New Moon," buying Robert Pattinson-emblazoned pillows and making elaborate scrapbooks for the stars, and then there are those fans who may have gone overboard in their excitement. Samantha Tumpach was busted in a Chicago movie theater for allegedly taping three minutes of the "Twilight" saga sequel inside a theater in late November and could face up to a three-year prison term for her actions; Tumpach has said she was essentially filming a home movie had no intention of distributing the footage.
Now Chris Weitz, the director of "New Moon," has come to Tumpach's defense, saying that the prospect of such a harsh sentence is unjust.
"Needless to say, the case seems to me terribly unfair and I would like to do what I can to address this," Weitz wrote in an e-mail to the Chicago Sun-Times.
Weitz also said that he's been in contact with Summit Entertainment, the studio behind the franchise, about his concerns but admitted there's little he can do since "the film is, after all, not my property."
Tumpach, 22, spent two days in jail following her arrest on a felony charge intended to dissuade bootleggers from recording films in a theaters and selling illegal copies. Last week, Tumpach told the Sun-Times she was recording her sister's surprise 29th birthday party celebrated with family members and shot three minutes of footage inside the theater. She said the recorded footage contained ads, previews and snippets of the film and that she had no intention of distributing the footage.
'There is, needless to say, a difference between trying to protect the copyright of a film and making an unfair example of someone who clearly seems not to have any intentions towards video piracy," Weitz said."
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1627907/story.jhtml
Thursday, December 10, 2009
How About “Downlifting” to Replace “Digital Piracy”?; Freakonomics Blog, 4/17/09
Stephen Dubner, Freakonomics Blog; How About “Downlifting” to Replace “Digital Piracy”?:
"We recently asked you to consider renaming “digital piracy” in light of recent actual piracy. The question appears to have some resonance, as it was picked up by The Guardian, The Washington Post, and others.
For my money, the best suggestion by far comes from a reader named Derek:
Downlifting. Download + shoplifting. Pretty accurate description that doesn’t imply violence. Plus there’s a little mental double-take with “down” and “lift.”"
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/how-about-downlifting-to-replace-digital-piracy/
"We recently asked you to consider renaming “digital piracy” in light of recent actual piracy. The question appears to have some resonance, as it was picked up by The Guardian, The Washington Post, and others.
For my money, the best suggestion by far comes from a reader named Derek:
Downlifting. Download + shoplifting. Pretty accurate description that doesn’t imply violence. Plus there’s a little mental double-take with “down” and “lift.”"
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/how-about-downlifting-to-replace-digital-piracy/
Not Yet the Season for a Nook; New York Times, 12/10/09
David Pogue, New York Times; Not Yet the Season for a Nook:
"“Well, here comes the hotly awaited Nook from Barnes & Noble: an electronic book reader in the style of the Amazon Kindle...
Over one million titles?” Yes, but well over half of those are junky Google scans of free, obscure, pre-1923 out-of-copyright books, filled with typos. (They’re also available for the Kindle, but Amazon doesn’t even count them).
Fact is, Amazon’s e-book store is still much better. Of the current 175 New York Times best sellers, 12 of them aren’t available for Kindle; 21 are unavailable for the Nook...
And the “loan e-books to friends?” part? You can’t lend a book unless its publisher has O.K.’ed this feature. And so far, B&N says, only half of its books are available for lending — only one-third of the current best sellers. (A LendMe icon on the B&N Web site lets you know when a book is lendable.) Furthermore, the book is gone from your own Nook during the loan period (a maximum of two weeks). And each book can be lent only once, ever...
So O.K., the Nook is a mess, clearly rushed out the door in hopes of stealing some of the Kindle’s holiday cheer. “We want to optimize everything quite a bit,” a product manager concedes. The first of many software fixes, B&N says, will arrive wirelessly on Nooks next week. The company also says that it’s working to bring the selection and pricing of its e-book catalog more in line with Amazon’s."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/technology/personaltech/10pogue.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=nook&st=cse
"“Well, here comes the hotly awaited Nook from Barnes & Noble: an electronic book reader in the style of the Amazon Kindle...
Over one million titles?” Yes, but well over half of those are junky Google scans of free, obscure, pre-1923 out-of-copyright books, filled with typos. (They’re also available for the Kindle, but Amazon doesn’t even count them).
Fact is, Amazon’s e-book store is still much better. Of the current 175 New York Times best sellers, 12 of them aren’t available for Kindle; 21 are unavailable for the Nook...
And the “loan e-books to friends?” part? You can’t lend a book unless its publisher has O.K.’ed this feature. And so far, B&N says, only half of its books are available for lending — only one-third of the current best sellers. (A LendMe icon on the B&N Web site lets you know when a book is lendable.) Furthermore, the book is gone from your own Nook during the loan period (a maximum of two weeks). And each book can be lent only once, ever...
So O.K., the Nook is a mess, clearly rushed out the door in hopes of stealing some of the Kindle’s holiday cheer. “We want to optimize everything quite a bit,” a product manager concedes. The first of many software fixes, B&N says, will arrive wirelessly on Nooks next week. The company also says that it’s working to bring the selection and pricing of its e-book catalog more in line with Amazon’s."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/technology/personaltech/10pogue.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=nook&st=cse
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Beyond 1923: Characteristics of Potentially In-copyright Print Books in Library Collections
Brian Lavoie, Lorcan Dempsey, D-Lib Magazine; Beyond 1923: Characteristics of Potentially In-copyright Print Books in Library Collections:
"Introduction
Issues of copyright and permissible use have swirled around efforts to digitize print book collections. Sharp debate has ensued over the circumstances in which creating a digital surrogate and making it accessible online runs afoul of copyright protections, and what remedies might be appropriate to compensate rights holders. Some digitization efforts, such as the Open Content Alliance, have restricted themselves to public domain materials; Google Books, on the other hand, has sought to reach agreement with copyright holders represented by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. A proposed class-action settlement,1 announced in October 2008, would create a Book Rights Registry responsible for administering and adjudicating the process of locating and compensating rights holders impacted by Google's digitization activities.
The Google book settlement provoked spirited discussion of its potential ramifications, mimicking the commotion that followed the announcement of the original Google Print for Libraries (later re-named Google Books) project in December 2004. Using data from the WorldCat bibliographic database,2 OCLC Research published an article in 2005 aimed at illuminating issues surrounding Google's plan to digitize the print book collections of five major research libraries. The present article is motivated by a similar purpose: to provide empirical context for the many discussions surrounding the digitization of in-copyright print books. The settlement has raised challenging questions regarding permissible use of print book titles published after 1923; many of these titles may eventually form a significant part of the Google book database should it come to pass.
Discussions of Google Books and other digitization efforts tend to treat in-copyright print books as an amorphous collection, with little elaboration or detail on what this important collection of materials actually looks like. How many titles are involved? What is the distribution of their publication dates? What general observations can be made about their content? This article examines these and other questions in regard to the collection of US-published print books represented in WorldCat. Many of these questions were posed to the authors in private inquiries; these inquiries, along with the keen interest in digitization that continues to spark debate on blogs and listservs, suggested that a general publication addressing the characteristics of in-copyright print books could provide helpful context for ongoing discussions.
The focus of this article is on print book titles that are either in-copyright or potentially in-copyright. Determining copyright status is, however, problematic. The nuances of US copyright law are quite complicated, but a useful simplification organizes print books into three categories of copyright status based on date of publication. Broadly speaking, works published before 1923 are considered in the public domain, and therefore unencumbered by copyright restrictions. The copyright status of books published between 1923 and 1963, however, is murkier. Under US copyright law, works published during this period with a copyright notice remain in copyright for 95 years after publication – if their copyright was renewed. If copyright was allowed to lapse, the work reverts to the public domain. Finally, books published after 1963 are, by and large, still in copyright.
In addition to copyright status, the question of orphan works has received much attention in regard to digitization activities. The United States Copyright Office defines an orphan work as "the situation where the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be identified and located by someone who wishes to make use of the work in a manner that requires permission of the copyright owner."3 While it is important to bear in mind that any in-copyright book can be an "orphan", in practice the prevalence of orphan works is likely to be skewed toward older, rather than recently published, materials.
The analysis that follows examines the characteristics of US-published print books, with an emphasis on books that are likely in copyright according to US copyright law.4 As with our earlier article, the analysis is based on data from the WorldCat database, which represents the aggregated collections of more than 70,000 libraries worldwide. The analysis focuses on three areas: the WorldCat aggregate collection of US-published print books; the subset of this collection published during or after 1923 – i.e., those potentially associated with copyright and/or orphan works issues; and the combined print book collection of three academic research library participants in Google Books – again, with an emphasis on materials that are potentially in copyright."
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november09/lavoie/11lavoie.html
"Introduction
Issues of copyright and permissible use have swirled around efforts to digitize print book collections. Sharp debate has ensued over the circumstances in which creating a digital surrogate and making it accessible online runs afoul of copyright protections, and what remedies might be appropriate to compensate rights holders. Some digitization efforts, such as the Open Content Alliance, have restricted themselves to public domain materials; Google Books, on the other hand, has sought to reach agreement with copyright holders represented by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. A proposed class-action settlement,1 announced in October 2008, would create a Book Rights Registry responsible for administering and adjudicating the process of locating and compensating rights holders impacted by Google's digitization activities.
The Google book settlement provoked spirited discussion of its potential ramifications, mimicking the commotion that followed the announcement of the original Google Print for Libraries (later re-named Google Books) project in December 2004. Using data from the WorldCat bibliographic database,2 OCLC Research published an article in 2005 aimed at illuminating issues surrounding Google's plan to digitize the print book collections of five major research libraries. The present article is motivated by a similar purpose: to provide empirical context for the many discussions surrounding the digitization of in-copyright print books. The settlement has raised challenging questions regarding permissible use of print book titles published after 1923; many of these titles may eventually form a significant part of the Google book database should it come to pass.
Discussions of Google Books and other digitization efforts tend to treat in-copyright print books as an amorphous collection, with little elaboration or detail on what this important collection of materials actually looks like. How many titles are involved? What is the distribution of their publication dates? What general observations can be made about their content? This article examines these and other questions in regard to the collection of US-published print books represented in WorldCat. Many of these questions were posed to the authors in private inquiries; these inquiries, along with the keen interest in digitization that continues to spark debate on blogs and listservs, suggested that a general publication addressing the characteristics of in-copyright print books could provide helpful context for ongoing discussions.
The focus of this article is on print book titles that are either in-copyright or potentially in-copyright. Determining copyright status is, however, problematic. The nuances of US copyright law are quite complicated, but a useful simplification organizes print books into three categories of copyright status based on date of publication. Broadly speaking, works published before 1923 are considered in the public domain, and therefore unencumbered by copyright restrictions. The copyright status of books published between 1923 and 1963, however, is murkier. Under US copyright law, works published during this period with a copyright notice remain in copyright for 95 years after publication – if their copyright was renewed. If copyright was allowed to lapse, the work reverts to the public domain. Finally, books published after 1963 are, by and large, still in copyright.
In addition to copyright status, the question of orphan works has received much attention in regard to digitization activities. The United States Copyright Office defines an orphan work as "the situation where the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be identified and located by someone who wishes to make use of the work in a manner that requires permission of the copyright owner."3 While it is important to bear in mind that any in-copyright book can be an "orphan", in practice the prevalence of orphan works is likely to be skewed toward older, rather than recently published, materials.
The analysis that follows examines the characteristics of US-published print books, with an emphasis on books that are likely in copyright according to US copyright law.4 As with our earlier article, the analysis is based on data from the WorldCat database, which represents the aggregated collections of more than 70,000 libraries worldwide. The analysis focuses on three areas: the WorldCat aggregate collection of US-published print books; the subset of this collection published during or after 1923 – i.e., those potentially associated with copyright and/or orphan works issues; and the combined print book collection of three academic research library participants in Google Books – again, with an emphasis on materials that are potentially in copyright."
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november09/lavoie/11lavoie.html
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
[OpEd] An opportunity missed to apply 'fair use' to file sharing; LA Times, 12/7/09
[OpEd] LA Times; An opportunity missed to apply 'fair use' to file sharing:
"Joel Tenenbaum set out to become the standard-bearer for people who fight back against Recording Industry Assn. of America lawsuits, but he has come to symbolize fighting back the wrong way. After he admitted on the stand to downloading and sharing 30 songs -- contrary to what he'd claimed in a deposition -- a federal jury found the Boston University graduate liable in August for copyright infringement and ordered him to pay the labels $675,000. Today, the U.S. District Court judge who presided over the case, Nancy Gertner, issued a formal ruling explaining why she had rejected Tenenbaum's "fair use" defense. In a crisp indictment of Tenenbaum's legal team (which was led by notable copyright expert Charles Nesson from Harvard Law School), Gertner said she was prepared to consider a more expansive fair-use defense than other courts had entertained, but the defense blew it."
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/12/an-opportunity-missed-to-apply-fair-use-to-file-sharing.html
"Joel Tenenbaum set out to become the standard-bearer for people who fight back against Recording Industry Assn. of America lawsuits, but he has come to symbolize fighting back the wrong way. After he admitted on the stand to downloading and sharing 30 songs -- contrary to what he'd claimed in a deposition -- a federal jury found the Boston University graduate liable in August for copyright infringement and ordered him to pay the labels $675,000. Today, the U.S. District Court judge who presided over the case, Nancy Gertner, issued a formal ruling explaining why she had rejected Tenenbaum's "fair use" defense. In a crisp indictment of Tenenbaum's legal team (which was led by notable copyright expert Charles Nesson from Harvard Law School), Gertner said she was prepared to consider a more expansive fair-use defense than other courts had entertained, but the defense blew it."
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/12/an-opportunity-missed-to-apply-fair-use-to-file-sharing.html
Streaming will never stop downloading; Guardian, 12/8/09
Cory Doctorow, Guardian; Streaming will never stop downloading:
Far from being a cure for the industry's woes, substituting streams for downloads wastes bandwidth, reduces privacy and slows innovation
"Someone convinced the record and movie and TV industries that there is way of letting someone listen to audio or watch video over the internet without making a copy. They call this "streaming" audio, and compare it to radio, and contrast it with "downloading", which they compare to buying a CD.
The idea that you can show someone a movie over the internet without making a copy has got lots of people in policy circles excited, since it seems to "solve the copyright problem". If services such as Hulu, Last.fm and YouTube can "play you a file" instead of "sending you a file", then we're safely back in the pre-Napster era. You can sell subscriptions to on-demand streaming, and be sure that your subscribers will never stop paying, since they don't own their favourite entertainment and will have to stump up in order to play it again.
There's only one problem: Streaming doesn't exist."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/08/music-streaming-cory-doctorow
Far from being a cure for the industry's woes, substituting streams for downloads wastes bandwidth, reduces privacy and slows innovation
"Someone convinced the record and movie and TV industries that there is way of letting someone listen to audio or watch video over the internet without making a copy. They call this "streaming" audio, and compare it to radio, and contrast it with "downloading", which they compare to buying a CD.
The idea that you can show someone a movie over the internet without making a copy has got lots of people in policy circles excited, since it seems to "solve the copyright problem". If services such as Hulu, Last.fm and YouTube can "play you a file" instead of "sending you a file", then we're safely back in the pre-Napster era. You can sell subscriptions to on-demand streaming, and be sure that your subscribers will never stop paying, since they don't own their favourite entertainment and will have to stump up in order to play it again.
There's only one problem: Streaming doesn't exist."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/08/music-streaming-cory-doctorow
Rereading: Paul Theroux on Paul Bowles's The Sheltering Sky; Guardian, 11/21/09
Paul Theroux, Guardian; Rereading: Paul Theroux on Paul Bowles's The Sheltering Sky:
"This article has been removed as our copyright has expired."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/nov/21/paul-bowles-paul-theroux-rereading
"This article has been removed as our copyright has expired."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/nov/21/paul-bowles-paul-theroux-rereading
Burning CDs checked out from the library: ripping or ripping off?; Chicago Tribune, 11/28/09
Mark Caro, Chicago Tribune; Burning CDs checked out from the library: ripping or ripping off?:
When you burn CDs checked out from the library onto your computer, are you ripping -- or ripping off? Defenders call it fair use; others call it piracy
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/chi-1028-library-cdsoct28,0,2130763.story
When you burn CDs checked out from the library onto your computer, are you ripping -- or ripping off? Defenders call it fair use; others call it piracy
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/chi-1028-library-cdsoct28,0,2130763.story
Monday, December 7, 2009
Feds Prosecuting More Counterfeiters, IP Pirates; Wired, 12/3/09
David Kravets, Wired; Feds Prosecuting More Counterfeiters, IP Pirates:
"Federal prosecutions of criminal counterfeiting and copyright infringement cases have jumped over the past five years, as have IP-related prison terms, according to a Justice Department report.
The congressionally required report reviewed dozens of cases involving counterfeited pharmaceutical drugs, toothpaste, oil pipeline couplings, sports jerseys, DVDs and software. Movie camcording was also included.
The increases in sentences and prosecutions came even though one-third fewer IP cases were referred to federal authorities for prosecution (.pdf). There were 565 referrals in 2004 and 365 in 2008, the last year for which figures were compiled, according to data compiled in The PRO-IP ACT First Annual Report 2008-2009.
That said, the number of actual prosecutions increased from 2004 to 2008, despite fewer forwarded cases. Prison sentences have varied but generally have also been getting more severe.
While more defendants are getting terms in the one- to five-year range, the number of defendants getting no time has increased as well, from 79 in 2004 to 107 last year. Just three defendants got more than five years in 2008, down from 16 the prior year.
The report was required under the PRO-IP Act, which President George W. Bush signed last year. The act, which aims to bolster the United States’ enforcement of intellectual property crimes worldwide, (.pdf) also created a so-called copyright czar.
The position is on par with the nation’s drug czar. Obama’s pick for the position, Victoria Espinel, has been approved by the Senate Judiciary and is waiting for confirmation by the full Senate."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/federal-counterfeiting-prosecutions/
"Federal prosecutions of criminal counterfeiting and copyright infringement cases have jumped over the past five years, as have IP-related prison terms, according to a Justice Department report.
The congressionally required report reviewed dozens of cases involving counterfeited pharmaceutical drugs, toothpaste, oil pipeline couplings, sports jerseys, DVDs and software. Movie camcording was also included.
The increases in sentences and prosecutions came even though one-third fewer IP cases were referred to federal authorities for prosecution (.pdf). There were 565 referrals in 2004 and 365 in 2008, the last year for which figures were compiled, according to data compiled in The PRO-IP ACT First Annual Report 2008-2009.
That said, the number of actual prosecutions increased from 2004 to 2008, despite fewer forwarded cases. Prison sentences have varied but generally have also been getting more severe.
While more defendants are getting terms in the one- to five-year range, the number of defendants getting no time has increased as well, from 79 in 2004 to 107 last year. Just three defendants got more than five years in 2008, down from 16 the prior year.
The report was required under the PRO-IP Act, which President George W. Bush signed last year. The act, which aims to bolster the United States’ enforcement of intellectual property crimes worldwide, (.pdf) also created a so-called copyright czar.
The position is on par with the nation’s drug czar. Obama’s pick for the position, Victoria Espinel, has been approved by the Senate Judiciary and is waiting for confirmation by the full Senate."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/federal-counterfeiting-prosecutions/
Colleges Should Protect Humanists in Fair-Use Cases; Chronicle of Higher Education, 12/6/09
Carol Loeb Shloss, Chronicle of Higher Education; Colleges Should Protect Humanists in Fair-Use Cases:
"Did you see the news item that a Stanford professor had won a six-figure settlement from the James Joyce estate? That was me.
I am happy about the outcome of the lawsuit, but I'm also concerned for other humanities scholars working on projects that might leave them exposed to the same kinds of legal pressures and risks that I faced, risks that their colleges usually don't cover.
To make a labyrinthine saga short, in September I won $240,000 from the Joyce estate to cover legal fees incurred in the battle to publish a Web site containing evidence deleted from my book Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2003). The estate threatened to sue first me and then the publisher if the book included quotes from Joyce's writing. I edited out important material from Joyce's notebooks, and the publisher took out even more evidence. With help from Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society's Fair Use Project, and other counsel, I went to court and, in 2007, won the rights to quote the documents on an online site.
But my legal victory obscures several major questions that should concern every humanities scholar on American college campuses. What role should colleges play in protecting their faculty in potential copyright disputes? Why should copyrights, when they are generated by faculty members, be excluded from university risk-management policies? Why does a special Fair Use Project like the one at Stanford have to exist at all? The underlying lack of protections exposed by this case indicates that humanities scholars throughout the country would benefit from a restructuring of university risk management.
In 2007 when the first stage of the Shloss vs. the Estate of James Joyce settlement was reached, Lessig, the founder of the Stanford Fair Use Project, said: "We will continue to defend academics threatened by overly aggressive copyright holders, as well as other creators for whom the intended protections of 'fair use' do not work in practice. I am hopeful that this is the last time this defendant will be involved in an action like this. But it is only the first time that we will be defending academics in these contexts."
The Fair Use Project is exemplary. But without it, I would have been exposed to threats that the university claimed belonged solely on my shoulders. The back story illustrates the structural inequalities that leave others in my position vulnerable, for I was receiving threatening letters from the Joyce estate long before I began to work with the Fair Use Project.
In such circumstances, one might assume that humanities scholars are covered by the university's risk-management department, whose purpose, at least at Stanford, is "for humanitarian, social, legal, and financial reasons," to "protect the health and safety of members of the community." The mission statement reveals that "in order to fulfill these objectives, we will consider all types of risks, including but not limited to natural risks, environmental risks, political risks, compliance risks, economic/business risks, social risks, and technological risks."
But that list, in my case, excluded the risks of publishing books. Although the university covered hazards related to "property, casualty, workers' compensation, crime, boilers, machinery, bonds, builder's risk, overseas programs, athletic programs, travel accident, etc.," and although the university routinely covered its medical faculty and researchers, humanities scholarship was considered by the general counsel to be outside its scope. There were two invisible categories for faculty members: one classification for medicine and the sciences and another for writers of books. Producers of patents were covered for their inventions. The only recourse for producers of copyrights was a media-perils insurance policy, purchased at the writer's personal expense.
Stanford is not alone in its approach to protecting humanities scholarship. Other college administrations also omit explicit references to protection of book publishing in their risk-management policies. They define risk as threats to a university's ability to "achieve its objectives," and cite strategic, compliance, operational, technological, and other such categories, or even specific areas of liability like aircraft, alcohol, automobiles, boilers, builder's risk, business travel, and so on. But you won't generally find explicit mention of risk to humanities scholars. Why not? Isn't producing knowledge a university objective?
One might argue, as did the general counsel of Stanford University in letters to me in 2003, that this is an appropriate policy because writers of books in the humanities are only expressing an opinion or a point of view. The university, as an institution, has no obligation to defend any attitude held by a single individual. Or one might contend that patents have a greater claim to institutional protection because university property is usually involved in generating inventions. Without the equipment in laboratories, scientists or engineers could not fulfill the demands of their experiments. Their work innately involves overhead that the university has assumed in the interest of progress. Or, more cynically, one might consider that patents usually generate income for the university, jobs for graduate-student assistants, and recognition in the corporate, industrial, and military worlds.
But such views ignore the degree to which colleges benefit from the work of humanities scholars, the implicit cost of creating a "two-tiered" faculty, and the extent to which academe's founding principles are put to the test by distinguishing between copyrights and patents.
When the work of a humanist is prohibited by an overly zealous copyright holder, as it was in Shloss v. the Estate of James Joyce, what is at stake is freedom of inquiry, not just the defense of an opinion or a point of view. Humanistic research is not simply a personal pursuit, but the very condition of any scholar's employment and as such inseparable from her or his professional duties. Why should it matter what field a faculty member belongs to? Invention is invention, discovery is discovery, and progress in human understanding isn't, or at least shouldn't be, limited to what contributes most to corporate, industrial, or military advantage.
If colleges are not simply handmaidens of financial profit, but authentic in their claim to be impartial proponents of progress, then the humanities, which speak in the voice of copyright, must be honored and protected with the same structures of risk management that govern the sciences. If colleges claim benefit, as they do, from the prestige of humanistic endeavors, then colleges should shield the risks incurred by those contributing to those benefits. They should not leave a large portion of the faculty unprotected. It is this general failing that is the precondition of the Stanford Fair Use Project. Were this not the case, there would have been no reason for Lessig to say to me, "This should not be happening to you." For it would not have happened.
Carol Loeb Shloss is a consulting professor of English at Stanford University. She is author of Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2003), supplemental material for which can be found at http://www.lucia-the-authors-cut.info."
http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Should-Protect/49306/?key=SD5zJVRobXAfYXsweHIWKCcBa395Jx0qPCJHZXkaZlBQ
"Did you see the news item that a Stanford professor had won a six-figure settlement from the James Joyce estate? That was me.
I am happy about the outcome of the lawsuit, but I'm also concerned for other humanities scholars working on projects that might leave them exposed to the same kinds of legal pressures and risks that I faced, risks that their colleges usually don't cover.
To make a labyrinthine saga short, in September I won $240,000 from the Joyce estate to cover legal fees incurred in the battle to publish a Web site containing evidence deleted from my book Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2003). The estate threatened to sue first me and then the publisher if the book included quotes from Joyce's writing. I edited out important material from Joyce's notebooks, and the publisher took out even more evidence. With help from Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society's Fair Use Project, and other counsel, I went to court and, in 2007, won the rights to quote the documents on an online site.
But my legal victory obscures several major questions that should concern every humanities scholar on American college campuses. What role should colleges play in protecting their faculty in potential copyright disputes? Why should copyrights, when they are generated by faculty members, be excluded from university risk-management policies? Why does a special Fair Use Project like the one at Stanford have to exist at all? The underlying lack of protections exposed by this case indicates that humanities scholars throughout the country would benefit from a restructuring of university risk management.
In 2007 when the first stage of the Shloss vs. the Estate of James Joyce settlement was reached, Lessig, the founder of the Stanford Fair Use Project, said: "We will continue to defend academics threatened by overly aggressive copyright holders, as well as other creators for whom the intended protections of 'fair use' do not work in practice. I am hopeful that this is the last time this defendant will be involved in an action like this. But it is only the first time that we will be defending academics in these contexts."
The Fair Use Project is exemplary. But without it, I would have been exposed to threats that the university claimed belonged solely on my shoulders. The back story illustrates the structural inequalities that leave others in my position vulnerable, for I was receiving threatening letters from the Joyce estate long before I began to work with the Fair Use Project.
In such circumstances, one might assume that humanities scholars are covered by the university's risk-management department, whose purpose, at least at Stanford, is "for humanitarian, social, legal, and financial reasons," to "protect the health and safety of members of the community." The mission statement reveals that "in order to fulfill these objectives, we will consider all types of risks, including but not limited to natural risks, environmental risks, political risks, compliance risks, economic/business risks, social risks, and technological risks."
But that list, in my case, excluded the risks of publishing books. Although the university covered hazards related to "property, casualty, workers' compensation, crime, boilers, machinery, bonds, builder's risk, overseas programs, athletic programs, travel accident, etc.," and although the university routinely covered its medical faculty and researchers, humanities scholarship was considered by the general counsel to be outside its scope. There were two invisible categories for faculty members: one classification for medicine and the sciences and another for writers of books. Producers of patents were covered for their inventions. The only recourse for producers of copyrights was a media-perils insurance policy, purchased at the writer's personal expense.
Stanford is not alone in its approach to protecting humanities scholarship. Other college administrations also omit explicit references to protection of book publishing in their risk-management policies. They define risk as threats to a university's ability to "achieve its objectives," and cite strategic, compliance, operational, technological, and other such categories, or even specific areas of liability like aircraft, alcohol, automobiles, boilers, builder's risk, business travel, and so on. But you won't generally find explicit mention of risk to humanities scholars. Why not? Isn't producing knowledge a university objective?
One might argue, as did the general counsel of Stanford University in letters to me in 2003, that this is an appropriate policy because writers of books in the humanities are only expressing an opinion or a point of view. The university, as an institution, has no obligation to defend any attitude held by a single individual. Or one might contend that patents have a greater claim to institutional protection because university property is usually involved in generating inventions. Without the equipment in laboratories, scientists or engineers could not fulfill the demands of their experiments. Their work innately involves overhead that the university has assumed in the interest of progress. Or, more cynically, one might consider that patents usually generate income for the university, jobs for graduate-student assistants, and recognition in the corporate, industrial, and military worlds.
But such views ignore the degree to which colleges benefit from the work of humanities scholars, the implicit cost of creating a "two-tiered" faculty, and the extent to which academe's founding principles are put to the test by distinguishing between copyrights and patents.
When the work of a humanist is prohibited by an overly zealous copyright holder, as it was in Shloss v. the Estate of James Joyce, what is at stake is freedom of inquiry, not just the defense of an opinion or a point of view. Humanistic research is not simply a personal pursuit, but the very condition of any scholar's employment and as such inseparable from her or his professional duties. Why should it matter what field a faculty member belongs to? Invention is invention, discovery is discovery, and progress in human understanding isn't, or at least shouldn't be, limited to what contributes most to corporate, industrial, or military advantage.
If colleges are not simply handmaidens of financial profit, but authentic in their claim to be impartial proponents of progress, then the humanities, which speak in the voice of copyright, must be honored and protected with the same structures of risk management that govern the sciences. If colleges claim benefit, as they do, from the prestige of humanistic endeavors, then colleges should shield the risks incurred by those contributing to those benefits. They should not leave a large portion of the faculty unprotected. It is this general failing that is the precondition of the Stanford Fair Use Project. Were this not the case, there would have been no reason for Lessig to say to me, "This should not be happening to you." For it would not have happened.
Carol Loeb Shloss is a consulting professor of English at Stanford University. She is author of Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2003), supplemental material for which can be found at http://www.lucia-the-authors-cut.info."
http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Should-Protect/49306/?key=SD5zJVRobXAfYXsweHIWKCcBa395Jx0qPCJHZXkaZlBQ
Artists' lawsuit: major record labels are the real pirates; Ars Technica, 12/7/09
Jacqui Cheng, Ars Technica; Artists' lawsuit: major record labels are the real pirates:
Between $50 million and $60 billion may be owed to musicians and artists in Canada, but not from your run-of-the-mill file sharers. The Canadian recording industry itself is being accused of massive copyright infringement, and the list of miffed artists just keeps getting longer.
"Given how aggressively the recording industry likes to pursue file sharers, one would assume that the industry itself is in the clear when it comes to copyright infringement. But that assumption has been put to the test in Canada, where a massive infringement lawsuit is brewing against some major players. Members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, including the Big Four (Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada), face the prospect of damages ranging from $50 million up to $60 billion due to their use of artists' music without permission. That's right: $60 billion.
The lawsuit in question goes back to October 2008, but continues to be dragged up in the news because new plaintiffs keep joining the case. Most recently, jazz musician Chet Baker's estate has joined the growing list of musicians and artists who are getting on the music industry's case for their abuse of a certain aspect of Canadian copyright practices—something that the labels themselves don't even deny doing.
As University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist pointed out on his blog, the issue stems from a change to the law in the 1980s that eventually produced something known as the "pending list." Essentially, record companies no longer had to get a compulsory license every time they wanted to use a song for, say, a compilation album. Instead, they went ahead and used the song without waiting for authorization or making payment, adding the song to a list of music that is pending authorization and payment. If you're questioning whether you read that right, that basically means the record industries could use songs as long as they pinky swore they would get authorization and pay the artist for it eventually.
As you can imagine, the business didn't quite work that way. Instead of keeping up with its tab on the pending list, the recording industry just kept adding songs—without obtaining any rights. The pending list among the lawsuit's defendants has topped 300,000 songs from both large and small artists alike—300,000 songs that the labels are openly admitting that they have not secured the rights for. In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the record companies have been unjustly enriched by the use of their unauthorized music (they have, after all, been selling the music without permission and not paying out).
The plaintiffs also show that they are painfully aware of the hypocritical stance the industry has taken in regard to copyright abuse. One part of the complaint says the companies have shown "reckless, high-handed and arrogant conduct aggravated by their clandestine disregard for the copyright interests of the class members in contrast to their strict compliance enforcement policy and unremitting approach to consumers in the protection of their corporate copyright interests." Ouch.
The recording companies targeted in the suit acknowledge that the pending list reflects unpaid royalties "in excess of $50 million," but the real extent of the damage could go far higher—possibly to the tune of $60 billion. This is because the class is asking for both statutory and punitive damages for the labels' behavior (as Geist points out, the same standards being used to go after individual file sharers), meaning that the labels could be asked to pay up to $20,000 per infringement."
Between $50 million and $60 billion may be owed to musicians and artists in Canada, but not from your run-of-the-mill file sharers. The Canadian recording industry itself is being accused of massive copyright infringement, and the list of miffed artists just keeps getting longer.
"Given how aggressively the recording industry likes to pursue file sharers, one would assume that the industry itself is in the clear when it comes to copyright infringement. But that assumption has been put to the test in Canada, where a massive infringement lawsuit is brewing against some major players. Members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, including the Big Four (Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada), face the prospect of damages ranging from $50 million up to $60 billion due to their use of artists' music without permission. That's right: $60 billion.
The lawsuit in question goes back to October 2008, but continues to be dragged up in the news because new plaintiffs keep joining the case. Most recently, jazz musician Chet Baker's estate has joined the growing list of musicians and artists who are getting on the music industry's case for their abuse of a certain aspect of Canadian copyright practices—something that the labels themselves don't even deny doing.
As University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist pointed out on his blog, the issue stems from a change to the law in the 1980s that eventually produced something known as the "pending list." Essentially, record companies no longer had to get a compulsory license every time they wanted to use a song for, say, a compilation album. Instead, they went ahead and used the song without waiting for authorization or making payment, adding the song to a list of music that is pending authorization and payment. If you're questioning whether you read that right, that basically means the record industries could use songs as long as they pinky swore they would get authorization and pay the artist for it eventually.
As you can imagine, the business didn't quite work that way. Instead of keeping up with its tab on the pending list, the recording industry just kept adding songs—without obtaining any rights. The pending list among the lawsuit's defendants has topped 300,000 songs from both large and small artists alike—300,000 songs that the labels are openly admitting that they have not secured the rights for. In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the record companies have been unjustly enriched by the use of their unauthorized music (they have, after all, been selling the music without permission and not paying out).
The plaintiffs also show that they are painfully aware of the hypocritical stance the industry has taken in regard to copyright abuse. One part of the complaint says the companies have shown "reckless, high-handed and arrogant conduct aggravated by their clandestine disregard for the copyright interests of the class members in contrast to their strict compliance enforcement policy and unremitting approach to consumers in the protection of their corporate copyright interests." Ouch.
The recording companies targeted in the suit acknowledge that the pending list reflects unpaid royalties "in excess of $50 million," but the real extent of the damage could go far higher—possibly to the tune of $60 billion. This is because the class is asking for both statutory and punitive damages for the labels' behavior (as Geist points out, the same standards being used to go after individual file sharers), meaning that the labels could be asked to pay up to $20,000 per infringement."
How Team Tenenbaum missed a chance to shape P2P fair use law; Ars Technica, 12/7/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; How Team Tenenbaum missed a chance to shape P2P fair use law:
A federal judge has made it official: P2P file-swapper Joel Tenenbaum is on the hook for $675,000. The real tragedy here, though, is what might have been, as the judge admits she was receptive to all kinds of limited fair use claims and again slams the record industry's lawsuit campaign.
"Federal judge Nancy Gertner today officially brought down the tent on the Joel Tenenbaum P2P Big Top World 'O Fun, all but admitting that she would have given Tenenbaum's arguments about "fair use" a truly sympathetic hearing were it not for the shoddy behavior of his legal team. What could have turned into a watershed case instead became another statutory crucifixion, with Gertner finally entering the jury's $675,000 verdict against the young file-swapper whose defense crashed down with an in-court admission that he had been lying all along.
Gertner signed off the jury's damage amounts, which means that Sony BMG is entitled to $112,500, Warner Bros. gets $225,000, Arista Records gets $45,000, and Universal picks up $292,500.
The record labels wanted more, though; specifically, they asked for an injunction against Tenenbaum that would stop him from "promot[ing]… using the Internet or any online media distribution system to infringe copyrights."
According to Gertner, "the word 'promote' is far too vague to withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment. Although plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, they have no right to silence defendant's criticism of the statutory regime under which he is obligated to pay those damages. This Court has neither the desire nor the authority to serve as the censor of defendant's public remarks regarding online file-sharing."...
Also remember that Gertner throughout has been quite a public critic of the music industry's lawsuit campaign. She continues that criticism in the memo, saying, "The Court, deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits, the imbalance of resources between the parties, and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on by the Internet, did everything in its power to permit Tenenbaum to make his best case for fair use."...
"Rather than tailoring his fair use defense to suggest a modest exception to copyright protections, Tenenbaum mounted a broadside attack that would excuse all file-sharing for private enjoyment." By striking so broadly at the idea of copyright, Tenenbaum took the matter out of Gertner's hands. "Whether the widespread, unlimited file sharing that the record suggests he engaged in benefits the public more than our current copyright protections is a balance to be struck by Congress, not this Court," she concluded.
In addition, she singled out Nesson for criticism in a footnote to the memo. "Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings to the Web." Examples of Nesson's bad behavior in the case "are legion."
And so we're left wondering what might have been. Tenenbaum can still contest the damage award, arguing that it was unconstitutionally excessive (papers on that claim are due in January), but "reducing a ridiculous damage award" is far less important than shoring up robust fair use rights."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-team-tenenbaum-missed-a-chance-to-shape-p2p-fair-use-law.ars
A federal judge has made it official: P2P file-swapper Joel Tenenbaum is on the hook for $675,000. The real tragedy here, though, is what might have been, as the judge admits she was receptive to all kinds of limited fair use claims and again slams the record industry's lawsuit campaign.
"Federal judge Nancy Gertner today officially brought down the tent on the Joel Tenenbaum P2P Big Top World 'O Fun, all but admitting that she would have given Tenenbaum's arguments about "fair use" a truly sympathetic hearing were it not for the shoddy behavior of his legal team. What could have turned into a watershed case instead became another statutory crucifixion, with Gertner finally entering the jury's $675,000 verdict against the young file-swapper whose defense crashed down with an in-court admission that he had been lying all along.
Gertner signed off the jury's damage amounts, which means that Sony BMG is entitled to $112,500, Warner Bros. gets $225,000, Arista Records gets $45,000, and Universal picks up $292,500.
The record labels wanted more, though; specifically, they asked for an injunction against Tenenbaum that would stop him from "promot[ing]… using the Internet or any online media distribution system to infringe copyrights."
According to Gertner, "the word 'promote' is far too vague to withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment. Although plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, they have no right to silence defendant's criticism of the statutory regime under which he is obligated to pay those damages. This Court has neither the desire nor the authority to serve as the censor of defendant's public remarks regarding online file-sharing."...
Also remember that Gertner throughout has been quite a public critic of the music industry's lawsuit campaign. She continues that criticism in the memo, saying, "The Court, deeply concerned by the rash of file-sharing lawsuits, the imbalance of resources between the parties, and the upheaval of norms of behavior brought on by the Internet, did everything in its power to permit Tenenbaum to make his best case for fair use."...
"Rather than tailoring his fair use defense to suggest a modest exception to copyright protections, Tenenbaum mounted a broadside attack that would excuse all file-sharing for private enjoyment." By striking so broadly at the idea of copyright, Tenenbaum took the matter out of Gertner's hands. "Whether the widespread, unlimited file sharing that the record suggests he engaged in benefits the public more than our current copyright protections is a balance to be struck by Congress, not this Court," she concluded.
In addition, she singled out Nesson for criticism in a footnote to the memo. "Defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, ignored rules, engaged in litigation over conduct that was plainly illegal (namely, the right to tape counsel and the Court without consent), and even went so far as to post the illegal recordings to the Web." Examples of Nesson's bad behavior in the case "are legion."
And so we're left wondering what might have been. Tenenbaum can still contest the damage award, arguing that it was unconstitutionally excessive (papers on that claim are due in January), but "reducing a ridiculous damage award" is far less important than shoring up robust fair use rights."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-team-tenenbaum-missed-a-chance-to-shape-p2p-fair-use-law.ars
ICC IP Guidelines Issued At Anti-Piracy Gala; Intellectual Property Watch, 12/1/09
Intellectual Property Watch; ICC IP Guidelines Issued At Anti-Piracy Gala:
"The International Chamber of Commerce released its “Intellectual Property Guidelines for Business” in Spanish and Portuguese during a special session at the 1-3 December Fifth Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy in Cancun, Mexico. The IP guidelines “provide information to businesses on practical steps they can take to protect their own innovation and creativity in IP-based products and services, as well as to protect against the risk of using counterfeit materials or infringing the IP rights of other companies,” ICC said in a press release. The guidelines cover “internal IP use, supply chain practices, relations with intermediaries, and the handling of third-party IP. They deal with IP management in all its forms within companies, from IP development to component sourcing, manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing and internal corporate use,” it said.
In recent years, there has been pushback by IP users, the technology industry and others against overly strong IP rights protection, arguing among other things that it hurts innovation and economic growth, but efforts continue to address piracy and counterfeiting. The next negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is expected to be in Mexico in January. The anti-counterfeiting congress is cosponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization, World Customs Organization, and Interpol. Yo Takagi, WIPO assistant director general told the meeting, “WIPO has adopted an inclusive, development-oriented approach to the shared endeavor of building respect for intellectual property which will enable the international community to better calibrate their collaborative efforts,” according to a WIPO press release."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/12/01/icc-ip-guidelines-issued-at-anti-piracy-gala/
"The International Chamber of Commerce released its “Intellectual Property Guidelines for Business” in Spanish and Portuguese during a special session at the 1-3 December Fifth Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy in Cancun, Mexico. The IP guidelines “provide information to businesses on practical steps they can take to protect their own innovation and creativity in IP-based products and services, as well as to protect against the risk of using counterfeit materials or infringing the IP rights of other companies,” ICC said in a press release. The guidelines cover “internal IP use, supply chain practices, relations with intermediaries, and the handling of third-party IP. They deal with IP management in all its forms within companies, from IP development to component sourcing, manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing and internal corporate use,” it said.
In recent years, there has been pushback by IP users, the technology industry and others against overly strong IP rights protection, arguing among other things that it hurts innovation and economic growth, but efforts continue to address piracy and counterfeiting. The next negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is expected to be in Mexico in January. The anti-counterfeiting congress is cosponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization, World Customs Organization, and Interpol. Yo Takagi, WIPO assistant director general told the meeting, “WIPO has adopted an inclusive, development-oriented approach to the shared endeavor of building respect for intellectual property which will enable the international community to better calibrate their collaborative efforts,” according to a WIPO press release."
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/12/01/icc-ip-guidelines-issued-at-anti-piracy-gala/
Google books court battle could be page-turner; Chicago Tribune, 12/7/09
Alex Pham, Chicago Tribune; Google books court battle could be page-turner:
""His [Judge Denny Chin's] preliminary approval is just his procedural OK for the parties to go ahead" to the next step of the settlement process, said James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School.
By giving his blessing, Chin essentially restarted the clock for critics to lob their complaints, giving them until Jan. 28 to file additional objections...
Potentially the most nettlesome is the question of whether the parties in the settlement should have the right to speak for, and profit from, millions of absent copyright holders or orphan books.
Instead, critics have argued that Congress, not a private lawsuit in federal court, is the appropriate venue to settle the conflict because its outcome could alter the rights of many people who may not be aware of the case.
So even if Chin grants final approval, the settlement could remain mired in the courts."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tc-biz-tech-google-1128-1206dec07,0,2145400.story
""His [Judge Denny Chin's] preliminary approval is just his procedural OK for the parties to go ahead" to the next step of the settlement process, said James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School.
By giving his blessing, Chin essentially restarted the clock for critics to lob their complaints, giving them until Jan. 28 to file additional objections...
Potentially the most nettlesome is the question of whether the parties in the settlement should have the right to speak for, and profit from, millions of absent copyright holders or orphan books.
Instead, critics have argued that Congress, not a private lawsuit in federal court, is the appropriate venue to settle the conflict because its outcome could alter the rights of many people who may not be aware of the case.
So even if Chin grants final approval, the settlement could remain mired in the courts."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tc-biz-tech-google-1128-1206dec07,0,2145400.story
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Yahoo Issues Takedown Notice for Spying Price List; Wired, 12/4/09
Kim Zetter, Wired; Yahoo Issues Takedown Notice for Spying Price List:
"Yahoo isn’t happy that a detailed menu of the spying services it provides law enforcement agencies has leaked onto the web.
Shortly after Threat Level reported this week that Yahoo had blocked the FOIA release of its law enforcement and intelligence price list, someone provided a copy of the company’s spying guide to the whistleblower site Cryptome.
The 17-page guide describes Yahoo’s data retention policies and the surveillance capabilities it can provide law enforcement, with a pricing list for these services. Cryptome also published lawful data-interception guides for Cox Communications, SBC, Cingular, Nextel, GTE and other telecoms and service providers.
But of all those companies, it appears to be Yahoo’s lawyers alone who have issued a DMCA takedown notice to Cryptome demanding the document be removed. Yahoo claims that publication of the document is a copyright violation, and gave Cryptome owner John Young a Thursday deadline for removing the document. So far, Young has refused.
Yahoo’s letter was sent on Wednesday, within hours of the posting of Yahoo’s Compliance Guide for Law Enforcement at Cryptome. In addition to copyright infringement, the letter accuses the site of revealing Yahoo’s trade secrets and engaging in “business interference.” According to the letter, disclosure of its surveillance services (.pdf) would help criminals evade surveillance."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/yahoo-spy-prices
"Yahoo isn’t happy that a detailed menu of the spying services it provides law enforcement agencies has leaked onto the web.
Shortly after Threat Level reported this week that Yahoo had blocked the FOIA release of its law enforcement and intelligence price list, someone provided a copy of the company’s spying guide to the whistleblower site Cryptome.
The 17-page guide describes Yahoo’s data retention policies and the surveillance capabilities it can provide law enforcement, with a pricing list for these services. Cryptome also published lawful data-interception guides for Cox Communications, SBC, Cingular, Nextel, GTE and other telecoms and service providers.
But of all those companies, it appears to be Yahoo’s lawyers alone who have issued a DMCA takedown notice to Cryptome demanding the document be removed. Yahoo claims that publication of the document is a copyright violation, and gave Cryptome owner John Young a Thursday deadline for removing the document. So far, Young has refused.
Yahoo’s letter was sent on Wednesday, within hours of the posting of Yahoo’s Compliance Guide for Law Enforcement at Cryptome. In addition to copyright infringement, the letter accuses the site of revealing Yahoo’s trade secrets and engaging in “business interference.” According to the letter, disclosure of its surveillance services (.pdf) would help criminals evade surveillance."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/yahoo-spy-prices
Questions for Jeffrey P. Bezos [Amazon CEO]; New York Times, 12/6/09
Deborah Solomon, New York Times; Questions for Jeffrey P. Bezos [Amazon CEO]:
[Solomon:] "Barnes & Noble claims on its Web site that the Nook has several advantages over the Kindle — for one thing, a Nook book can be lent to friends. You can forward the text to another user.
[Bezos:] The current thing being talked about is extremely limited. You can lend to one friend. One time. You can’t pick two friends, not even serially, so once you’ve loaned one book to one friend, that’s it.
[Solomon:] You have to pick just one person? What are you saying? It’s like “Sophie’s Choice”?
[Bezos:] It is “Sophie’s Choice.” Very nicely done...
[Solomon:] Of all the books that Amazon sells, what percentage are digital books?
[Bezos:] For every 100 copies of a physical book we sell, where we have the Kindle edition, we will sell 48 copies of the Kindle edition. It won’t be too long before we’re selling more electronic books than we are physical books. It’s astonishing.
[Solomon:] How quickly are paper books migrating into their digital equivalents?
[Bezos:] When we launched Kindle two years ago, it was 90,000 titles, and today it’s more than 350,000. We’re adding thousands of titles every week. Our vision is every book ever printed in every language, all available within 60 seconds.
[Solomon:] But so much is missing. I see the so-called Kindle store doesn’t carry “The Catcher in the Rye” or “Franny and Zooey.” Is that because J. D. Salinger has declined to authorize digital editions of his books?
[Bezos:] You’d have to ask him...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/magazine/06fob-q4-t.html
[Solomon:] "Barnes & Noble claims on its Web site that the Nook has several advantages over the Kindle — for one thing, a Nook book can be lent to friends. You can forward the text to another user.
[Bezos:] The current thing being talked about is extremely limited. You can lend to one friend. One time. You can’t pick two friends, not even serially, so once you’ve loaned one book to one friend, that’s it.
[Solomon:] You have to pick just one person? What are you saying? It’s like “Sophie’s Choice”?
[Bezos:] It is “Sophie’s Choice.” Very nicely done...
[Solomon:] Of all the books that Amazon sells, what percentage are digital books?
[Bezos:] For every 100 copies of a physical book we sell, where we have the Kindle edition, we will sell 48 copies of the Kindle edition. It won’t be too long before we’re selling more electronic books than we are physical books. It’s astonishing.
[Solomon:] How quickly are paper books migrating into their digital equivalents?
[Bezos:] When we launched Kindle two years ago, it was 90,000 titles, and today it’s more than 350,000. We’re adding thousands of titles every week. Our vision is every book ever printed in every language, all available within 60 seconds.
[Solomon:] But so much is missing. I see the so-called Kindle store doesn’t carry “The Catcher in the Rye” or “Franny and Zooey.” Is that because J. D. Salinger has declined to authorize digital editions of his books?
[Bezos:] You’d have to ask him...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/magazine/06fob-q4-t.html
Saturday, December 5, 2009
The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle; TechDirt, 12/4/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle:
"I've discussed in the past why I'm not thrilled about the use of the word "piracy," even as it has become rather standard for describing unauthorized file sharing. It's inaccurate, and is used by the entertainment industry to paint a picture of pure evil, where a more nuanced and accurate view might help. At the same time, with the rise of "The Pirate Party" in various countries, a group of folks have tried to take the word back -- but I still wonder if the name limits the party's upside, even as it may have enabled some of the initial attention (and vote-getting ability)."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/2347377193.shtml
"I've discussed in the past why I'm not thrilled about the use of the word "piracy," even as it has become rather standard for describing unauthorized file sharing. It's inaccurate, and is used by the entertainment industry to paint a picture of pure evil, where a more nuanced and accurate view might help. At the same time, with the rise of "The Pirate Party" in various countries, a group of folks have tried to take the word back -- but I still wonder if the name limits the party's upside, even as it may have enabled some of the initial attention (and vote-getting ability)."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/2347377193.shtml
Let Them Sing... About Copyright?; TechDirt, 12/4/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Let Them Sing... About Copyright?:
"Shocklee points us to an awesome little app that lets you type in whatever lyrics (or, well, words) you want, hit play, and whatever you type will be sung for you, using clips from various famous songs. It's a really fun little app (though, I was amused that they have no clip for the word "lyrics" despite the service being all about lyrics) and can get pretty addictive. In fact, if you want to hear this entire post sung outloud via this system, just click here (please note, this will take a really long time to load, but it's totally worth it). However, like with many other cool music projects, I'm left wondering whether or not some would consider this to be copyright infringement. All of the clips are tiny -- one word, or in many cases, less than a full word, but they do seem to come from various popular and well-known songs."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091204/1146267209.shtml
"Shocklee points us to an awesome little app that lets you type in whatever lyrics (or, well, words) you want, hit play, and whatever you type will be sung for you, using clips from various famous songs. It's a really fun little app (though, I was amused that they have no clip for the word "lyrics" despite the service being all about lyrics) and can get pretty addictive. In fact, if you want to hear this entire post sung outloud via this system, just click here (please note, this will take a really long time to load, but it's totally worth it). However, like with many other cool music projects, I'm left wondering whether or not some would consider this to be copyright infringement. All of the clips are tiny -- one word, or in many cases, less than a full word, but they do seem to come from various popular and well-known songs."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091204/1146267209.shtml
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Google draws flak over online 'crumbs'; Sydney Morning Herald, 12/4/09
Sydney Morning Herald; Google draws flak over online 'crumbs':
"Search engine giant Google came in peace to a gathering of world newspaper editors and executives in India, but was soon embroiled in a battle over internet copyright.
``Please don't shoot. I am unarmed,'' Google senior vice president David Drummond told participants at the World Newspaper Congress on Thursday, where his company has been vilified as a parasite sucking the life blood from mainstream journalism.
Addressing the final session of the three-day congress in the southern city of Hyderabad, Drummond, who is also Google's chief legal counsel, sought to counter the charges of ``stealing'' stories from online newspaper websites and not sharing advertising revenue.
``Talk of us as 'vampires' and 'kleptomaniacs' is wide of the mark,'' said Drummond, who argued that Google had taken various steps to address newspaper industry concerns that its content was being exploited online.
On Tuesday, Google announced it would let publishers set a limit on the number of articles people can read for free through its search engine, and the following day it launched a ``news-specific crawler'' that lets online media automatically keep stories, photos or video out of its index.
But Gavin O'Reilly, president of the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) dismissed such measures as ``handouts and crumbs'' and said his members would only be satisfied with Google's ``unambiguous acceptance'' of copyright principles.
``Copyright is not an intellectual abstract. It is the law,'' O'Reilly said during an on-stage debate with Drummond.
Google's popular news aggregator website Google News has drawn fire from a number of newspaper owners for linking to their articles without payment.
The Internet search and advertising heavyweight counters that it is providing newspapers a free service by driving readers to their websites - an argument dismissed by O'Reilly.
``We are told: 'Don't complain. Aren't we bringing you the traffic?'. But I can't take traffic to my bank manager,'' he said."
http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/google-draws-flak-over-online-crumbs-20091204-k971.html
"Search engine giant Google came in peace to a gathering of world newspaper editors and executives in India, but was soon embroiled in a battle over internet copyright.
``Please don't shoot. I am unarmed,'' Google senior vice president David Drummond told participants at the World Newspaper Congress on Thursday, where his company has been vilified as a parasite sucking the life blood from mainstream journalism.
Addressing the final session of the three-day congress in the southern city of Hyderabad, Drummond, who is also Google's chief legal counsel, sought to counter the charges of ``stealing'' stories from online newspaper websites and not sharing advertising revenue.
``Talk of us as 'vampires' and 'kleptomaniacs' is wide of the mark,'' said Drummond, who argued that Google had taken various steps to address newspaper industry concerns that its content was being exploited online.
On Tuesday, Google announced it would let publishers set a limit on the number of articles people can read for free through its search engine, and the following day it launched a ``news-specific crawler'' that lets online media automatically keep stories, photos or video out of its index.
But Gavin O'Reilly, president of the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) dismissed such measures as ``handouts and crumbs'' and said his members would only be satisfied with Google's ``unambiguous acceptance'' of copyright principles.
``Copyright is not an intellectual abstract. It is the law,'' O'Reilly said during an on-stage debate with Drummond.
Google's popular news aggregator website Google News has drawn fire from a number of newspaper owners for linking to their articles without payment.
The Internet search and advertising heavyweight counters that it is providing newspapers a free service by driving readers to their websites - an argument dismissed by O'Reilly.
``We are told: 'Don't complain. Aren't we bringing you the traffic?'. But I can't take traffic to my bank manager,'' he said."
http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/google-draws-flak-over-online-crumbs-20091204-k971.html
Microsoft starts antipiracy initiatives in 70 countries; Ars Technica, 12/3/09
Emil Protalinski, Ars Technica; Microsoft starts antipiracy initiatives in 70 countries:
In addition to enforcement and engineering improvements to fight piracy, Microsoft has started pushing education initiatives in 70 countries.
"Microsoft has simultaneously launched education initiatives in more than 70 countries to help protect consumers and increase awareness of the risks of counterfeit software. Named Microsoft Consumer Action Day, the push includes an intellectual property rights education program in schools across China, an originals club for software resellers in Germany, a risk-of-counterfeit training course for the consumer protection authority in Mexico, a children's online safety program in Greece, and a study of piracy's impact on small and midsize businesses in Argentina. Details about these efforts are available at Microsoft.com/HowToTell and (800) RU-LEGIT (785-3448)."
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/12/microsoft-starts-antipiracy-initiatives-in-70-countries.ars
In addition to enforcement and engineering improvements to fight piracy, Microsoft has started pushing education initiatives in 70 countries.
"Microsoft has simultaneously launched education initiatives in more than 70 countries to help protect consumers and increase awareness of the risks of counterfeit software. Named Microsoft Consumer Action Day, the push includes an intellectual property rights education program in schools across China, an originals club for software resellers in Germany, a risk-of-counterfeit training course for the consumer protection authority in Mexico, a children's online safety program in Greece, and a study of piracy's impact on small and midsize businesses in Argentina. Details about these efforts are available at Microsoft.com/HowToTell and (800) RU-LEGIT (785-3448)."
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/12/microsoft-starts-antipiracy-initiatives-in-70-countries.ars
Judge rejects Amazon bid to scrap Google pact; Reuters, 12/2/09
Reuters; Judge rejects Amazon bid to scrap Google pact:
"A federal judge has rejected Amazon.com Inc's request that he withdraw preliminary approval of a settlement between Google Inc and groups of authors and publishers to digitize millions of books.
In a Tuesday ruling, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin said he planned to conduct a "thorough fairness analysis" of the settlement at a February 18, 2010 hearing and Amazon could argue its case then."
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE5B15KY20091202
"A federal judge has rejected Amazon.com Inc's request that he withdraw preliminary approval of a settlement between Google Inc and groups of authors and publishers to digitize millions of books.
In a Tuesday ruling, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin said he planned to conduct a "thorough fairness analysis" of the settlement at a February 18, 2010 hearing and Amazon could argue its case then."
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE5B15KY20091202
Huffington hits out at Murdoch speech; Guardian, 12/2/09
Mercedes Bunz, Guardian; Huffington hits out at Murdoch speech:
Huffington Post founder says aggregation is 'part of the web's DNA' and tells old media organisations to 'get real'
"Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington has accused Rupert Murdoch of confusing aggregation with misappropriation following his Federal Trade Commission speech claiming "There's no such thing as a free news story".
Huffington began in a humorous vein: "First of all, I would like to quote my great grandmother who likes to say: 'Never bet on a company that takes itself out of Google.'"
Then she introduced the audience to the three topics of her speech: "One, desperate times lead to desperate metaphors; two, desperate times lead to desperate revenue models; three, desperate times desperately call for better journalism."
She added: "I've talked about how the future of journalism will be a hybrid future where traditional media players embrace the ways of new media (including transparency, interactivity, and immediacy) and new media companies adopt the best practices of old media (including fairness, accuracy, and high-impact investigative journalism)...
After these statements she finished her attack saying: "And now they want to call 'Time out!' and start questioning 'fair use' – have you heard that? – as well as praising the first amendment. Basically they are attacking new media for being, well, new and transformational and there to stay. Get real you guys, the world has changed.""
Huffington Post founder says aggregation is 'part of the web's DNA' and tells old media organisations to 'get real'
"Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington has accused Rupert Murdoch of confusing aggregation with misappropriation following his Federal Trade Commission speech claiming "There's no such thing as a free news story".
Huffington began in a humorous vein: "First of all, I would like to quote my great grandmother who likes to say: 'Never bet on a company that takes itself out of Google.'"
Then she introduced the audience to the three topics of her speech: "One, desperate times lead to desperate metaphors; two, desperate times lead to desperate revenue models; three, desperate times desperately call for better journalism."
She added: "I've talked about how the future of journalism will be a hybrid future where traditional media players embrace the ways of new media (including transparency, interactivity, and immediacy) and new media companies adopt the best practices of old media (including fairness, accuracy, and high-impact investigative journalism)...
After these statements she finished her attack saying: "And now they want to call 'Time out!' and start questioning 'fair use' – have you heard that? – as well as praising the first amendment. Basically they are attacking new media for being, well, new and transformational and there to stay. Get real you guys, the world has changed.""
Looks Like Entertainment Industry Lobbyists Got To The Spanish Government; TechDirt, 12/2/09
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Looks Like Entertainment Industry Lobbyists Got To The Spanish Government:
"We had just been noting how Spanish courts seemed to be actually interpreting copyright law in a reasonable way, and slapping down industry attempts to abuse the laws. Of course, that couldn't last. It appears that Spain is now proposing new copyright laws that would bring its existing laws down the well-lobbied path of draconian punishment, increased third party liability and other mindless ideas that have more to do with propping up an old business model than encouraging the creation of new quality content. A bunch of professional content creators in Spain are organizing to protest these new rules, but do they stand a chance against the usual onslaught of industry lobbyists?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091202/1152477163.shtml
"We had just been noting how Spanish courts seemed to be actually interpreting copyright law in a reasonable way, and slapping down industry attempts to abuse the laws. Of course, that couldn't last. It appears that Spain is now proposing new copyright laws that would bring its existing laws down the well-lobbied path of draconian punishment, increased third party liability and other mindless ideas that have more to do with propping up an old business model than encouraging the creation of new quality content. A bunch of professional content creators in Spain are organizing to protest these new rules, but do they stand a chance against the usual onslaught of industry lobbyists?"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091202/1152477163.shtml
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Internet companies urge Mandelson to delete clause from digital economy bill; Guardian, 12/
Katie Allen, Guardian; Internet companies urge Mandelson to delete clause from digital economy bill:
Google, Facebook, Yahoo and eBay call on business secretary not to grant wide powers to ministers to alter copyright law
"Leading internet companies including Google have written to business secretary Peter Mandelson urging him to change the new digital economy bill to throw out a controversial clause that could give future ministers sweeping powers to change copyright law.
Their letter, sent to coincide with today's second reading of the recently announced bill in the Lords, voices support for parts of the bill and a "shared respect" for copyright. But Google, Facebook, Yahoo and eBay also express "grave concerns" over proposed measures "which risk stifling innovation and damaging the government's vision for a digital Britain."
They highlight elements of Mandelson's bill introduced at the 11th hour: "In particular, we believe the bill's clause 17 – which gives any future secretary of state unprecedented and sweeping powers to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 – opens the way for arbitrary measures. This power could be used, for example, to introduce additional technical measures or increase monitoring of user data even where no illegal practice has taken place," the letter said.
The internet companies warn that such an unclear copyright backdrop could run counter to former communications minister Stephen Carter's Digital Britain report, which examined ways to ensure the UK remained at the leading edge of the global digital economy.
"This would discourage innovation, impose unnecessary costs, potentially unsettling the careful balance of responsibilities for enabling market change which Lord Carter outlined in the Digital Britain report," the letter said. "This clause is so wide that it could put at risk legitimate consumer use of current technology as well as future developments ... The industry as a whole had hoped that the outcome of Digital Britain would be a clear, workable set of principles by which the industry could operate. On the contrary, clause 17 creates uncertainty for consumers and businesses and puts at risk the UK's leading position in a digital Europe. We urge you to remove clause 17 from the bill."
A spokesman for Mandelson's department sought to reassure the internet companies the government would not abuse any future powers.
"The law must keep pace with technology, so that the government can act if new ways of seriously infringing copyright develop in the future. However, business will not wake up one morning to a world in which government has taken extensive digital powers," he said.
While the digital economy bill was welcomed by many media companies, which feel their copyright on music, film and other content need better protection online, it has also faced a large amount of opposition from internet service providers and consumer groups.
Carphone Warehouse boss Charles Dunstone recently condemned as "crazy" plans to combat online piracy by severing people's broadband connections. The group's broadband arm, TalkTalk, has threatened to take legal action if proposals to cut off persistent unlawful online file sharers make it into law.
An e-petition on the No 10 website against the law has already garnered more than 28,000 signatories and the support of such technophiles as Stephen Fry."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/02/digital-economy-bill-google-facebook
Google, Facebook, Yahoo and eBay call on business secretary not to grant wide powers to ministers to alter copyright law
"Leading internet companies including Google have written to business secretary Peter Mandelson urging him to change the new digital economy bill to throw out a controversial clause that could give future ministers sweeping powers to change copyright law.
Their letter, sent to coincide with today's second reading of the recently announced bill in the Lords, voices support for parts of the bill and a "shared respect" for copyright. But Google, Facebook, Yahoo and eBay also express "grave concerns" over proposed measures "which risk stifling innovation and damaging the government's vision for a digital Britain."
They highlight elements of Mandelson's bill introduced at the 11th hour: "In particular, we believe the bill's clause 17 – which gives any future secretary of state unprecedented and sweeping powers to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 – opens the way for arbitrary measures. This power could be used, for example, to introduce additional technical measures or increase monitoring of user data even where no illegal practice has taken place," the letter said.
The internet companies warn that such an unclear copyright backdrop could run counter to former communications minister Stephen Carter's Digital Britain report, which examined ways to ensure the UK remained at the leading edge of the global digital economy.
"This would discourage innovation, impose unnecessary costs, potentially unsettling the careful balance of responsibilities for enabling market change which Lord Carter outlined in the Digital Britain report," the letter said. "This clause is so wide that it could put at risk legitimate consumer use of current technology as well as future developments ... The industry as a whole had hoped that the outcome of Digital Britain would be a clear, workable set of principles by which the industry could operate. On the contrary, clause 17 creates uncertainty for consumers and businesses and puts at risk the UK's leading position in a digital Europe. We urge you to remove clause 17 from the bill."
A spokesman for Mandelson's department sought to reassure the internet companies the government would not abuse any future powers.
"The law must keep pace with technology, so that the government can act if new ways of seriously infringing copyright develop in the future. However, business will not wake up one morning to a world in which government has taken extensive digital powers," he said.
While the digital economy bill was welcomed by many media companies, which feel their copyright on music, film and other content need better protection online, it has also faced a large amount of opposition from internet service providers and consumer groups.
Carphone Warehouse boss Charles Dunstone recently condemned as "crazy" plans to combat online piracy by severing people's broadband connections. The group's broadband arm, TalkTalk, has threatened to take legal action if proposals to cut off persistent unlawful online file sharers make it into law.
An e-petition on the No 10 website against the law has already garnered more than 28,000 signatories and the support of such technophiles as Stephen Fry."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/02/digital-economy-bill-google-facebook
James Grimmelmann Dec. 2nd Talk at Drexel University
James Grimmelmann Dec. 2nd Talk at Drexel University, "The Google Books Settlement: Books, Computers, and the Law":
Date: 12/2/2009
Start Time: 2:00 PM
Location: Rush Building, Room 014
Joint lecture: "The Google Books Settlement: Books, Computers, and the Law” by James Grimmelmann
The iSchool at Drexel, College of Information Science and Technology, and the Earle Mack School of Law will co-sponsor the lecture "The Google Books Settlement: Books, Computers, and the Law” by James Grimmelmann on Wednesday, December 2, 2009, at 2 p.m. in room 014, Rush Building (30 N. 33rd Street).Mr. Grimmelmann will review the history of the Google Books project, lawsuit, and proposed settlement, then discuss the questions it raises for information policy and the rule of law. These touch on issues of copyright, antitrust, privacy, free speech, and civil procedure, and are connected to bigger themes in public policy. He is an Associate Professor at New York Law School and a member of its Institute for Information Law and Policy.
Background: http://www.nyls.edu/centers/harlan_scholar_centers/institute_for_information_law_and_policy/events/d_is_for_digitize/programhttp://thepublicindex.org/
http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/home/about/calendar/details/?event=1569
Date: 12/2/2009
Start Time: 2:00 PM
Location: Rush Building, Room 014
Joint lecture: "The Google Books Settlement: Books, Computers, and the Law” by James Grimmelmann
The iSchool at Drexel, College of Information Science and Technology, and the Earle Mack School of Law will co-sponsor the lecture "The Google Books Settlement: Books, Computers, and the Law” by James Grimmelmann on Wednesday, December 2, 2009, at 2 p.m. in room 014, Rush Building (30 N. 33rd Street).Mr. Grimmelmann will review the history of the Google Books project, lawsuit, and proposed settlement, then discuss the questions it raises for information policy and the rule of law. These touch on issues of copyright, antitrust, privacy, free speech, and civil procedure, and are connected to bigger themes in public policy. He is an Associate Professor at New York Law School and a member of its Institute for Information Law and Policy.
Background: http://www.nyls.edu/centers/harlan_scholar_centers/institute_for_information_law_and_policy/events/d_is_for_digitize/programhttp://thepublicindex.org/
http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/home/about/calendar/details/?event=1569
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Current ACTA drafts ban DRM interoperability laws; Ars Technica, 11/30/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Current ACTA drafts ban DRM interoperability laws:
1,700 European ISPs and the Swedish Communications Minister both worry about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, but only one gets to tell the US government all about it this week in Washington. Leaked EU documents this week also reveal that the current ACTA draft could ban DRM interoperability laws.
"It's not just bloggers who are upset about both the content and secrecy surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA); the Swedish government is displeased, the European Union has concerns, and 1,700 European ISPs have now expressed their opposition to the process. While the worst fears of the ACTA worriers have yet to be realized, there's still plenty of opposition to a secretive treaty that attempts to push the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) on the rest of the world.
The US drafted the section of ACTA dealing with Internet copyright infringement and recently unveiled it to negotiating partners at a meeting in Seoul, South Korea. The draft does not mandate "three strikes" Internet disconnection laws, nor does it propose to strip ISPs of their "intermediary" immunity from prosecution. But it does push the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules and "notice-and-takedown" provisions on the rest of the world, even going so far as to stop countries from making DRM interoperability laws (requiring Apple to open its Fairplay DRM, for instance, so that content from iTunes could be used on other devices."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/current-acta-drafts-bans-drm-interoperability-laws.ars
1,700 European ISPs and the Swedish Communications Minister both worry about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, but only one gets to tell the US government all about it this week in Washington. Leaked EU documents this week also reveal that the current ACTA draft could ban DRM interoperability laws.
"It's not just bloggers who are upset about both the content and secrecy surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA); the Swedish government is displeased, the European Union has concerns, and 1,700 European ISPs have now expressed their opposition to the process. While the worst fears of the ACTA worriers have yet to be realized, there's still plenty of opposition to a secretive treaty that attempts to push the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) on the rest of the world.
The US drafted the section of ACTA dealing with Internet copyright infringement and recently unveiled it to negotiating partners at a meeting in Seoul, South Korea. The draft does not mandate "three strikes" Internet disconnection laws, nor does it propose to strip ISPs of their "intermediary" immunity from prosecution. But it does push the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules and "notice-and-takedown" provisions on the rest of the world, even going so far as to stop countries from making DRM interoperability laws (requiring Apple to open its Fairplay DRM, for instance, so that content from iTunes could be used on other devices."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/current-acta-drafts-bans-drm-interoperability-laws.ars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)