Ben Sisario, New York Times; Talking Head Sues Charlie Crist:
"The singer and former Talking Heads frontman David Byrne has sued Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, saying that he used the Talking Heads’ song “Road to Nowhere” in a Senate campaign ad without permission. The song was used in an online video posted in January that attacked Marco Rubio, a Republican who is Governor Crist’s opponent for the seat that will be vacated this year by Mel Martinez. The governor, a longtime Republican, is now running as an independent.
The suit, which was filed on Monday in United States District Court in Tampa, and first reported by Billboard, accused Gov. Crist of copyright infringement and false endorsement, and seeks $1 million in damages. Mr. Byrne’s lawyer, Lawrence Iser, represented Jackson Browne in his suit against John McCain for using the song “Running on Empty” in a presidential campaign ad in Ohio in 2008; as part of a settlement, the Republican National Committee apologized to Mr. Browne and promised to seek artists’ approval when using their music in commercials.
“As an attorney and the former attorney general of Florida, Gov. Crist knows better,” Mr. Iser said in a statement. “A political candidate may not incorporate the artistry of musicians and a songwriter into a campaign commercial without getting a license.”
A spokeswoman for Governor Crist said he had no comment."
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/talking-head-sues-charlie-crist/
Monday, May 24, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
[Documentary] When Copyright Goes Bad; YouTube via BoingBoing.net, 4/21/10
Cory Doctorow, YouTube via BoingBoing.net; [Documentary] When Copyright Goes Bad:
"Ben Cato Clough and Luke Upchurch's "When Copyright Goes Bad" (from Consumers International) is a great, 15-minute mini-documentary on what copyright can do, what it is doing, and what it needs to stop doing. Appearances by Fred Von Lohmann - Electronic Frontier Foundation; Michael Geist - University of Ottawa Law School; Jim Killock - Open Rights Group; and Hank Shocklee - Co-founder of Public Enemy."
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/21/when-copyright-goes.html
"Ben Cato Clough and Luke Upchurch's "When Copyright Goes Bad" (from Consumers International) is a great, 15-minute mini-documentary on what copyright can do, what it is doing, and what it needs to stop doing. Appearances by Fred Von Lohmann - Electronic Frontier Foundation; Michael Geist - University of Ottawa Law School; Jim Killock - Open Rights Group; and Hank Shocklee - Co-founder of Public Enemy."
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/21/when-copyright-goes.html
Obama Reiterates Support For ACTA, As More People Point Out How Far ACTA Is From The Purpose Of Copyright; TechDirt, 5/20/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Obama Reiterates Support For ACTA, As More People Point Out How Far ACTA Is From The Purpose Of Copyright:
"A few months back, President Obama publicly stood behind ACTA despite tons of concerns about it from the public. It's disappointing that as more and more concerns and problems with ACTA have been highlighted, Obama has not reconsidered. He still seems to be taking the position that "more copyright must be good, and ACTA therefore is good." That's a naive position. The group Open ACTA points us to a statement made by Obama in Mexico, concerning better trade relations with Mexico, where he again insists that ACTA is a key part of better trade relations:
Innovation and investment in technology and human capital are keys to sustained economic growth and competitiveness in both Mexico and the United States. The protection of intellectual property rights is essential to promote such innovation and investment. With this in mind, the Presidents charged their administrations to work together to formalize and expand the efforts of the existing bilateral Intellectual Property Rights Working Group. These efforts will include industry training (including of small and medium size enterprises); work between Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to streamline patent reviews; and collaboration, training and increased intelligence sharing among law enforcement agencies to enforce intellectual property rights more effectively. The Presidents also reaffirmed their commitment to the negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and charged their administrations to conclude these negotiations soon.
But, this blind assertion that stricter copyright enforcement without key exceptions and consumer protections that actually contribute more value to the economy than copyright restrictions, isn't just wrong, it goes against the very purpose of copyright law.
Hephaestus points us to a submission to the Australian government, by the Australian Digital Alliance, that does a great job highlighting the negative impact of ACTA (pdf) and how it goes against basic copyright law:
"The text of ACTA does not reflect one of the most important objectives of copyright -- to ensure access to information for the benefit of society. Protecting creators to encourage continued innovation is only one half of the copyright equation, ACTA fails to recognise the dual purpose of copyright." The whole submission is worth reading, as it highlights all sorts of serious issues with ACTA and the impact it would have:
ACTA might have a negative impact on individuals as Internet citizens and as consumers of digital technologies because some of its requirements go beyond Australian law. ACTA will facilitate excessive damages payouts by mandating the controversial 'lost sale analysis' for the assessment of damages and encouraging punitive style statutory damages that set arbitrary amounts for infringement. ACTA will also broaden the scope of commercial scale infringement to criminalise purely private acts that occur in the homes of some Australians....
ACTA might have a negative impact on intermediaries that will damage Australia's digital economy by diminishing Internet innovation, the free flow of information and legitimate commerce. ACTA provides for the unqualified award of injunctions against intermediaries, which creates new rights with significant potential for abuse and cost implications for ISPs. ACTA defines where third party liability will be imposed, which is a highly controversial issue that requires the flexibility of being dealt with at a domestic level. ACTA will burden intermediaries with more onerous requirements for safe harbour protection that may encourage three strikes.
What's most frustrating about all of this is that it really does appear that many ACTA supporters are simply going by the boilerplate myth that "stronger copyright protection" is "good for society," without ever once bothering to understand the details and why such a statement isn't just wrong, but dangerous."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100519/1615029494.shtml
"A few months back, President Obama publicly stood behind ACTA despite tons of concerns about it from the public. It's disappointing that as more and more concerns and problems with ACTA have been highlighted, Obama has not reconsidered. He still seems to be taking the position that "more copyright must be good, and ACTA therefore is good." That's a naive position. The group Open ACTA points us to a statement made by Obama in Mexico, concerning better trade relations with Mexico, where he again insists that ACTA is a key part of better trade relations:
Innovation and investment in technology and human capital are keys to sustained economic growth and competitiveness in both Mexico and the United States. The protection of intellectual property rights is essential to promote such innovation and investment. With this in mind, the Presidents charged their administrations to work together to formalize and expand the efforts of the existing bilateral Intellectual Property Rights Working Group. These efforts will include industry training (including of small and medium size enterprises); work between Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to streamline patent reviews; and collaboration, training and increased intelligence sharing among law enforcement agencies to enforce intellectual property rights more effectively. The Presidents also reaffirmed their commitment to the negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and charged their administrations to conclude these negotiations soon.
But, this blind assertion that stricter copyright enforcement without key exceptions and consumer protections that actually contribute more value to the economy than copyright restrictions, isn't just wrong, it goes against the very purpose of copyright law.
Hephaestus points us to a submission to the Australian government, by the Australian Digital Alliance, that does a great job highlighting the negative impact of ACTA (pdf) and how it goes against basic copyright law:
"The text of ACTA does not reflect one of the most important objectives of copyright -- to ensure access to information for the benefit of society. Protecting creators to encourage continued innovation is only one half of the copyright equation, ACTA fails to recognise the dual purpose of copyright." The whole submission is worth reading, as it highlights all sorts of serious issues with ACTA and the impact it would have:
ACTA might have a negative impact on individuals as Internet citizens and as consumers of digital technologies because some of its requirements go beyond Australian law. ACTA will facilitate excessive damages payouts by mandating the controversial 'lost sale analysis' for the assessment of damages and encouraging punitive style statutory damages that set arbitrary amounts for infringement. ACTA will also broaden the scope of commercial scale infringement to criminalise purely private acts that occur in the homes of some Australians....
ACTA might have a negative impact on intermediaries that will damage Australia's digital economy by diminishing Internet innovation, the free flow of information and legitimate commerce. ACTA provides for the unqualified award of injunctions against intermediaries, which creates new rights with significant potential for abuse and cost implications for ISPs. ACTA defines where third party liability will be imposed, which is a highly controversial issue that requires the flexibility of being dealt with at a domestic level. ACTA will burden intermediaries with more onerous requirements for safe harbour protection that may encourage three strikes.
What's most frustrating about all of this is that it really does appear that many ACTA supporters are simply going by the boilerplate myth that "stronger copyright protection" is "good for society," without ever once bothering to understand the details and why such a statement isn't just wrong, but dangerous."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100519/1615029494.shtml
Axis of P2P Evil? Congress, RIAA call out six worst websites in the world; Ars Technica, 5/19/10
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Axis of P2P Evil? Congress, RIAA call out six worst websites in the world:
"This morning, the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus held a press conference along with RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol to call out the six worst websites in the world. Think of them as an "Axis of P2P Evil."
Who made the cut? The Pirate Bay, naturally. Canada's IsoHunt was no surprise. One-click download service RapidShare was less expected, as a German court ruled only two weeks ago that the site was not responsible for infringement by its users and that it had no duty to preemptively censor uploaded content.
More surprising were the last three sites: Ukraine's MP3fiesta, which operates like the now-shuttered allofmp3.com; Luxembourg's RMX4U.com, which bills itself as "the biggest community for black music in world!"; and Baidu, the Chinese search engine so popular, Google couldn't even make a dent in its ratings.
The IAPC is a bipartisan group of 11 senators and a huge number of representatives, and they are concerned that America's copyright industries are suffering at the hands of "lax or nonexistent enforcement by many foreign governments." That's why, they wrote in a recent letter (PDF), the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is so important.
But look at that list of websites and services for a moment. What's missing? Grokster, Demonoid, Oink, Allofmp3, LimeWire, Napster, Newzbin, Mininova...
That's because the copyright industries have in fact been remarkably successful in court within the existing legal frameworks of both the US and foreign countries over the last few years.
Newzbin announced its own closure this week after a long legal fight, while LimeWire lost in a US federal court last week. Even the Pirate Bay's ISP had to stop hosting the site this week, and a Swedish court has already ruled against The Pirate Bay's administrators.
Hold your children close
Still, even with such tremendous victories behind it, the RIAA can't resist a spot of over-the-top rhetoric.
"The global challenge in the years to come will be to win the battle for a civilized Internet that respects property, privacy and security," said Bainwol. "An Internet of chaos may meet a utopian vision but surely undermines the societal values of safe and secure families and job and revenue-creating commerce. Shining the spotlight on these websites sends a vital message to users, advertisers, payment processors and governments around the world."
Yes, that's right: a Ukrainian website called "mp3fiesta" is threatening the safety and security of your family. And a good chunk of Congress wants to do something about it."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/axis-of-p2p-evil-congress-riaa-call-out-six-worst-websites-in-the-world.ars
"This morning, the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus held a press conference along with RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol to call out the six worst websites in the world. Think of them as an "Axis of P2P Evil."
Who made the cut? The Pirate Bay, naturally. Canada's IsoHunt was no surprise. One-click download service RapidShare was less expected, as a German court ruled only two weeks ago that the site was not responsible for infringement by its users and that it had no duty to preemptively censor uploaded content.
More surprising were the last three sites: Ukraine's MP3fiesta, which operates like the now-shuttered allofmp3.com; Luxembourg's RMX4U.com, which bills itself as "the biggest community for black music in world!"; and Baidu, the Chinese search engine so popular, Google couldn't even make a dent in its ratings.
The IAPC is a bipartisan group of 11 senators and a huge number of representatives, and they are concerned that America's copyright industries are suffering at the hands of "lax or nonexistent enforcement by many foreign governments." That's why, they wrote in a recent letter (PDF), the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is so important.
But look at that list of websites and services for a moment. What's missing? Grokster, Demonoid, Oink, Allofmp3, LimeWire, Napster, Newzbin, Mininova...
That's because the copyright industries have in fact been remarkably successful in court within the existing legal frameworks of both the US and foreign countries over the last few years.
Newzbin announced its own closure this week after a long legal fight, while LimeWire lost in a US federal court last week. Even the Pirate Bay's ISP had to stop hosting the site this week, and a Swedish court has already ruled against The Pirate Bay's administrators.
Hold your children close
Still, even with such tremendous victories behind it, the RIAA can't resist a spot of over-the-top rhetoric.
"The global challenge in the years to come will be to win the battle for a civilized Internet that respects property, privacy and security," said Bainwol. "An Internet of chaos may meet a utopian vision but surely undermines the societal values of safe and secure families and job and revenue-creating commerce. Shining the spotlight on these websites sends a vital message to users, advertisers, payment processors and governments around the world."
Yes, that's right: a Ukrainian website called "mp3fiesta" is threatening the safety and security of your family. And a good chunk of Congress wants to do something about it."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/axis-of-p2p-evil-congress-riaa-call-out-six-worst-websites-in-the-world.ars
China and Canada among top on US piracy watch list; Sydney Morning Herald, 5/20/10
Chris Lefkow, Sydney Morning Herald; China and Canada among top on US piracy watch list:
"US legislators have accused Canada, China, Mexico, Russia and Spain of "robbing Americans" by failing to crack down on piracy of movies, music, videogames and other copyrighted works.
Theft of intellectual property in the five nations was at "alarming levels," the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus said Wednesday, placing them at the top of the "2010 International Piracy Watch List" for the second year in a row.
The caucus, made up of 70 members of the US House of Representatives and Senate, said it was "greatly disappointed by their failure to make meaningful progress during the last year" in protecting copyrighted works.
"We are losing billions and billions of US dollars because of the lack of intellectual property protections," said Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah. "These five countries have been robbing Americans."
"Unfortunately, the United States is on the wrong end of the greatest theft of intellectual property in the history of humankind," said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island. "This must be stopped, and soon."
The bipartisan caucus, citing industry estimates, said global piracy costs US firms over 25 billion US dollars in lost sales annually.
The US legislators also released for the first time what they called a "list of notorious offenders" -- websites making available unauthorized copies of the works of US creators.
The websites singled out were China's Baidu, Canada's isoHunt, Ukraine's MP3fiesta, Sweden's Pirate Bay, Germany's Rapidshare and Luxembourg's RMX4U.
The caucus called on US trading partners to "take action against websites based within their borders whose business models are premised on delivering infringing content."
Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents major record companies, said the "websites facilitate massive theft" and "undermine legitimate commerce."
"The question for us globally is 'Can we create a world in which the Internet becomes a place of order rather than a place of chaos?" he asked.
Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, said pressure needs to be brought to bear on US banks and credit card companies whose services are being used to pay for pirated material on "rogue websites."
"We not only have to put pressure on these countries that are tolerating piracy or encouraging piracy but we also have to put some pressure on companies here at home that are helping facilitate piracy," Schiff said. "We need to dry up that revenue stream as part of the attack on those sites."
"This includes companies like Visa and Mastercard that facilitate financial transactions on these sites," he said.
The caucus said Canada is a "leading host" of illegal file-sharing sites and its "enforcement record continues to fall short of what should be expected of our neighbour and largest trading partner."
"At one point in 2009, five of the world's top 10 illegitimate 'bit torrent' sites were registered, located, or operated out of Canada," it said.
In China, "copyright theft is viewed in some sectors of the economy as a legitimate strategy for Chinese competitiveness," the caucus said. "This must end."
Microsoft cited piracy as a major reason that the US technology giant's software revenue per personal computer purchase is 15 times greater in the United States than it is in China.
"We have a particular problem in China in our business, which is that piracy is sky high," Microsoft boss Steve Ballmer told a gathering of corporate chief executives on Wednesday.
Mexico is a leading source for illegal camcorder copies of US films, the caucus said, and "piracy of hard goods and unauthorized use of software also remain severe problems."
The caucus said Russia has made "inadequate progress in addressing Internet piracy" and needs to adopt "updated and uniform procedures for investigation and prosecution of copyright infringement."
As for Spain, the caucus said it hopes the Spanish government will move quickly to tackle peer-to-peer piracy. "Greater accountability and deterrence must be established in Spanish law," it said."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/china-and-canada-among-top-on-us-piracy-watch-list-20100520-vlc2.html
"US legislators have accused Canada, China, Mexico, Russia and Spain of "robbing Americans" by failing to crack down on piracy of movies, music, videogames and other copyrighted works.
Theft of intellectual property in the five nations was at "alarming levels," the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus said Wednesday, placing them at the top of the "2010 International Piracy Watch List" for the second year in a row.
The caucus, made up of 70 members of the US House of Representatives and Senate, said it was "greatly disappointed by their failure to make meaningful progress during the last year" in protecting copyrighted works.
"We are losing billions and billions of US dollars because of the lack of intellectual property protections," said Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah. "These five countries have been robbing Americans."
"Unfortunately, the United States is on the wrong end of the greatest theft of intellectual property in the history of humankind," said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island. "This must be stopped, and soon."
The bipartisan caucus, citing industry estimates, said global piracy costs US firms over 25 billion US dollars in lost sales annually.
The US legislators also released for the first time what they called a "list of notorious offenders" -- websites making available unauthorized copies of the works of US creators.
The websites singled out were China's Baidu, Canada's isoHunt, Ukraine's MP3fiesta, Sweden's Pirate Bay, Germany's Rapidshare and Luxembourg's RMX4U.
The caucus called on US trading partners to "take action against websites based within their borders whose business models are premised on delivering infringing content."
Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents major record companies, said the "websites facilitate massive theft" and "undermine legitimate commerce."
"The question for us globally is 'Can we create a world in which the Internet becomes a place of order rather than a place of chaos?" he asked.
Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, said pressure needs to be brought to bear on US banks and credit card companies whose services are being used to pay for pirated material on "rogue websites."
"We not only have to put pressure on these countries that are tolerating piracy or encouraging piracy but we also have to put some pressure on companies here at home that are helping facilitate piracy," Schiff said. "We need to dry up that revenue stream as part of the attack on those sites."
"This includes companies like Visa and Mastercard that facilitate financial transactions on these sites," he said.
The caucus said Canada is a "leading host" of illegal file-sharing sites and its "enforcement record continues to fall short of what should be expected of our neighbour and largest trading partner."
"At one point in 2009, five of the world's top 10 illegitimate 'bit torrent' sites were registered, located, or operated out of Canada," it said.
In China, "copyright theft is viewed in some sectors of the economy as a legitimate strategy for Chinese competitiveness," the caucus said. "This must end."
Microsoft cited piracy as a major reason that the US technology giant's software revenue per personal computer purchase is 15 times greater in the United States than it is in China.
"We have a particular problem in China in our business, which is that piracy is sky high," Microsoft boss Steve Ballmer told a gathering of corporate chief executives on Wednesday.
Mexico is a leading source for illegal camcorder copies of US films, the caucus said, and "piracy of hard goods and unauthorized use of software also remain severe problems."
The caucus said Russia has made "inadequate progress in addressing Internet piracy" and needs to adopt "updated and uniform procedures for investigation and prosecution of copyright infringement."
As for Spain, the caucus said it hopes the Spanish government will move quickly to tackle peer-to-peer piracy. "Greater accountability and deterrence must be established in Spanish law," it said."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/china-and-canada-among-top-on-us-piracy-watch-list-20100520-vlc2.html
Drew Barrymore to direct another Wizard of Oz film; (London) Guardian, 5/19/10
Ben Child, (London) Guardian; Drew Barrymore to direct another Wizard of Oz film:
"Another day, another Wizard of Oz reimagining. Drew Barrymore looks set to become the latest member of the Hollywood glitterati to travel down the yellow brick road after signing on to direct Surrender Dorothy, pitched as a loose sequel to the 1939 musical...
At least five films based on the Wizard of Oz have been reported in recent weeks...
Though all 14 of Baum's Oz books are now out of copyright, and therefore freely available for anyone to plunder, it seems unlikely that all of the above will make it into cinemas: often in these cases, one or more of the films will fall at the wayside at the development stage. If not, there are going to be more wizards in multiplexes over the next few years than at a Harry Potter convention."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/may/19/drew-barrymore-direct-oz-film
"Another day, another Wizard of Oz reimagining. Drew Barrymore looks set to become the latest member of the Hollywood glitterati to travel down the yellow brick road after signing on to direct Surrender Dorothy, pitched as a loose sequel to the 1939 musical...
At least five films based on the Wizard of Oz have been reported in recent weeks...
Though all 14 of Baum's Oz books are now out of copyright, and therefore freely available for anyone to plunder, it seems unlikely that all of the above will make it into cinemas: often in these cases, one or more of the films will fall at the wayside at the development stage. If not, there are going to be more wizards in multiplexes over the next few years than at a Harry Potter convention."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/may/19/drew-barrymore-direct-oz-film
Copyright: time to change the laws?; BBC News, 5/17/10
Stephen Evans, BBC News; Copyright: time to change the laws?:
"The issue of copyright has to strike a delicate balance between protecting the creators of music, words or photographs and the dissemination of such material to a wider public.
On the one hand, you want to ensure that the creators get paid for what they create. On the other, if copyright protection is too tight, then dissemination of material becomes too restricted.
In the 18th century the spread of knowledge was dependent on reprinting.
A book produced in London or Paris would be reprinted in Geneva, Edinburgh or Dublin.
"That led to arguments among publishers and authors about whether reprinting was immoral or illegal," says Adrian Johns at the University of Chicago.
Blurred boundaries
The concept of intellectual property was based around the distinction between mechanical invention, and literary or cultural creation.
That idea is now less appropriate to the ways in which creativity is carried out - software development, biotechnology and gene science all conflict between the mechanical and the intellectual.
The advent of the internet has changed the way copyright works.
Under the previous technology, going into a shop and stealing a music CD was theft, and yet down-loading tracks from the internet seems un-theft-like.
This attitude, that if it is on the web then it is free, is even more pronounced with photographic images. When pictures were printed on paper it was easy to control, but new technology makes those old laws out-dated or at least difficult to enforce...
Future solutions
A few companies in Silicon Valley are working on ways for copyright information to be an integral part of the image which cannot be removed.
William Fisher at Harvard University thinks copyright protection is too strict, so, for example, works of art derived from photographs are blocked.
"There needs to be more creative freedom," he believes.
"The current system is over-protective. It extends copyright protection to too every snapshot, every digital image - billions are being created every minute all around the world and they are all protected by copyright law."
He acknowledges that a system is needed that affords protection to photographers who wish to have control over their work.
"But too much copyright protection impedes cultural conversations and cultural usage," he says.
He says there should be a change of bias when protecting work.
"It would be better if the photographer registered any image be wanted to protect with an online registration system," he says, "and that any other work was in the public domain.""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10118823.stm
"The issue of copyright has to strike a delicate balance between protecting the creators of music, words or photographs and the dissemination of such material to a wider public.
On the one hand, you want to ensure that the creators get paid for what they create. On the other, if copyright protection is too tight, then dissemination of material becomes too restricted.
In the 18th century the spread of knowledge was dependent on reprinting.
A book produced in London or Paris would be reprinted in Geneva, Edinburgh or Dublin.
"That led to arguments among publishers and authors about whether reprinting was immoral or illegal," says Adrian Johns at the University of Chicago.
Blurred boundaries
The concept of intellectual property was based around the distinction between mechanical invention, and literary or cultural creation.
That idea is now less appropriate to the ways in which creativity is carried out - software development, biotechnology and gene science all conflict between the mechanical and the intellectual.
The advent of the internet has changed the way copyright works.
Under the previous technology, going into a shop and stealing a music CD was theft, and yet down-loading tracks from the internet seems un-theft-like.
This attitude, that if it is on the web then it is free, is even more pronounced with photographic images. When pictures were printed on paper it was easy to control, but new technology makes those old laws out-dated or at least difficult to enforce...
Future solutions
A few companies in Silicon Valley are working on ways for copyright information to be an integral part of the image which cannot be removed.
William Fisher at Harvard University thinks copyright protection is too strict, so, for example, works of art derived from photographs are blocked.
"There needs to be more creative freedom," he believes.
"The current system is over-protective. It extends copyright protection to too every snapshot, every digital image - billions are being created every minute all around the world and they are all protected by copyright law."
He acknowledges that a system is needed that affords protection to photographers who wish to have control over their work.
"But too much copyright protection impedes cultural conversations and cultural usage," he says.
He says there should be a change of bias when protecting work.
"It would be better if the photographer registered any image be wanted to protect with an online registration system," he says, "and that any other work was in the public domain.""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10118823.stm
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Copyright Law Could Get Ugly If ACTA Is Adopted as Is; IT Business Edge, 5/17/10
Lori Bentley, IT Business Edge; Copyright Law Could Get Ugly If ACTA Is Adopted as Is: Lora Bentley spoke to Jim Burger, an intellectual property attorney in the Washington, D.C., offices of Dow Lohnes, about the proposed Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the impact it would have on the tech industry:
"Bentley: I've read that Internet service providers are concerned about the ACTA treaty, but I'm unclear what in particular they don't like about it. Is it the secondary liability provision?
Burger: Device manufacturers are more concerned about secondary liability than ISPs. The ISPs are primarily concerned about secondary liability where the search engines are concerned. The ISPs are primarily concerned about the safe harbor issue - the section 512 issue.
Generally in their space, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was a very carefully negotiated piece of legislation, gives them a safe harbor for users posting [copyrighted] material on their websites. So their concern, on a macro level, is that the DMCA was a very hard-fought battle. Almost every word mattered. In the ACTA treaty, they have a Reader's Digest version of [the safe harbor provision]. It gives them great concern because liability is huge.
Couple that with a provision in the enforcement section that says, essentially, countries will have predetermined damages. In the United States, it's potentially $150,000 maximum per infringing title, which is significant. For example, in the Viacom YouTube case, Viacom is alleging 100,000 titles. Multiply 100,000 by $150,000 and that's real money even for Google. So that's the problem the ISPs have in a nutshell."
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/features/interviews/blog/copyright-law-could-get-ugly-if-acta-is-adopted-as-is/?cs=41213
"Bentley: I've read that Internet service providers are concerned about the ACTA treaty, but I'm unclear what in particular they don't like about it. Is it the secondary liability provision?
Burger: Device manufacturers are more concerned about secondary liability than ISPs. The ISPs are primarily concerned about secondary liability where the search engines are concerned. The ISPs are primarily concerned about the safe harbor issue - the section 512 issue.
Generally in their space, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was a very carefully negotiated piece of legislation, gives them a safe harbor for users posting [copyrighted] material on their websites. So their concern, on a macro level, is that the DMCA was a very hard-fought battle. Almost every word mattered. In the ACTA treaty, they have a Reader's Digest version of [the safe harbor provision]. It gives them great concern because liability is huge.
Couple that with a provision in the enforcement section that says, essentially, countries will have predetermined damages. In the United States, it's potentially $150,000 maximum per infringing title, which is significant. For example, in the Viacom YouTube case, Viacom is alleging 100,000 titles. Multiply 100,000 by $150,000 and that's real money even for Google. So that's the problem the ISPs have in a nutshell."
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/features/interviews/blog/copyright-law-could-get-ugly-if-acta-is-adopted-as-is/?cs=41213
Princeton Demands Website Remove Elena Kagan's Thesis; Claiming Copyright Infringement; TechDirt.com, 5/17/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; Princeton Demands Website Remove Elena Kagan's Thesis; Claiming Copyright Infringement:
"Obviously, there's been lots of talk about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan in numerous areas. There have been various reports concerning Kagan's supposed views on copyright, but those seem pretty blown out of proportion from what I've seen and in talking to folks who know Kagan. She was a big supporter of the Berkman Center at Harvard, but that was part of her job. Other than her recommendation in the Cablevision case, there doesn't seem to be much to go on. In fact, I'm considerably more concerned with the idea that one of the leading contenders for Kagan's current job of Solicitor General is one of the entertainment industry's favorite legal attack dogs who led the industry's case in Grokster and was a major player in the Jammie Thomas trial before being appointed to the Justice Department (where he didn't last very long before moving over to the White House as associate White House counsel). Still, if Kagan really is a big supporter of fair use, you have to wonder what she thinks of the following situation.
With everyone digging deeper and deeper to find out more about Kagan, the website Red State apparently dug up her undergraduate thesis and posted it to their website... leading Princeton to demand that the thesis be taken down -- not, of course, for political reasons, but copyright ones. The University is selling copies of her thesis, and apparently the commercial value just shot up:
It has been brought to my attention that you have posted Elena Kagan's senior thesis online.... Copies provided by the Princeton University Archives are governed by U.S. Copyright Law and are for private individual use only. Any electronic distribution is prohibited, as noted on the first page of the copy that is on your website. Therefore I request that you remove it immediately before further action is taken.
Of course, ordering that the document be pulled down pretty much guarantees that it will get spread more widely -- and there's definitely a journalistic reporting defense for posting the document (though, I'm not particularly convinced that anything anyone wrote in college has much meaning once they've spent a few decades outside of college). And, of course, in trying to get the document taken down, it's just going to lead conspiracy-minded folks to think there's more to the document than there is (in actuality, it's a rather bland historical analysis, but you wouldn't know that from what some sites are claiming about it). But from a journalistic standpoint, it seems you could make a decent argument for fair use in distributing the document. In fact, publications like Newsweek are already sharing parts of the thesis as well (mostly to debunk the hysteria around it). It's difficult to see what Princeton gained in issuing the takedown notice, other than to rile up people."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100517/0000079435.shtml
"Obviously, there's been lots of talk about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan in numerous areas. There have been various reports concerning Kagan's supposed views on copyright, but those seem pretty blown out of proportion from what I've seen and in talking to folks who know Kagan. She was a big supporter of the Berkman Center at Harvard, but that was part of her job. Other than her recommendation in the Cablevision case, there doesn't seem to be much to go on. In fact, I'm considerably more concerned with the idea that one of the leading contenders for Kagan's current job of Solicitor General is one of the entertainment industry's favorite legal attack dogs who led the industry's case in Grokster and was a major player in the Jammie Thomas trial before being appointed to the Justice Department (where he didn't last very long before moving over to the White House as associate White House counsel). Still, if Kagan really is a big supporter of fair use, you have to wonder what she thinks of the following situation.
With everyone digging deeper and deeper to find out more about Kagan, the website Red State apparently dug up her undergraduate thesis and posted it to their website... leading Princeton to demand that the thesis be taken down -- not, of course, for political reasons, but copyright ones. The University is selling copies of her thesis, and apparently the commercial value just shot up:
It has been brought to my attention that you have posted Elena Kagan's senior thesis online.... Copies provided by the Princeton University Archives are governed by U.S. Copyright Law and are for private individual use only. Any electronic distribution is prohibited, as noted on the first page of the copy that is on your website. Therefore I request that you remove it immediately before further action is taken.
Of course, ordering that the document be pulled down pretty much guarantees that it will get spread more widely -- and there's definitely a journalistic reporting defense for posting the document (though, I'm not particularly convinced that anything anyone wrote in college has much meaning once they've spent a few decades outside of college). And, of course, in trying to get the document taken down, it's just going to lead conspiracy-minded folks to think there's more to the document than there is (in actuality, it's a rather bland historical analysis, but you wouldn't know that from what some sites are claiming about it). But from a journalistic standpoint, it seems you could make a decent argument for fair use in distributing the document. In fact, publications like Newsweek are already sharing parts of the thesis as well (mostly to debunk the hysteria around it). It's difficult to see what Princeton gained in issuing the takedown notice, other than to rile up people."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100517/0000079435.shtml
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Growers, Jessica in boat copyright flap; Sydney Morning Herald, 5/6/10
Lisa Martin, Sydney Morning Herald; Growers, Jessica in boat copyright flap:
"A fruit-growing corporation which warned Jessica Watson her boat name, Ella's Pink Lady, breached international copyright wants to make the teenage sailor a poster girl for apples.
Ella's Pink Lady has a similar heart logo to the Pink Lady apple trademark.
Pink Lady Australia spokesman John Durham told AAP the company wrote to Watson's management in October last year advising them of its registered trademarks on the Pink Lady name and flowing heart symbol in more than 70 countries world-wide.
"Given that this was a global sailing attempt and given that our registrations were global, we just wanted them to be aware of that," Mr Durham said.
"We just requested ... that no person associated with Jessica Watson's solo around the world sailing attempt to take any action or make any statements which could cause damage or bring into disrepute APAL's (Apple & Pear Australia Ltd) Pink Lady flowing heart trademark.
"We never imagined that she would (damage the trademark), the letter was just to make her management aware."
Mr Durham said the organisation had extended its best wishes to the 16-year-old Queenslander.
"Personally I think she is a fantastic young lady and very much admire her courage, fortitude and pluck sailing around the world," he said.
He said Pink Lady Australia would talk to Jessica Watson's people about a potential deal."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/growers-jessica-in-boat-copyright-flap-20100506-ucj9.html
"A fruit-growing corporation which warned Jessica Watson her boat name, Ella's Pink Lady, breached international copyright wants to make the teenage sailor a poster girl for apples.
Ella's Pink Lady has a similar heart logo to the Pink Lady apple trademark.
Pink Lady Australia spokesman John Durham told AAP the company wrote to Watson's management in October last year advising them of its registered trademarks on the Pink Lady name and flowing heart symbol in more than 70 countries world-wide.
"Given that this was a global sailing attempt and given that our registrations were global, we just wanted them to be aware of that," Mr Durham said.
"We just requested ... that no person associated with Jessica Watson's solo around the world sailing attempt to take any action or make any statements which could cause damage or bring into disrepute APAL's (Apple & Pear Australia Ltd) Pink Lady flowing heart trademark.
"We never imagined that she would (damage the trademark), the letter was just to make her management aware."
Mr Durham said the organisation had extended its best wishes to the 16-year-old Queenslander.
"Personally I think she is a fantastic young lady and very much admire her courage, fortitude and pluck sailing around the world," he said.
He said Pink Lady Australia would talk to Jessica Watson's people about a potential deal."
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/growers-jessica-in-boat-copyright-flap-20100506-ucj9.html
Real Copyright Law And File Sharing Copyright Law; TechDirt.com, 5/14/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt.com; Real Copyright Law And File Sharing Copyright Law:
"We already wrote about the Limewire decision, which didn't seem particularly surprising at all, given that LimeWire was basically doing the exact same things as Grokster. However, some people are noticing a few problematic parts to the ruling. While these parts alone certainly won't change the ruling, it's still worth noting what the judge said and questioning whether or not they're proper. As Eric Goldman notes, he tells his students that when it comes to copyright law there's normal copyright law, and then there's "P2P file sharing" copyright law "and it's a mistake to think those two legal doctrines are closely related."
Judges don't like file sharing systems, and even if they have to twist the law to reach the conclusion they want, they'll do so to shut such sites down. It's happened over and over and over again."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100513/1450189418.shtml
"We already wrote about the Limewire decision, which didn't seem particularly surprising at all, given that LimeWire was basically doing the exact same things as Grokster. However, some people are noticing a few problematic parts to the ruling. While these parts alone certainly won't change the ruling, it's still worth noting what the judge said and questioning whether or not they're proper. As Eric Goldman notes, he tells his students that when it comes to copyright law there's normal copyright law, and then there's "P2P file sharing" copyright law "and it's a mistake to think those two legal doctrines are closely related."
Judges don't like file sharing systems, and even if they have to twist the law to reach the conclusion they want, they'll do so to shut such sites down. It's happened over and over and over again."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100513/1450189418.shtml
Can we have fair use without fair use technology?; Ars Technica, 5/14/10
Matthew Lasar, Ars Technica; Can we have fair use without fair use technology?:
"Back in February of 2007, the Ars team was a bit miffed at what it saw as the half-hearted efforts of Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) to bolster fair use protections for consumers. Boucher had just introduced his Fair Use Act to the House, a bill that would provide additional protection for consumers following the Supreme Court's 2005 pile drive of the Grokster file-sharing service.
Boucher's legislation, cosponsored by John Doolittle (R-CA), offered a variety of new fair use exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. These included making "a compilation of audiovisual works" for classroom use, transmitting files over a home network, and accessing various works "of substantial public interest solely for purposes of criticism, comment, news, reporting, scholarship, or research."
Unlike previous iterations of his proposed law, however, Boucher's latest version did not offer protections to the developers of tools designed to facilitate these salubrious activities.
"So if Boucher's legislation passed," Tim Lee lamented in a post published a day after the law's announcement, "a film studies professor would be permitted to use software such as Handbrake to circumvent the copy protection on DVDs and create an audiovisual presentation featuring scenes from various movies. However, developing or distributing Handbrake in the United States would still be a crime."
Now, three years later, the Public Knowledge advocacy group has a set of proposals that would address this strange shortcoming.
Substantial noninfringing use
PK has been especially busy with these matters of late, unveiling its proposed Copyright Reform Act in stages. Stage one urges an expansion of fair use concepts to the DMCA, including the incidental capture of images ("for example, capturing music playing over radio when filming a family moment") and "personal and noncommercial uses" that would have "little chance of harming copyright holders" (e.g., making a CD of your favorite cardio-pop tunes for the fitness center).
Now Public Knowledge's stage two addresses the "anticircumvention" trap embedded in Section 1201 of the DMCA, the first words of which read as so: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
PK would add a codicil to this text:
"It shall not be a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with access to, or the use of, a work if such circumvention is for the purpose of engaging in noninfringing use of a work."
Then the group's reforms address Section 1201 language forbidding anyone to make, offer or traffic any technology, product, or service that "is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" and "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
To these sentences PK would append the following:
"It shall not be a violation of this section to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof capable of enabling substantial noninfringing use of a work protected under this title."
This, of course, lands us deep in the muck which is Supreme Court's Grokster decision, which ruled that the file-sharing service could find no safe harbor in the high court's 1984 Betamax standard. Betamax allowed that devices "capable of substantial noninfringing uses" could not be legally blamed for the infringing shenanigans of their users. But Grokster found that device distributors who sold services and technologies with the object of promoting their uses to infringe copyright were indeed liable for the consequences.
What we have in Public Knowledge's proposals, then, is a legislative attempt to address both the DMCA and Grokster's overreach, empowering devices capable of "enabling substantial noninfringing use of a work," while retaining the ruling's oversight over bad intent.
Teachers, regional DVDs, backups, time shares
Why does PK think that consumers need these reforms? Lots of reasons.
High on the group's first aid list are teachers who want to show films to their classes. They're hobbled by the law if they want to make film compilations from DVD media, a task that sometimes requires encryption circumvention technology. Thus, classroom instructors "must both worry about liability for the act of circumvention and manage in spite of the prohibition on tools that would allow them to circumvent," PK warns.
In other words, they have to navigate through a DVD's scene index, creating long and awkward breaks in their lectures. In 2006 the US Copyright Office granted a limited exemption on these restrictions for film and media studies professors, leaving historians, sociologists, anthropologists, ethnographers, and everybody else to fend for themselves.
Next, there are the roadblocks set up by the regional coding mechanisms stamped into many DVDs. On top of CSS used by most DVD makers, regional playback control is added, making their media usable only in a specific geographical area.
"Consumers' ability to make private use of legitimately purchased foreign DVDs on their DVD players in the United States is thus challenged regardless of whether they lawfully imported foreign DVDs themselves or legally purchased them from an overseas vendor," PK notes, "though both methods of acquisition are 'plainly legal' under copyright law."
Then there are the backup technologies that have been pummeled under the DMCA, such as RealDVD, a system that allowed consumers to store DVD content on their hard drives.
Eventually RealNetworks settled its fight with Hollywood, agreeing to fork over $4.5 million make the Motion Picture Association of America's infringement lawsuit go away.
But RealNetworks isn't always the defendant. Don't forget the time/format sharing Streambox VCR, which allowed users to record and play RealAudio streams. Real Networks sued Streambox for DMCA copyright infringement. Eventually the two companies settled.
Enacting these reforms "would remedy the unintended consequences caused by §1201's overbroad prohibitions while continuing to offer copyright owners extra protections for digital works guarded by TPMs [technology protection measures]," Public Knowledge's brief concludes.
Unfortunately, these suggestions are unlikely to ever darken the doors of Congress. Even Boucher's milquetoast fair use law didn't get very far; it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and then to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property back in 2007. That was the last anyone heard of it."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/can-we-have-fair-use-without-fair-use-technology.ars
"Back in February of 2007, the Ars team was a bit miffed at what it saw as the half-hearted efforts of Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) to bolster fair use protections for consumers. Boucher had just introduced his Fair Use Act to the House, a bill that would provide additional protection for consumers following the Supreme Court's 2005 pile drive of the Grokster file-sharing service.
Boucher's legislation, cosponsored by John Doolittle (R-CA), offered a variety of new fair use exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. These included making "a compilation of audiovisual works" for classroom use, transmitting files over a home network, and accessing various works "of substantial public interest solely for purposes of criticism, comment, news, reporting, scholarship, or research."
Unlike previous iterations of his proposed law, however, Boucher's latest version did not offer protections to the developers of tools designed to facilitate these salubrious activities.
"So if Boucher's legislation passed," Tim Lee lamented in a post published a day after the law's announcement, "a film studies professor would be permitted to use software such as Handbrake to circumvent the copy protection on DVDs and create an audiovisual presentation featuring scenes from various movies. However, developing or distributing Handbrake in the United States would still be a crime."
Now, three years later, the Public Knowledge advocacy group has a set of proposals that would address this strange shortcoming.
Substantial noninfringing use
PK has been especially busy with these matters of late, unveiling its proposed Copyright Reform Act in stages. Stage one urges an expansion of fair use concepts to the DMCA, including the incidental capture of images ("for example, capturing music playing over radio when filming a family moment") and "personal and noncommercial uses" that would have "little chance of harming copyright holders" (e.g., making a CD of your favorite cardio-pop tunes for the fitness center).
Now Public Knowledge's stage two addresses the "anticircumvention" trap embedded in Section 1201 of the DMCA, the first words of which read as so: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
PK would add a codicil to this text:
"It shall not be a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with access to, or the use of, a work if such circumvention is for the purpose of engaging in noninfringing use of a work."
Then the group's reforms address Section 1201 language forbidding anyone to make, offer or traffic any technology, product, or service that "is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" and "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
To these sentences PK would append the following:
"It shall not be a violation of this section to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof capable of enabling substantial noninfringing use of a work protected under this title."
This, of course, lands us deep in the muck which is Supreme Court's Grokster decision, which ruled that the file-sharing service could find no safe harbor in the high court's 1984 Betamax standard. Betamax allowed that devices "capable of substantial noninfringing uses" could not be legally blamed for the infringing shenanigans of their users. But Grokster found that device distributors who sold services and technologies with the object of promoting their uses to infringe copyright were indeed liable for the consequences.
What we have in Public Knowledge's proposals, then, is a legislative attempt to address both the DMCA and Grokster's overreach, empowering devices capable of "enabling substantial noninfringing use of a work," while retaining the ruling's oversight over bad intent.
Teachers, regional DVDs, backups, time shares
Why does PK think that consumers need these reforms? Lots of reasons.
High on the group's first aid list are teachers who want to show films to their classes. They're hobbled by the law if they want to make film compilations from DVD media, a task that sometimes requires encryption circumvention technology. Thus, classroom instructors "must both worry about liability for the act of circumvention and manage in spite of the prohibition on tools that would allow them to circumvent," PK warns.
In other words, they have to navigate through a DVD's scene index, creating long and awkward breaks in their lectures. In 2006 the US Copyright Office granted a limited exemption on these restrictions for film and media studies professors, leaving historians, sociologists, anthropologists, ethnographers, and everybody else to fend for themselves.
Next, there are the roadblocks set up by the regional coding mechanisms stamped into many DVDs. On top of CSS used by most DVD makers, regional playback control is added, making their media usable only in a specific geographical area.
"Consumers' ability to make private use of legitimately purchased foreign DVDs on their DVD players in the United States is thus challenged regardless of whether they lawfully imported foreign DVDs themselves or legally purchased them from an overseas vendor," PK notes, "though both methods of acquisition are 'plainly legal' under copyright law."
Then there are the backup technologies that have been pummeled under the DMCA, such as RealDVD, a system that allowed consumers to store DVD content on their hard drives.
Eventually RealNetworks settled its fight with Hollywood, agreeing to fork over $4.5 million make the Motion Picture Association of America's infringement lawsuit go away.
But RealNetworks isn't always the defendant. Don't forget the time/format sharing Streambox VCR, which allowed users to record and play RealAudio streams. Real Networks sued Streambox for DMCA copyright infringement. Eventually the two companies settled.
Enacting these reforms "would remedy the unintended consequences caused by §1201's overbroad prohibitions while continuing to offer copyright owners extra protections for digital works guarded by TPMs [technology protection measures]," Public Knowledge's brief concludes.
Unfortunately, these suggestions are unlikely to ever darken the doors of Congress. Even Boucher's milquetoast fair use law didn't get very far; it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and then to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property back in 2007. That was the last anyone heard of it."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/can-we-have-fair-use-without-fair-use-technology.ars
Warner Brothers Sues "Superman" Lawyer; ComicBookResources.com, 5/14/10
Kiel Phegley, ComicBookResources.com; Warner Brothers Sues "Superman" Lawyer:
"Not long after they created the character in the late 1930s, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster started to push back against National Periodical Publications for a bigger share in the rights to Superman. Over 70 years later, that battle is still being played out in a much more complex and unexpected way than almost any other intellectual property rights fight in history.
Today, Warner Brothers (owner of DC Comics and by extension Superman) fled suit against attorney Mark Toberoff who has represented the families of Siegel and Shuster in their attempt to gain back a percentage of rights and profits on the character. Deadline Hollywood reports that the suit focuses on the money Toberoff would supposedly gain if the Siegel and Shuster families earn the full rights to Superman back in 2013. If successful, the Warner Brothers suit may force Toberoff to step back from representing the families, giving the studio a better chance of winning future rights battles.
In the suit, the studio appeals to the court with the fact that Siegel and Shuster chose to work with DC on settling the rights dispute while they were alive as well as the fact that years of comics, TV and movie materials produced by DC and Warners would be stripped from the company in terms of its profits if they lost all the rights."
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=26237
"Not long after they created the character in the late 1930s, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster started to push back against National Periodical Publications for a bigger share in the rights to Superman. Over 70 years later, that battle is still being played out in a much more complex and unexpected way than almost any other intellectual property rights fight in history.
Today, Warner Brothers (owner of DC Comics and by extension Superman) fled suit against attorney Mark Toberoff who has represented the families of Siegel and Shuster in their attempt to gain back a percentage of rights and profits on the character. Deadline Hollywood reports that the suit focuses on the money Toberoff would supposedly gain if the Siegel and Shuster families earn the full rights to Superman back in 2013. If successful, the Warner Brothers suit may force Toberoff to step back from representing the families, giving the studio a better chance of winning future rights battles.
In the suit, the studio appeals to the court with the fact that Siegel and Shuster chose to work with DC on settling the rights dispute while they were alive as well as the fact that years of comics, TV and movie materials produced by DC and Warners would be stripped from the company in terms of its profits if they lost all the rights."
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=26237
[OpEd] Getting the last word on Holden Caulfield; LA Times, 5/7/10
[OpEd] Jon Healey, LA Times; Getting the last word on Holden Caulfield:
"I've been so distracted by the Greek debt crisis that I missed a ruling last week by the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that has potentially enormous implications for publishers, movie studios and other copyright holders. The appeals panel overturned a federal judge's ruling that J.D. Salinger (and now, his heirs) was entitled to a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. publication of an unauthorized sequel to "Catcher in the Rye."
Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in EBay vs. MercExchange, a case involving patent infringement, the appeals panel ruled that courts should not grant injunctions automatically to stop the publication or distribution of works that infringe copyrights. Instead, copyright holders will have to demonstrate that the harm they would suffer if the injunction were not issued could not be remedied through other means, such as monetary damages. The courts must also consider the "balance of hardships" that an injunction (or lack thereof) would inflict on either side, and whether an injunction would serve the public interest.
The ruling may not make a practical difference to the unauthorized "Catcher" sequel, a novel titled "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye." The 2nd Circuit left the injunction in place temporarily, giving the lower court time to put new restraints in place. It also stacked the deck in favor of another injunction. In addition to upholding the lower court's finding that the book's main character, "Mr. C," violated Salinger's copyright over the character Holden Caulfield, the appeals panel rejected the argument by the author, the publisher and some allies of "60 Years Later" that the book was a fair use of Salinger's work.
Jack Lerner, a copyright expert and law professor who leads the USC Intellectual Property and Technology Law Clinic, said he was disappointed that the courts didn't find the new book to be a fair use. The author didn't simply do another book about Holden Caulfield; the novel used Caulfield as a way to comment on the relationship between Salinger and his creation. Still, by making it harder for copyright holders to get injunctions, Lerner said, the ruling should make them more willing to strike licensing deals for their content.
Jennifer Urban, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley, said that the ruling "removed the possibility of the plaintiffs having so much power at the beginning that the licensing negotiations are heavily tilted toward the plaintiffs." That's been the result with patents since the MercExchange decision, she said, especially in cases involving patent holders whose business is to collect royalties rather than make products.
Let me put that another, less charitable way. The MercExchange decision made life harder for patent trolls to stop manufacturers from bringing innovative products to market, and that's a good thing.
Urban added that injunctions may have the effect in copyright cases of diminishing speech, which raises public policy concerns. Granted, there can be 1st Amendment issues on both sides; Salinger, for example, asserted a constitutional right not to be forced to speak. But if authors accused of infringement are making fair use of copyrighted works, that's protected speech, and society has an interest in hearing it."
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/05/getting-the-last-word-on-holden-caulfield.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OpinionLa+(L.A.+Times+-+Opinion+Blog)
"I've been so distracted by the Greek debt crisis that I missed a ruling last week by the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that has potentially enormous implications for publishers, movie studios and other copyright holders. The appeals panel overturned a federal judge's ruling that J.D. Salinger (and now, his heirs) was entitled to a preliminary injunction barring the U.S. publication of an unauthorized sequel to "Catcher in the Rye."
Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in EBay vs. MercExchange, a case involving patent infringement, the appeals panel ruled that courts should not grant injunctions automatically to stop the publication or distribution of works that infringe copyrights. Instead, copyright holders will have to demonstrate that the harm they would suffer if the injunction were not issued could not be remedied through other means, such as monetary damages. The courts must also consider the "balance of hardships" that an injunction (or lack thereof) would inflict on either side, and whether an injunction would serve the public interest.
The ruling may not make a practical difference to the unauthorized "Catcher" sequel, a novel titled "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye." The 2nd Circuit left the injunction in place temporarily, giving the lower court time to put new restraints in place. It also stacked the deck in favor of another injunction. In addition to upholding the lower court's finding that the book's main character, "Mr. C," violated Salinger's copyright over the character Holden Caulfield, the appeals panel rejected the argument by the author, the publisher and some allies of "60 Years Later" that the book was a fair use of Salinger's work.
Jack Lerner, a copyright expert and law professor who leads the USC Intellectual Property and Technology Law Clinic, said he was disappointed that the courts didn't find the new book to be a fair use. The author didn't simply do another book about Holden Caulfield; the novel used Caulfield as a way to comment on the relationship between Salinger and his creation. Still, by making it harder for copyright holders to get injunctions, Lerner said, the ruling should make them more willing to strike licensing deals for their content.
Jennifer Urban, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley, said that the ruling "removed the possibility of the plaintiffs having so much power at the beginning that the licensing negotiations are heavily tilted toward the plaintiffs." That's been the result with patents since the MercExchange decision, she said, especially in cases involving patent holders whose business is to collect royalties rather than make products.
Let me put that another, less charitable way. The MercExchange decision made life harder for patent trolls to stop manufacturers from bringing innovative products to market, and that's a good thing.
Urban added that injunctions may have the effect in copyright cases of diminishing speech, which raises public policy concerns. Granted, there can be 1st Amendment issues on both sides; Salinger, for example, asserted a constitutional right not to be forced to speak. But if authors accused of infringement are making fair use of copyrighted works, that's protected speech, and society has an interest in hearing it."
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/05/getting-the-last-word-on-holden-caulfield.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OpinionLa+(L.A.+Times+-+Opinion+Blog)
Google attorney slams ACTA copyright treaty; CNet News, 5/7/10
Declan McCullagh, CNet News; Google attorney slams ACTA copyright treaty:
"An attorney for Google slammed a controversial intellectual property treaty on Friday, saying it has "metastasized" from a proposal to address border security and counterfeit goods to an international legal framework sweeping in copyright and the Internet.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, is "something that has grown in the shadows, Gollum-like," without public scrutiny, Daphne Keller, a senior policy counsel in Mountain View, Calif., said at a conference at Stanford University.
Both the Obama administration and the Bush administration had rejected requests from civil libertarians and technologists for the text of ACTA, with the White House last year even indicating that disclosure would do "damage to the national security." After pressure from the European Parliament, however, negotiators released the draft text two weeks ago.
The international adoption of ACTA could increase the liability for Internet intermediaries--such, perhaps, as search engines--Keller said. "You don't want to play Russian roulette with very high statutory damages."
One section of ACTA says that Internet providers "disabling access" to pirated material and adopting a policy dealing with unauthorized "transmission of materials protected by copyright" would be immune from lawsuits. If they choose not to do so, they could face legal liability. Fair use rights are not guaranteed.
"It looks a lot like cultural imperialism," Keller said at the Legal Frontiers in Digital Media conference. "It's something that really snuck up on a lot of people."
Jamie Love of the Knowledge Ecology International advocacy group, which has criticized the ACTA process, reported last year that Keller had signed a nondisclosure agreement that provided her with access to the early draft text. Other organizations whose representatives signed the confidentiality agreement, according to Love's Freedom of Information Act request, include Verizon, eBay, Public Knowledge, Intel, News Corp., and the Consumer Electronics Association.
Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge, who signed the nondisclosure agreement, wrote at the time that it didn't provide much access: "We were allowed to view a draft of one proposed section as we sat in a (government office) with some of its negotiators and counsel. We were not allowed to take any copies of the text with us when we left the meeting about an hour later."
The U.S. Trade Representative said in a statement last month that recent ACTA negotiations in New Zealand were "constructive." The Motion Picture Association of America called ACTA an "important step forward" that deserves to be adopted.
The next ACTA meeting is in Switzerland in June."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20004450-38.html
"An attorney for Google slammed a controversial intellectual property treaty on Friday, saying it has "metastasized" from a proposal to address border security and counterfeit goods to an international legal framework sweeping in copyright and the Internet.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, is "something that has grown in the shadows, Gollum-like," without public scrutiny, Daphne Keller, a senior policy counsel in Mountain View, Calif., said at a conference at Stanford University.
Both the Obama administration and the Bush administration had rejected requests from civil libertarians and technologists for the text of ACTA, with the White House last year even indicating that disclosure would do "damage to the national security." After pressure from the European Parliament, however, negotiators released the draft text two weeks ago.
The international adoption of ACTA could increase the liability for Internet intermediaries--such, perhaps, as search engines--Keller said. "You don't want to play Russian roulette with very high statutory damages."
One section of ACTA says that Internet providers "disabling access" to pirated material and adopting a policy dealing with unauthorized "transmission of materials protected by copyright" would be immune from lawsuits. If they choose not to do so, they could face legal liability. Fair use rights are not guaranteed.
"It looks a lot like cultural imperialism," Keller said at the Legal Frontiers in Digital Media conference. "It's something that really snuck up on a lot of people."
Jamie Love of the Knowledge Ecology International advocacy group, which has criticized the ACTA process, reported last year that Keller had signed a nondisclosure agreement that provided her with access to the early draft text. Other organizations whose representatives signed the confidentiality agreement, according to Love's Freedom of Information Act request, include Verizon, eBay, Public Knowledge, Intel, News Corp., and the Consumer Electronics Association.
Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge, who signed the nondisclosure agreement, wrote at the time that it didn't provide much access: "We were allowed to view a draft of one proposed section as we sat in a (government office) with some of its negotiators and counsel. We were not allowed to take any copies of the text with us when we left the meeting about an hour later."
The U.S. Trade Representative said in a statement last month that recent ACTA negotiations in New Zealand were "constructive." The Motion Picture Association of America called ACTA an "important step forward" that deserves to be adopted.
The next ACTA meeting is in Switzerland in June."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20004450-38.html
Why Hollywood Should Be Nervous About Court Pick; ABCNews.com
Eriq Gardner, ABCNEWS.com; Why Hollywood Should Be Nervous About Court Pick:
"Hollywood may have some reason to be nervous about President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice.
Not a whole lot is known about Kagan's judicial philosophy, which in some ways, makes her the perfect pick to win confirmation by the Senate. Her record on issues the industry cares about, though, isn't entirely opaque.
Hollywood's biggest worry about Kagan might be her philosophy on intellectual property matters. As dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009, she was instrumental in beefing up the school's Berkman Center for Internet & Society by recruiting Lawrence Lessig and others who take a strongly liberal position on "fair use" in copyright disputes.
Most notably, during those years, Professor Charles Nesson at the Berkman Center represented accused file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum in the defense of a lawsuit by the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group representing the major U.S. record labels. Professor Nesson led his cyberlaw class in alleging that "the RIAA is abusing law and the civil process" with excessive damage claims in piracy cases. It was Kagan herself who wrote a personal letter to the U.S. District Court to help certify the students.
Paradoxically, the Obama administration later weighed in on the side of the RIAA in the case. But that was before Kagan was fully confirmed as U.S. Solicitor General. At the time, Professor Nesson expressed some doubts about whether Kagan would back the government's amicus brief and also called her "enlightened" on these issues.
Kagan got her biggest opportunity to showcase her feelings on IP when the U.S. Supreme Court asked her, as U.S. Solicitor General, to weigh in on the big Cablevision case.
Hollywood was upset when Cablevision announced its intention to allow subscribers to store TV programs on the cable operator's computer servers instead of a hard-top box. The introduction of remote-storage DVR kicked off furious litigation, and the 2nd Circuit overturned a lower court ruling by saying that the technology wouldn't violate copyright holder's rights. The studios appealed to the Supreme Court."
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=10610313
"Hollywood may have some reason to be nervous about President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice.
Not a whole lot is known about Kagan's judicial philosophy, which in some ways, makes her the perfect pick to win confirmation by the Senate. Her record on issues the industry cares about, though, isn't entirely opaque.
Hollywood's biggest worry about Kagan might be her philosophy on intellectual property matters. As dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009, she was instrumental in beefing up the school's Berkman Center for Internet & Society by recruiting Lawrence Lessig and others who take a strongly liberal position on "fair use" in copyright disputes.
Most notably, during those years, Professor Charles Nesson at the Berkman Center represented accused file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum in the defense of a lawsuit by the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group representing the major U.S. record labels. Professor Nesson led his cyberlaw class in alleging that "the RIAA is abusing law and the civil process" with excessive damage claims in piracy cases. It was Kagan herself who wrote a personal letter to the U.S. District Court to help certify the students.
Paradoxically, the Obama administration later weighed in on the side of the RIAA in the case. But that was before Kagan was fully confirmed as U.S. Solicitor General. At the time, Professor Nesson expressed some doubts about whether Kagan would back the government's amicus brief and also called her "enlightened" on these issues.
Kagan got her biggest opportunity to showcase her feelings on IP when the U.S. Supreme Court asked her, as U.S. Solicitor General, to weigh in on the big Cablevision case.
Hollywood was upset when Cablevision announced its intention to allow subscribers to store TV programs on the cable operator's computer servers instead of a hard-top box. The introduction of remote-storage DVR kicked off furious litigation, and the 2nd Circuit overturned a lower court ruling by saying that the technology wouldn't violate copyright holder's rights. The studios appealed to the Supreme Court."
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=10610313
'Hurt Locker' producers about to sue an army of pirates; Hollywood Reporter, 5/11/10
Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; 'Hurt Locker' producers about to sue an army of pirates:
"EXCLUSIVE: The war against movie piracy is getting downright explosive. We've learned that the producers of the Oscar-winning "The Hurt Locker" are preparing a massive lawsuit against thousands of individuals who pirated the film online. The case could be filed as soon as tomorrow.
Voltage Pictures, the banner behind the best picture winner, has signed up with the U.S. Copyright Group, the Washington D.C.-based venture that, as we first reported in March, has begun a litigation campaign targeting tens of thousands of BitTorrent users.
According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit should be filed this week. He declines to say exactly how many individuals will be targeted, but expect the number to be in the tens of thousands, if not more. "Locker" first leaked onto the web more than five months before its U.S. release and was a hot item in P2P circles after it won six Oscars in March. Despite the accolades, the film grossed only about $16 million in the U.S.
The U.S. Copyright Group has already filed lawsuits over about 10 other films, including Uwe Boll's "Far Cry," "Call of the Wild 3D" and "Uncross the Stars." Reports of those suits raised alarms in some circles, whereas others joked that the movie industry was merely suing those with poor taste.
"You can guess that relative to the films we've pursued already, the order of magnitude is much higher" with "Hurt Locker," says Dunlap, adding that the lawsuit will also cover other Voltage pictures such as "Personal Effects," starring Ashton Kutcher.
If the addition of "Locker" to this litigation campaign could shake things up, so too could news about cooperation by ISPs in this escalating fight.
After filing the lawsuits, the plaintiffs must subpoena ISP records in an effort to match IP addresses with illicit behavior on BitTorrent.
According to lawyers at Dunlap's firm, 75 percent of ISPs have cooperated fully. Those that have resisted are mostly doing so, they say, because of the amount of work involved in handing over thousands of names. But the clock may be ticking. For example, in the lawsuit over "Far Cry," Comcast has until next Wednesday to file motions to quash subpoenas. (Here's the stipulation by the parties.) By the end of next week, thousands of Comcast subscribers could be turned over.
Of the some 50,000 individuals who have been sued thus far, only three have tried to quash the subpoena. In one instance, a Georgia man tried to invoke the state's shield law protecting journalists from having to disclose their sources. The judge denied the motion. In another instance, a woman successfully got a court to throw out the subpoena because her IP address wasn't listed in the original complaint. Unfortunately for her, the complaint was then amended.
After unmasking individuals who have illegally downloaded films, the U.S. Copyright Group then sends a settlement offer.
Lawyers at the firm are seeing some returns on the first two lawsuits filed back in January. About 40 percent have settled, according to the U.S. Copyright Group. Those who haven't settled will be sent another round of settlement offers, and the group promises to eventually serve lawsuits on these individuals.
Since we first broke news about the litigation campaign, Dunlap says he's been besieged by e-mails from 20 to 30 independent film groups that have expressed frustration about rampant piracy and interest in joining up. The firm plans to send people to this month's Festival de Cannes, where they've already arranged meetings with a number of other film producers to discuss further lawsuits."
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/hurt-locker-producer-to-sue-pirates.html
"EXCLUSIVE: The war against movie piracy is getting downright explosive. We've learned that the producers of the Oscar-winning "The Hurt Locker" are preparing a massive lawsuit against thousands of individuals who pirated the film online. The case could be filed as soon as tomorrow.
Voltage Pictures, the banner behind the best picture winner, has signed up with the U.S. Copyright Group, the Washington D.C.-based venture that, as we first reported in March, has begun a litigation campaign targeting tens of thousands of BitTorrent users.
According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit should be filed this week. He declines to say exactly how many individuals will be targeted, but expect the number to be in the tens of thousands, if not more. "Locker" first leaked onto the web more than five months before its U.S. release and was a hot item in P2P circles after it won six Oscars in March. Despite the accolades, the film grossed only about $16 million in the U.S.
The U.S. Copyright Group has already filed lawsuits over about 10 other films, including Uwe Boll's "Far Cry," "Call of the Wild 3D" and "Uncross the Stars." Reports of those suits raised alarms in some circles, whereas others joked that the movie industry was merely suing those with poor taste.
"You can guess that relative to the films we've pursued already, the order of magnitude is much higher" with "Hurt Locker," says Dunlap, adding that the lawsuit will also cover other Voltage pictures such as "Personal Effects," starring Ashton Kutcher.
If the addition of "Locker" to this litigation campaign could shake things up, so too could news about cooperation by ISPs in this escalating fight.
After filing the lawsuits, the plaintiffs must subpoena ISP records in an effort to match IP addresses with illicit behavior on BitTorrent.
According to lawyers at Dunlap's firm, 75 percent of ISPs have cooperated fully. Those that have resisted are mostly doing so, they say, because of the amount of work involved in handing over thousands of names. But the clock may be ticking. For example, in the lawsuit over "Far Cry," Comcast has until next Wednesday to file motions to quash subpoenas. (Here's the stipulation by the parties.) By the end of next week, thousands of Comcast subscribers could be turned over.
Of the some 50,000 individuals who have been sued thus far, only three have tried to quash the subpoena. In one instance, a Georgia man tried to invoke the state's shield law protecting journalists from having to disclose their sources. The judge denied the motion. In another instance, a woman successfully got a court to throw out the subpoena because her IP address wasn't listed in the original complaint. Unfortunately for her, the complaint was then amended.
After unmasking individuals who have illegally downloaded films, the U.S. Copyright Group then sends a settlement offer.
Lawyers at the firm are seeing some returns on the first two lawsuits filed back in January. About 40 percent have settled, according to the U.S. Copyright Group. Those who haven't settled will be sent another round of settlement offers, and the group promises to eventually serve lawsuits on these individuals.
Since we first broke news about the litigation campaign, Dunlap says he's been besieged by e-mails from 20 to 30 independent film groups that have expressed frustration about rampant piracy and interest in joining up. The firm plans to send people to this month's Festival de Cannes, where they've already arranged meetings with a number of other film producers to discuss further lawsuits."
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/hurt-locker-producer-to-sue-pirates.html
Open Book Alliance tosses brick at Google; backs Amazon, Microsoft Corp., AT&T; Baltimore Examiner, 5/11/10
Peter Kelton, Baltimore Examiner; Open Book Alliance tosses brick at Google; backs Amazon, Microsoft Corp., AT&T:
"The Open Book Alliance (OBA) has tossed another brick at the Google Books Settlement now pending a supposedly final decision in federal court. Many believe the decision may shape the future of book publishing. Most assume the decision will be appealed.
OBA released an analysis it bought from a law firm that finds “numerous provisions of the proposed Google Books settlement would, if approved, violate the treaty obligations of the U.S. If the settlement is approved, it may give rise to legal action against the U.S. before an international tribunal and will certainly expose the U.S. to diplomatic stress.”
Open Book Alliance includes the following members: Amazon, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Council of Literary Magazines and Presses, Internet Archive, Presidio of San Francisco, Microsoft, National Writers Union, New York Library Association, Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Small Press Distribution, and Yahoo!
The 18-page analysis is available from (OBA).
The Justice Department had recommended that folks keep negotiating the ultimate terms of settling the $125 million lawsuit against Google."
http://www.examiner.com/x-15737-Albuquerque-Contemporary-Literature-Examiner~y2010m5d11-Open-Book-Alliance-tosses-brick-at-Google-backs-Amazon-Microsoft-Corp-ATT
"The Open Book Alliance (OBA) has tossed another brick at the Google Books Settlement now pending a supposedly final decision in federal court. Many believe the decision may shape the future of book publishing. Most assume the decision will be appealed.
OBA released an analysis it bought from a law firm that finds “numerous provisions of the proposed Google Books settlement would, if approved, violate the treaty obligations of the U.S. If the settlement is approved, it may give rise to legal action against the U.S. before an international tribunal and will certainly expose the U.S. to diplomatic stress.”
Open Book Alliance includes the following members: Amazon, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Council of Literary Magazines and Presses, Internet Archive, Presidio of San Francisco, Microsoft, National Writers Union, New York Library Association, Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Small Press Distribution, and Yahoo!
The 18-page analysis is available from (OBA).
The Justice Department had recommended that folks keep negotiating the ultimate terms of settling the $125 million lawsuit against Google."
http://www.examiner.com/x-15737-Albuquerque-Contemporary-Literature-Examiner~y2010m5d11-Open-Book-Alliance-tosses-brick-at-Google-backs-Amazon-Microsoft-Corp-ATT
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
LimeWire Found to Infringe Copyrights; Wall Street Journal, 5/13/10
Ethan Smith, Wall Street Journal; LimeWire Found to Infringe Copyrights:
"A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the makers of LimeWire, a popular file-sharing application, were liable for copyright infringement and related claims brought by a consortium of 13 major music labels.
The blistering, 59-page ruling from Judge Kimba Wood of U.S. District Court in Manhattan granted several requests for summary judgment made by the music labels, which are represented by the Recording Industry Association of America.
For many in the music industry the ruling is a throwback to an earlier digital era. LimeWire and similar software had their heyday several years ago, and while still present on many people's computers they have been eclipsed by newer downloading methods such as BitTorrent.
In a statement, LimeWire Chief Executive George Searle said: "LimeWire strongly opposes the court's recent decision." RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol, in a statement, called the ruling "an extraordinary victory for the entire creative community."
Nonetheless, it is unclear whether the ruling will have a tangible effect on illegal downloading of music and other media, experts said, given the diffuse nature of the networks on which the material travels.
Judge Wood's ruling didn't shut down LimeWire, though she could do so after subsequent hearings.
But even if she does issue such an order, experts say it is unlikely to stop its use by people who have already installed the software on their computers, since the file-trading network operates independently, out of the control of the company or any other central authority.
LimeWire was the last major commercial distributor of software that lets users access the once-popular Gnutella network, where people shared music.
NPD Group, which tracks consumer behavior, said LimeWire is present in 1.7 million households and used by 58% of people who download music using so-called peer-to-peer networks. NPD added that most people who download music from such networks use more than one kind of software, meaning that LimeWire users are also likely to use BitTorrent and other method.
Illegal downloading activity is difficult to measure but by many estimates it far exceeds paid downloads, despite the growth of Apple Inc.'s iTunes Store.
"The music marketplace and the digital entertainment marketplace is overwhelmingly a pirate market," said Eric Garland, CEO of BigChampagne LLC, which monitors file-sharing activity for clients including media companies.
Mr. Garland offered what he called a "conservative" estimate that around one billion songs a month, or 12 billion a year, are downloaded illegally. That compares with 1.2 billion songs downloaded in all of 2009 from paid services in the U.S.—by far the world's largest market for digital downloads. Even adding in other nations' downloading, peer-to-peer sharing likely dwarfs paid music downloads by about seven to one."
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704247904575240572654422514-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwMjExNDIyWj.html
"A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the makers of LimeWire, a popular file-sharing application, were liable for copyright infringement and related claims brought by a consortium of 13 major music labels.
The blistering, 59-page ruling from Judge Kimba Wood of U.S. District Court in Manhattan granted several requests for summary judgment made by the music labels, which are represented by the Recording Industry Association of America.
For many in the music industry the ruling is a throwback to an earlier digital era. LimeWire and similar software had their heyday several years ago, and while still present on many people's computers they have been eclipsed by newer downloading methods such as BitTorrent.
In a statement, LimeWire Chief Executive George Searle said: "LimeWire strongly opposes the court's recent decision." RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol, in a statement, called the ruling "an extraordinary victory for the entire creative community."
Nonetheless, it is unclear whether the ruling will have a tangible effect on illegal downloading of music and other media, experts said, given the diffuse nature of the networks on which the material travels.
Judge Wood's ruling didn't shut down LimeWire, though she could do so after subsequent hearings.
But even if she does issue such an order, experts say it is unlikely to stop its use by people who have already installed the software on their computers, since the file-trading network operates independently, out of the control of the company or any other central authority.
LimeWire was the last major commercial distributor of software that lets users access the once-popular Gnutella network, where people shared music.
NPD Group, which tracks consumer behavior, said LimeWire is present in 1.7 million households and used by 58% of people who download music using so-called peer-to-peer networks. NPD added that most people who download music from such networks use more than one kind of software, meaning that LimeWire users are also likely to use BitTorrent and other method.
Illegal downloading activity is difficult to measure but by many estimates it far exceeds paid downloads, despite the growth of Apple Inc.'s iTunes Store.
"The music marketplace and the digital entertainment marketplace is overwhelmingly a pirate market," said Eric Garland, CEO of BigChampagne LLC, which monitors file-sharing activity for clients including media companies.
Mr. Garland offered what he called a "conservative" estimate that around one billion songs a month, or 12 billion a year, are downloaded illegally. That compares with 1.2 billion songs downloaded in all of 2009 from paid services in the U.S.—by far the world's largest market for digital downloads. Even adding in other nations' downloading, peer-to-peer sharing likely dwarfs paid music downloads by about seven to one."
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704247904575240572654422514-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwMjExNDIyWj.html
Ireland Is Latest With Plan to Cut Into Copyright Violations; New York Times, 4/16/10
Eric Pfanner, New York Times; Ireland Is Latest With Plan to Cut Into Copyright Violations:
"A judge in Ireland on Thursday cleared the way for the implementation of a crackdown on Internet piracy, dismissing the Irish Data Protection Commissioner’s concerns that the plan could result in the invasion of privacy.
The judge upheld the legality of an agreement between Eircom, the largest Internet service provider in Ireland, and the music industry. Under the deal, Eircom has agreed to suspend digital pirates’ Internet connections if they ignore repeated warnings to stop the unauthorized copying of music.
In his ruling, the judge, Peter Charleton, issued a strong defense of the rights of copyright owners.
“The Internet is only a means of communication,” he wrote. “It is not an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights. There is nothing in the criminal or civil law which legalizes that which is otherwise illegal simply because the transaction takes place over the Internet.”
The music industry has been urging Internet service providers to take stronger action against piracy, though they have generally resisted measures like those agreed to by Eircom. In France and Britain, governments have approved laws authorizing suspension of pirates’ Internet accounts, though these measures have not yet gone into effect.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry hailed the decision in Ireland.
“This sends a strong message to governments that are now considering how to help their creative industries address the threat of mass online piracy,” the group said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/technology/17eircom.html?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse
"A judge in Ireland on Thursday cleared the way for the implementation of a crackdown on Internet piracy, dismissing the Irish Data Protection Commissioner’s concerns that the plan could result in the invasion of privacy.
The judge upheld the legality of an agreement between Eircom, the largest Internet service provider in Ireland, and the music industry. Under the deal, Eircom has agreed to suspend digital pirates’ Internet connections if they ignore repeated warnings to stop the unauthorized copying of music.
In his ruling, the judge, Peter Charleton, issued a strong defense of the rights of copyright owners.
“The Internet is only a means of communication,” he wrote. “It is not an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights. There is nothing in the criminal or civil law which legalizes that which is otherwise illegal simply because the transaction takes place over the Internet.”
The music industry has been urging Internet service providers to take stronger action against piracy, though they have generally resisted measures like those agreed to by Eircom. In France and Britain, governments have approved laws authorizing suspension of pirates’ Internet accounts, though these measures have not yet gone into effect.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry hailed the decision in Ireland.
“This sends a strong message to governments that are now considering how to help their creative industries address the threat of mass online piracy,” the group said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/technology/17eircom.html?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Publishers get together to beat down pirates [Updated]; ComicBookResources.com, 5/5/10
Brigid Alverson, ComicBookResources.com; Publishers get together to beat down pirates [Updated]:
"The FBI has served a warrant on the pirate site HTMLcomics.com and shut down their servers.
Acting on a warrant that alleged criminal copyright infringement, they shut down the site and confiscated the servers, according to this press release from the law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.
According to the release, DC, Marvel, Dark Horse Comics, Bongo Comics, Archie Comics, Conan Properties Int’l LLC, Mirage Studios Inc., and United Media set aside their differences, formed a consortium, and lawyered up in order to shut down the site, which claimed an average of 1.6 million visits per day and offered 6,630,021 pages of comics available for unrestricted reading.
Rich Johnston blogged about these guys a few weeks ago, noting that they claimed that they weren't violating any copyright laws because they make the pages available for viewing online but not for download. Of course, it took his commenters about 30 seconds to defeat that, and anyway, the Department of Justice begs to differ with them on the legal issues.
UPDATE: Colleen Doran has some experience with this site and its proprietor."
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/05/publishers-get-together-to-beat-down-pirates/
"The FBI has served a warrant on the pirate site HTMLcomics.com and shut down their servers.
Acting on a warrant that alleged criminal copyright infringement, they shut down the site and confiscated the servers, according to this press release from the law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.
According to the release, DC, Marvel, Dark Horse Comics, Bongo Comics, Archie Comics, Conan Properties Int’l LLC, Mirage Studios Inc., and United Media set aside their differences, formed a consortium, and lawyered up in order to shut down the site, which claimed an average of 1.6 million visits per day and offered 6,630,021 pages of comics available for unrestricted reading.
Rich Johnston blogged about these guys a few weeks ago, noting that they claimed that they weren't violating any copyright laws because they make the pages available for viewing online but not for download. Of course, it took his commenters about 30 seconds to defeat that, and anyway, the Department of Justice begs to differ with them on the legal issues.
UPDATE: Colleen Doran has some experience with this site and its proprietor."
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/05/publishers-get-together-to-beat-down-pirates/
Monday, May 3, 2010
German Court: Google Image Search Not a Copyright Violation; PC Mag, 4/29/10
Chloe Albanesius, PC Mag; German Court: Google Image Search Not a Copyright Violation:
"Google's Image Search is not a copyright violation, according to a German court.
The German Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that images pulled from the Web and displayed on Google's Image Search results does not infringe on the owner's rights.
"Today's ruling makes it clear not just for Google, its users in Germany and all owners of Web sites containing images, but also for all providers of image search services operating in the country: showing thumbnail images within search results is legitimate and millions of users in Germany benefit from being able to discover virtual information at the click of a mouse," Arnd Haller, managing counsel for Google Germany, wrote in a blog post.
The case dates back several years: A German artist who had uploaded photos of her paintings to her Web site sued Google for copyright infringement when those photos showed up in Google Image Search.
Haller said Google is still waiting for the full decision, but "what we know today [is that] thousands of Web sites and companies in Germany will be able to benefit from Google Image Search in the future as well," Haller wrote."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363263,00.asp
"Google's Image Search is not a copyright violation, according to a German court.
The German Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that images pulled from the Web and displayed on Google's Image Search results does not infringe on the owner's rights.
"Today's ruling makes it clear not just for Google, its users in Germany and all owners of Web sites containing images, but also for all providers of image search services operating in the country: showing thumbnail images within search results is legitimate and millions of users in Germany benefit from being able to discover virtual information at the click of a mouse," Arnd Haller, managing counsel for Google Germany, wrote in a blog post.
The case dates back several years: A German artist who had uploaded photos of her paintings to her Web site sued Google for copyright infringement when those photos showed up in Google Image Search.
Haller said Google is still waiting for the full decision, but "what we know today [is that] thousands of Web sites and companies in Germany will be able to benefit from Google Image Search in the future as well," Haller wrote."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363263,00.asp
Appeals court upholds ruling in Seinfeld cookbook case; CNN, 4/29/10
Megan Miller, CNN; Appeals court upholds ruling in Seinfeld cookbook case:
"The author of a children's cookbook cannot copyright ideas for slipping vegetables into children's food, a federal appeals court said in upholding a ruling in favor of the wife of comedian Jerry Seinfeld in a copyright infringement case.
Jessica Seinfeld wrote a cookbook, "Deceptively Delicious," offering tips that were similar to those of author Missy Chase Lapine, author of "The Sneaky Chef." Lapine sued, claiming that Seinfeld had stolen the ideas.
In a ruling announced Wednesday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's judgment there was no copyright infringement.
"Stockpiling vegetable purees for covert use in children's food is an idea that cannot be copyrighted," the court said in its decision.
In upholding the lower court's ruling, the appellate conducted it's own comparison of the books and confirmed that they were very different. Both courts found that the books were not substantially similar, and that there was no copying.
Seinfeld's attorney, Orin Snyder, called Lapine's accusations "an abuse of the judicial system."
"Two different courts have now seen through these false allegations, and that is why this case has been definitively thrown out of court," he said in a statement.
But Lapine's attorney, Howard Miller, said the copyright issue is only "one part of the dispute."
"We regret that the court ruled the way it did, [but] the other part of the case will go forward," Miller said, citing a defamation lawsuit against Jerry Seinfeld for remarks he made about Lapine on "Late Show With David Letterman.""
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/28/jessica.seinfeld.ruling/
"The author of a children's cookbook cannot copyright ideas for slipping vegetables into children's food, a federal appeals court said in upholding a ruling in favor of the wife of comedian Jerry Seinfeld in a copyright infringement case.
Jessica Seinfeld wrote a cookbook, "Deceptively Delicious," offering tips that were similar to those of author Missy Chase Lapine, author of "The Sneaky Chef." Lapine sued, claiming that Seinfeld had stolen the ideas.
In a ruling announced Wednesday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's judgment there was no copyright infringement.
"Stockpiling vegetable purees for covert use in children's food is an idea that cannot be copyrighted," the court said in its decision.
In upholding the lower court's ruling, the appellate conducted it's own comparison of the books and confirmed that they were very different. Both courts found that the books were not substantially similar, and that there was no copying.
Seinfeld's attorney, Orin Snyder, called Lapine's accusations "an abuse of the judicial system."
"Two different courts have now seen through these false allegations, and that is why this case has been definitively thrown out of court," he said in a statement.
But Lapine's attorney, Howard Miller, said the copyright issue is only "one part of the dispute."
"We regret that the court ruled the way it did, [but] the other part of the case will go forward," Miller said, citing a defamation lawsuit against Jerry Seinfeld for remarks he made about Lapine on "Late Show With David Letterman.""
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/28/jessica.seinfeld.ruling/
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Judge Presiding Over Google Settlement Moves Up; Publishers Weekly, 4/22/10
Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; Judge Presiding Over Google Settlement Moves Up:
"In yet another twist in the Google Books Settlement, the judge presiding over the deal's approval, Denny Chin, was confirmed by the Senate for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeal, 98-0. Although it is unclear exactly how Chin's promotion might affect the Google Settlement, four immediate questions stand out:
First, does the appointment mean a settlement decision is coming sooner, rather than later? With Chin to take his seat as soon as possible, he will certainly want to expedite his current caseload as much as possible. On the other hand, Chin may choose to pass the case on to another judge entirely, which could delay a ruling. On his blog, Scrivener's Error, attorney C.E. Petit thinks Chin will likely pass along the Goolge ruling. "If Judge Chin isn't pretty well already done writing his opinion(s)," Petit summarized, "everything that is currently live in GBS is almost certainly going to be decided by somebody else."
Second, looking ahead, how might Chin's appointment affect the settlement's appeal process? Many suspect that whatever Chin's ruling, it will be appealed to the Second Circuit-the very Court Chin has just been appointed to. Chin will certainly have to recuse himself from the appeal.
Third, the recently-launched visual artists' suit against Google will be impacted. Chin was assigned to that case as well, and a new judge will now be appointed. Given Chin's familiarity with the settlement, there will be some affect on the judicial economy of that suit. The suit, which seeks "monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief," was filed after Chin denied a request by the artists to join authors and publishers' $125 million class action settlement as a party.
And fourth, could Chin could now be involved in the Muchnick v. Reed Elsevier appeal? That case was recently remanded to the Second Circuit by the Supreme Court. It could be fascinating to see how Chin's thinking on the Google settlement manifests itself in that ruling, or, if he recuses himself from that case, citing similarity. Muchnick v. Reed Elsevier stems from the long-running Tasini v. New York Times case, the settlement of which includes a license-by-default much like the one at issue in the Google settlement. "I believe that, from a practical standpoint, the root issues in [Google and Tasini] are identical," lead objector Irv Muchnick told PW in April, "and that they should be coordinated in some fashion."
While the publishing world knows Chin to be the man deciding the fate of the Google settlement, he is probably better known to the world-and the Senate-as the man who put Ponzi-schemer Bernie Madoff away. In addition, Chin, born in Hong Kong, is now the only active Asian-American judge on a federal appeals court. Chin's appointment had been held up by anonymous holds in the Senate. The Second Circuit Court is based in New York City, and most recently saw one its own, Sonia Sotomayor, rise to the Supreme Court."
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/457043-Judge_Presiding_Over_Google_Settlement_Moves_Up.php
"In yet another twist in the Google Books Settlement, the judge presiding over the deal's approval, Denny Chin, was confirmed by the Senate for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeal, 98-0. Although it is unclear exactly how Chin's promotion might affect the Google Settlement, four immediate questions stand out:
First, does the appointment mean a settlement decision is coming sooner, rather than later? With Chin to take his seat as soon as possible, he will certainly want to expedite his current caseload as much as possible. On the other hand, Chin may choose to pass the case on to another judge entirely, which could delay a ruling. On his blog, Scrivener's Error, attorney C.E. Petit thinks Chin will likely pass along the Goolge ruling. "If Judge Chin isn't pretty well already done writing his opinion(s)," Petit summarized, "everything that is currently live in GBS is almost certainly going to be decided by somebody else."
Second, looking ahead, how might Chin's appointment affect the settlement's appeal process? Many suspect that whatever Chin's ruling, it will be appealed to the Second Circuit-the very Court Chin has just been appointed to. Chin will certainly have to recuse himself from the appeal.
Third, the recently-launched visual artists' suit against Google will be impacted. Chin was assigned to that case as well, and a new judge will now be appointed. Given Chin's familiarity with the settlement, there will be some affect on the judicial economy of that suit. The suit, which seeks "monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief," was filed after Chin denied a request by the artists to join authors and publishers' $125 million class action settlement as a party.
And fourth, could Chin could now be involved in the Muchnick v. Reed Elsevier appeal? That case was recently remanded to the Second Circuit by the Supreme Court. It could be fascinating to see how Chin's thinking on the Google settlement manifests itself in that ruling, or, if he recuses himself from that case, citing similarity. Muchnick v. Reed Elsevier stems from the long-running Tasini v. New York Times case, the settlement of which includes a license-by-default much like the one at issue in the Google settlement. "I believe that, from a practical standpoint, the root issues in [Google and Tasini] are identical," lead objector Irv Muchnick told PW in April, "and that they should be coordinated in some fashion."
While the publishing world knows Chin to be the man deciding the fate of the Google settlement, he is probably better known to the world-and the Senate-as the man who put Ponzi-schemer Bernie Madoff away. In addition, Chin, born in Hong Kong, is now the only active Asian-American judge on a federal appeals court. Chin's appointment had been held up by anonymous holds in the Senate. The Second Circuit Court is based in New York City, and most recently saw one its own, Sonia Sotomayor, rise to the Supreme Court."
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/457043-Judge_Presiding_Over_Google_Settlement_Moves_Up.php
GBS: Chin Is In; James Grimmelmann's Laboratorium Blog, 4/22/10
James Grimmelmann's Laboratorium Blog; GBS: Chin Is In:
"Denny Chin was unanimously confirmed by the Senate this morning for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Congratulations to Judge Chin.
I don’t know what this means for the Google Books case, and would rather just wait to see than speculate."
http://laboratorium.net/archive/2010/04/22/chin_is_in
"Denny Chin was unanimously confirmed by the Senate this morning for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Congratulations to Judge Chin.
I don’t know what this means for the Google Books case, and would rather just wait to see than speculate."
http://laboratorium.net/archive/2010/04/22/chin_is_in
Tech Companies Fear Implications of Trade Pact; New York Times, 4/20/10
Associated Press via New York Times; Tech Companies Fear Implications of Trade Pact:
"Companies across the technology industry -- from Internet access providers to social networking sites to video-sharing services -- are bracing for this week's release of a draft of a trade agreement that they fear could undermine all sorts of online activities.
The agreement, being negotiated by the United States and nearly a dozen trading partners, is intended to create an international framework to crack down on counterfeiting, copyright violations and other intellectual property theft. But skeptics warn that it could chill free speech and other online expression by making technology companies liable for the misdeeds of their users.
''If online platforms themselves are held liable in a way that is overly broad, the platforms themselves will start screening and censoring or scaling back how open to user participation they are,'' said David Sohn, senior policy counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, an interest group that advocates for civil liberties online. ''They will have to exercise really tight control.''
The Bush administration began negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, in the fall of 2007 in an effort to harmonize intellectual property protections across different nations. The far-reaching agreement would encompass everything from counterfeit pharmaceuticals to fake Prada bags to online piracy of music and movies. Once ratified, trade agreements take full effect and a country can face complaints for noncompliance.
Since early on, the talks have been mired in controversy. For one thing, countries that are considered the biggest sources of intellectual property theft -- such as China and Indonesia -- are not participating. Nations taking part include the European Union member states, Japan, Korea, Canada, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and Australia.
The negotiations have been held behind closed doors, with no opportunity for public comment or outside input. Earlier versions of the trade agreement have been leaked, but the first official draft won't be released until Wednesday -- even though last week's talks in New Zealand marked the eighth round of negotiations. The next round will take place in Switzerland in June.
Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who specializes in Internet and electronic commerce issues, argues that because the agreement could reshape intellectual property laws in so many countries, the proper forum for such negotiations is the World Intellectual Property Organization. WIPO negotiations are more open to public scrutiny and include countries where much of the counterfeiting takes place, he noted.
''Anyone in a democratic country should be uncomfortable when governments go behind closed doors to negotiate an agreement that will ultimately have a significant impact on domestic law,'' Geist said.
Many technology companies fear that ACTA could undermine existing legal precedent and intellectual property laws in the United States, including the landmark 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The current U.S. legal framework includes important protections for Internet service providers and other technology companies when their users are accused of copyright infringement. Although current law requires companies to remove infringing content, it limits their liability.
Most big technology companies are hesitant to comment on the record about ACTA until they see an official draft, but privately they say that immunity is critical not just for Internet service providers such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., but also for any online company that hosts user-generated content. That includes social networking sites such as Facebook, video-sharing sites such as Google Inc.'s YouTube and even the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The darkest fear of the technology companies is that ACTA contains provisions that would require them to cut off access to users who violate copyright protections and possibly would hold the companies liable for violations.
The dangers of such ''secondary liability'' were underscored by a recent court ruling in Italy, which held three Google executives criminally responsible for hosting an online video of an autistic teenager being bullied, said Sohn of the Center for Democracy & Technology.
Sohn also said he worries that the trade agreement will exclude another ''safeguard'' in U.S. law -- the ''fair use'' doctrine, which allows limited use of copyright-protected material for commentary, criticism, research, teaching and news reporting.
''While this is being characterized as an anti-counterfeiting agreement, it is really a copyright deal with rules that will affect the daily lives of millions of people both online and in the digital realm,'' Geist said.
ACTA skeptics aren't only worried that it will bring more-restrictive rules to the U.S. Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director for Public Knowledge, another public interest group, fears that ACTA could also export strict, punitive copyright enforcement measures that exist in U.S. law to other countries. That could include high statutory damage awards, he said.
To be sure, ACTA has plenty of defenders. In November, a long list of media companies and trade groups, including the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, sent a letter to Congress expressing support for the agreement.
ACTA, they wrote, has the potential to ''preserve high value American jobs, and create new ones'' and ''buttress our country's leading position in the creation, publishing and distribution of software, video games, films, music, books, television programs, journals, visual materials and other works protected by copyright.''
The office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which is negotiating ACTA on behalf of the U.S., said in a statement that it is working to implement ''President Obama's commitment to aggressively protect American intellectual property overseas'' and is ''respecting the balance struck by the U.S. Congress on these issues.''
The trade representative added that secondary liability for copyright infringement already exists in U.S. and foreign laws. ACTA, it hopes, would ''protect Internet intermediaries from secondary liability if they play by the rules.''"
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/20/business/AP-US-TEC-Copyright-Trade-Agreement.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=acta&st=cse
"Companies across the technology industry -- from Internet access providers to social networking sites to video-sharing services -- are bracing for this week's release of a draft of a trade agreement that they fear could undermine all sorts of online activities.
The agreement, being negotiated by the United States and nearly a dozen trading partners, is intended to create an international framework to crack down on counterfeiting, copyright violations and other intellectual property theft. But skeptics warn that it could chill free speech and other online expression by making technology companies liable for the misdeeds of their users.
''If online platforms themselves are held liable in a way that is overly broad, the platforms themselves will start screening and censoring or scaling back how open to user participation they are,'' said David Sohn, senior policy counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, an interest group that advocates for civil liberties online. ''They will have to exercise really tight control.''
The Bush administration began negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, in the fall of 2007 in an effort to harmonize intellectual property protections across different nations. The far-reaching agreement would encompass everything from counterfeit pharmaceuticals to fake Prada bags to online piracy of music and movies. Once ratified, trade agreements take full effect and a country can face complaints for noncompliance.
Since early on, the talks have been mired in controversy. For one thing, countries that are considered the biggest sources of intellectual property theft -- such as China and Indonesia -- are not participating. Nations taking part include the European Union member states, Japan, Korea, Canada, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and Australia.
The negotiations have been held behind closed doors, with no opportunity for public comment or outside input. Earlier versions of the trade agreement have been leaked, but the first official draft won't be released until Wednesday -- even though last week's talks in New Zealand marked the eighth round of negotiations. The next round will take place in Switzerland in June.
Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who specializes in Internet and electronic commerce issues, argues that because the agreement could reshape intellectual property laws in so many countries, the proper forum for such negotiations is the World Intellectual Property Organization. WIPO negotiations are more open to public scrutiny and include countries where much of the counterfeiting takes place, he noted.
''Anyone in a democratic country should be uncomfortable when governments go behind closed doors to negotiate an agreement that will ultimately have a significant impact on domestic law,'' Geist said.
Many technology companies fear that ACTA could undermine existing legal precedent and intellectual property laws in the United States, including the landmark 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The current U.S. legal framework includes important protections for Internet service providers and other technology companies when their users are accused of copyright infringement. Although current law requires companies to remove infringing content, it limits their liability.
Most big technology companies are hesitant to comment on the record about ACTA until they see an official draft, but privately they say that immunity is critical not just for Internet service providers such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., but also for any online company that hosts user-generated content. That includes social networking sites such as Facebook, video-sharing sites such as Google Inc.'s YouTube and even the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The darkest fear of the technology companies is that ACTA contains provisions that would require them to cut off access to users who violate copyright protections and possibly would hold the companies liable for violations.
The dangers of such ''secondary liability'' were underscored by a recent court ruling in Italy, which held three Google executives criminally responsible for hosting an online video of an autistic teenager being bullied, said Sohn of the Center for Democracy & Technology.
Sohn also said he worries that the trade agreement will exclude another ''safeguard'' in U.S. law -- the ''fair use'' doctrine, which allows limited use of copyright-protected material for commentary, criticism, research, teaching and news reporting.
''While this is being characterized as an anti-counterfeiting agreement, it is really a copyright deal with rules that will affect the daily lives of millions of people both online and in the digital realm,'' Geist said.
ACTA skeptics aren't only worried that it will bring more-restrictive rules to the U.S. Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director for Public Knowledge, another public interest group, fears that ACTA could also export strict, punitive copyright enforcement measures that exist in U.S. law to other countries. That could include high statutory damage awards, he said.
To be sure, ACTA has plenty of defenders. In November, a long list of media companies and trade groups, including the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, sent a letter to Congress expressing support for the agreement.
ACTA, they wrote, has the potential to ''preserve high value American jobs, and create new ones'' and ''buttress our country's leading position in the creation, publishing and distribution of software, video games, films, music, books, television programs, journals, visual materials and other works protected by copyright.''
The office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which is negotiating ACTA on behalf of the U.S., said in a statement that it is working to implement ''President Obama's commitment to aggressively protect American intellectual property overseas'' and is ''respecting the balance struck by the U.S. Congress on these issues.''
The trade representative added that secondary liability for copyright infringement already exists in U.S. and foreign laws. ACTA, it hopes, would ''protect Internet intermediaries from secondary liability if they play by the rules.''"
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/20/business/AP-US-TEC-Copyright-Trade-Agreement.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=acta&st=cse
India Introduces Draft Copyright Amendments; Some Good, Some Bad; TechDirt, 4/23/10
Mike Masnick, TechDirt; India Introduces Draft Copyright Amendments; Some Good, Some Bad:
"Michael Geist points our attention to the news that India has introduced a draft of proposed amendments to its copyright law, in an attempt to bring India's copyright laws into alignment with those ever popular "international obligations" found in various (industry dominated) treaties. There were reports late last year that the proposals were likely to be draconian, as the negotiations had mainly been between the government and the recording industry with no input from the public. However, the actual proposal (pdf) is much more of a mixed bag -- with lots of somewhat surprisingly good things included.
For example, it extends the concept of "fair dealing" to cover "private and personal use" and makes sure that anti-circumvention rules only apply when the circumvention is used to infringe on copyrights. The US anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA makes no such distinction (so even if you circumvent copy protection for a perfectly legal reason -- such as to make a personal backup -- it's still infringement just to circumvent). Also, the new proposal would allow more access to copyrighted works by "physically challenged persons." However, it appears that some feel that those provisions don't go far enough. It allows for the conversion of copyrighted works into Braille without having to pay a fee, but many visually impaired point out that it does not cover converting the works to audio formats with e-reading software or audiobooks. Some political parties are threatening to boycott the proposal if this part isn't fixed.
The part of the bill that's getting the most attention in India is that it would create an additional right for content creators, which they would hold onto, rather than having the right transferred over to the producers and record labels. In other words, it seeks to make sure that the actual content creators don't have their rights stripped from them by the industry. Not surprisingly, the record labels are up in arms about this, and find the whole thing to be terribly unfair. In their defense, it is a bit strange to set up a copyright where the rights are not transferable, even if the purpose is really to give more power to the content creators themselves.
That controversial clause does seem like a mixed bag itself. Decreasing the control the industry has over actual content creators is a good thing, but I'm not sure layering on another "right" is the way to do it. There are some other questionable aspects of the bill as well -- including (of course) extending the length of copyright, in some cases, for no good reason. It also sets up new statutory compulsory rights. While those sometimes are useful in clearing up confusion, it creates a totally arbitrary system for setting payment rates, rather than letting the market figure it out.
Overall, it sounds like this is better than many of the proposed copyright law changes out there -- and I'm sure that the entertainment industry, who had been pushing for India to put potential infringers in jail, won't like this one bit -- but it's not that great either."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100422/1533599145.shtml
"Michael Geist points our attention to the news that India has introduced a draft of proposed amendments to its copyright law, in an attempt to bring India's copyright laws into alignment with those ever popular "international obligations" found in various (industry dominated) treaties. There were reports late last year that the proposals were likely to be draconian, as the negotiations had mainly been between the government and the recording industry with no input from the public. However, the actual proposal (pdf) is much more of a mixed bag -- with lots of somewhat surprisingly good things included.
For example, it extends the concept of "fair dealing" to cover "private and personal use" and makes sure that anti-circumvention rules only apply when the circumvention is used to infringe on copyrights. The US anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA makes no such distinction (so even if you circumvent copy protection for a perfectly legal reason -- such as to make a personal backup -- it's still infringement just to circumvent). Also, the new proposal would allow more access to copyrighted works by "physically challenged persons." However, it appears that some feel that those provisions don't go far enough. It allows for the conversion of copyrighted works into Braille without having to pay a fee, but many visually impaired point out that it does not cover converting the works to audio formats with e-reading software or audiobooks. Some political parties are threatening to boycott the proposal if this part isn't fixed.
The part of the bill that's getting the most attention in India is that it would create an additional right for content creators, which they would hold onto, rather than having the right transferred over to the producers and record labels. In other words, it seeks to make sure that the actual content creators don't have their rights stripped from them by the industry. Not surprisingly, the record labels are up in arms about this, and find the whole thing to be terribly unfair. In their defense, it is a bit strange to set up a copyright where the rights are not transferable, even if the purpose is really to give more power to the content creators themselves.
That controversial clause does seem like a mixed bag itself. Decreasing the control the industry has over actual content creators is a good thing, but I'm not sure layering on another "right" is the way to do it. There are some other questionable aspects of the bill as well -- including (of course) extending the length of copyright, in some cases, for no good reason. It also sets up new statutory compulsory rights. While those sometimes are useful in clearing up confusion, it creates a totally arbitrary system for setting payment rates, rather than letting the market figure it out.
Overall, it sounds like this is better than many of the proposed copyright law changes out there -- and I'm sure that the entertainment industry, who had been pushing for India to put potential infringers in jail, won't like this one bit -- but it's not that great either."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100422/1533599145.shtml
Climatologist sues, wants paper to erase all traces of libel; Ars Technica, 4/25/10
John Timmer, Ars Technica; Climatologist sues, wants paper to erase all traces of libel:
"It's probably an unfortunate measure of the quality of modern journalism that few of us would be surprised to hear that an editorial on a politically controversial topic contained significant factual inaccuracies. But climate change seems to have reached the point where even some apparent facts have become points of contention, and at least some reporters have become comfortable with simply making things up and ascribing their imaginings to credible scientific sources. Apparently fed up with similar practices in editorials produced by Canada's National Post, a climatologist has now sued the publisher for libel and defamation. But the suit seeks a judgement that's remarkably sweeping: the scientist wants the publisher to hand over the copyright to the editorials so he can attempt to erase them from the Internet."
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/04/climatologist-sues-for-libel-demands-copyright-of-articles.ars
"It's probably an unfortunate measure of the quality of modern journalism that few of us would be surprised to hear that an editorial on a politically controversial topic contained significant factual inaccuracies. But climate change seems to have reached the point where even some apparent facts have become points of contention, and at least some reporters have become comfortable with simply making things up and ascribing their imaginings to credible scientific sources. Apparently fed up with similar practices in editorials produced by Canada's National Post, a climatologist has now sued the publisher for libel and defamation. But the suit seeks a judgement that's remarkably sweeping: the scientist wants the publisher to hand over the copyright to the editorials so he can attempt to erase them from the Internet."
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/04/climatologist-sues-for-libel-demands-copyright-of-articles.ars
Friday, April 16, 2010
GAO piracy report: A deeper look; CNet News, 4/13/10
Greg Sandoval, CNet News; GAO piracy report: A deeper look:
"Copyright owners are in need of some good researchers.
I've already written a news story about the report on piracy and counterfeiting issued Monday by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) that called into question some of the assertions made by copyright owners about the effects of piracy on their businesses.
Because the claims about piracy's effects could influence copyright legislation in the future, it's worth taking a closer look at the GAO's year-long investigation. I also wanted to cover some points I wasn't able to make in the previous story."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20002348-261.html
"Copyright owners are in need of some good researchers.
I've already written a news story about the report on piracy and counterfeiting issued Monday by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) that called into question some of the assertions made by copyright owners about the effects of piracy on their businesses.
Because the claims about piracy's effects could influence copyright legislation in the future, it's worth taking a closer look at the GAO's year-long investigation. I also wanted to cover some points I wasn't able to make in the previous story."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20002348-261.html
Viacom focused on PR war win with latest YouTube doc dump; Ars Technica, 4/16/10
Matthew Lasar, Ars Technica; Viacom focused on PR war win with latest YouTube doc dump:
"Viacom and Google's fight for public sympathy in their copyright lawsuit continues with Viacom's release of more "smoking gun" documents. The media company says the latest show that Google "made a deliberate, calculated business decision" to profit from copyright infringement after its purchase of YouTube in 2006. Nonsense, says Google in response.
This battle for hearts and minds is heating up following the publication of key court filings in Viacom's $1 billion infringement suit against YouTube and its owner Google in a New York federal district court. "
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/04/viacom-focused-on-pr-war-win-with-latest-youtube-doc-dump.ars
"Viacom and Google's fight for public sympathy in their copyright lawsuit continues with Viacom's release of more "smoking gun" documents. The media company says the latest show that Google "made a deliberate, calculated business decision" to profit from copyright infringement after its purchase of YouTube in 2006. Nonsense, says Google in response.
This battle for hearts and minds is heating up following the publication of key court filings in Viacom's $1 billion infringement suit against YouTube and its owner Google in a New York federal district court. "
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/04/viacom-focused-on-pr-war-win-with-latest-youtube-doc-dump.ars
Free at last! Official ACTA text coming next week; Ars Technica, 4/16/10
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; Free at last! Official ACTA text coming next week:
"After more than a year of sustained pressure, the countries negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) have decided that the time is right to release the draft text of their work.
The official announcement came today after the conclusion of negotiations in New Zealand. "There was a general sense from this session that negotiations have now advanced to a point where making a draft text available to the public will help the process of reaching a final agreement," says the official announcement.
"For that reason, and based on the specific momentum coming out of this meeting, participants have reached unanimous agreement that the time is right for making available to the public the consolidated text coming out of these discussions, which will reflect the substantial progress made at this round."
The draft text will be released this upcoming Wednesday, April 21.
The announcement also shows just how carefully the European Union, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the US, and others have been watching public opinion. It goes out of its way to say that the treaty will not oblige "participants to require border authorities to search travelers' baggage or their personal electronic devices for infringing materials." This is a clear attempt to rebut the "but customs will start searching my iPod!" madness we've seen in relation to ACTA.
The announcement also says that "no participant is proposing to require governments to mandate a 'graduated response' or 'three strikes' approach to copyright infringement on the Internet." As we've reported before, the leaked draft text does demand that ISPs have some plan in place to deter infringers, and a footnote made it clear that booting them off the Internet would be a great way to handle this—but the language in the draft came straight from the existing DMCA in the US and does not mandate any specific approach.
The announcement is certainly good news for fans of transparency, but it's not all sunshine and unicorns. For one thing, the participants plan to strip out their "respective positions." In other words, we are going to get a consolidated draft text that provides no information about who has been arguing for what position.
Not that it really matters, since massive leaks have already revealed negotiating positions and a complete draft text from January. It's disappointing that the negotiating countries refused to release more information about the process along the way; their decision to do so now has limited meaning, since the complete text is already leaked.
Still, it should allow negotiators to start answering public questions about the treaty and responding to public criticism. That's a good thing, but it comes quite late in the process. After a couple years of negotiations, the existence of a "consolidated text" shows that most of the tough negotiating has already been done. Changes could still be made at this point, but it's late in the process and today's announcement reminds us that the aim is to wrap up this treaty "as soon as possible in 2010."
The next meeting takes place in Switzerland in June."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/free-at-last-official-acta-text-coming-next-week.ars
"After more than a year of sustained pressure, the countries negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) have decided that the time is right to release the draft text of their work.
The official announcement came today after the conclusion of negotiations in New Zealand. "There was a general sense from this session that negotiations have now advanced to a point where making a draft text available to the public will help the process of reaching a final agreement," says the official announcement.
"For that reason, and based on the specific momentum coming out of this meeting, participants have reached unanimous agreement that the time is right for making available to the public the consolidated text coming out of these discussions, which will reflect the substantial progress made at this round."
The draft text will be released this upcoming Wednesday, April 21.
The announcement also shows just how carefully the European Union, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the US, and others have been watching public opinion. It goes out of its way to say that the treaty will not oblige "participants to require border authorities to search travelers' baggage or their personal electronic devices for infringing materials." This is a clear attempt to rebut the "but customs will start searching my iPod!" madness we've seen in relation to ACTA.
The announcement also says that "no participant is proposing to require governments to mandate a 'graduated response' or 'three strikes' approach to copyright infringement on the Internet." As we've reported before, the leaked draft text does demand that ISPs have some plan in place to deter infringers, and a footnote made it clear that booting them off the Internet would be a great way to handle this—but the language in the draft came straight from the existing DMCA in the US and does not mandate any specific approach.
The announcement is certainly good news for fans of transparency, but it's not all sunshine and unicorns. For one thing, the participants plan to strip out their "respective positions." In other words, we are going to get a consolidated draft text that provides no information about who has been arguing for what position.
Not that it really matters, since massive leaks have already revealed negotiating positions and a complete draft text from January. It's disappointing that the negotiating countries refused to release more information about the process along the way; their decision to do so now has limited meaning, since the complete text is already leaked.
Still, it should allow negotiators to start answering public questions about the treaty and responding to public criticism. That's a good thing, but it comes quite late in the process. After a couple years of negotiations, the existence of a "consolidated text" shows that most of the tough negotiating has already been done. Changes could still be made at this point, but it's late in the process and today's announcement reminds us that the aim is to wrap up this treaty "as soon as possible in 2010."
The next meeting takes place in Switzerland in June."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/free-at-last-official-acta-text-coming-next-week.ars
Digital Economy Act: This means war; (London) Guardian, 4/16/10
Cory Doctorow, (London) Guardian; Digital Economy Act: This means war:
Baking surveillance, control and censorship into the very fabric of our networks, devices and laws is the absolute road to dictatorial hell:
"With the rushed passage into law of the Digital Economy Act this month, the fight over copyright enters a new phase. Previous to this, most copyfighters operated under the rubric that a negotiated peace was possible between the thrashing entertainment giants and civil society.
But now that the BPI and its mates have won themselves the finest law that money can buy – a law that establishes an unprecedented realm of web censorship in Britain, a law that provides for the disconnection of entire families from the net on the say-so of an entertainment giant, a law that shuts down free Wi-Fi hotspots and makes it harder than ever to conduct your normal business on the grounds that you might be damaging theirs – the game has changed.
I came to the copyfight from a pretty parochial place. As a working artist, I wanted a set of just copyright rules that provided a sound framework for my negotiations with big publishers, film studios, and similar institutions. I worried that the expansion of copyright – in duration and scope – would harm my ability to freely create. After all, creators are the most active re-users of copyright, each one of us a remix factory and a one-person archive of inspirational and influential materials. I also worried that giving the incumbent giants control over the new online distribution system would artificially extend their stranglehold over creators. This stranglehold means that practically every media giant offers the same awful terms to all of us, and no kinder competitor can get our works into the hands of our audiences.
I still worry about that stuff, of course. I co-founded a successful business – Boing Boing, the widely-read website – that benefits enormously from not having to pay fealty to a distributor in order to reach its readers (by contrast, the old print edition of Boing Boing folded when its main distributor went bankrupt while owing it a modest fortune and holding onto thousands of dollars' worth of printed materials that we never got back). My novels find their way onto the bestseller list by being distributed for free from my website simultaneous with their mainstream bookstore sales through publishers like Macmillan and HarperCollins and Random House.
My whole life revolves around the digital economy: running entrepreneurial businesses that thrive on copying and that exploit the net's powerful efficiencies to realise a better return on investment.
Parliament has just given two fingers to me (and every other small/medium digital enterprise) by agreeing to cripple Britain's internet in order to give higher profits to the analogue economy represented by the labels and studios.
But today, my bank-balance is the least of my worries. The entertainment industry's willingness to use parliament todi impose censorship and arbitrary punishment in the course of chasing a few extra quid is so depraved and terrible that it has me in fear for the very underpinnings of democracy and civil society.
In the US, the MPAA and RIAA (American equivalents of the MPA and the BPI) just submitted comments to the American Intellectual Property Czar, Victoria Espinel, laying out their proposal for IP enforcement. They want us all to install spyware on our computers that deletes material that it identifies as infringing. They want our networks censored by national firewalls (U2's Bono also called for this in a New York Times editorial, averring that if the Chinese could control dissident information with censorware, our own governments could deploy similar technology to keep infringement at bay). They want border-searches of laptops, personal media players and thumb-drives.
They want poor countries bullied into diverting GDP from humanitarian causes to enforcing copyright. And they want their domestic copyright enforcement handled, free of charge, by the Department of Homeland Security.
Elements of this agenda are also on display (or rather, in hiding) in the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a treaty being drafted between a member's club of rich nations. They've turned their back on the United Nations to negotiate in private, without having to contend with journalists or public interest groups. By their own admission, they intend to impose this treaty on poor countries as a condition of ongoing trade, and in the US, the Obama administration has announced its intention to pass ACTA without Congressional debate.
I'm not such a techno-triumphalist that I believe that the free and open internet will solve all our socio-economic problems. But I am enough of a techno-pessimist to believe that baking surveillance, control and censorship into the very fabric of our networks, devices and laws is the absolute road to dictatorial hell.
Chekhov wrote that a gun on the mantelpiece in act one is sure to go off by act three. The entertainment industry's blinkered pursuit of its own narrow goals has the potential to redesign our technology to be the perfect tools and excuses for oppression."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/16/digital-economy-act-cory-doctorow
Baking surveillance, control and censorship into the very fabric of our networks, devices and laws is the absolute road to dictatorial hell:
"With the rushed passage into law of the Digital Economy Act this month, the fight over copyright enters a new phase. Previous to this, most copyfighters operated under the rubric that a negotiated peace was possible between the thrashing entertainment giants and civil society.
But now that the BPI and its mates have won themselves the finest law that money can buy – a law that establishes an unprecedented realm of web censorship in Britain, a law that provides for the disconnection of entire families from the net on the say-so of an entertainment giant, a law that shuts down free Wi-Fi hotspots and makes it harder than ever to conduct your normal business on the grounds that you might be damaging theirs – the game has changed.
I came to the copyfight from a pretty parochial place. As a working artist, I wanted a set of just copyright rules that provided a sound framework for my negotiations with big publishers, film studios, and similar institutions. I worried that the expansion of copyright – in duration and scope – would harm my ability to freely create. After all, creators are the most active re-users of copyright, each one of us a remix factory and a one-person archive of inspirational and influential materials. I also worried that giving the incumbent giants control over the new online distribution system would artificially extend their stranglehold over creators. This stranglehold means that practically every media giant offers the same awful terms to all of us, and no kinder competitor can get our works into the hands of our audiences.
I still worry about that stuff, of course. I co-founded a successful business – Boing Boing, the widely-read website – that benefits enormously from not having to pay fealty to a distributor in order to reach its readers (by contrast, the old print edition of Boing Boing folded when its main distributor went bankrupt while owing it a modest fortune and holding onto thousands of dollars' worth of printed materials that we never got back). My novels find their way onto the bestseller list by being distributed for free from my website simultaneous with their mainstream bookstore sales through publishers like Macmillan and HarperCollins and Random House.
My whole life revolves around the digital economy: running entrepreneurial businesses that thrive on copying and that exploit the net's powerful efficiencies to realise a better return on investment.
Parliament has just given two fingers to me (and every other small/medium digital enterprise) by agreeing to cripple Britain's internet in order to give higher profits to the analogue economy represented by the labels and studios.
But today, my bank-balance is the least of my worries. The entertainment industry's willingness to use parliament todi impose censorship and arbitrary punishment in the course of chasing a few extra quid is so depraved and terrible that it has me in fear for the very underpinnings of democracy and civil society.
In the US, the MPAA and RIAA (American equivalents of the MPA and the BPI) just submitted comments to the American Intellectual Property Czar, Victoria Espinel, laying out their proposal for IP enforcement. They want us all to install spyware on our computers that deletes material that it identifies as infringing. They want our networks censored by national firewalls (U2's Bono also called for this in a New York Times editorial, averring that if the Chinese could control dissident information with censorware, our own governments could deploy similar technology to keep infringement at bay). They want border-searches of laptops, personal media players and thumb-drives.
They want poor countries bullied into diverting GDP from humanitarian causes to enforcing copyright. And they want their domestic copyright enforcement handled, free of charge, by the Department of Homeland Security.
Elements of this agenda are also on display (or rather, in hiding) in the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a treaty being drafted between a member's club of rich nations. They've turned their back on the United Nations to negotiate in private, without having to contend with journalists or public interest groups. By their own admission, they intend to impose this treaty on poor countries as a condition of ongoing trade, and in the US, the Obama administration has announced its intention to pass ACTA without Congressional debate.
I'm not such a techno-triumphalist that I believe that the free and open internet will solve all our socio-economic problems. But I am enough of a techno-pessimist to believe that baking surveillance, control and censorship into the very fabric of our networks, devices and laws is the absolute road to dictatorial hell.
Chekhov wrote that a gun on the mantelpiece in act one is sure to go off by act three. The entertainment industry's blinkered pursuit of its own narrow goals has the potential to redesign our technology to be the perfect tools and excuses for oppression."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/16/digital-economy-act-cory-doctorow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)