Google and the libraries, International Herald Tribune, 12/5/08

OpEd: Via International Herald Tribune: Google and the libraries:

"In 2004, Google signed a deal with five major research libraries to digitize all the books in their collections. "Google's mission is to organize the world's information, and we're excited to be working with libraries to help make this mission a reality" proclaimed company cofounder Larry Page. It looked like an encouraging first step toward a world in which all knowledge was online, all the time.

Not everyone was so enthralled with this beatific vision of the Future According to Google.

Authors had the temerity to insist they be paid for their digitized content, which was going to be used to sell Google ads, or, down the road, be loaded into a possible Google Reader. The Authors Guild sued, and eventually settled with Google, resulting in a complicated agreement about royalty payments that awaits the approval of a judge.

Libraries excluded from the Google project wondered where they would fit in. The words "Free to All" are etched in stone above the Boston Public Library, but last I checked, those words do not appear on the fuselages of the Boeings and Gulfstreams owned by Google founders Page and Sergey Brin.

Google executives sound like they are doing the world an immense favor by digitizing books, rarely mentioning that they are in business to sell stuff, not give it away...

In a heated philippic, "Free Our Libraries!" posted on the Web site of the Boston Library Consortium, Richard Johnson, an adviser to the Association of Research Libraries, decries the "momentous, ill-considered shift...that threatens to limit the public rights in the collections assembled and maintained, often at public expense, in libraries around the globe."

"Companies are paying nothing for access to the crown jewels," Johnson writes. "We may awaken one day to find that our digital heritage has become private property rather than a public good."

Librarians of the world, unite! You have everything to lose: your books."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/05/opinion/edbeam.php

Mattel wins permanent injunction vs MGA in Bratz case, Yahoo News, 12/4/08

Via Yahoo News: Mattel wins permanent injunction vs MGA in Bratz case:

"A federal judge in California on Wednesday ordered MGA Entertainment Inc to stop selling its popular Bratz dolls and banned it from using the Bratz name, finding that "hundreds" of Bratz products infringe on copyrights owned by rival toymaker Mattel Inc (MAT.N).

U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson also ordered MGA to recall all Bratz dolls from retailers and to destroy "specialized plates, molds and matrices" used to make the dolls, according to a permanent injunction issued late on Wednesday, but stayed until at least early next year.

The ruling appears to allow MGA and retailers to sell the Bratz dolls through the Christmas holiday season."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081204/bs_nm/us_mattel_bratz

Author Says ‘Harry Potter Lexicon’ Will Be Published, New York Times, 12/6/08

Via New York Times: Author Says ‘Harry Potter Lexicon’ Will Be Published:

"After months of litigation, a dispute between J.K. Rowling and the author and publisher of a Harry Potter encyclopedia has magically disappeared. On Friday, Steven Jan Vander Ark, the author of “The Harry Potter Lexicon,” a reference guide to Ms. Rowling’s best-selling boy-wizard novels, said that his book would be published on Jan. 12 after amending it to a judge’s specifications, the Associated Press reported."

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/author-says-harry-potter-lexicon-will-be-published/?scp=2&sq=rowling&st=cse

Will EU repeat US copyright error?, London Guardian, 12/6/08

By Cory Doctorow, Via London Guardian: Will EU repeat US copyright error?:

"As I type this, members of the European Parliament are preparing to repeat one of the worst mistakes in copyright history — enacting a European version of America's reviled Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.

The EU version will tack 45 years onto the duration of copyright for existing and future sound recordings, making for a grand total of 95 years' worth of monopoly control for companies that produce recordings...

Giving additional copyright for existing works can't possibly create the incentive to make more works — you could give Elvis Presley a million years' worth of copyright on his 1955 recordings and he still won't record any more music...

The US extension of copyright has turned almost every work created in America's history into an "orphan" — a work whose copyright has not expired, but whose copyright holder has been lost to the mists of time.

The court in Eldred held that an astonishing 98% of works in copyright were orphaned...

Experts all agree: extending the copyright on existing works provides no benefit save a windfall to a small minority of already-wealthy artists and giant corporations (if your music is still commercially viable after 50 or 95 years, you're a billionaire like Paul McCartney, not a struggling artist — or you're the giant label that acquired the rights to one of the lucky few artists' works)."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/06/cory-doctorow

New Machines Reproduce Custom Books on Demand, Chronicle of Higher Education, 12/5/08 Issue

Via Chronicle of Higher Education: New Machines Reproduce Custom Books on Demand:

"If you wonder what the future of book publishing might look, smell, and sound like, head north to the University of Alberta's bookstore in Edmonton. There a $144,000 machine is churning out made-to-order paperbacks at a cost of a penny a page.

It's the Espresso Book Machine, which converts digital files into bound books, one order at a time, in under 15 minutes...

But the machine has limitations. It cannot print just any book. Copyright law limits the books that can be offered, the texts must be PDF's, and it can take days to get a repairman when something breaks...

In addition to the technical restrictions, however, U.S. copyright regulations require that books be in the public domain (which includes anything printed before 1922), or that the copyright holder must grant permission for reprinting. Canadian law offers more avenues for reproduction under copyright, which may explain why two Canadian universities — Alberta and McMaster University, in Ontario — are among the sites using the machine. Printers in Canada must pay a royalty fee of no more than $10 for each copy of an out-of-print book, Mr. Anderson says. The law requires books in print to carry a royalty of no more than 10.3 cents per page."

http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i15/15a00103.htm

Questions Raised About Google Library Project’s Impact On Knowledge Access, Intellectual Property Watch, 11/26/08

Via Intellectual Property Watch: Questions Raised About Google Library Project’s Impact On Knowledge Access:

"Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, recently raised concerns about Google’s new settlement with publishers allowing the search engine to continue borrowing millions of books from libraries and scanning them to make a digital library.

His remarks were made to an international library copyright event in Chisinau, Moldova on 13 November where he spoke on the subject of “copyright’s ever-expanding empire” addressing digital rights management (technologies for controlling copyrighted content), licences and the privatisation of public information.

The key concern is that the Google project, likely to go into effect in 2010, will be in the private sector, which has different implications than public libraries, which von Lohmann described...

The Google project was settled out of court, which may prevent the outcome from being a precedent, noted von Lohmann, who added, “I think it [the Google project] raises many questions that are going to be with libraries for many years.”"

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1332

Op-Ed: How to Publish Without Perishing, New York Times, 11/29/08

Op-Ed by James Gleick, via New York Times: How to Publish Without Perishing:

"Which brings us to the settlement agreement, pending court approval, in the class action suit Authors Guild v. Google. The suit was filed in September 2005 when Google embarked on an audacious program of copying onto its servers every book it could get its hands on...On its face this looked like a brazen assault on copyright, but Google argued that it should be protected as a new kind of “fair use” and went on scanning during two and a half years of secret negotiations (I was involved on the authors’ side)...

As a way through the impasse, the authors persuaded Google to do more than just scan the books for purposes of searching, but go further, by bringing them back to commercial life. Under the agreement these millions of out-of-print books return from limbo. Any money made from advertising or licensing fees will go partly to Google and mostly to the rights-holders. The agreement is nonexclusive: If competitors to Google want to get into the business, they can.

This means a new beginning — a vast trove of books restored to the marketplace. It also means that much of the book world is being upended before our eyes: the business of publishing, selling and distributing books; the role of libraries and bookstores; all uses of books for research, consultation, information storage; everything, in fact, but the plain act of reading a book from start to finish."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30gleick.html

Review of Lawrence Lessig: Decriminalizing the Remix, Time, 10/17/08

Via Time: Review of Lawrence Lessig: Decriminalizing the Remix:

"In his latest book, the Stanford professor and Wired columnist rails against the nation's copyright laws — regulations he believes are futile, costly and culturally stifling. Citing "hybrid" economies like YouTube and Wikipedia (both of which rely on user-generated "remixes" of information, images and sound), Lessig argues in favor of what he calls a "Read/Write (RW)" culture — as opposed to "Read/Only (RO)" — that allows consumers to "create art as readily as they consume it."

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1851241,00.html

Woody Guthrie: Open Source Pioneer, Newsweek, 9/24/08

Via Newsweek: Woody Guthrie: Open Source Pioneer:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thetroll/archive/2008/09/24/woody-guthrie-open-source-pioneer.aspx

Review of Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy by Lawrence Lessig, Newsweek, 11/21/08

Via Newsweek, Review of Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy by Lawrence Lessig:

"Stanford law prof Lessig is a veteran critic of America's copyright laws. He argues that corporate-inspired attempts to tightly regulate the use of words, ideas and images has produced a profit-driven perversion of the noble objective of protecting the rights of creators. In this latest offering, his zeal to convince the public that current intellectual-property rules are ruining our culture burns brighter than ever. Lessig charges the IP authoritarians and the media companies that sign their checks with crimes against both youth and art, and he offers his own approach to balancing the conflict between copyright and creativity."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/170128

Markets Declare Truce in Copyright Wars, Google concedes that information isn't free, Wall Street Journal, 11/17/08

Wall Street Journal: Markets Declare Truce in Copyright Wars, Google concedes that information isn't free:

"This shift by Google led Peter Osnos, founder of PublicAffairs books, to wonder if the book settlement could have lessons for other owners of content. "Google has now conceded, with a very large payment, that information is not free," Mr. Osnos wrote for the Century Foundation. "This leads to an obvious, critical question: Why aren't newspapers and news magazines demanding payment for use of their stories on Google and other search engines? Why are they not getting a significant slice of the advertising revenues generated by use of their stories via Google?"

Alas for the troubled news media industry, so much of its news is commoditized that people won't pay for it online. But as digital media mature, we'll see more redefinitions of legal concepts such as fair use. There will also be revisions of business practices regarding who gets paid what by whom. The Google settlement is a reminder that owners of intellectual property can choose to lock it away, give it away, or, most sensibly, share it in exchange for reasonable compensation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122688619008032339.html

Porn bill for couple who can't download, London Guardian, 11/29/08

Via London Guardian [Caution, some graphic language in linked article]: Porn bill for couple who can't download, Innocent people are getting letters from lawyers claiming they should pay for films they've never seen:

"He questions the amount demanded and methods used to identify computers alleged to have downloaded material. He believes the sum demanded is out of all proportion to the alleged injury. "In one case, Davenport Lyons wanted £500 for a £20 game. The alleged file-sharing would have cost only about £50 - the rest is legal costs.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/nov/28/internet-porn-bill-mistake

Seuss lawyers stop holiday Who-ville in Louisville, USA Today, 11/25/08

Via USA Today: Seuss lawyers stop holiday Who-ville in Louisville:

"There will be no Who-ville in Louisville this Christmas.

The city of Louisville is scrapping plans to use the iconic Dr. Seuss village and characters as part of its annual Christmas display after receiving a cease and desist letter from Dr. Seuss Enterprises.

"It appears these lawyers' hearts are two sizes too small," Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson said...

But the cease-and-desist letter from the law firm DLA Piper, which represents Dr. Seuss Enterprises, said the "Who-ville" name and image, as well as the Grinch, are copyrighted and cannot be used without permission."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2008-11-25-seuss-louisville_N.htm

Copyright claim to university's name `baffling', Toronto Star, 11/20/08

Via Toronto Star: Copyright claim to university's name `baffling', Councillor for Oshawa, Durham, has threatened newspapers over technology school:

"Just as the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa looks for a new name, a city councillor claims he owns the current one.

Robert Lutczyk, who sits on both the Oshawa and Durham Region councils, registered a copyright for "University of Ontario Institute of Technology" in 2005 and has recently forbidden several newspapers from printing the phrase under threat of legal action.

He's also registered "Medical School in Oshawa" and "Medical School at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology," neither of which exist...

Intellectual property lawyer Ziad Katul said the university itself has registered a trademark with UOIT and a slogan, which it owns. Lutczyk's copyright does not prevent the school, or the media, from using the name, he said."

http://www.thestar.com/article/540168

Jonathan Yardley on 'The Man Who Invented Christmas', Washington Post, 11/30/08

Via Washington Post: Jonathan Yardley on 'The Man Who Invented Christmas', Dickens was facing financial ruin when he imagined Ebenezer Scrooge:

"In the United States pirated editions of the book were quickly issued, including one from the ostensibly reputable Harper and Brothers, which infuriated Dickens, a passionate advocate of international copyright. A bogus edition appeared in England as well, but there he won his legal case against the offending opportunist. There also were dozens of unauthorized stage adaptations, but by and large he was less concerned about them. The practice was widespread, and the dramatizations provided free publicity for the book."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/26/AR2008112603425.html

Cinema 'cops' deploy night vision devices, Sydney Morning Herald, 11/26/08

Via Sydney Morning Herald: Cinema 'cops' deploy night vision devices:

"In response to an increase in pirated movie recordings coming out of Australia, the copyright police are patrolling cinemas with night vision devices - and it's not just commercial pirates they're after.

Movie studios are providing the scopes to cinema ushers across the country and training them in how to spot people illegally taping films using camcorders and even mobile phones."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/cinema-cops-deploy-night-vision-devices/2008/11/26/1227491597572.html

Is a picture really worth £1,000?, London Guardian, 11/27/08

Via London Guardian: Is a picture really worth £1,000?
A church and small businesses are just some of those accusing picture agencies of using heavy-handed tactics when pursuing payment:

"Dozens of small businesses and charities tell similar stories. On the online forums run by the Federation of Small Businesses, copyright infringement blows away every other subject. Many of those posting on the federation's forum have tried to do everything right; they aren't arguing about copyright. It's the enforcement tactics they find objectionable...

In the UK they'd struggle to make these amounts stick," he says. "UK law is only concerned with restoring the situation had licensing been correctly obtained. The courts don't like to be used as a means of extortion."

Drake says: "I understand the difficulty companies like Getty have and photographers have - they have a product that needs to be protected. But where is the Getty publicity campaign? Why aren't they issuing press releases and education to remind people that these images are not to be used?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/27/internet-photography

Judge says BU can't turn over infringers' IPs in P2P case, ARS Technica, 11/26/08

Via ARS Technica: Judge says BU can't turn over infringers' IPs in P2P case:

"The music industry's requests for more personal information regarding the identity of several accused file-sharers have been shot down by a federal judge. Judge Nancy Gertner quashed a subpoena this week in the infamous London-Sire v. Does 1-4 case, saying that the IP addresses of three anonymous Boston University students could not be handed over because the university had "adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty."

The legal system has been chipping away at the London-Sire case all year, starting this spring when Judge Gertner said that making files available on a P2P network does not equal copyright infringement."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081126-judge-says-bu-cant-turn-over-infringers-ips-in-p2p-case.html

Once More, With Feeling: Copyright Is Not A Welfare System For Musicians, TechDirt, 11/26/08

Via TechDirt: Once More, With Feeling: Copyright Is Not A Welfare System For Musicians:

"Performance rights in the UK only last 50 years, so music performed in the 60s has started to move into the public domain, and some musicians are freaking out...

First of all, copyright was never intended to be a welfare system. Studio musicians knew the terms of the deal, and if they chose to rely on earnings from a single performance in 1958 for 50 years, it's difficult to see why the government should bail them out for their own short-sighted thinking, and their decision to live off of a single performance for all those years...

But, of course, that won't stop the propaganda fueled by the record labels who stand to make a nice, totally unearned, profit from an extension. They've put together a video of these "poor studio musicians" begging the government for a handout...

The UK government should reject this blatant and unfair renegotiation of terms, and tell the musicians if they want to ask someone for a handout, why not turn to the record labels who apparently didn't pay them enough in the first place."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081126/0807212958.shtml

EU bashes DRM, won't support "three strikes" rules, ARS Technica, 11/24/08

Via ARS Technica: EU bashes DRM, won't support "three strikes" rules:

"Try as they might, the French simply cannot seem to get the rest of the EU to go along with their favored measure for handling Internet piracy. The French, responding to requests from the content industry, have decided that illicit file-swapping demands a "graduated response," a euphemism for a three-strikes approach that would ultimately see ISPs cut off the Internet access of repeat pirates. The rest of Europe remains largely uncomfortable with this approach, and has managed to keep graduated response out of the EU's formal conclusions for dealing with online content and cultural material."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081124-eu-bashes-drm-wont-support-three-strikes-rules.html

Film studios to become 'police, judge, executioner', Sydney Morning Herald, 11/24/08

Via Sydney Morning Herald: Film studios to become 'police, judge, executioner':

"ISPs argue that, like Australia Post with letters, they are just providing a service and should not be forced to become copyright police.

Conversely, the TV and movie industry want ISPs to disconnect people it has identified as repeat infringers. There would be no involvement from police or the courts and the industry would simply provide the IP addresses of users they believe to be illegal downloaders.

"To shift the burden of proof and require that ISPs terminate access to users upon mere allegations of infringement would be incredibly harmful to individual internet users in Australia," the online users lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said.

"Every citizen has a right of due process under the law and, when faced with having their internet service terminated, every citizen has the right to ask that the case against them be proven first.""

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/film-studios-to-become-police-judge-executioner/2008/11/24/1227491443731.html

Now for something completely different, London Guardian, 11/24/08

Via London Guardian: Now for something completely different -- Sick of losing revenue to illegally uploaded videos, the Monty Python team are among those signing up for YouTube's new ID initiative:

"For three years you YouTubers have been ripping us off, taking tens of thousands of our videos and putting them up on YouTube." So begins one of the current hottest viral videos. It stars the Monty Python team, and explains why they have decided to stop attempts to remove the illegally uploaded videos on YouTube - and have instead signed up to the site's Video ID system, which identifies rights holders' material and allows them to choose to have it either removed from the site, or have adverts attached to it...

The Pythons have decided on the second option."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/24/googlethemedia-digitalmedia

All-Star Witness List In Lawsuit Over Constitutionality Of RIAA Lawsuits, TechDirt, 11/20/08

Via TechDirt: All-Star Witness List In Lawsuit Over Constitutionality Of RIAA Lawsuits:

"The list includes:

John Perry Barlow (former songwriter for The Grateful Dead, founder of the EFF, and well known digital thinker)
Prof. Johan Pouwelse (technical and scientific director of European research project P2P-Next)
Prof. Lawrence Lessig (needs no introduction, I imagine, for folks around here)
Matthew Oppenheim (who has a somewhat murky relationship with the RIAA, at times representing the RIAA, and at other times insisting he does not represent the RIAA)
Prof. Terry Fisher (a director of Harvard's Berkman Center and author of Promises to Keep, an early book looking at how the internet was changing the entertainment industry, and how it's business models need to change)
Prof. Wendy Seltzer (well known copyfighter, law professor, former staff attorney at the EFF and founder of the Chilling Effects site)
Prof. John Palfrey (Harvard law professor, co-director of the Berkman Center, author of Born Digital)
Prof. Jonathan Zittrain (Harvard and Oxford law professor, co-director of the Berkman Center, author of The Future of the Internet)
Andrew Grant (former antipiracy specialist at DRM company Macrovision)"

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081120/1244282904.shtml

McCain Responds To Jackson Browne Lawsuit: Here's How Fair Use Works, TechDirt, 11/21/08

Via TechDirt: McCain Responds To Jackson Browne Lawsuit: Here's How Fair Use Works:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081121/0203022910.shtml

Legal Jujitsu in a File-Sharing Copyright Case, New York Times, 11/18/08

Via New York Times: Legal Jujitsu in a File-Sharing Copyright Case:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/legal-jujitsu-in-a-file-sharing-copyright-case/?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse

Q & A: Making Use of Public Domain, New York Times, 11/19/08

Via New York Times: Q & A: Making Use of Public Domain:

"Q. What does it mean when a Web site says a picture or document is in the public domain? Does that mean I can use it for my own purposes?"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/technology/personaltech/20askk-001.html?scp=2&sq=copyright&st=cse

Google book search deal is good news for copyright law, London Times, 11/19/08

Via London Times: Google book search deal is good news for copyright law, The search giant's settlement with publishers could be a game-changing legal event, says the MP for Intellectual Property:

"Many US libraries are intending to make out of print material available to Google on this basis. The impact on access to such works in the US is likely to be significant, enabling consumers to access works they previously would have struggled to find.

The effect of this agreement will in the most part be limited to the US. And yet the announcement is of interest to users of the copyright system worldwide. Why? Because this is an agreement that, if it works as it should, will strike a middle ground between the need for public access to works and the right of authors and publishers to control and be paid for the use of their creations.

The result, if it works, will be an evolution in the way copyright licensing for printed works is administered and a revolution in the freedom of access to harder-to-find works — all within a system that will remunerate rights holders fairly and give them control over the use of their works. "

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5187385.ece

Billion Dollar Charlie vs. the RIAA, Boston Globe, 11/18/08

Via Boston Globe: Billion Dollar Charlie vs. the RIAA:

"[Charles] Nesson and his [Harvard Law School] students have decided to "litigate in the court of public opinion," as well as in the courtroom, and they are putting on quite a show. Legally, they are arguing that the RIAA is using civil litigation to punish alleged criminal activity, which they say violates the Constitution. Moreover, Nesson et al have posted all manner of fascinating materials at the CyberOne website of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society."

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2008/11/18/billion_dollar_charlie_vs_the_riaa/

Tennessee Adopts $9.5 Million University Piracy Measure Despite School Layoffs, Wired.com, 11/18/08

Via Wired.com: Tennessee Adopts $9.5 Million University Piracy Measure Despite School Layoffs:

"Just-signed legislation requires the 222,000-student system to spend an estimated $9.5 million (.pdf) for file sharing "monitoring software," "monitoring hardware" and an additional "recurring cost of $1,575,000 for 21 staff positions and benefits (@75,000 each) to monitor network traffic" of its students.
Tennessee's measure, (.pdf) approved Wednesday by Gov. Phil Bredesen, was the nation's first in a bid to combat online file sharing within state-funded universities. The law, similar versions of which the Recording Industry Association of America wants throughout the United States, comes as the Tennessee public university system is increasing tuition, laying off teachers and leaving unfilled vacant instructor positions to battle a $43.7 million shortfall."

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/tennessee-adopt.html

Law professor fires back at song-swapping lawsuits, Yahoo.com, 11/17/08

Via Yahoo.com: Law professor fires back at song-swapping lawsuits:

"A Harvard Law School professor has launched a constitutional assault against a federal copyright law at the heart of the industry's aggressive strategy, which has wrung payments from thousands of song-swappers since 2003.

The professor, Charles Nesson, has come to the defense of a Boston University graduate student targeted in one of the music industry's lawsuits. By taking on the case, Nesson hopes to challenge the basis for the suit, and all others like it.

Nesson argues that the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 is unconstitutional because it effectively lets a private group — the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA — carry out civil enforcement of a criminal law. He also says the music industry group abused the legal process by brandishing the prospects of lengthy and costly lawsuits in an effort to intimidate people into settling cases out of court."

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20081117/ap_on_hi_te/tec_music_downloading

What Is Art For?, New York Times, 11/14/08

Via New York Times: What Is Art For?:

"For the Copy Left, as for Hyde, the last 20 years have witnessed a corporate “land grab” of information — often in the guise of protecting the work of individual artists — that has put a stranglehold on creativity, in increasingly bizarre ways. Over dinner not long ago, he told me about the legal fate of Emily Dickinson's poems. Dickinson died in 1886, but it was not until 1955 that an “official” volume of her collected works was published, by Harvard University Press. The length of copyright terms has expanded substantially in the last century, and Harvard holds the exclusive right to Dickinson’s poems until 2050 — more than 160 years after they were first written. When the poet Robert Pinsky asked Harvard for permission to include a Dickinson poem in an article that he was writing for Slate about poetic insults, it refused, even for a fee. “Their feeling was that once the poem was online, they’d lose control of it,” Hyde told me.

In highlighting the absurd ways in which intellectual copyright has overreached, Hyde brings to mind such iconic Copy Left figures as Lawrence Lessig, a constitutional-law scholar at Stanford. Yet Hyde’s new book, which he allowed me to read in draft form (it is unfinished and untitled), addresses what he considers a more fundamental issue. We may believe there should be a limit on the market in cultural property, he argues, but that doesn’t mean that we have “a good public sense” of where to set that limit. Hyde’s book is, at its core, an attempt to help formulate that sense."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/magazine/16hyde-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copyright&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Appeal Is Filed in Potter Lexicon Case, New York Times, 11/15/08

Via New York Times: Appeal Is Filed in Potter Lexicon Case

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/arts/15arts-APPEALISFILE_BRF.html

Panel Issues Guide to Using Copyrighted Material in the Classroom - Chronicle of Higher Education, 11/11/08

Via Chronicle of Higher Education: Panel Issues Guide to Using Copyrighted Material in the Classroom

"The guide, to be released today, is called "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media-Literacy Education." The center created the guide over the course of 10 meetings that involved more than 150 educators, and it was reviewed by a panel of lawyers who are experts in fair use—the doctrine that allows people to reproduce portions of copyrighted works for purposes like teaching or scholarship...

The guide argues that discussion of copyright in education has too often been shaped by copyright holders, "whose understandable concern about large-scale copyright piracy has caused them to equate any unlicensed use of copyright material with stealing." The authors say they hope their work will help professors understand their rights better under current law...

Will a misstep on copyright in the classroom get you sued? "That's very, very unlikely," says the new guide. "We don't know of any lawsuit actually brought by an American media company against an educator over the use of media in the educational process.""

http://chronicle.com/free/2008/11/7151n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Copyright code developed to guide teachers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 11/10/08

Via Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Copyright code developed to guide teachers

"Many educators, however, miss these opportunities because they don't know their rights under fair use, have been given bad information or lack administrators who will back them up, said a report last year by American and Temple universities. The report, "The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy," found that many teachers were censoring themselves.

Now American and Temple universities and several national associations have combined to try to remove the teachers' reluctance to use various sources including print, video, audio and the Internet -- in their media literacy lessons.

At the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia tomorrow, they will release the "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education.""

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08315/926769-298.stm

Article on "fair use" defense trial over "Harry Potter Lexicon" by Ray Beckerman, Esq., in E-Commerce Law Reports, 10/08

Via Article on "fair use" defense trial over "Harry Potter Lexicon" by Ray Beckerman, Esq., in E-Commerce Law Reports:

http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/ECLRbeckerman.pdf

Beckerman: RIAA's 'Vexatious' Charge Reeks with 'Falsehood and Fallacy', Wired.com, 11/07/08

Via Wired.com: Beckerman: RIAA's 'Vexatious' Charge Reeks with 'Falsehood and Fallacy'

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/beckerman-riaas.html

MySpace ad deal lets members use copyright video - BusinessWeek, 10/2/08

Via BusinessWeek.com: MySpace ad deal lets members use copyright video:

"Instead of trying to take down all copyright-protected videos that its members post, MySpace will let certain clips stay -- and give the creators of the original content a cut of the revenue from advertising that will be attached to the snippets."

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D94773G80.htm

Harvard Slams Google Settlement; Others React with Caution - Library Journal, 10/30/08

Via Library Journal: Harvard Slams Google Settlement; Others React with Caution:

"As LJ noted in its initial report, most observers say that the success of the deal will be in the details—and, as of now, this broad, complex business arrangement, still seeking court approval, simply leaves many questions open—especially for libraries. LJ has put together a quick roundup of thoughtful opinions now circulating about what the settlement means..."

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6610115.html

Retrial Date Set in RIAA v. Thomas - Wired.com, 10/30/08

Via Wired.com: Retrial Date Set in RIAA v. Thomas:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/retrial-date-se.html

Google Settles Suit Over Book-Scanning - New York Times, 10/29/08

Via New York Times: Google Settles Suit Over Book-Scanning:

"Settling a legal battle, Google reached an agreement with book publishers and authors that clears the way for both sides to more easily profit from digital versions of printed books.

The agreement, under which Google would pay $125 million to settle two copyright lawsuits over its book-scanning efforts, would allow it to make millions of out-of-print books available for reading and purchasing online.

It outlines the framework for a new system that will channel payments from book sales, advertising revenue and other fees to authors and publishers, with Google collecting a cut.

The deal goes some way toward drawing a road map for a possible digital future for publishers and authors, who worried that they were losing control over how their works were used online, as the music industry has."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/technology/internet/29google.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=google&st=cse&oref=slogin

Google Settles Book-Scan Lawsuit, Everybody Wins - Wired.com , 10/28/08

Via Wired.com: Google Settles Book-Scan Lawsuit, Everybody Wins:

http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/10/google-settles.html

10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA is the Law That Saved the Web - Wired.com, 10/27/08

Via Wired.com: 10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA is the Law That Saved the Web:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/ten-years-later.html

Judge Rejects 'Making Available' Defense, Orders Teen File Sharer to Pay RIAA $7,400 - Wired.com, 10/24/08

Via Wired.com:

Judge Rejects 'Making Available' Defense, Orders Teen File Sharer to Pay RIAA $7,400:

"The decision contradicts last month's mistrial ruling in the nation's only file sharing case to go to trial. The split outcomes underscore that, after five years of RIAA file sharing litigation and some 30,000 lawsuits, the level of proof necessary to demonstrate copyright infringement in the peer-to-peer context varies from judge to judge."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/judge-rejects-m.html

Copyright and Politics Don’t Mix - New York Times, OP-ED, 10/20/08

Copyright and Politics Don’t Mix: OP-ED by Lawrence Lessig

"It would be far better if copyright law were narrowed to those contexts in which it serves its essential creative function — encouraging innovation and ensuring that artists get paid for their work — and left alone the battles of what criticisms candidates for office, and their supporters, are allowed to make."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/opinion/21lessig.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

RIAA Decries Texas Woman as 'Vexatious' for Demanding File Sharing Trial - Wired.com, 10/17/08

RIAA Decries Texas Woman as 'Vexatious' for Demanding File Sharing Trial:

"The RIAA has agreed to accept $200 per track instead of the usual base of $750 under the Copyright Act because the woman is claiming an innocent infringement defense. The Copyright Act, which carries penalties of up to $150,000 per track, allows penalties as low as $200 for innocent infringement defenses — in this case a teenager claiming she was clueless about what she was doing."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/riaa-decries-te.html

Lawsuit Claims Mapmaking Firm Owns Your Neighborhood - Wired.com, 10/17/08

Lawsuit Claims Mapmaking Firm Owns Your Neighborhood:

"A mathematician who pioneered a fractal-based urban-mapping technique is embroiled in a copyright battle that raises legal questions about whether a company can claim ownership of the definition of neighborhoods: their specific locations and boundaries."
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/10/neighborhood

RIAA Appeals Jammie Thomas Mistrial - Wired.com, 10/15/08

RIAA Appeals Jammie Thomas Mistrial:

"The Recording Industry Association of America is appealing last month's decision in the Jammie Thomas case in which a judge declared a mistrial in the nation's only RIAA file sharing case to go to trial.

On Sept. 24, a Minnesota federal judge overturned a $222,000 judgment levied against the mother of three after concluding he erroneously told jurors that they could ding Thomas for copyright infringement solely for making copyrighted music available on the Kazaa file sharing network."
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/riaa-appealing.html

YouTube to McCain: You Made Your DMCA Bed, Lie in It - Wired.com, 10/15/08

YouTube to McCain: You Made Your DMCA Bed, Lie in It:

"YouTube on Tuesday rebuffed a request from John McCain's presidential campaign to examine fair-use issues more carefully before yanking campaign videos in response to DMCA takedown notices.

"Lawyers and judges constantly disagree about what does and does not constitute fair-use," YouTube's general counsel Zahavah Levine wrote in a letter Tuesday...

McCain campaign general counsel Trevor Potter argued that several of the removed ads, which had used excerpts of television footage, fall under the four-factor doctrine of fair-use, and shouldn't have been removed...

"We look forward to working with Senator (or President) McCain on ways to combat abuse of the DMCA takedown process on YouTube, including by way of example, strengthening the fair-use doctrine, so that intermediaries like us can rely on this important doctrine with a measure of business certainty.""
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca.html

McCain/Palin to YouTube: Get real - Lessig Blog, 10/13/08

McCain/Palin to YouTube: Get real:

"The McCain/Palin campaign has written a fantastic letter to YouTube demanding that they start getting real about the response they're giving to notice and take-down demands of material that "are clearly privileged under the fair use doctrine." Here is the letter. Bravo to the campaign."
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/mccainpalin_to_youtube_get_rea.html

In Defense of Piracy - Wall Street Journal, 10/11/08

In Defense of Piracy:

"In early February 2007, Stephanie Lenz's 13-month-old son started dancing. Pushing a walker across her kitchen floor, Holden Lenz started moving to the distinctive beat of a song by Prince, "Let's Go Crazy." He had heard the song before. The beat had obviously stuck. So when Holden heard the song again, he did what any sensible 13-month-old would do -- he accepted Prince's invitation and went "crazy" to the beat. Holden's mom grabbed her camcorder and, for 29 seconds, captured the priceless image of Holden dancing, with the barely discernible Prince playing on a CD player somewhere in the background...

She uploaded the file to YouTube and sent her relatives and friends the link...

Sometime over the next four months, however, someone from Universal Music Group also watched Holden dance. Universal manages the copyrights of Prince. It fired off a letter to YouTube demanding that it remove the unauthorized "performance" of Prince's music. YouTube, to avoid liability itself, complied."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html?mod=googlenews_wsj