This is a great one! Particularly relevent for all you recent grads! -Nick
Further Reading... http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9940361-7.html?tag=bl
The entertainment industry's controversial efforts to get universities to be more proactive about policing peer-to-peer piracy have begun to spread from Capitol Hill to the states.
Earlier this year, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a Hollywood-backed proposal buried in a higher education reauthorization bill that would require universities receiving federal financial aid funding to devise plans for "alternative" offerings to unlawful downloading--such as subscription-based services--or "technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."
That otherwise wide-ranging bill won't become law until House and Senate politicians agree upon a compromise version. Meanwhile, the debate over the proper role of higher education institutions in fighting piracy has shifted to some state legislatures.
On Thursday, what appears to be the first such proposal in the country became law in Tennessee--home to Nashville, the country music capital of the world. A similar measure is currently being considered in Illinois. And California held an "informational hearing" last month featuring a Recording Industry Association of America representative, although no legislation has been introduced there yet.
RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth declined to divulge where else the industry may be planning to push such policies, but she insisted the group views new laws as a last resort.
"If we're asked to participate in conversations by lawmakers, of course we will," she said in an e-mail interview. "But we prefer to be working directly with schools on a collaborative approach to reduce theft."
Still, university administrators gathered at a policy conference in Arlington, Va., this week sponsored by the nonprofit group Educause, which represents higher education institution technologists, suggested they're bracing for the quiet appearance of new bills proposing what they view as overly burdensome and overreaching network management mandates.
"If there is a trend here anywhere, it's that these things tend to fly under the radar," Steve Worona, Educause's director of policy and networking programs, told conference attendees. "Let me alert you once again to raise the consciousness of whoever in your state is tracking (legislation)."
"Technological deterrents" vs. Copyright 101 That was the experience related by Thomas Danford, chief information officer for the Tennessee Board of Regents, a governance organization that covers 19 public colleges and universities inside the state. If it weren't for the close scrutiny of his organization's legislative committee, Tennessee universities may have been stuck with much less savory obligations related to managing peer-to-peer file sharers on their network, he said.
The original version of the Tennessee bill (PDF), which Danford said was penned by a local RIAA lobbyist, would have required universities to effectively play copyright cops on their networks. It dictated that they must employ "effective technology-based deterrents, to prevent the infringement of copyrighted works over the school's computer and network resources, including over local area and internal networks."
That requirement was problematic not only because of its cost, which Danford said was estimated at $14 million, but because many university administrators still question the effectiveness of filtering programs and other technological means designed to detect and block copyrighted works from being exchanged.
"I'm convinced that had we not had this (committee), they probably would've been able to get this through the state house before anyone caught wind of it," putting universities in the tough position of trying to fight the law after the fact, Danford said.
Monday, May 12, 2008
FYI
Hey all, just as an FYI, CNet news is one of the best sources I've found to help a person search for relavent material. The search engine is pretty accurate and you can usually generate enough hits on a topic to become situationally aware pretty quick. Also, the source is provided if you ever need to cite it. Happy huntinig.
http://www.cnet.com/
...now if only I had remembered to use it for my paper...
http://www.cnet.com/
...now if only I had remembered to use it for my paper...
Corporate employee blogs: Lawsuits waiting to happen?
Naughty, naughty. Remember kids, your blog is not a secret diary. -Nick
Further Reading... http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9903070-7.html?tag=bl
A recent libel lawsuit filed against Cisco Systems over one of its employees' personal blogs could spur companies, many of which have encouraged workers to share their writings publicly, to reconsider how much latitude to give them.
Thousands of companies have embraced the idea of giving employees an unfiltered voice as a means to keep in touch with customers, suppliers, and the media. Sun Microsystems boasts a 4,000-employee-strong blog network, including its chief executive, and some corporate "spokesbloggers" like Microsoft's Robert Scoble have even rocketed to Internet stardom.
Cisco's legal trouble stems from a Blogspot-hosted blog called Patent Troll Tracker, which Rick Frenkel, who directs the company's intellectual property department, launched last May. His posts focused on patents and patent litigation--an issue that Cisco has pressed Congress to address by overhauling what it views as a broken U.S. patent system.
A few weeks ago, Frenkel revealed his identity, and two patent attorneys in Texas filed suit, accusing him of tarnishing their good names and disparaging a patent case their client had filed against Cisco--all the while allegedly concealing his affiliation with the company.
Cisco has responded by rethinking how it does blogging. Now the Patent Troll Tracker posts appear to be open only to invited readers. Although the company says it's standing by Frenkel and allowing him to continue his personal blog, the incident also highlighted a number of important "lessons," Cisco said in a statement--including the potential perils of unchecked anonymous blogging.
Cisco said it still believes "common sense" should be a guiding force for employees sharing information online, but it also added the following rule to its three-year-old Internet postings policy: "If you comment on any aspect of the company's business or any policy issue the company is involved in where you have responsibility for Cisco's engagement, you must clearly identify yourself as a Cisco employee in your postings or blog site(s) and include a disclaimer that the views are your own and not those of Cisco."
Although it wasn't a surprising move, it also may discourage other employees, said Denise Howell, an intellectual property and technology lawyer based in Newport Beach, Calif., who has written about corporate blogging policies.
"It helps show what expectations are for the company," she said, "but it's telling everyone else, 'Gee, we think you're just as big a risk as this guy.'"
Sun Microsystems, Yahoo, Google, Dell weigh inTo be sure, it's still the exception, not the rule, for companies to have rules governing blogging in the first place. But among those who do, not all of them make it absolutely mandatory to disclose one's corporate affiliation.
Sun Microsystems, which hosts blogs from CEO Jonathan Schwartz and some 4,000 other employees, has had a blogging policy in place since 2004. It broadly prohibits discussing a wealth of "non-public" information, including financial data, code, personal information about other individuals, all manner of confidential information, and "work-related legal proceedings or controversies." (Click for PDF)
But unlike Cisco, Sun doesn't require bloggers to disclose that they work for the company, although Tim Bray, the company's Web technologies director, says he considers doing so "good practice."
Google similarly recommends, but does not require, such disclosures, said spokeswoman Sunny Gettinger. (Google said it has an internal "communications" policy but doesn't make it public, although its general employee code of conduct is.)
Yahoo is arguably even gentler, but its policy has "been successful in providing employees with guidance on blogging practices with respect to the company," said spokeswoman Nicki Dugan. Its guidelines, issued in 2005 (PDF), decree two main rules: don't reveal proprietary information, and be cautious about posting exaggerations, obscenities, or other characterizations that could invite litigation.
Under a separate list of not-mandatory guidelines, Yahoo employees who choose to identify themselves as employees of the company are told to consider telling their supervisors, but they're not required to do so, nor are they required to disclose that they work for Yahoo at all.
"If you're worried about what your mom, manager, ex-coworker, or Terry Semel would think, listen to that instinct," Jeremy Zawodny, one of Yahoo's best-known employee bloggers, wrote in a May 2005 blog post introducing the policy.
Further Reading... http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9903070-7.html?tag=bl
A recent libel lawsuit filed against Cisco Systems over one of its employees' personal blogs could spur companies, many of which have encouraged workers to share their writings publicly, to reconsider how much latitude to give them.
Thousands of companies have embraced the idea of giving employees an unfiltered voice as a means to keep in touch with customers, suppliers, and the media. Sun Microsystems boasts a 4,000-employee-strong blog network, including its chief executive, and some corporate "spokesbloggers" like Microsoft's Robert Scoble have even rocketed to Internet stardom.
Cisco's legal trouble stems from a Blogspot-hosted blog called Patent Troll Tracker, which Rick Frenkel, who directs the company's intellectual property department, launched last May. His posts focused on patents and patent litigation--an issue that Cisco has pressed Congress to address by overhauling what it views as a broken U.S. patent system.
A few weeks ago, Frenkel revealed his identity, and two patent attorneys in Texas filed suit, accusing him of tarnishing their good names and disparaging a patent case their client had filed against Cisco--all the while allegedly concealing his affiliation with the company.
Cisco has responded by rethinking how it does blogging. Now the Patent Troll Tracker posts appear to be open only to invited readers. Although the company says it's standing by Frenkel and allowing him to continue his personal blog, the incident also highlighted a number of important "lessons," Cisco said in a statement--including the potential perils of unchecked anonymous blogging.
Cisco said it still believes "common sense" should be a guiding force for employees sharing information online, but it also added the following rule to its three-year-old Internet postings policy: "If you comment on any aspect of the company's business or any policy issue the company is involved in where you have responsibility for Cisco's engagement, you must clearly identify yourself as a Cisco employee in your postings or blog site(s) and include a disclaimer that the views are your own and not those of Cisco."
Although it wasn't a surprising move, it also may discourage other employees, said Denise Howell, an intellectual property and technology lawyer based in Newport Beach, Calif., who has written about corporate blogging policies.
"It helps show what expectations are for the company," she said, "but it's telling everyone else, 'Gee, we think you're just as big a risk as this guy.'"
Sun Microsystems, Yahoo, Google, Dell weigh inTo be sure, it's still the exception, not the rule, for companies to have rules governing blogging in the first place. But among those who do, not all of them make it absolutely mandatory to disclose one's corporate affiliation.
Sun Microsystems, which hosts blogs from CEO Jonathan Schwartz and some 4,000 other employees, has had a blogging policy in place since 2004. It broadly prohibits discussing a wealth of "non-public" information, including financial data, code, personal information about other individuals, all manner of confidential information, and "work-related legal proceedings or controversies." (Click for PDF)
But unlike Cisco, Sun doesn't require bloggers to disclose that they work for the company, although Tim Bray, the company's Web technologies director, says he considers doing so "good practice."
Google similarly recommends, but does not require, such disclosures, said spokeswoman Sunny Gettinger. (Google said it has an internal "communications" policy but doesn't make it public, although its general employee code of conduct is.)
Yahoo is arguably even gentler, but its policy has "been successful in providing employees with guidance on blogging practices with respect to the company," said spokeswoman Nicki Dugan. Its guidelines, issued in 2005 (PDF), decree two main rules: don't reveal proprietary information, and be cautious about posting exaggerations, obscenities, or other characterizations that could invite litigation.
Under a separate list of not-mandatory guidelines, Yahoo employees who choose to identify themselves as employees of the company are told to consider telling their supervisors, but they're not required to do so, nor are they required to disclose that they work for Yahoo at all.
"If you're worried about what your mom, manager, ex-coworker, or Terry Semel would think, listen to that instinct," Jeremy Zawodny, one of Yahoo's best-known employee bloggers, wrote in a May 2005 blog post introducing the policy.
Google wants ruling on search trademark law
Another stunning example of how new technology is affecting old laws. No doubt we will see this develop until an official ruling is made. With love, Nick
Aiming to pre-empt mounting complaints of trademark violations, search company Google has asked a court to rule on whether its keyword-advertising policy is legal.
The Mountain View, Calif.-based company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., on Nov. 26. It centers on a dispute with American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, an interior decor specialist, over the sale of keyword-advertising within search results that appear on Google and across the Web. American Blind has insisted that Google stop selling keyword phrases that the company claims violate its trademarks.
Though Google had said it could block advertisers from buying keywords that directly infringe on its trademarks, including "American Blind Factory" and "DecorateToday," the company said it could not block other descriptive phrases that American Blind wished to protect. Those phrases included "American wallpaper" and "American blind," according to the filing.
As a result, American Blind threatened to sue Google if the matter wasn't resolved. Google is seeking guidance from the courts before that happens.
"An actual, present and justiciable controversy has arisen between Google and American Blind concerning Google's right to sell keyword-triggered advertising to its customers," according to the filing. "Google seeks declaratory judgment from this court that its current policy regarding the sale of keyword-triggered advertising does not constitute trademark infringement."
Google's request highlights a murky area of trademark law related to search engine marketing that's become a growing arena of concern among advertisers.
Search-related advertising has become a key moneymaker for Google and others because it's effective for marketers. They can reach Web surfers while they're searching and pay only when people click on their links.
The system works so well that some marketers bid for keywords related to rival brands to prey on their traffic. Because more companies are taking notice of the importance of search marketing, more complaints are flying.
Earlier this year, auction giant eBay asked Google to block advertisers from using its trademark in sponsored search results. eBay listed, in 13 pages, a wide selection of terms related to its trademarks. Google complied with some of its requests.
In August, Louis Vuitton sued Google and its French subsidiary for similar alleged trademark infringement, and a French court in October ordered Google to cease the practice and pay a fine.
Still, the law is unclear in the United States about the responsibility of search engines to police trademarks in paid search. Google says in its terms and conditions that advertisers themselves "are responsible for the keywords and ad text that they choose to use." But if asked, Google will perform a limited investigation and respect "reasonable" requests to remove trademark terms from the bidding process.
Questions also remain about a search providers' responsibility to give trademark holders visibility in search results based on keywords related to their trademarked terms, regardless of payment. Last year, Mark Nutritionals filed lawsuits against Yahoo-owned Overture, AltaVista, FindWhat and Kanoodle for alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition, suits that could help define laws in this area.
Mark Nutritionals charges that the search companies used keywords related to its trademarked name Body Solutions but buried Mark's own links. The company is seeking $440 million in damages.
Aiming to pre-empt mounting complaints of trademark violations, search company Google has asked a court to rule on whether its keyword-advertising policy is legal.
The Mountain View, Calif.-based company filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., on Nov. 26. It centers on a dispute with American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, an interior decor specialist, over the sale of keyword-advertising within search results that appear on Google and across the Web. American Blind has insisted that Google stop selling keyword phrases that the company claims violate its trademarks.
Though Google had said it could block advertisers from buying keywords that directly infringe on its trademarks, including "American Blind Factory" and "DecorateToday," the company said it could not block other descriptive phrases that American Blind wished to protect. Those phrases included "American wallpaper" and "American blind," according to the filing.
As a result, American Blind threatened to sue Google if the matter wasn't resolved. Google is seeking guidance from the courts before that happens.
"An actual, present and justiciable controversy has arisen between Google and American Blind concerning Google's right to sell keyword-triggered advertising to its customers," according to the filing. "Google seeks declaratory judgment from this court that its current policy regarding the sale of keyword-triggered advertising does not constitute trademark infringement."
Google's request highlights a murky area of trademark law related to search engine marketing that's become a growing arena of concern among advertisers.
Search-related advertising has become a key moneymaker for Google and others because it's effective for marketers. They can reach Web surfers while they're searching and pay only when people click on their links.
The system works so well that some marketers bid for keywords related to rival brands to prey on their traffic. Because more companies are taking notice of the importance of search marketing, more complaints are flying.
Earlier this year, auction giant eBay asked Google to block advertisers from using its trademark in sponsored search results. eBay listed, in 13 pages, a wide selection of terms related to its trademarks. Google complied with some of its requests.
In August, Louis Vuitton sued Google and its French subsidiary for similar alleged trademark infringement, and a French court in October ordered Google to cease the practice and pay a fine.
Still, the law is unclear in the United States about the responsibility of search engines to police trademarks in paid search. Google says in its terms and conditions that advertisers themselves "are responsible for the keywords and ad text that they choose to use." But if asked, Google will perform a limited investigation and respect "reasonable" requests to remove trademark terms from the bidding process.
Questions also remain about a search providers' responsibility to give trademark holders visibility in search results based on keywords related to their trademarked terms, regardless of payment. Last year, Mark Nutritionals filed lawsuits against Yahoo-owned Overture, AltaVista, FindWhat and Kanoodle for alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition, suits that could help define laws in this area.
Mark Nutritionals charges that the search companies used keywords related to its trademarked name Body Solutions but buried Mark's own links. The company is seeking $440 million in damages.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Universal wants to own yoru CDs FOREVER..forever...for..ev...errr.
Arrr, I be the record/software industry and I be here to rape and plunder yer discs. -Nick
The music industry seems to be taking one step forward, and then promptly taking one thousand steps backward. In Universal Music Group v. Augusto, Universal Music Group (UMG) is suing someone for putting its promotional CDs for sale on eBay, seriously altering the standard view of what First Sale doctrine means.
At issue here is who owns the promo CDs. Universal argues strenuously that it never transferred ownership when it sent them out and that the discs are merely "licensed" to those who receive them. Each disc includes text that makes clear that "this CD is the property of the record company and is licensed to the intended recipient for personal use only." According to Universal...
...the label could recall the discs at any time (though it has never done so). In fact, even giving the discs away or tossing them in the trash constitute "unauthorized distributions."
The same plague afflicts software companies: They want to stretch their copyrights to ridiculous lengths. As defined by UMG (as well as most software EULAs), the digital good is "licensed, not sold," leaving the customer with a very temporary interest in their music (or software).
We've gotten used to the idea in software, but imagine if UMG decided to take back its music from you. You bought the CD years ago but UMG decides that it wants it back. According to its argument in this case, it has every right to recall the CD and you have zero right to retain it. Sound fair?
The music industry needs to regain consciousness and start looking for ways to profit from the obvious interest consumers have in its products. Pillaging those consumers is not the right way to go about it.
The music industry seems to be taking one step forward, and then promptly taking one thousand steps backward. In Universal Music Group v. Augusto, Universal Music Group (UMG) is suing someone for putting its promotional CDs for sale on eBay, seriously altering the standard view of what First Sale doctrine means.
At issue here is who owns the promo CDs. Universal argues strenuously that it never transferred ownership when it sent them out and that the discs are merely "licensed" to those who receive them. Each disc includes text that makes clear that "this CD is the property of the record company and is licensed to the intended recipient for personal use only." According to Universal...
...the label could recall the discs at any time (though it has never done so). In fact, even giving the discs away or tossing them in the trash constitute "unauthorized distributions."
The same plague afflicts software companies: They want to stretch their copyrights to ridiculous lengths. As defined by UMG (as well as most software EULAs), the digital good is "licensed, not sold," leaving the customer with a very temporary interest in their music (or software).
We've gotten used to the idea in software, but imagine if UMG decided to take back its music from you. You bought the CD years ago but UMG decides that it wants it back. According to its argument in this case, it has every right to recall the CD and you have zero right to retain it. Sound fair?
The music industry needs to regain consciousness and start looking for ways to profit from the obvious interest consumers have in its products. Pillaging those consumers is not the right way to go about it.
You think you know copyright?
Free mini-lesson in modern copyright law...just because I care. - Nick
http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9919707-2.html?tag=bl
Today on the Real Deal podcast, Tom and I interviewed Colette Vogele, attorney, Fellow at Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, and host of the Rules for the Revolution podcast. We started to cover the concept of copyright from the perspective of the content producer separately from that of the consumer, but found that the line between the two is increasingly fuzzy. We all consume content. But with digital technologies, almost every one of us also produces, copies, or otherwise mangles the content that we are consuming.
We talked with Vogele about this, and went over not just the legal doctrine that applies to digital content, but also some of the practical guidelines in dealing with infringement of rights (near the end). Play the podcast for this free lesson in modern copyright law.
http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9919707-2.html?tag=bl
Today on the Real Deal podcast, Tom and I interviewed Colette Vogele, attorney, Fellow at Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, and host of the Rules for the Revolution podcast. We started to cover the concept of copyright from the perspective of the content producer separately from that of the consumer, but found that the line between the two is increasingly fuzzy. We all consume content. But with digital technologies, almost every one of us also produces, copies, or otherwise mangles the content that we are consuming.
We talked with Vogele about this, and went over not just the legal doctrine that applies to digital content, but also some of the practical guidelines in dealing with infringement of rights (near the end). Play the podcast for this free lesson in modern copyright law.
Argentina considering going 100% open source
I don't have a problem...it's my culture to undervalue and rip-off software. - Nick
Argentina's congress is actively considering a bill that would require all government offices to use open-source software. It's partly a cost-saving move, and partly a way to bring the Argentine government into compliance with its software licensing:
The measure is sponsored by representative Marcelo Dragán as part of a national campaign against rampant software piracy in the South American country....
[T]he government itself is one of the worst copyright violators. The [Software Legal trade] association has pending lawsuits against several bureaucratic agencies, including the Secretariat of Tourism, the Federal Radio Committee and the Social Security Administration.
"It's a cultural issue, not a money issue," [Software Legal's president] insisted. "People just don't understand the value of software."
Rather than fight against the culture, the bill embraces it and opts for open-source software, which has its vendors charging for ancillary services and giving the software away. This makes sense. Yes, the government could invest millions in training its citizens to respect US copyright law. Or it could allow Microsoft to do the training for it.
It is taking a viable third way: Align software fees with true software value. Open source does a better job than any other software delivery mechanism in charging for value actually rendered.
Argentina's congress is actively considering a bill that would require all government offices to use open-source software. It's partly a cost-saving move, and partly a way to bring the Argentine government into compliance with its software licensing:
The measure is sponsored by representative Marcelo Dragán as part of a national campaign against rampant software piracy in the South American country....
[T]he government itself is one of the worst copyright violators. The [Software Legal trade] association has pending lawsuits against several bureaucratic agencies, including the Secretariat of Tourism, the Federal Radio Committee and the Social Security Administration.
"It's a cultural issue, not a money issue," [Software Legal's president] insisted. "People just don't understand the value of software."
Rather than fight against the culture, the bill embraces it and opts for open-source software, which has its vendors charging for ancillary services and giving the software away. This makes sense. Yes, the government could invest millions in training its citizens to respect US copyright law. Or it could allow Microsoft to do the training for it.
It is taking a viable third way: Align software fees with true software value. Open source does a better job than any other software delivery mechanism in charging for value actually rendered.
Publishers sue university over publication of class reading materials
Look who's cracking down! The academic publishing community fights back! This is a classic argument of fair use vs copyright. It'll be interesting to see the verdict. - Nick
A group of academic publishers filed a lawsuit against Georgia State University officials on Tuesday, alleging a systematic abuse of copyrighted works in the online distribution of coursework reading materials.
Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and Sage Publications allege the university "facilitated, enabled, encouraged, and induced" professors to upload the copyrighted materials to its online system for students to download, without first obtaining the necessary permissions or paying licensing fees.
The lawsuit, filed in a U.S. District Court in Georgia, may mark the first time publishers have challenged universities over the electronic distribution of written copyrighted works, noted the plaintiffs' attorney.
"Our clients believe this is a widespread problem," said Bruce Rich, an attorney with Weil, Gotshal & Manges, who is representing the plaintiffs.
The problem first cropped up a couple years ago, noted Patricia Schroeder, head of the Association of American Publishers, of which the plaintiffs are members.
"A couple years ago, we noted a drop-off in universities seeking copyright permission as they shifted to the digital world," Schroeder said. "Even though technology changes, the law doesn't."
The publishers allege Georgia State University permitted its professors to reproduce vast amounts of copyrighted materials and combine them into course packets for students.
Although the problem of copyright infringement is believed to be widespread among colleges and universities, the majority of those institutions contacted by publishers generally cooperate and take steps to remedy the situation, Rich said.
The key issue for the publishers is harm to the market, Rich said. For example, he questioned whether professors would be able to continuing publishing their research, given the related costs involved, if their respective publishers were not compensated for providing the materials.
Although the reproduction of copyrighted materials is permitted under fair use laws, it's limited in the extent the materials that can be copied, such as excerpts verses chapters upon chapters, Rich noted.
A spokeswoman for Georgia State University declined to comment, noting the institution and the parties cited in the lawsuit have not yet been served with the complaint.
A group of academic publishers filed a lawsuit against Georgia State University officials on Tuesday, alleging a systematic abuse of copyrighted works in the online distribution of coursework reading materials.
Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and Sage Publications allege the university "facilitated, enabled, encouraged, and induced" professors to upload the copyrighted materials to its online system for students to download, without first obtaining the necessary permissions or paying licensing fees.
The lawsuit, filed in a U.S. District Court in Georgia, may mark the first time publishers have challenged universities over the electronic distribution of written copyrighted works, noted the plaintiffs' attorney.
"Our clients believe this is a widespread problem," said Bruce Rich, an attorney with Weil, Gotshal & Manges, who is representing the plaintiffs.
The problem first cropped up a couple years ago, noted Patricia Schroeder, head of the Association of American Publishers, of which the plaintiffs are members.
"A couple years ago, we noted a drop-off in universities seeking copyright permission as they shifted to the digital world," Schroeder said. "Even though technology changes, the law doesn't."
The publishers allege Georgia State University permitted its professors to reproduce vast amounts of copyrighted materials and combine them into course packets for students.
Although the problem of copyright infringement is believed to be widespread among colleges and universities, the majority of those institutions contacted by publishers generally cooperate and take steps to remedy the situation, Rich said.
The key issue for the publishers is harm to the market, Rich said. For example, he questioned whether professors would be able to continuing publishing their research, given the related costs involved, if their respective publishers were not compensated for providing the materials.
Although the reproduction of copyrighted materials is permitted under fair use laws, it's limited in the extent the materials that can be copied, such as excerpts verses chapters upon chapters, Rich noted.
A spokeswoman for Georgia State University declined to comment, noting the institution and the parties cited in the lawsuit have not yet been served with the complaint.
On trial: Digital copyright law
WASHINGTON--The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on Thursday in an attempt to overturn key portions of a controversial 1998 copyright law.
The suit asks a federal judge to rule that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is so sweeping that it unconstitutionally interferes with researchers' ability to evaluate the effectiveness of Internet filtering software.
By suing on behalf of a 22-year-old programmer who's researching the oft-buggy products, the civil liberties group hopes to prompt the first ruling that would curtail the DMCA's wide reach.
After the DMCA was used to intimidate Princeton professor Ed Felten and his colleagues into self-censoring a presentation last year, the law became an instant magnet for criticism. But so far, every judge has upheld the DMCA's broad restrictions on the "circumvention of copyright protection systems."
This case will be different, the ACLU hopes, because it features a sympathetic plaintiff, Ben Edelman, and because it involves the socially beneficial act of critiquing software that is frequently used in public schools and libraries. Edelman had testified as an expert witness in a case the ACLU brought against a federal law that compelled public libraries to install filters.
"I did considerable work for them in preparation for the (Children's Internet Protection Act) lawsuit, and remained interested in the software," Edelman said. "I started thinking about how to make my research that much better. What became clear to me was that what I really needed, one way or another, was a way to get the entire block list."
Read the complete article at: http://www.news.com/2100-1023-946266.html
The suit asks a federal judge to rule that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is so sweeping that it unconstitutionally interferes with researchers' ability to evaluate the effectiveness of Internet filtering software.
By suing on behalf of a 22-year-old programmer who's researching the oft-buggy products, the civil liberties group hopes to prompt the first ruling that would curtail the DMCA's wide reach.
After the DMCA was used to intimidate Princeton professor Ed Felten and his colleagues into self-censoring a presentation last year, the law became an instant magnet for criticism. But so far, every judge has upheld the DMCA's broad restrictions on the "circumvention of copyright protection systems."
This case will be different, the ACLU hopes, because it features a sympathetic plaintiff, Ben Edelman, and because it involves the socially beneficial act of critiquing software that is frequently used in public schools and libraries. Edelman had testified as an expert witness in a case the ACLU brought against a federal law that compelled public libraries to install filters.
"I did considerable work for them in preparation for the (Children's Internet Protection Act) lawsuit, and remained interested in the software," Edelman said. "I started thinking about how to make my research that much better. What became clear to me was that what I really needed, one way or another, was a way to get the entire block list."
Read the complete article at: http://www.news.com/2100-1023-946266.html
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
'Harry Potter' Author J.K. Rowling's Copyright Case: Behind All The Legal Jargon
This is a great article about copyright and fair use. It outlines the basics using a recent example where Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling sues the Harry Potter Lexicon for copyright infringement. The case is currently in courts. Should be interesting to discover the verdict. Read on.
-Nick
Case against 'The Harry Potter Lexicon' hinges on the doctrine of fair use — but what does that mean?
It's a setup that could find a place in "Harry Potter" itself: One is powerfully magical, learned in the ways of witchcraft and wizardry, in control of an empire that spans generations and continents. The other is a boyish figure, whose large, round glasses and mop of dark hair dominate a childish face.
It's unofficially a duel between the richest, most successful author in the world and a 50-year-old librarian, but the case of J.K Rowling v. RDR Books, now playing out in a federal court in New York, doesn't hinge on magical knowledge, superior weaponry or even powerful friends, but on a somewhat-complicated U.S. law known as the doctrine of fair use.
So what, exactly, is fair use, and why is Rowling arguing in court that "The Harry Potter Lexicon" breaks the guidelines established for it to work? And why can we quote liberally from "Harry Potter," at seeming random if I like ("Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!"), while Steve Vander Ark is being enjoined from doing what, at face value, appears to be the very same thing?
The answer lies in a piece of legislation only 30 years old and the four provisions it outlines as the foundation of fair use.
First, to understand the case, it's important to understand the basic principles of copyright law, a constitutional right that essentially grants artists and inventors exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries. As the author of the seven "Harry Potter" novels and their two companion books, that right, in this case, naturally belongs to J.K. Rowling.
But like most rights, even constitutional ones, that principle is not absolute. Under the Copyright Act of 1976, others are allowed to incorporate copyrighted materials "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship or research." When we quoted "Harry Potter" above, our use clearly fell into the category of "news reporting" and was therefore not a breach of copyright law.
The central issue of the court case is whether "The Harry Potter Lexicon," an encyclopedic reference of all things Potter, falls into any of the above categories as well.
To determine whether or not it does, the court will use four main guidelines:
1. The "purpose and character of the use." In simple terms, this boils down to an opinion on whether the work is "transformative," meaning, does it add to the culture's appreciation and/or knowledge of a work, or does it merely seek to supersede the original?
This is the point of contention most argued in the court case, with lawyers for Rowling insisting that "Lexicon" "takes too much and does too little." In other words, it adds little or no commentary or criticism.
By way of example, take our recent shot-by-shot analysis of "The Dark Knight" trailer and assume it wasn't for a news organization. The article was a second-by-second look at the trailer — there's not a copyrighted shot that we didn't describe in detail or, in some cases, pull for readers to view. But each shot was then obsessively dissected, and the hope, of course, was that we added to the discussion of the work while not superseding the original. Writing about the trailer didn't stop anyone from actually watching it.
Rowling's lawyers argue that "Lexicon" does not meet that burden, that it is in no way transformative but is merely derivative. It simply "rearranges the furniture of Rowling's novels," attorney Dale Cendali said in her opening statement.
The defense, meanwhile, argues that the value of the book far outweighs its use of copyrighted material.
Under this guideline, a judge may also take into account the profit motives of a particular work. Hence, the repeated questions in court Monday over whether "Lexicon" was more a money grab or a "passion" project.
2. The "nature of the copyrighted work." Is it fiction or nonfiction, published or unpublished? This guideline isn't particularly applicable in this case, as nobody argues, for instance, that Dumbledore or Harry Potter are in any sense "real."
In testimony Monday, Rowling touched on this when comparing a description she wrote of a "Chinese fireball" with one from "Lexicon," stating that it wasn't as if they were both describing giraffes. "It's not as if we are describing something that exists outside my imagination," she said.
Interestingly, under this guideline, if Rowling actually had a written copy of her long-promised "Harry Potter Encyclopedia," it might be afforded protection even though it was unpublished.
3. "The amount ... of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." How much of the whole text appears in the work? Generally speaking, the less you use, the more likely that it's fair use, but of course there are instances in which you can quote the entirety of something and get away with it.
At its most basic, this guideline asks whether or not a user takes only the material needed for his or her intended purpose. Vander Ark's purpose, of course, is to be a comprehensive compendium of all things Potter, so naturally he's going to be taking a lot.
4. What is the effect of the use on potential market value? Will the publication of "The Harry Potter Lexicon" take away from sales of "Harry Potter" or stop anyone from seeing the movie, buying toys or going to the soon-to-be opened theme park? Almost certainly not, of course. But it's an avenue Rowling's lawyers are exploring in earnest. This was especially evident in Rowling's testimony. "This trial has decimated my creative work over the last month," she said. "You lose the [plot] threads and worry whether you'll be able to pick them up again. Should my fans be flooded with a surfeit of substandard books — so-called lexicons — I'm not sure I'd have the will or heart to continue."
In consideration of this guideline, courts ask: Is the work a direct substitute? (It would be, if Rowling had written her own encyclopedia.) They also ask: Could potential harm exist beyond being a direct substitute? (It could if Rowling didn't write her own encyclopedia.)
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Creative Commons gains $4M grant, loses CEO Lessig
If you've never heard of "Creative Commons," I highly encourage you to check it out. This simple theory behind the entire organization is revolutionary and it's a topic I often try to stay in touch with. Check out a few of these materials to spark your interest. For those of you with ADD, they're videos.
-Nick
explaining the basics
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nazX7bybfHo&feature=related
cool video explaining the basics
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0FMnVIofuE0&feature=related
great walt disney reference
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JWR6eiiBhf8
-Nick
explaining the basics
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nazX7bybfHo&feature=related
cool video explaining the basics
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0FMnVIofuE0&feature=related
great walt disney reference
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JWR6eiiBhf8
Creative Commons, the nonprofit dedicated to reforming copyright in the digital age, said Tuesday it has received a $4 million grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Lessig founded Creative Commons in 2001 to combat what he saw as a rigid and outdated copyright system, encouraging the rejection of the traditional "all rights reserved" standard in favor of a "some rights reserved" alternative that would promote "creative reuse."
The money will bolster Creative Commons' five-year financial plan, which has also seen support or pledges of support from Google, Mozilla, Red Hat, and the Omidyar Network.
Out of the $4 million from the Hewlett Foundation, $2.5 million will go to the main Creative Commons organization over the next five years, and the remaining $1.5 million will go to its CCLearn education project.
Meanwhile, Lawrence Lessig, the organization's founder, a Stanford law professor, and a "free culture" advocate, is stepping down from his role as CEO of Creative Commons.
His replacement will be entrepreneur Joi Ito, who described himself to CNET News.com in 2006 as "sort of part-time entrepreneur, VC and nonprofit board member...(with) some writing, blogging, speaking and government policy work on the side."
Ito has been serving as chair of the Creative Commons board and will be replaced in that role by James Boyle, a current board member and a Duke law professor.
Lessig, who will remain on Creative Commons' board, made headlines earlier this year when he briefly considered a run for Congress. Though that effort was short-lived, Lessig soon thereafter launched an online-and-offline campaign called Change Congress. The new initiative's goal is to cast off the corporate influence on American politics, including lobbyists to big-money political action committees.
With his departure from Creative Commons, Change Congress will become Lessig's primary project. "Although I have changed my focus, I'm still very much committed to Creative Commons and the Free Culture cause," he said in a statement. "The work I intend to do with Change Congress is in many ways complementary to the work of Creative Commons. Both projects are about putting people in power and enabling them to build a better system."
While big tech players like Yahoo's Flickr and the OpenSocial Foundation are eager supporters, Creative Commons still has yet to gain true mainstream media acceptance.
Should software patents have shorter life spans than other patents?
I found this blog post from C/NET, 11 April 2008 and thought I'd share it with you. In a world of increasingly software dominated architecture, this could come into play.
The bottom line expressed here is that software patents are too long and need to be shortened. No one can even develop on the concept of certain software which leaves the world dominated by a particular software in any area. The arguments suggests that a copyright is enough protection for software developers. Especially, I would add, when technology and software demands grow exponentially everyday. By the time a 5 year patent would run out, the software would be practically null and void. This would allow other developers to expand on the obsolete concept to meet current needs. Just a thought.
- Nick
There are a lot of strong opinions with respect to software patents. Many people are highly critical of them because they feel that copyright alone is enough protection for software. The argument goes that copyright is a better fit than patent law.
The bottom line expressed here is that software patents are too long and need to be shortened. No one can even develop on the concept of certain software which leaves the world dominated by a particular software in any area. The arguments suggests that a copyright is enough protection for software developers. Especially, I would add, when technology and software demands grow exponentially everyday. By the time a 5 year patent would run out, the software would be practically null and void. This would allow other developers to expand on the obsolete concept to meet current needs. Just a thought.
- Nick
There are a lot of strong opinions with respect to software patents. Many people are highly critical of them because they feel that copyright alone is enough protection for software. The argument goes that copyright is a better fit than patent law.
For example, copyright is self-executing. That means that you get a copyright in your program as soon as you write it. In contrast, a patent is obtained only after filing and prosecuting - and in the process spending a lot of money on - a patent application.
Moreover, copyright is supposed to protect a specific expression - not broader ideas found in that expression. One major argument against software patents is, that in order to maintain the lightning pace of software innovation, developers must to be free to use general concepts pioneered by others so long as they don't copy the actual code.
It's basically a "square-peg-in-a-round-hole" type argument. That is, patents don't make sense for software because software is too different from the other things, like new chemicals and machines, that patents were originally designed to protect
Assuming there is a problem as some argue, maybe the solution is making patent law a better fit for software. One idea mentioned yesterday at the 23rd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference of the American Bar Association was shortening the lifespan for software patents.
Currently, most patents last for twenty years from the date they were filed. At yesterday's conference, Judge Newman - who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - commented that maybe a shorter lifespan of 5-6 years makes more sense for software patents.
That type of change would have to come from the legislature - not the court system. But Judge Newman's comment is still interesting. Given the short product life for software, does it make sense to shorten the patent life for software inventions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
