Test to see if Nick can post the next two weeks' WoDs.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Monday, May 12, 2008
Colleges fret RIAA push for state anti-P2P laws
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
