COPYCENSE

Issue: Effective Monday, January 16, 2006, CopyCense has changed its e-mail notification system to Feedblitz. FeedBlitz turns CopyCense‘s RSS feed into e-mails. These e-mails get sent to subscribers at regular intervals during each publication day.

Reason for Change: We had been using Bloglet for our e-mail notification system, but we encountered several problems with that service (including constant disconnection). We believe the change will benefit all our readers, especially those who prefer to get their intellectual property news delivered by e-mail instead of an RSS news aggregator.

What Do I Need to Do? If you subscribed to receive CopyCense news through Bloglet, you don’t need to change anything: your subscription has been moved automatically to Feedblitz.

Where will the e-mails be coming from? E-mails will be coming from one of two addresses: a “Feedblitz” address or CopyCense‘s Gmail address [copycense at gmail dot com]. If you have a spam filter activated or are receiving e-mails at work, you may want to configure your e-mail client to place these e-mails directly in your “In” box.

What if I want to become a subscriber? If you are a new to CopyCense and you want to receive timely, relevant intellectual property news by e-mail, you can sign up for Feedblitz by entering your e-mail address in the form located in the right-hand navigation column. Signing up for Feedblitz is free. You will, however, have to have an active e-mail account to which Feedblitz can send a subscription confirmation.

How does this affect CopyCense’s syndication feed? The change to Feedblitz does not affect CopyCense‘s RSS or Atom feeds in any way. Our syndicated subscribers will continue to receive their news through their aggregators on a daily basis.

Questions? If you have any questions about this change, or any other aspect of CopyCense, please feel free to contact us at copycense at g mail dot com.

K. Matthew Dames

Executive Editor

CopyCense

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

“Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies are supposed to protect digitized ‘content,’ like movies and musical performances from being illicitly copied or used. DRM technology is sometimes described as security technology when it is really licensing technology –- something very different. In fact, DRM may decrease security and reliability.

“We are entering the era of ubiquitous and safety critical computing, but the developers of DRM technologies seem to believe that computers are nothing more than personal entertainment systems for consumers. This belief is convenient, because creating DRM mechanisms that respect security, safety, and reliability concerns is going to be an expensive and complex engineering task.”

Victor Yodaiken. Some Safety and Reliability Questions About DRM. Groklaw. Jan. 11, 2006.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

The Ball State University Libraries is pleased to sponsor a one-day conference, “Copyright Challenges & Opportunities: Practical Advice for the Digital Age.” Today’s library and information professionals must know how to properly use another person’s intellectual property. The challenges in the copyright law can be intimidating. By attending this conference, you will hear from nationally-known experts in the field. Topics include:

• The Top 10 Digital Legal Issues Facing Educational Institutions
• Digital Licensing; Digital Fair Use
• Update on Proposed Library Legislation
• Update on “Orphan Works” and Proposed Legislation
• Information Policy and Digital Works

Featured speakers:

• Jule L. Sigall, J.D., U.S. Copyright Office Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs and Head of the Office of Policy & International Affairs.
• Kenneth Crews, J.D., Samuel R. Rosen II Professor in the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis and in the IU School of Library and Information Science and Associate Dean of the Faculties for Copyright Management.
• Dwayne K. Buttler, J.D., Professor, Evelyn J. Schneider Endowed Chair for Scholarly Communication at the University of Louisville, University Libraries.
• Michelle L. Cooper, J.D., practices in the areas of employment and intellectual property law; prosecutes copyright and trademark applications, negotiates and drafts licensing agreements and handles infringement litigation.
• Kevin Smith, J.D., Director of Library and Instructional Resources at Defiance College in Defiance, Ohio, focuses on library and academic institution licensing concerns with emphasis on copyright and employment law.

Register online at www.bsu.edu/library/conference/copyright. Registration by Feb. 14 is $60, then increases to $75 per person. After April 1, the cost is $100. State of Indiana IHETS or IPSE Committee members $60; all students $20. The registration fee includes a buffet lunch.

For more information, contact Fritz Dolak at (765) 285-5330 or FDolak@bsu.edu.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

“A new version of Apple Computer’s popular iTunes software, released Tuesday, is drawing barbs from privacy advocates for sending information about computer users’ playlists back to Apple.

“The new music software includes a ‘MiniStore’ window, which provides recommended links to Apple’s music download service when a listener actively clicks on a song in their personal playlist, including songs that haven’t been purchased from the iTunes store.

“To provide those recommendations, the software sends information about the selected song, such as artist, title and genre, back to Apple. But the software also transmits a string of data that is linked to a computer user’s unique iTunes account ID, computer experts have found.”

John Borland. Apple’s iTunes Raises Privacy Concerns. News.com. Jan. 12, 2006.

See also:

EFF Deep Links. Tunes MiniStore “Phone Home” Feature Part of a Dangerous Trend In Data Collection. January 12, 2006.

Rob Griffiths. Eyeing the iTunes MiniStore. MacWorld. Jan. 11, 2006.

Updates:

EFF Deep Links. Apple Makes iTunes Tweaks After Internet Uproar. Jan. 18, 2005.

The Apple Core. ITunes Phones Home. Jan. 16, 2006.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

“A new version of Apple Computer’s popular iTunes software, released Tuesday, is drawing barbs from privacy advocates for sending information about computer users’ playlists back to Apple.

“The new music software includes a ‘MiniStore’ window, which provides recommended links to Apple’s music download service when a listener actively clicks on a song in their personal playlist, including songs that haven’t been purchased from the iTunes store.

“To provide those recommendations, the software sends information about the selected song, such as artist, title and genre, back to Apple. But the software also transmits a string of data that is linked to a computer user’s unique iTunes account ID, computer experts have found.”

John Borland. Apple’s iTunes Raises Privacy Concerns. News.com. Jan. 12, 2006.

See also:

EFF Deep Links. Tunes MiniStore “Phone Home” Feature Part of a Dangerous Trend In Data Collection. January 12, 2006.

Rob Griffiths. Eyeing the iTunes MiniStore. MacWorld. Jan. 11, 2006.

Updates:

EFF Deep Links. Apple Makes iTunes Tweaks After Internet Uproar. Jan. 18, 2005.

The Apple Core. ITunes Phones Home. Jan. 16, 2006.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

A. INTRODUCTION

This edition of CommuniK.™ features the second part of a series about copyright law exceptions that are available to libraries, schools, and archives. The article discusses Section 110 of the 1976 Copyright Act, which allows schools to perform or display copyrighted works under certain circumstances without having to receive the owner’s permission.

Section 110 has 10 subsections, but only the first two subsections apply to educational use of copyrighted materials. This article analyzes those first two provisions: Section 110(1), which generally allows teachers to use copyrighted works in the classroom without first having to get the owner’s permission; and Section 110(2), which generally allows teachers to use copyrighted works in a virtual classroom without first having to get the owner’s permission.

As copyright law goes, Section 110(1) is relatively simple to read. But Section 110(2), which also is known as the TEACH Act, is very complicated. The article parses both sections, and concludes by analyzing both sections within the context of the limitations risk analysis theory I introduced in the first part of this series. Finally, I speculate whether the TEACH Act has any practical value given its complexity.

Portions of this article originally appeared in the January/February 2005 and March/April 2005 editions of Online magazine. This version has been substantially updated and includes a new resources section.

Read the rest of this entry »