COPYCENSE

“When Laura Willeford went to Powell Library to research a paper last week, she left feeling frustrated. Willeford, a first-year undeclared student, said she had trouble finding useful sources for her art history paper.

“After spending one to two hours in Powell Library every day after class, Willeford finally completed her research, but dreaded ever entering the library again. Online digital collections, searchable by keyword, are working to alleviate some of the frustrations students like Willeford feel when trying to do research.”

Anthony Pesce. Libraries Getting the Digital Treatment. Daily Bruin. March 7, 2006.

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

“As blockbuster hits go, the R&B smash “So Sick” is hardly new territory for the 23-year-old singer known as Ne-Yo. Before crooning the song on his own album, he was a co-writer on the 2004 chart-buster “Let Me Love You” for the singer Mario.

“But there’s one big difference: even though fans could hear “So Sick” on the radio for the last two months, they couldn’t buy it at popular online services like iTunes or Rhapsody, or anywhere else for that matter. Breaking from the music industry’s current custom, the singer’s label — Island Def Jam — decided not to sell “So Sick” as an individual song before Ne-Yo’s album hit stores last week.

“There is still plenty of debate over the effect of holding off on sales of the digital single. But if the industry determines that restricting digital sales pays off with bigger album sales, fans may soon find the instant gratification of snapping up new songs online becoming a little less instant.”

Jeff Leeds. Labels Halt Downloads to Increase CD Sales. The New York Times. March 9, 2006.

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

“In the era of digital delivery of content, copyright owners have turned with a vengeance to contract law to specify the rights and responsibilities of their customers. Many copyright owners today seek to avoid the express statutory limits on their rights contained in the Copyright Act by invoking the institution of contract. For example, these contracts attempt to prohibit the exercise of rights universally recognized as fair use, such as copying portions of a work for criticisms, product comparison and reverse engineering, or they seek to limit the application of the first sale doctrine. Enforcement of these contractual provisions alters the statutory scheme defined by Congress in the Copyright Act.

“After exploring the potential chilling effect that these overreaching clauses may have on users’ behavior and why it is critical for courts to find ways to discourage the use of such clauses, this article argues that applying an appropriately tailored doctrine of copyright misuse to these licensing terms would provide a more robust reformation of contracting behavior.”

Lydia Pallas Loren. Slaying the Leather-Winged Demons in the Night: Reforming Copyright Owner Contracting with Clickwrap Misuse. Ohio Northern University Law Review (via SSRN) 2004.

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

“The House passed revisions to the broad antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act on Tuesday, clearing the way for President Bush to sign legislation making permanent most of the major provisions of the original 2001 law.

“The bill passed, 280 to 138, with just two more votes than needed under special rules requiring a two-thirds majority. The vote was the last step in a tortuous journey through Congress. The House action approved amendments to a bill revising the original act; the revised bill passed the House last year and was adopted last week by the Senate after having been bottled up there for months.

“The vote on Tuesday was an important victory for Mr. Bush, who has maintained that the act is an essential component in fighting terrorism. The major provisions of the original bill had been set to expire on March 16. Mr. Bush is expected to sign the revised version before then.”

Sheryl Gay Stolberg. Patriot Act Revisions Pass House, Sending Measure to President. The New York Times. March 8, 2006.

See also:

U.S. Senate. S.2271: A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, etc. (Sponsor: Sununu). Feb. 10, 2006.

U.S. House of Representatives. H.R. 3199: To extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes. (Sponsor: Sensenbrenner) July 9, 2005.

BBC News. Final Approval for U.S. PATRIOT Act. March 8, 2006.

Updates:

Nedra Pickler. Bush Signs Renewal of Patriot Act. WashingtonPost.com. March 10, 2006.

CQ Transcriptions. Bush Speaks After Signing Patriot Act. WashingtonPost.com. March 9, 2006.

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

“The House passed revisions to the broad antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act on Tuesday, clearing the way for President Bush to sign legislation making permanent most of the major provisions of the original 2001 law.

“The bill passed, 280 to 138, with just two more votes than needed under special rules requiring a two-thirds majority. The vote was the last step in a tortuous journey through Congress. The House action approved amendments to a bill revising the original act; the revised bill passed the House last year and was adopted last week by the Senate after having been bottled up there for months.

“The vote on Tuesday was an important victory for Mr. Bush, who has maintained that the act is an essential component in fighting terrorism. The major provisions of the original bill had been set to expire on March 16. Mr. Bush is expected to sign the revised version before then.”

Sheryl Gay Stolberg. Patriot Act Revisions Pass House, Sending Measure to President. The New York Times. March 8, 2006.

See also:

U.S. Senate. S.2271: A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, etc. (Sponsor: Sununu). Feb. 10, 2006.

U.S. House of Representatives. H.R. 3199: To extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes. (Sponsor: Sensenbrenner) July 9, 2005.

BBC News. Final Approval for U.S. PATRIOT Act. March 8, 2006.

Updates:

Nedra Pickler. Bush Signs Renewal of Patriot Act. WashingtonPost.com. March 10, 2006.

CQ Transcriptions. Bush Speaks After Signing Patriot Act. WashingtonPost.com. March 9, 2006.

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

“Thirty-five years ago, a group of anonymous activists broke into the small, two-man office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Media, Pa., and stole more than 1,000 FBI documents that revealed years of systematic wiretapping, infiltration and media manipulation designed to suppress dissent.

“The Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI, as the group called itself, forced its way in at night with a crowbar while much of the country was watching the Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier fight. When agents arrived for work the next morning, they found the file cabinets virtually emptied.

To this day, no individual has claimed responsibility for the break-in. The FBI couldn’t solve it.

“Found among the Media documents was a new word, “COINTELPRO.”

Allan M. Jalon. A Break-In To End All Break-Ins. LATImes.com. March 8, 2006.

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

“New technologies have remade the consumer entertainment landscape, allowing creative content – such as movies, television, and radio programming – to be delivered in digital form. Because exact copies of digital content can be widely and quickly distributed, some content distributors are employing technical protection systems to manage consumer uses of copyrighted content, often characterized as “digital rights management (DRM)” technology. DRM systems are intended to enable distributors to manage consumer uses of content. In theory, this may prevent the making and distribution of infringing copies of digital works. However, use of these technologies has created controversy, especially as regards issues of “fair use” and public interest.

“The marketplace should determine the success or failure of DRM technologies but, increasingly, content distributors are turning to legislatures or the courts to erect new legal mandates to replace long-standing copyright regimes. DRM systems should be mechanisms for reinforcing existing legal constraints on behavior, not as mechanisms for creating new legal constraints. Striking a balance among consumers’ rights, public interest, and protection of valid copyright interests is no simple task for technologists or policymakers.

Association for Computing Machinery. USACM Policy Recommendations on Digital Rights Management. February 2006.

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