Copycense Clippings 1.12

Once again, our intrepid guest editor Kim Hagedorn leads the charge for the latest edition of Copycense Clippings.

Article of the Week

U.S. Copyright Office. New Online Option for Copyright Registration. April 4, 2007. Updating Clippings 1.08, this is not so much an article, but an announcement (albeit an important announcement). The U.S. Copyright Office’s eCO portal will allow authors the ability to file copyright registrations online in exchange for a lower filing fee of $35 per application. (The normal paper registration process will remain $45 per application.) This is a great tool for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the effective cost of copyright registration is not $45 per application, but $55 to $60 per application. Since all U.S. Postal Service mail to U.S. government offices is still being scanned offsite because of the anthrax poisoning incident in 2001, the only way you can ensure quick and direct posting of your registration forms is to send them by private courier like Federal Express or UPS.

While the Office’s eCO venture does nothing to require registration (which has been optional since America became a signatory to the Berne Convention, and a situation we think contributes greatly the orphan works problem), the electronic submission process should facilitate — and therefore increase — registration numbers. Quite the keen move by the Copyright Office. The new service will be available July 1, 2007. Categories: Registration; U.S. Copyright Office; Web & Online.


  • Steve Lohr. Microsoft Urges Review of Google-DoubleClick Deal. The New York Times. April 16, 2007. Microsoft — Microsoft — is objecting to the Google-DoubleClick deal on antitrust grounds, citing the transaction would “substantially reduce competition in the advertising market on the Web”? It is laughably ironic that Microsoft would encourage U.S. regulators to investigate the antitrust implications of a deal involving online or computer technology. Is this simply a matter of sour grapes, or is Redmond really concerned that this deal (along with the radio advertising partnership Google closed with Clear Channel, also last week) leaves it with its lunch eaten in the online ad market? Categories: Antitrust; Business & Commerce; Web & Online.
  • Erik Jensen. Boy Dupes YouTube to Delete Videos. The Sydney Morning Herald. April 14, 2007. A teenager from West Australia poses as an ABC executive and uses the DMCA’s takedown provisions to delete more than 200 videos from YouTube. What, exactly, does this say about the validity and due process of the takedown provisions? Categories: DMCA; Film; Web & Online.
  • John Dunbar. FCC Unveils Settlement With Radio Firms. Business Week (via The Associated Press). April 13, 2007. Lost in last week’s hullaballoo about Don Imus was this settlement in which four broadcasters, responsible for more than 1,600 radio stations nationwide, agreed to an “unprecedented” three-year settlement. The FTC alleged the broadcasters were involved in accepting cash and merchandise from record companies in exchange for airplay. (As is par for the course in these types of settlements, the broadcasters admit no wrongdoing.) Categories: Broadcasting & Journalism; Law, Legislation & Regulation; Music.
  • J. Scott Orr. NFL: No Penalty for Copyright Clip. The Star-Ledger. April 12, 2007. In its ongoing dispute with law professor Wendy Seltzer, the National Football League says Seltzer can post a recording of the video clip’s copyright notice, but not any portion of game footage, because game footage is protected by copyright. What the League (or “the Ligg,” as one Tony Kornheiser would put it) refuses to concede is the obvious other shoe: limited portions of copyrighted material that are used for instructional purposes, and which have no material, negative affect on the broadcast or its financial market may be used pursuant to Section 107 (and perhaps other exceptions). This means even the NFL’s game footage may be reproduced, distributed, publicly displayed, publicly performed or remixed in certain contexts. Of course, the DMCA’s takedown procedure does not allow for such considerations. Further, the Ligg would NEVER make such a concession public, lest the public know about — and exercise — fair use. Categories: Broadcasting & Journalism; DMCA; Education.
  • Wired’s Compiler. Mark Cuban And EFF Debate YouTube And Copyright. April 9, 2007. Fred Von Lohmann, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s senior intellectual property attorney, discusses YouTube, the DMCA and its safe harbor provisions, and all manner of copyright issues with Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban. Why? While this likely makes for good video (and likely ensured a good turnout at EFF’s recent 16th Annual Pioneer Awards ceremony late last month), why is EFF giving Cuban a stage on something like copyright? Cuban knows little about copyright, and the fact that he blogs a lot and has made a lot of money does not change that fact one bit. Sometimes, EFF ventures into really odd territory; we feel this is one of those times. Categories: DMCA; Events; Film.
  • Dawn C. Chmielewski and Marc Lifsher. Recording, Movie Industries Lobby for Permission to Deceive. April 7, 2007. The entertainment industry now wants to use “pretexting” — the practice of obtaining and using false statements and other misleading practices to get personal information — in an attempt to continue to wage the “war on ‘piracy’.” Pretexting, if you recall, was what was legally and morally objectionable in the HP scandal last year, which ended with the exoneration of former board chairwoman Patricia Dunn. The California legislature is considering legislation that would ban pretexting. It is rather galling that somehow the entertainment industry feels “piracy” is so compelling a problem that it warrants going against a statewide legislative priority. Categories: Film; Law, Legislation & Regulation; Music.
  • David Needle. An ACID Solution to Copyright Protection. April 5, 2007. Let’s play a game. Here are some keywords that indicated why Autonomy’s Virage ACID software can be considered ridiculous, if not outright malicious: the TEACH Act. Fair Use. First Sale. Rootkit. Sony-BMG. Edward Felten & SDMI. Need we continue? Categories: Computers & Technology; DRM & Copy Protection; Tech & Devices.
  • U.S. Copyright Office. Registration of Claims to Copyright–Renewals (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). April 4, 2007. “The Copyright Office is proposing to amend its regulations governing applications for registration of claims to the renewal term of copyright. This notice seeks public comment on the proposed amended regulations, which will take into account the fact that, since January 1, 2006, all applications for renewal have necessarily related to works which are subject to automatic renewal and, thus, are already in their renewal terms, making impossible any 28th-year registration of claims to the renewal term.” They are looking for public comments on the proposed changes (37 CFR Part 202), and the deadline to provide comments is May 4, 2007. Categories: Law, Legislation & Regulation; Registration; U.S. Copyright Office.
  • Technology Law & Marketing Blog. Utah Bans Keyword Advertising. April 3, 2007. So Utah has been in the news blogs quite a bit lately because of their inventive laws. The state’s new Trademark Protection Act (U.B. 236) would ban keyword advertising, even though the law is impossible to enforce due to this global phenomenon called the World Wide Web. I (Kim) lived there for quite a few years and I am not surprised by the bizarro laws being passed. When discussing them, all I can say is “Well, it is Utah.” Categories: Law, Legislation & Regulation; Web & Online.
  • ArsTechnica. E.U. Investigation Apple, Big Four Labels Over Country-Specific Pricing. April 2, 2007. Apple continues to have trouble in Europe, this time because the European Union is investigating possible antitrust problems with iTunes’ varying price structure in different countries. Countries have complained since 2004 about the unequal pricing. Categories: Antitrust; Music; Tech & Devices.
  • Marty Schwimmer’s The Trademark Blog. Chooseco v. Daimler. April 1, 2007. We used to love the “Choose Your Own Adventure” books in elementary school. We weren’t aware they were still around in the late nineties. Now, the publisher of the original books is suing Jeep for trademark infringement, and Jeep is refusing to remove the mark from the advertisements. We wonder which is cheaper: defending the lawsuit or reworking the advertising? Categories: Cases & Litigation; Trademark.
  • ACRL Podcasts. Ever Wonder What the Future Holds? March 31, 2007. I (Kim) have witnessed the 3rd, 4th, and 5th assumptions of ACRL’s top ten assumptions for the future of academic and research libraries while working at Syracuse University’s Special Collections Research Library. At the library, we receive many research questions that request more access to digitized items. This confirms many of these assumptions are on target. Categories: Digitization; Libraries & Information Science.

Copycense™: Creativity & Content.™ A venture of Seso Group LLC.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Written by sesomedia

04/17/2007 at 09:00

Posted in Uncategorized

%d bloggers like this: