COPYCENSE

Christina Hernandez. Colleges to Copyright Electronic Material. Newsday. Jan. 20, 2008. The Newsday editors’ headline reflects a misunderstanding of the issues, and (if he was quoted correctly) AAP representative Adler engages in a rhetorical stretch when he claims all three schools established their guidelines “in conjunction with” AAP. Nevertheless, the publishers’ saber rattling over electronic reserves continues: this is an extension of the Cornell-AAP “agreement” we wrote about in October 2006.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 22, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Larry Barrett. Publishing Company Settles Software Suit With SIIA. Internetnews.com. Jan. 18, 2008. We find it interesting that while SIIA promotes that it will pay informants up to $1 million to snitch on others for alleged copyright infringement, the lobbying group (which counts among its membership Bloomberg, Dow Jones, Reed Elsevier, and Copyright Clearance Center) has paid out only $39,500, or an average of $2,821.43 per informant. This makes us wonder whether McNulty and Greggs pay Bubbles better for his information than the multinational database content industry pays for its information.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 22, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Julie Hilden. Seinfeld Sued: Will “Sneaky Chef” Author Missy Chase Lapine Succeed In Her Suit Against Jerry and Jessica Seinfeld? FindLaw. Jan. 15, 2008. We reported on Jessica Seinfeld’s cookbook back in October. Now the inevitable lawsuit (.pdf) has been filed, alleging copyright infringement and defamation, among other things. As William Patry noted in a comment about an infringement case involving the Baltimore Ravens’ logo, substantial similarity should not be enough to win an infringement lawsuit. The evidence also should show the defendant had access to the allegedly infringed work. Stay tuned.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 22, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Steven Stanek. Can Egypt Copyright the Pyramids? National Geographic News. Jan. 15, 2008. We are sympathetic to Egypt’s attempt to preserve some of its greatest artifacts, especially since so many of them have left the country (in many cases under questionable circumstances). Still, the thought of this proposal brings chills to our collective spines.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 22, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

If there’s any single writer that can make copyright humorous, it is William Patry. When describing the push to equate copyright (a relatively minor issue in the broader scheme of world affairs) with human rights (an extraordinarily important issue), Patry comments with typical sarcasm: “I confess to being moved to tears by European human rights attorneys taking up the cause of very large U.S. broadcasting corporations: Donald Rumsfeld was so wrong.”

Seriously, though, the injection of copyright into international affairs has been steady and dangerous since the trend results only in more rights for multinational corporations. Talk about “authors” and “creators” has little to do with individuals who create original works fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Those words merely are code designed to make readers think Grandma needs more rights to protect her cross-stitch designs. In reality, “Grandma” is a global commercial behemoth with business presences on all continents that is hell bent on leveraging copyright and other intellectual property schemes to foster dollar-driven hegemony.

(Well, perhaps not the dollar these days. Substitute the Euro.)

In fact, one could argue reasonably that here in the U.S., the effort to move copyright past what Patry calls its “current Incredible Hulk level” is occurring at least as much on the international and local levels as it is in Congress. We have reported several of the entertainment and content industries’ lobbying efforts have resulted in a sort of “paracopyright” at the state level. (California’s passage of AB 307, which ties school funding to a copyright “education” program influenced by the RIAA, is one example.)

And, of course, we have chronicled at several junctures the Special 301 process under the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The Federal Register notice that effectively asks multinational corporations and their trade groups to tell the Trade Representative which countries have failed to draft (or enforce) copyright law at America’s “Incredible Hulk level” was published last week. It is due on Monday, February 11. The copyright choke hold is in full effect and running on all eight cylinders.

The Patry Copyright Blog. Appeals to Human Rights: The Next Battlefield? Jan. 17, 2008.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 22. 2008 edition of Copycense Clippings, and it was an Article of the Week selection.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense