COPYCENSE

Commentary by K. Matthew Dames, executive editor.

I have never met Michael Gorman, president of the American Library Association. I will assume, however, that someone within the Association has had time to brief Mr. Gorman on the key issues involved in the Google Print controversies since his June inauguration. Unfortunately, his comments in the Nov. 1 edition of The Wall Street Journal suggest he has not received (or ignored) such a briefing:

“I feel that this is a potential disaster on several levels,” said Michael Gorman, president of the American Library Association and university librarian at California State University, Fresno. “They are reducing scholarly texts to paragraphs. The point of a scholarly text is they are written to be read sequentially from beginning to end, making an argument and engaging you in dialogue.”

Mr. Gorman, who said the American Library Association doesn’t have an official position on the subject, described Google’s argument that Web users will be able to look at several snippets and then decide whether they want to buy or read the book as “ridiculous.” Further, he noted that as a published author, he opposes Google’s intention to build an enormous database that includes copyrighted texts. “It’s a flaunting of my intellectual property rights,” he said.

Mr. Gorman’s comments show a shocking naivete about his presidential post, a stunning lack of perspective and knowledge about the Google Print projects, and a disappointing waste of the influence the ALA could and should wield in this debate.

Read the rest of this entry »

“In the thousands of years that humans have been producing written works, we’ve amassed quite a collection of them. However, most of us have little or no access to, or even knowledge of, most of that collection because it is scattered in bits and pieces around the world. Wouldn’t it be convenient if we could easily search that archive on the Web?

“That’s the basic concept behind the Google Print project and more recent plans by the Open Content Alliance. Google is focusing its efforts on books, while the Open Content Alliance’s plans include film and multimedia works as well.

“So far, so good–except for the pesky little issue of copyright.”

Anush Yegyazarian. World Wide Library? PC World. Nov. 3, 2005.

See also:

DigitalKoans.com. The Google Print Controversy: A Bibliography. Oct. 25, 2005.

K. Matthew Dames. Why Google Shouldn’t Punt on Litigation. CopyCense. Oct. 4, 2005.

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

Commentary by K. Matthew Dames, executive editor.

This afternoon, the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property (which has jurisdiction over intellectual property matters will hold an Oversight Hearing on “Content Protection in the Digital Age: The Broadcast Flag, High-Definition Radio, and the Analog Hole.

Some of the usual characters will appear to testify, including MPAA CEO Dan Glickman, RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol, and Michael D. Petricone of the Consumer Electronics Association. (Gigi B. Sohn of Public Knowledge also is scheduled to testify.) The MPAA is expected to present a pair of draft bills that articulate its interpretation of the broadcast flag debate.

Do you ever wonder why the intellectual property debate is so stale? It’s because Big Content dominates the congressional hearings, the legislative proposals, the public relations campaigns, and the overall message. I will concede that Big Content is good at controlling the message, but not because the message is worthwhile. Big Content dominates the message because it still controls the major content distribution channels and the money needed to shape the messages that flow through those channels.

Even organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which does fabulous work, seem not have learned how to craft the message so that cats like Jerome from Southeast DC is interested in what happens inside the dome across town. (Given Clinton Portis’ abysmal performance last Sunday against the Giants, I gather it will be quite a while before Jerome appears again.) Here’s how EFF explains the broadcast flag debate:

Today, you can use any device you like with your television: VCR, TiVo, DVD recorder, home theater receiver, or a PC combining these functions and more. If the FCC’s broadcast flag mandate had taken effect, some of those capabilities would have been forbidden.

Responding to pressure from Hollywood, the FCC had adopted a rule requiring future digital television (DTV) tuners to include “content protection” (aka DRM) technologies. All makers of HDTV receivers would have been required build their devices to watch for a broadcast “flag” embedded in programs by copyright holders. When it comes to digital recording, it would be Hollywood’s DRM way or the highway. Want to burn that recording digitally to a DVD to save hard drive space? Sorry, the DRM lock-box won’t allow it. How about sending it over your home network to another TV? Not unless you rip out your existing network and replace it with DRMd routers. Kind of defeats the purpose of getting a high definition digital signal, doesn’t it?

This doesn’t appeal to Jerome from Southeast DC, Iris from uptown, Callie from Iowa, or any person that just wants a simple explanation of why they should care about broadcast flag.

Here’s what Jerome from Southeast DC wants to hear: “Dude, if The Man gets his way on this, you won’t be able to use your TiVo, or your DVD player, or your CD player because The Man is going to jack your signal. You wont be able to skip ads on The Simpsons, you won’t be able to fast forward past 32 minutes of previews that appear on The Wire DVD, and you could miss Clinton Portis go for 9 yards on four carries.”

Jerome does not want to know anything about technology; he only wants to know if he can’t hear his music, record his games, or watch his movies. If you tell him Big Content is going to make him pay full price for the right to have his digital signal jacked, he’ll understand that.

I don’t want to hear another word from Glickman or Bainwol. They should be put on ice for six months, minimum. I want to hear from Jerome. And organizations like EFF and Public Knowledge need folks like Jerome, Iris, and Callie to be interested in these issues for them to have a shot at competing with Big Content.

Legislating IP. Broadcast Flag and the Analog Hole. Nov. 1, 2005.

Updates:

Anne Broache. Congress Divided on Broadcast Flag Plan. News.com. Nov. 3, 2005.

Editor’s Note: While I quibble with how EFF, Public Knowledge and other organizations explain the importance of these issues in a way the general public can understand, they do make it easy for people who understand the issues to get involved. EFF, for example, has created a fill-in form (complete with letter) that will send a letter of protest to the congressional representative in your district. I applaud EFF’s efforts to make it easy for people to protest Big Content’s broadcast flag initiative.

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

“Google will resume its plans to scan copyrighted library books into its search engine after a self-imposed hiatus, according to a published report that says the effort could set the stage for a legal fight affecting both the future of the Internet and the publishing industry.”

CNN. Google to Resume Book Scans. Nov. 1, 2005.

Updates:

Wired News. Google Library Open for Business. Nov. 3, 2005. (“Google will begin serving up the entire contents of books and government documents on Thursday, at least those that aren’t entangled in a copyright battle over how much material can be scanned.”)

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

“Sooner or later, it was bound to happen — a Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) management technology that, by design, often keeps you from consuming that content on devices that use other DRM technologies actually ends up keeping you from consuming content that’s protected by it as well.

“Talk about a trainwreck. Actually, in this case, we have two trainwrecks in one — trainwrecks that perfectly demonstrate how proprietary DRM technologies are going to turn the frictionless utopia we should be after into a friction-laden migraine headache.”

Between the Lines. DRM Technology Has Its First Two Major Trainwrecks. October 28, 2005.

See also:

Jessica Dye. Sun Shines On Open Source DRM Development. EContent. Nov. 1, 2005.

Between the Lines. Sun’s Schwartz Has Right DRM Idea, but Maybe Not the Power. Oct. 6, 2005.

Jay Lyman. Can Sun, or Anyone, Make DRM Better with Open Source? IT Manager’s Journal. Sept. 30, 2005.

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