COPYCENSE

Analysis of Why New DVDs Will Fail

“The new DVD formats have been designed to be the product the movie industry wants: expensive, impossible to copy and based on discs useless outside the country they were bought in. Precisely what consumers don’t want.

“When I buy a CD today I make a perfect copy which I store to a hard drive on my desk and use that copy to make a compressed copy I can carry around in my iPod. The physical CD then goes into its box forever (I don’t buy my music online because it’s crippled by DRM and the sound quality’s too low to invest thousands of dollars in).

“People want to do the same thing with their movies.”



SugarBank. The DVD Market is Dead (Part 2). Aug. 17, 2005.

See also:

SugarBank. The DVD Market is Dead (Part 1). Aug. 15, 2005.

Written by sesomedia

08/19/2005 at 08:45

Posted in Uncategorized

LOC Launches Copyright Committee Web Site

"The Library of Congress has launched a new public Web site
to cover the groundbreaking work of a special independent committee. By
2006, this committee will recommend changes to copyright law that
recognize the need for exceptions to the law for libraries and archives
in the digital age.

"The site, at www.loc.gov/section108,
offers the group’s mission statement, its schedule of meetings and
links to relevant sections of the Copyright Act. The site also offers
links to background papers pertinent to libraries and archives and the
rights issues they encounter when working with digital materials."

Library of Congress. Library Launches Web Site on Independent Copyright Committee. (Press Release.) Aug. 17, 2005.

Written by sesomedia

08/19/2005 at 08:04

Posted in Research, Web & Online

Why Copyright Education Is Needed

I have been trolling the Web, looking to catch up on things I’ve missed over the last week or so. I found this statement on Aaron Swartz’s blog:

“Google won’t even scan any book copyright holders ask them not to, even though doing so is perfectly legal.”

(I don’t know Mr. Swartz, although a Google search suggests that many others do, or at least know of him.)

Mr. Swartz is upset that Google has discontinued its Google Print Library Project due to pressure from publishers who are concerned about the copyright implications inherent in the project. That is his opinion, and he is entitled to it. But to say that it is “perfectly legal” for Google to scan a book that remains under copyright is misleading at best, and skidding dangerously into just plain wrong.

The Google Print Library Project is predicated upon the most basic of copyright rights: the owner’s exclusive right of reproduction, as codified in Section 106(1). What Google is doing by scanning books is to make a digital reproduction of these works. That action implicates the reproduction right, and if Google cannot find a limitation on the publishers’ exclusive rights (which may be found somewhere in Sections 107 through 122), it is liable for copyright infringement under Section 501(a).

Granted, there are other considerations. One or more of the libraries involved in the project may be able to digitally reproduce some of their holdings pursuant to library limitations at Section 108, or perhaps even the fair use limitation codified at Section 107. Google itself could claim a fair use limitation under Section 107, but that requires analysis I don’t want to engage in right now (mostly because I’m holding it for another, more formal article). But I think Google’s fair use claim is shaky at best.

I agree with Mr. Swartz’s assessment that the publishers are barking up the wrong tree, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it’s “perfectly legal” for Google to go ahead with its digitization plan. Unfortunately, Mr. Swartz perpetuates a common misconception among technologists and information professionals about copyright and its importance to the business of information.

Google Weblog. Google Sells Out Users to Publishers. Aug. 12, 2005.

See also:

Google Blog. Making Books Easier to Find. Aug. 11, 2005.

Written by sesomedia

08/18/2005 at 09:00

Posted in Web & Online

Web Site Addresses Issues Unique to Digital Media

“The Library of Congress has launched a new public Web site to cover the groundbreaking work of a special independent committee. By 2006, this committee will recommend changes to copyright law that recognize the need for exceptions to the law for libraries and archives in the digital age.

“The site, at www.loc.gov/section108, offers the group’s mission statement, its schedule of meetings and links to relevant sections of the Copyright Act. The site also offers links to background papers pertinent to libraries and archives and the rights issues they encounter when working with digital materials.”

Library of Congress. Library Launches Web Site on Independent Copyright Committee. (Press Release.) Aug. 17, 2005.

Attribution: Circular 92 first discovered news of this public Web site through a posting in Resource Shelf, edited by Gary Price.

Written by sesomedia

08/18/2005 at 08:19

Posted in Uncategorized

Valeo IP Discontinues Business

(Editor’s Note: I know I am quite late on this, but this news slipped past me during our summer of content migration and re-launch. Thank you to Barbara Hirsh, with whom I am doing some sessions during the upcoming Buying Digital conference, for the news.)

“Valeo IP, a service that provides rights clearance and reprints of copyrighted material from publishers’ websites, is ceasing operations by the end of this summer.

“Valeo IP had existed for over six years under different names and owners. Its essential business began life as iCopyright.com and embodied a simple idea: to get those who wish to make copies of publishers’ articles on websites to respect copyright, by making it as easy as possible to do so.”

DRM Watch. Valeo IP to Shut Down. July 7, 2005.

Written by sesomedia

08/18/2005 at 07:52

Posted in Uncategorized

Google Print Still Suffers Potential Legal Problems

“On August 11, Google announced on its blog that they are suspending its scanning of copyrighted works from libraries. Scanning will resume in November, which presumably gives publishers who are rights-holders time to opt-out with a list of books they do not want scanned at the library.

“There are still huge problems with Google’s new description of its Library Project. The biggest problem is that Google is trying to offer an ‘opt-out’ approach to publishers, while copyright law is clearly a matter of ‘express consent.'”

Daniel Brandt. Google Spins to Avoid Copyright Challenges. Google Watch. Aug. 12, 2005.

Written by sesomedia

08/17/2005 at 08:55

Posted in Web & Online

MobHappy: Why DRM Will Kill Mobile Music

“I was in a record store here in Austin, and I saw the CD of a band I’ve been hearing on XM and net radio stations that I’ve been wanting to check out. I was looking at it, flipped it over, and was presented with a compatibility notice detailing the restrictions caused by the CD’s DRM.

“Although none of this would have been a problem for me, I still didn’t buy the CD — I’ve got no interest in making a record label think that, as a consumer, I think that sort of thing is ok, because it’s not. It’s just stupid.”

MobHappy. Why DRM Will Kill Mobile Music. Aug. 16, 2005.

Written by sesomedia

08/17/2005 at 08:52

Posted in Uncategorized

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »