COPYCENSE

Guest editor Kim Hagedorn helms another edition of Copycense Clippings.

Clippings

• ArsTechnica. Library Coalition Comes Down Hard on National Security Letters. May 3, 2007. As part of National Library Legislative Day, library representative organizations discussed prospective changes to the Patriot Act with regard to national security letters, support of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, and support of DMCA exceptions to protect fair use. Categories: DMCA; Events; Libraries & Information Science.
• Boing Boing. Obama Wants Creative Commons Licensed Presidential Debates. May 3, 2007. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama sent a letter to the Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean asking that the debates be placed in the public domain or licensed using a Creative Commons license. Obama feels that allowing the debates to be publicly available, it will increase the political participation of the youth in this country. Categories: Film; Politics & Government.
• Jeremy Kirk. Google Rejects Viacom’s Copyright Claims. MacWorld. May 3, 2007. Among Google’s defenses to Viacom’s multiple count copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube is a safe harbor claim pursuant to Section 512 of the Copyright Act. Categories: Cases & Litigation; DMCA; Web & Online.
• EFF Deep Links. Virtual Classes on Cyberlaw. May 3, 2007. State of Play Academy, a virtual law and technology academy, offers free courses on such topics as “The Viacom-YouTube Lawsuit” and “Every Move You Make: Location Tracking and the Law.” Three tracks — paper workshops, issue conversations, and How-to’s — are available. The Spring 2007 sessions runs from April 23 – June 8, 2007 and new classes are added during the course of the semester. The Spring 2007 catalog is available online. Categories: Education.
• Caroline McCarthy. Digg in Tough Spot With DMCA Debacle. News.com. May 2, 2007. Digg CEO Jay Adelson announces that he will continue to let customers post code that cracks HD-DVD copy protection. Adelson’s decision to allow customers to post the code likely violates Section 1201(a)(2)(A) of the Copyright Act, which includes a prohibition on “offer[ing] to the public … or otherwise traffic[king] in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [protected] work.” Categories: DMCA.
• Derek Hill. Over-Enforcement Could Stifle Growth. Law Times. April 30, 2007. The article discusses the Viacom v. YouTube lawsuit and how Canada should learn from this case. The author advises the Canadian policy-makers that “less is more” in that more stringent laws regarding copyright infringement might, in the long-run, hinder the development of new technology. Categories: Infringement; International; Law, Legislation & Regulation.
• Economist.com. Criminalising The Consumer. April 27, 2007. The Economist, or all publications, writes an editorial chastising the use of digital rights management and copy protection. The editors claim copy protection measures just make “life difficult for paying customers” without preventing piracy, and propose that the entertainment industries stop treating customers like criminals and come up with better solutions to combat infringement. Categories: DRM; Film; File Sharing, P2P & Downloads; Music.
• Robert Townsend. Google Books: What’s Not to Like? AHA Today. April 30, 2007. An article published by the American Historical Association faults the Google Book Search project for poor scan quality, faulty metadata, and the company’s “peculiar views on copyright.” Jill Hurst-Wahl at Digitization 101 has been writing regularly about the first two for some time now. Categories: Books; Digitization; Libraries & Information Centers; Web & Online.
• Anne Broache. Supreme Court Sides with Microsoft in Patent Spat. News.com. April 30, 2007. Categories: The Supreme Court rules (.pdf) Microsoft cannot be held liable for patent infringement that may occur when it makes and installs Windows on computers outside the United States. AT&T claimed Microsoft’s practice of shipping master discs containing proprietary software code was a blueprint of an AT&T invention, not a component of that invention. Categories: Cases & Litigation; Patent.

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

Technorati Tags: Copycense, Copycense Clippings, copyright, DRM, K. Matthew Dames, licensing

Late last week, The New York Times reported that Jack Valenti died in Washington, D.C. Valenti, who was 85 years old, had been the chief lobbyist for the film industry for nearly 40 years. Valenti also was a senior aide to President Lyndon Johnson.

Valenti developed the modern film rating system that distinguishes “family friendly” films from adult films. Additionally, as former chariman of the Motion Picture Association of America, Valenti was one the main people responsible for lobbying Congress for increasingly restrictive intellectual property protections, particularly in copyright.

Valenti testified before Congress often in his capacity as MPAA chairman, and frequently his lobbyist’s rhetoric was filled with what George Orwell once called linguistic “swindles and perversions.” Among his most egregious statements was an opinion in January 2002 that his industry’s struggle with file sharing and other disruptive technologies was like fighting a “terrorist war.” Perhaps more than any other individual, Valenti was responsible for using grandiloquent and aggressive — but ultimately deceptive and inaccurate — language to further his industry’s political and public relations agenda. This kind discourse has helped unbalance this nation’s intellectual property laws.

David M. Halbfinger. Jack Valenti, Confidant of Presidents and Stars, Dies at 85. The New York Times. April 26, 2007.

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

Technorati Tags: Copycense, K. Matthew Dames

Our intrepid guest editor Kim Hagedorn came across the following story from ArsTechnica last week about the film lobby launching an RIAA-styled litigation and legislation effort to help stamp out allegedly widespread and purportedly economically damaging “piracy.” Initially, we positioned this article for our weekly edition of Clippings. Instead, we decided to do a separate post on the issue.

We debated whether or not to comment on this story, even though it was reported by ArsTechnica (an outlet whose reporting we greatly respect), because it perpetuates an ongoing public relations frame about the word “piracy.” Ulitmately, we chose to comment on the ArsTechnica post to clarify and dismantle the frame.

Black’s Law Dictionary (centennial edition, 1990), which lawyers consider the standard for legal definition and terminology, defines “piracy” as:

Those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas, which if committed on land, would have amounted to a felony. Brigandage committed on the sea or from the sea.

(In the same edition of Black’s, “brigandage” is defined as “robbery and banditry as perpetuated by a band of robbers or brigands; plundering and outlawry.”)

Under the piracy definition, Black’s also includes a reference to a provision of the U.S. Code, the official codification of American federal law, entitled “Piracy under law of nations.” According to this section of the U.S. Code, the crime of piracy has a steep penalty:

Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.

Following the “piracy” entry in Black’s to completion, the editors write:

The term is also applied to the illegal reprinting or reproduction of copyrighted matter or to unlawful plagiarism from it; and, similarly, to the unlawful reproduction or distribution of property protected by patent and trademark laws. (Emphasis supplied.)

In summary, piracy is felonious theft on the open seas. Its true meaning has nothing to do with copyright infringement, major or minor, real or imagined, actual or alleged. Through the implementation of a public relations campaign that for nearly two decades has been alternately artful, efficient, and dogged, the entertainment industries’ lobbying groups (which include the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America) have manipulated the meaning of “piracy” so that “the term is also applied” as a synonym for copyright infringement.

(As an aside, we were surprised to see that a 1990 edition of Black’s tacitly acknowledges the “piracy” frame, meaning the public relations campaign about “piracy” now is in its 17th year.)

Since at least late 2005, Copycense assiduously has avoided using the word “piracy” as a synonym for allegedly illegal uses of protected intellectual property. Since then, whenever the term has appeared in this publication, it usually appears in quotes (i.e. “piracy”). There are several reasons for our care. First, since Copycense reports on the intersection of business, law, and technology, it is unusual that we would report on anything remotely related to “acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas.”

Second, as we have shown here, the term “piracy” has nothing to do with copyright or any other form of intellectual property, much less the allegedly illegal taking of such material. Any use of the term piracy that relates to intellectual property is wrong or an overt linguistic manipulation for political or economic advantage. We’ll concede the entertainment industry’s “piracy” frame has been artful and successful. We also know that it is wrong.

Third, perpetuating the “piracy” frame pigeonholes intellectual property dialogue into a narrow box that considers only an owners’ rights. All intellectual property law is a delicate balance between the rights of the owner author, or inventor, and the public interest. In copyright law, for example, an owner’s exclusive rights generally are outlined in Sections 106 and 106A, while the public policy-oriented limitations (or exceptions) to those exclusive rights generally are codified in Sections 107 through 122.

Viewed another way, the Copyright Act of 1976 generally is constructed in a way that provides two sections for owner’s rights, and 16 sections for exceptions to and limitations on those rights. The “piracy” frame does not allow consideration of that 16 to 2 ratio, nor does it consider the dozens of situations in which people or organizations can use copyrighted works for free, and without requiring the copyright owner’s permission.

ArsTechnica is not alone in reinforcing the “piracy” frame through its reporting; several publications and organizations do it. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post are among them, and they continue to do so even though their coverage over the last 18 months increasingly has been critical of the entertainment industry, their lobbyists, and the overtly protectionist copyright laws those groups are responsible for proposing and ramming through a Congress that has been ignorant about the frame, too weak to stop it, or complicit in accepting it without the mildest investigation.

But at some point the “piracy” frame must be uncovered for what it is: public relations blather. It is sexy, simple, and concededly well-designed blather, but blather nevertheless. We have committed to avoid using “piracy” except where such use is consistent with its definition (which means we will not have much need to use it at all). Instead of “piracy,” we call on journalists, editors, and bloggers to use the phrase “alleged infringement.” Unlike “piracy,” the phrase “alleged infringement” is legally accurate, simple, and suggests that accusations of unsanctioned use of copyrighted materials are subject to exceptions and a legal process by which a judge or jury may or may not hold the accused liable for infringement or damages.

ArsTechnica. MPAA Names Its Top 25 Movie Piracy Schools. April 2, 2007.

See also:

K. Matthew Dames. “Framing the Copyright Debate.” Information Today. September 2006. Page 22.

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

Technorati Tags: CommuniK., Copycense, copyright, K. Matthew Dames, piracy

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.

Clippings

• 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. LATimes.com. 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. InternetNews.com. 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: Copycense, Copycense Clippings, copyright, DRM, K. Matthew Dames, licensing

Virginia Heffernan’s Screens blog at The New York Times has a brief but informative post about the music group Alabama 3 (a.k.a. A3), the British band that wrote “Woke Up This Morning,” the now iconic theme song to The Sopranos. Despite the fact that David Chase, James Gandolfini, and others have made boatloads of money from the show, it seems A3 has not benefitted similarly.

Screens. Woke Up This Morning. April 9, 2007.

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

Technorati Tags: Copycense, K. Matthew Dames

Guest editor Kim Hagedorn helms a special interim edition of Copycense Clippings.

Article of the Week

60 Minutes. Under the Influence. April 1, 2007. We often have said that we think Chapter 1 of Jessica Litman‘s Digital Copyright is one of the best pieces of writing available about how American copyright legislation gets made. (Think sausage.) While this 60 Minutes segment has nothing to do with copyright, it is a fascinating look at how large players within an industry can control a legislative agenda. Categories: Law, Legislation & Regulation; Politics & Government.

Quote of the Week

“Section 108 of the law, which provides limited exceptions for libraries and archives, does not adequately address many of the issues unique to digital media …” — Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights

U.S. Copyright Office. Future of Digital Libraries. March 26, 2007. Marybeth Peters is to copyright followers what Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke is to the financial markets: whenever she speaks, copyright lawyers and activists listen. Two things strike us as interesting about Ms. Peters’ quote. First, she makes the quote while The Section 108 Study Group continues to work through some very thorny issues related to the statutes application in the digital age. The Study Group originally was due to conclude its work and report to the Librarian of Congress by December 2006, but for a variety of reasons, it has extended its work into this year.

Second, while Peters’ quote articulates what most information professionals involved in copyright think is obvious, her comments suggest that only recently is she acknowledging the effect of copyright law on this nation’s de facto national library. Library representative organizations have been complaining openly about the overly protectionist slant copyright law has taken, and consistently urging changes for the past decade. But somehow it seems that Ms. Peters is just now beginning to realize that as the Library of Congress gets involved in the digitization and digital work so many other libraries already are involved in, that august institution also may be hamstrung by copyright.

I can hear librarians nationwide muttering, “Welcome to our world, Ms. Peters.” Categories: Libraries & Information Centers; Research; U.S. Copyright Office.

Clippings

• Juan Carlos Perez. AFP-Google Settlement Leaves Open Questions. InfoWorld. April 6, 2007. Google dodges another bullet. Categories: Broadcasting & Journalism; Cases & Litigation; Web & Online.
• Freedom to Tinker. EMI To Sell DRM-Free Music. April 3, 2007. Princeton computer science professor Edward Felten discusses his views on EMI’s decision to eliminate locks from digital music content sold through Apple’s iTunes store. Interestingly, Felten posits that part of this decision may help Apple quell the incessant criticism it has received in the European Union over its own copy protection scheme, FairPlay. Categories: DRM & Copy Protection; Music.
• Bob Tedeschi. Hoping to Move Guitar Notations Into the Legal Sunshine. The New York Times. April 2, 2007. The music industry long has considered guitar tablature sites to be forms of illegal reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works, and has threatened such Web sites with lawsuits in recent years. Now MusicNotes.com, an online provider of sheet music, has made an arrangement with music publisher representative Harry Fox Agency to provide Fox with a portion of advertising revenue from its subsidiary tablature site Mxtabs.net. We’ll be interested in knowing what happens if the advertising revenue does not meet the music publishers’ desire or expectations. Categories: Music. Web & Online.
• Jill E. Grogg and Beth Ashmore. Google Book Search Libraries and Their Digital Copies. Searcher. April 2007. A pair of university librarians review the Google Book Search project and its immediate and continuing effect on libraries’ digital preservation efforts. Categories: Books; Digitization; Libraries & Information Centers.
• Maria Glod. McLean Students Sue Anti-Cheating Service. WashingtonPost.com. March 29, 2007. A half dozen high school students, all minors, have sued Turnitin, alleging the anti-plagiarism site violates copyright laws. The complaint (.pdf) seeks $900,000 in damages — $150,000 for each of the six students involved in the lawsuit — for Turnitin’s archiving of the students’ work. While the lawsuit positions this as a copyright infringement lawsuit, it is more likely that the issue will turn on Turnitin’s Usage Policy, which acts as a license that likely will trump the provisions of the Copyright Act. Categories: Cases & Litigation; Education; Licensing & Permissions.
• Peter Cohen. ‘1984’ Owner Speaks Out on Obama YouTube Video. Macworld. March 28, 2007. Apple’s epic 1984 advertisement introducing the Macintosh computer has been remixed into a set of competing political ads that support the presidential candidacies of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, respectively. The owner of the film and television rights to George Orwell’s 1984, on which Apple’s advertisement and the politically-oriented remixes are based, has objected to the new versions. Interestingly, a spokesperson for Rosenblum Productions, owner of the aforementioned film and television rights, claims that the reason the Apple advertisement only has appeared once on television (during the 1984 Super Bowl) is because Rosenblum sent a cease and desist letter to Apple, claiming a “commercial infringement.” University of Michigan law professor Jessica Litman asks whether any of this is fair use. Categories: Fair Use; Politics & Government; Web & Online.
• CNet Politics Blog. Musicians Back Net Neutrality Laws. March 28, 2007. Rock the Net is sponsored by the Future of Music Coalition, and includes acts such as The Donnas, R.E.M., and Pearl Jam. We’re surprised that the musicians have coalesced around this issue, instead of the seemingly more direct issue of increased Webcasting royalty rates. While one could argue that artists could gain more money upfront from increased Webcasting royalties, the flip side of the argument is that increased rates threaten independent Web radio — which is more likely to play a wider range of music that includes more artists (especially alternative artists) — much more than the giant broadcasters who maintain Web presences, which is reserved exclusively for the largest selling music acts. Categories: Politics & Government; Music.
• Alex Veiga. EMI, Napster Lawsuit Settled. Time.com (via The Associated Press). March 27, 2007. Let’s forget this lawsuit for a minute, and instead talk about Shawn Fanning, the founder and technical architect of the original Napster program. If there is any person who is responsible for creating a single technological innovation that simultaneously disrupted business models and legal constructs, it’s Fanning. We contend that Fanning “got it” to an extent that most of us still fail to, and that his contributions to the digital society in which we now live are greatly underappreciated. Categories: Cases & Litigation; File Sharing, P2P & Downloads; Music.
• ArsTechnica. Students Largely Ignore RIAA Instant Settlement Offers. March 26, 2007. It turns out that only about a quarter of the students that have received received RIAA pre-litigation letters have sought settlement. Most of the other 75 percent will default. Is it possible the best answer to the RIAA litigation attempt is to avoid answering at all? Categories: Cases & Litigation; Education; File Sharing & P2P; Infringement; Music.
• Sivacracy.net. The Camel Library. March 26, 2007. This story made us realize how much we take having access to books for granted. The Camel Library, which shuttles books between Somalia and Kenya, is requesting donations. Now, an Amazon.com customer has created a Wish List that will allow folks to make donations to the library. Categories: International; Library & Information Science.
• ArsTechnica. Music Publishers Sue XM Radio Over “Downloads.” March 23, 2007. The music industry has thrown another lawsuit against XM Radio, claiming that XM Radio users have the ability to download broadcasts, thereby making. As XM tries wrestles with antitrust regulators over the implications of its proposed merger with Sirius, this lawsuit is likely the last thing Washington, DC-based XM wants to have to deal with right now. Categories: Broadcasting & Journalism; Cases & Litigation; File Sharing, P2P & Downloads; Music; Web & Online.
• News.com (via Reuters). Starz Sues Disney Over Movie Downloads. March 23, 2007. Big name lawsuits over video downloads seem to be increasing in number. Starz alleges that providing iTunes and Walmart downloads of such movies as “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” is a breach of its contract with Disney. Categories: Cases & Litigation; File Sharing, P2P & Downloads; Film; Web & Online.
• ArsTechnica. News Corp. and NBC Announce Partnership to Create YouTube Competitor. March 22, 2007. NBC has “complained” about show clips appearing on YouTube, all the while stoking the publicity those clips receive on the Google video network. News Corp. and NBC probably won’t have copyright infringement concerns since they are providng broadcasting of their programs such as My Name is Earl and Saturday Night Live. They have also are a little different from YouTube in that they are in control of the content. Perhaps now we can watch SNL at a time when we’re actually awake. Categories: Broadcasting & Journalism; Film; Multimedia.

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

Technorati Tags: Copycense, Copycense Clippings, copyright, DRM, K. Matthew Dames, licensing

There are two kinds of interviews: interviews that go well, and interviews that are difficult. This is one that went well.

We here at Copycense have been following The Patry Copyright Blog for some time now. And why wouldn’t we? In the area of copyright, there are few that can match William Patry’s credentials. He is the author of three copyright treatises, the most recent of which is a recently released, seven-volume, nearly 6,000 page opus entitled simply Patry on Copyright.

Patry now serves as senior copyright counsel for Google, Inc., but this appointment comes after a quarter century of work in copyright law as a professor; copyright counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives; policy advisor to the Register of Copyrights; and attorney in private practice.

So when William e-mailed me earlier this year to ask, effectively, would I mention Patry on Copyright in Copycense, my rather incredulous response was: “You are kidding me, right?” To me, that was the equivalent of Wynton Marsalis asking a musician if he could make time to sit in with the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra.

What follows is a portion of an hour-long interview in which Patry discusses his new treatise, his position at Google; the Google Book Search litigation; and why he thinks copyright terms last too long.

Editor’s Note: Over the next few weeks, additional portions of this interview will be made available on Copycense both in text and as the publication’s inaugural set of podcasts. Most of this interview also will be published in the June issue of Searcher magazine.

K. Matthew Dames (Copycense): I did want to ask you your opinion about a case that Google is not involved in, but is continuation of the term extension issue and gets into the public domain area. This is the Kahle v. Gonzales case that was decided at the end of January. Do you think that case was correctly decided, and what is the continuing effect on the public domain based upon this litigation?

William Patry: I heard the oral argument in the case, and I’ve read the opinion. The issue that the plaintiffs were advancing is “What is the correct standard of review?” That’s what the [Ninth Circuit] Court of Appeals was deciding, at least at plaintiff’s request. [The plaintiffs] wanted to go back to the trial court and have legislation reviewed under a particular First Amendment standard.

And the Court of Appeals said, “Well, we’re not sure that’s not the right standard because this isn’t a First Amendment case. This is a copyright case. So, we’ll take you on the merits and say ‘The argument that you made is the same argument that was made in the Eldred [case], and rejected.” Although, [the issue] wasn’t exactly the same because the statute was slightly different, and there were different issues [in Eldred v. Ashcroft] (.pdf).

In terms of a narrow reading of that as turning on either what’s the appropriate standard of review for legislation, or whether the Supreme Court had already taken a look at that, the [Ninth] Circuit’s view was that [the First Amendment argument] wasn’t the appropriate standard of review, but even if it is, we’re going to say that the Supreme Court has already addressed this. So, you lose: you don’t get to make your arguments [at the lower, trial court]

From a policy standpoint, I think the duration of copyright is way too long. Whether “life plus 50 [years]” was correct or not I think can only be answered by taking into account what we got internationally. There was never an argument that “life plus 50” was required to give adequate incentive; “life plus 50” had been the standard in the Berne Convention for some period of time, and the idea of shifting to that in the [Copyright Act of 1976] was … because it benefited us overseas. If I had the ability to write the copyright laws myself, I would probably make the term life of the author and that’s it. I think the [current] term is way too long from a policy standpoint.

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

Technorati Tags: Copycense, Copycense Conversations, copyright, K. Matthew Dames, William Patry