Big Music Attempts to Seize Satellite Radio
“A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation that would require satellite radio companies to compensate the music industry for downloads, industry and congressional sources said.
“The PERFORM Act, or the Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act of 2006, would require satellite, cable and Internet broadcasters to pay fair market value for the performance of digital music. The bill also would require the use of readily available and cost-effective technological means to prevent music theft.
“The legislation, by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and majority leader Bill Frist (R-TN), is aimed at compensating copyright holders as satellite radio services become distribution services.”
Brooks Boliek. Hill Aims Bill at Sat Downloads. HollywoodReporter.com. April 26, 2006.
See also:
The Patry Copyright Blog. The PERFORM Act. April 26, 2006.
U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary. Parity, Platforms, and Protection: The Future of the Music Industry in the Digital Radio Revolution. April 26, 2006.
Freedom to Tinker. U.S. Copyright May Get Harsher and Broader. April 25, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
French DRM Law Being Shaped By Big Content
“A French proposal to change the way DRM is protected under law has been hijacked by entertainment companies and DRM vendors, and now promises to be one of the worst DRM laws in the world.
“Previously, we wrote about the new French DRM law proposal, which held out the promise of being the first real attempt in the world to balance the legal protection of anti-user technology with the public interest. The activists of EUCD.info were concerned that the proposal was being hijacked by Universal/Vivendi, and this has come to pass.
Boing Boing. French DRM Law Gets Ugly. April 28, 2006.
See also:
Peter Sayer. French Could Outlaw Open Source DRM, Peer-to-Peer. InfoWorld. April 14, 2006.
CopyCense. French Seem Ready to Open iTunes DRM. March 21, 2006.
Boing Boing. English Info on France’s Terrible Proposed Copyright Law. Dec. 5, 2005.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
EFF Plans Return to Washington
“The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the original digital rights group, is venturing inside the Beltway once again. EFF has hired two attorneys experienced in suing the federal government under the Freedom of Information Act and plans to open an office in downtown Washington, D.C., on Aug. 1.
“One of EFF’s new hires is expected to be Marcia Hofmann, staff counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, who has made headlines for suing the U.S. Justice Department and Homeland Security in an effort to document government wrongdoing and privacy invasions. A lawsuit currently in progress attempts to force the Bush administration to reveal documents about allegedly illegal surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency.
“The other new hire is expected to be David Sobel, EPIC’s general counsel and an FOIA litigator since 1982, who will work part-time.”
Declan McCullagh. EFF Reaches Out to D.C. With New Office. News.com. April 27, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Tech Firms Lose Net Neutrality Battle
“A host of tech outfits, from Google to Intel, suffered a setback in a battle over access to the Internet on Apr. 26. At issue is whether telcos like AT&T and cable operators such as Comcast, which maintain the country’s vast broadband networks, can favor one provider’s Web traffic over another’s. A measure that would bar the practice was shot down by a Congressional committee.
“In a vote of 34 to 22, the House Committee on Energy & Commerce rejected an amendment to a sweeping telecommunications law, the Communications, Promotion, & Enhancement Act of 2006. The proposal, by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), would have given the Federal Communications Commission the power to prohibit discrimination when it comes to sending traffic over the Internet. In effect, the amendment would block the creation of a multilane ‘information highway,”‘where network operators could give preference to their own content, or ensure speedier delivery to content providers that pay extra fees.”
Burt Helm. Tech Giants’ Internet Battles. BusinessWeek Online. April 27, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Miro Family Asks (And Receives) Removal of Google Logo
Interesting, the reaction to Google’s take on surrealist painter Joan Miro’s work. Since 2000, Google Webmaster Dennis Hwang has created original, interesting, and often memorable doodles that appear on the Google home page and incorporate the Google logo.
(In order to protect CopyCense from having to defend against a DMCA automatic takedown, the editors have chosen not to display the Google-Miro doodle or a snapshot of the Google homepage that includes the Google-Miro doodle.)
Last Thursday, Hwang (and we’ll presume it was Hwang) created a doodle to commemorate the anniversary of the 1893 birth of the Spanish painter. Neither Miro’s family nor the Artists Rights Society (ARS), an entity that controls the copyrights to many of Miro’s works, was not pleased, according to the San Jose Mercury News.
The family of Joan Miro was upset to discover elements of several works by the Spanish surrealist incorporated into Google’s logo. Google has since taken the logo off its site.
The Artists Rights Society, a group that represents the Miro family and more than 40,000 visual artists and their estates, had asked Google to remove the image early this morning.
“There are underlying copyrights to the works of Miro, and they are putting it up without having the rights,” said Theodore Feder, president of Artists Rights Society.
In a written statement to the Mercury News, Google said that it would honor the request but that it did not believe its logo was a copyright violation.
It is possible that ARS was concerned about the way in which the doodle portrayed Miro’s work, and in the art world, portrayal and context both are important. Many industrialized countries outside the United States address the presentation and portrayal of visual work through a concept called moral rights. The main purpose of moral rights legislation is to protect the integrity and reputation of visual art by and for the work’s creator.
U.S. copyright law includes analogous legislation, called the Visual Artists Rights Act (“VARA”). Passed in 1990, VARA allows the creator of visual art (including paintings, drawings, prints, photographs or sculptures produced in limited quantities) from having his work mutilated or defaced, or being associated with works that are not entirely his. Under VARA, which is codified in the Act at Section 106A, creators of visual art receive these special rights in addition to all the usual rights the Act affords to copyright owners under Section 106.
Fair use is the only exception to moral rights under VARA. (In contrast, the six rights in Section 106 may be limited by any number of limitations or exceptions that are codified in Sections 107 through 122 of the Act.)
I have heard Miro’s name before, but I concede I was not aware of his work in any, way, shape, or form before Google posted the doodle last week. It is possible that there are several others who were unfamiliar with Miro’s work before Hwang created the doodle. If so, then ARS may have committed a sizable business error in having Google pull down the doodle: the doodle, which linked to a Google search on Joan Miro, may have spurred many to learn more about the artist. This increased recognition may have led to greater interest in Miro’s art, and in turn, higher prices for Miro’s originals and prints.
Further, Feder’s comments conveniently eliminate the possibility that Google and Hwang may have been able to create the doodle pursuant to fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. Since ARS does business in New York City, the entity is subject to the copyright laws of this country, including, but not limited to, the fair use provisions.
In the MercuryNews.com piece, Feder said “the society receives hundreds of requests each day from media organizations who are interested in reproducing a copyrighted work in some form. He said the authorization process is simple: all Google needed to do was send an e-mail asking permission to use the images.”
Fortunately, the viability of fair use does not depend upon receiving permission from the copyright owner or its agent. Nowhere in Section 107 does Congress establish requesting or receiving permission as a condition precedent to fair use. In fact, the whole point of fair use (in addition to many other of the copyright limitations found in Sections 107 through 122) is to be able to use protected works without having to ask for, wait to receive, or receive permission from the copyright owner or its agent.
Of course, copyright owners will not tell you that because it’s not in their interest to do so. Also, they probably don’t tell you that information because they are ignorant about copyright law themselves.
Elise Ackerman. Artist’s Family Asks Google to Take Down ‘Painted’ Logo. MercuryNews.com. April 20, 2006.
See also:
The Patry Copyright Blog. How Copyright is Getting a Bad Name. April 25, 2006.
The Trademark Blog. Google’s Commemorative Logos. April 24, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC. CopyCense™ and CommuniK.™ are trademarks of Seso Digital LLC.
Smith Bill Proposes DMCA Expansion
“For the last few years, a coalition of technology companies, academics and computer programmers has been trying to persuade Congress to scale back the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
“Now Congress is preparing to do precisely the opposite. A proposed copyright law would expand the DMCA’s restrictions on software that can bypass copy protections and grant federal police more wiretapping and enforcement powers.
“The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith, already enjoys the support of large copyright holders such as the Recording Industry Association of America. Smith, a Texas Republican, is the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees intellectual-property law.”
Declan McCullagh. Congress Readies Broad New Digital Copyright Bill. News.com. April 24, 2006.
Updates:
The Patry Copyright Blog. The DMCA: Successful in What? April 28, 2006.
Rep. Lamar Smith. Copyright Controversies: Freedom, Property, Content Creation, and the DMCA. (.ram) Cato Institute. April 26, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Canadian Musicians Remove Lobbyists’ Cover
“The music recording industry will no longer be able to present the united front it claimed to have on copyright issues, after a group of prominent musicians and singers this morning announced an association whose philosophy is at odds with the Canadian Recording Industry Association.
“The group, called the Canadian Music Creators Coalition (CMCC), says they got together because the recording industry seldom speaks for recording artists. The new group’s membership includes the Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, and Sarah McLachlan.
“The CMCC was blunt in its criticism of the recording industry “has been suing our fans against our will, and laws enabling these suits cannot be justified in our names …. The government should repeal provisions of the Copyright Act that allow labels to unfairly punish fans who share music for non-commercial purposes.”
Jack Kapica. Artists Revolt Against CRIA Policies. GlobeandMail.com. April 26, 2006.
See also:
Canadian Music Creators Coalition. A New Voice: Policy Positions of the Canadian Music Creators Coalition. (.pdf) April 26, 2006.
Canadian Music Creators Coalition. Launch of A New Voice: The Canadian Music Creators Coalition. (Press release.) April 26, 2006.
Updates:
Steven Page. A Barenaked Guide to Music Copyright Reform. National Post. Monday, May 1, 2006. (Page is a member of the music group Barenaked Ladies, one of the founding members of CMMC.)
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
COPYCENSE 