E.U. Plans Digital Library
“More than 6 million books and other culturally significant works are to go online via the European Digital Library over the next five years. The ambitious scheme will involve establishing centres throughout Europe dedicated to rendering works in a digital format, partially funded by the European Commission. The commission plans to establish a framework for setting up the library that respects intellectual property rights.
“The commission also published the results of a consultation on the digital libraries initiative on Thursday, which revealed opinions are divided on copyright issues, in particular between cultural institutions and right holders.
John Leyden. European Digital Library Is Go. The Register. March 3, 2006.
See also:
Steve Ranger. Europe’s Digital Library Taking Shape. News.com. March 3, 2006.
Europa. European Commission Steps Up Efforts to Put Europe’s Memory on the Web Via a “European Digital Library.” (Press release) March 2, 2006.
CBC.ca Canadian Libraries Join Race to Digitize Books. Dec. 29, 2005.
David A. Vise. World Digital Library Planned. WashingtonPost.com. Nov. 22, 2005.
Updates:
Groklaw. Heads Up, ODF – MS Makes a Pitch to EU Commission Digital Library. March 7, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Big Cinema at the Crossroads
“No matter the guff about the old studio moguls pounding their fists on their desks and demanding excellence, and despite the sob stories about trampled vision, the American film industry has always been a business first. The genius of the system, to borrow André Bazin’s phrase, was that this heavily standardized, technologically dependent industry still fostered creative freedom and produced individual works of art. American movies both gave us an image of who we wanted to be and were instrumental in the creation of who we became.
“But what are our movies saying about us now? “Munich” is one of Steven Spielberg’s crowning achievements, yet despite its accolades it has been characterized as a disappointment. There is a sense that the director hasn’t been able to connect with those who months earlier thrilled to his dystopian fantasy, “War of the Worlds.” Audiences may be staying away from “Munich” because it lacks pop kicks and familiar marquee names. I fear, though, that after being fed a steady diet of schlock and awe, trained to expect less from films that demand little of them in turn, moviegoers no longer expect greatness from Hollywood and may not much care when, on that rare occasion, it shows up at the neighborhood multiplex.
Manohla Dargis. Hollywood’s Crowd Control Problem. The New York Times. March 5, 2006.
See also:
Paul B. Brown. The Long Studio Decline. The New York Times. March 4, 2006.
The Smoking Gun. Hollywood by the Numbers: The Tinseltown Money Trail. Feb. 28, 2006.
Updates:
The Patry Copyright Blog. Oscars and Copyright. March 7, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
DOJ Reviews Music Download Pricing
“The Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the online music industry, looking into ‘possible anti-competitive practices’ in the growing music download business.
“The Justice Department’s investigation could be a replay of an earlier government investigation. In 2000, many of the same companies settled an antitrust case with the Federal Trade Commission, which found the five largest distributors of recorded music guilty of forging marketing agreements that set artificially high prices for compact discs. That price-fixing arrangement may have cost consumers nearly $500 million over three years, the FTC determined, but it did not levy fines against the companies. State attorneys general later sued and settled with the music companies.”
Yuki Noguchi. Justice Probes Music Firms’ Pricing of Downloads. WashingtonPost.com. March 4, 2006.
See also:
BBC News. U.S. Inquiry Into Music Downloading. March 3, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Research In Motion Settles Patent Lawsuit With NTP
“The maker of BlackBerry wireless e-mail devices agreed yesterday to pay $612.5 million to a McLean firm to resolve a long-running patent dispute and put to rest concerns that the popular gadgets might be shut off.
“Under the deal, Research in Motion Ltd., the Canadian company that pioneered the BlackBerry service, will license technology to keep it in business and allow it to transmit e-mail that government, emergency services and much of professional Washington have come to rely upon.”
Yuki Noguchi. BlackBerry Patent Dispute Is Settled. WashingtonPost.com. March 4, 2005.
See also:
Stephen Pritchard. The Trouble’s Not Over For BlackBerry. The Independent. March 5, 2006.
Mike Musgrove. For NTP, Battle Worth Fighting Ends in Vindication Over Patent. WashingtonPost.com. March 4, 2006.
ag-IP-news. “A Case Like the BlackBerry One is Bound to Happen in Europe” — Mueller Warns. March 4, 2006.
Theresa Tedesco. RIM Pays $612M To Settle U.S. Suit. Canada.com. March 4, 2006.
Simon Avery and Barrie McKenna. Marathon Talks This Week Led to Agreement. Globandmail.com. March 4, 2006.
Ian Austen. BlackBerry Service to Continue. The New York Times. March 4, 2006.
Research In Motion. Research In Motion and NTP Sign Definitive Settlement Agreement to End Litigation. March 3, 2006.
John Shinal. RIM Took Too Long at Two Key Steps. MarketWatch. March 3, 2006.
Michele Chandler. BlackBerry Deal Reached. MercuryNews.com. March 3, 2006.
IP Telephony, VoIP, Broadband. The Real Reason Why BlackBerry Settled. March 3, 2006.
Arik Hesseldahl and Heather Green. BlackBerry Won’t Get Squashed. BusinessWeek Online. March 3, 2006.
Updates:
John Markoff. In Silicon Valley, a Man Without a Patent. The New York Times. April 16, 2006. (Profile of Geoff Goodfellow, who held the patent for wireless e-mail before NTP, the holding company with which Research In Motion settled.)
Tom Krazit. For NTP, Is There Life After RIM? News.com. March 7, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
The Shifted Librarian Calls for Copyright Education
“At the Ontario Library Association Superconference earlier this month, [Jenny Levine] argued that library schools need to offer a course in copyright, licensing agreements for electronic products, and digital rights management, because they all affect the future of how libraries will interact with our users as entertainment and information becomes increasingly digital.
“It’s unfortunate that at a time when the broadcast flag is again rearing its ugly head and media and publishing companies continue to try to buy legislation giving them free rein with users’ rights, most librarians are completely unaware of just how much these moves could affect them.”
ALA TechSource. When Owning Isn’t Owning. Feb. 28, 2006.
See also:
K. Matthew Dames. “Associations’ Silence on Book Search Is Not Golden.” Online. March/April 2006.
K. Matthew Dames. Demystifying Fair Use. CopyCense. March 2, 2005.
K. Matthew Dames. Library Schools and the Copyright Knowledge Gap. Information Today. February 2006.
K. Matthew Dames. Library Copying in the Digital Age. CopyCense. Jan. 31, 2006.
K. Matthew Dames. First Sale in the Digital Age. CopyCense. Jan. 23, 2006.
K. Matthew Dames. Buying E-Content: Librarians, Salaries, & Opportunities. CopyCense. Dec. 13, 2005.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Is “Free” TV Free to Download?
“Amanda Palmer hardly fits the profile of an Internet outlaw, but her obsession with the ABC show Lost makes this mum the television industry’s worst nightmare.
“Like thousands of other British fans, the 30-year-old personal assistant can’t bear to wait the nine months it can take for new Lost shows to air in England. So, soon after the closing credits roll in America, she downloads each episode off file-sharing networks.
“And most alarming to TV industry executives, Palmer admits not a twinge of guilt. ‘It’s TV, isn’t it?’ she said. ‘It would probably be different if it was a movie. If it is free on everybody’s TV, why worry about it?'”
Dawn C. Chmielewski and Meg James. TV May Be Free but Not That Free. LATimes.com. March 1, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
Australia Acknowledges Concerns Over DRM
“In the digital age, ever-increasing amounts of material are available in an expanding number of formats. The DVD player, home PC, MP3 music player, mobile phone, game platform and pay-TV system are features of many Australian homes. The need of copyright owners to protect their work in the digital context has seen the development of a range of technological protection measures (TPMs).
“These are recognised and protected by Australian domestic copyright law and, with the signing of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), Australia has given further undertakings to protect these TPMs from circumvention. While the AUSFTA sets out for seven specific areas where circumvention of TPMs will be permitted, this Committee has been given the task of assessing whether any further exemptions should be considered by the Australian Government.”
The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, House of Representatives (Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs). Review of Technological Protection Measures Exceptions. (.pdf, 1.8 MB) February 2006.
See also:
LawFont.com. TPM Inquiry Report is Out. March 2, 2006.
EFF Deep Links. An Australian Perspective on DMCA Rulemaking. March 2, 2006.
CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the intersection of business, law and technology. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.
COPYCENSE 