Bleary-Eyed Headline

Any relation?

All the News That Fit to ......

Dear Julie, what planet are you living on?

Letter: Walker brings reality to state budget process.   (Oshkosh Northwestern, 11/27/2011)

Excerpt:  When the economy tanked, we made the decision for all to take a pay cut so no one we worked with got laid off. We all struggled together.

I'd recognize those door handles anywhere

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) to Star in Remake of Classic John Wayne Film

Jim Buehner Takes the Blame for Society's Ills

Letters: Retired teacher accepts blame for problems. (Oshkosh Northwestern, 11/11/2011)

Drug use

Teen pregnancy

Dropout rates.

Teen drinking.

There Oughta Be a Law: When "Some" Means "One"

A Hidden Toll as States Turn to Contract Workers.  (The New York Times, 11/7/2011)

Excerpt: Some One residents says the contract workers are vilified unfairly. “Care is predicated on compassion and empathy,” said Harold Sundberg, a World War II Navy veteran, not “a union label.”

Harold is the only resident quoted.

There was a conference going on last week somewhere in this vast facility

Whoa! What planet is this guy living on?

And I quote....

I’ve proudly worked for newspapers for my entire adult life, starting in high school. Now an industry that, for all its faults, does a wonderful job keeping our politicians honest and simply trying to tell the truth is in financial jeopardy in a new, digital age.

LINK

LINK

What?! No long overdue books in York, Nebraska?

LINK

Kilgore Memorial Library.

Apparently, the GOP does believes in same-sex marriage

Of course, there goes the 'sanctity of marriage' high ground.

LINK

Pot. Kettle. Black.

LINK

Miscellany

Tommy Funderburk (CEO PayArtists, Inc) has contacted me to tell me all about his current venture. He explains: "I come from the music business as recording artist and label and now, founder and CEO of PayArtists.com. PayArtists is on the artists' and fans' side. We’ve patented a business model that provides a friendlier way for copyright owners to be fairly compensated without resorting to the lawsuits and tactics of the RIAA and MPAA. We believe that if a copyright owner were able to reach out to P2P users, the owners should be grateful for the opportunity to treat them as fans, potential customers".  I suspect that some of this blog's readers may have some thoughts on the subject, particularly once they've read the web page on the PayArtist site headed "Why Settle" ...

Enrico Bonadio (City Law School) wants everyone to read his latest publication: “File Sharing, Copyright and Freedom of Expression”, which has now been published in the European Intellectual Property Review (EIPR). Good news is that you can get it at no cost to yourself via SSRN here . Enrico explores the relationship between copyright and freedom of speech in the internet environment. He believes that file sharing technologies may boost the exchange of information, opinions and ideas among internet users and foster a number of values underpinning the very protection of free speech. For this reason, he argues, copyright rules might be relaxed when it comes to file sharing technologies, e.g. by transforming copyright from a “proprietary” to a “compensation” right.

The Copyright Clearance Center tells us of a profile of its CEO 

Tracey Armstrong, in which she describes how the digital evolution of content has paved the way for new methods for content licensing. Says Tracey:

“Licensing is evolving… It’s evolving because of the way that the users are interfacing with content…. The best technology is transparent. And the best licensing solutions for our users are transparent.” 

She then goes on to highlight that licensing tools which are easy to use have resulted in being used, generating revenue for publishers.If either you can't guess which licensing tools she is referring to, or just want to read the profile for the fun of it, you can find it here.

Last week the United Kingdom's Intellectual Property Office placed two major copyright-related reports on its website, neither of which have I had a chance to see yet.  They are (i) Private Copying and Fair Compensation, by Professor Martin Kretschmer, billed as "A study on the operation of levies on copying media and equipment in the EU. This report offers the first independent empirical assessment of the European levy system as a whole" [nb Ben Challis has posted on this item on the 1709 Blog here; I'm just including it for the sake of completeness in this round-up] and (ii) Changing Business Models in the Creative Industries, which examines the business model response to the change from analogue to digital in the creative industries.

"Sound recordings and copyright" is the title of an article by Tony Kent, parts of this article have previously appeared in The Audio Restoration Handbook, which you can find on the internet here.  As Tony explains:

"The purpose of this article is to provide basic copyright information for those involved in the restoration and remastering of old sound recordings. As my field of expertise is United Kingdom copyright law, this article is written predominantly from a European copyright perspective (UK and European Union intellectual property legislation having now been largely harmonised). Whilst I welcome input from anyone wishing to contribute additional information or to comment on any of the views or opinions expressed, I regret that I cannot provide formal advice on copyright matters via e-mail"

Copyright, Communication and Culture, by Carys J. Craig, received quite a warm and favourable welcome from me on the 1709 Blog when its publication was announced, here.  One of the comments posted in response came from blogger, tweeter and copyright cynic Crosbie Fitch who mentioned that he had requested but not received a review copy.  Crosbie has since reviewed the book, in terms which are far more critical of it. You can read his comments here.  Whether you agree with Crosbie or not, you cannot fault him for the effort and the energy which he has expended in his critique of it.  Readers' comments are, as ever, welcome.

Tied to the mast so that he couldn't jump overboard
in response to the Sirens' song, Odysseus realised
he couldn't access his smartphone ...

Via Chris Torrero -- who has again been scouring the pages of be Spacific for interesting topics -- comes news of "The Song of the Sirens: Google Book's Project and Copyright in a Digital Age", a paper by Clarice Castro and Ruy De Queiroz which you can enjoy via SSRN here.  According to the abstract

"Numerous scholars have highlighted the extraordinary book-scanning project created by Google in 2004. The project aims to create a digital full text search index which would provide people with online access to books and assist research. A few months after the original idea started being implemented, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers-AAP filed a class-action lawsuit, claiming that Google Book’s Project violated copyright law in the United States. The main contention was that the books which were not under public domain could not have been scanned without permission and compensation for authors and publishers. Google’s Book Project radically changed its character from the time of its birth until the negotiation of an Amended Settlement Agreement - ASA with the plaintiffs. It has raised serious controversies not only regarding different aspects of the future of the Internet but also over the issue of privatization of knowledge. Those in favour of the initiative highlight the astonishing accomplishment of Google, allowing us to access books more easily than ever before in human history. However, their claim is as dangerous as the song of the sirens. While at first sight Google tells a tale of extraordinary inclusion, it excludes those who cannot pay to access snippets or limited view of around 80% of the books available. We will also discuss the Amended Settlement Agreement of Google with the Author’s Guild and its failure on March, 2011. Finally, we will explore the concept of “fair use,” or “exceptions and limitation on copyright,” which provides for full access to books to any individual, library or archive as long as they are used for educational or scientific purposes."

Bits and pieces

Further to John's post yesterday ("Liability in Italy -- Yahoo! held responsible", here), the text of the decision is now available, naturally in Italian, on Interlex.it, here.  Apparently the initial reports of this decision were somewhat overstated and the end of the world has not yet arrived for ISPs: the ruling is a 'procedimento cautelare', a sort of preliminary or summary judgment and not a full decision. No further reasoning will therefore be produced. The judge ordered Yahoo! to remove the links to infringing websites since the company had knowledge of the infringement because it received notices sent by the plaintiff (PFA Film srl) but had failed to activate the take-down procedure, became liable. Google Italia and Microsoft (who were also parties) were not found responsible since they did not administer their engines directly; they were held entitled to receive compensation of the costs of the judgment from PFA (thanks, Gaetano Dimita, for the link and the explanation).

This one seemed
quite nice, but
it has apparently
been taken ...

Having stuck with the portrait of Queen Anne (she of the Act of Anne) since April 2009, the 1709 Blog has decided to dispense with her services and get itself a real logo.  If you fancy your talents as a logo designer, please send your entry to Jeremy here with the subject line "1709 logo", and remember to let the blog have an irrevocable non-exclusive licence to use it on the blog and for its promotions. A prize, in the form of a copy of International Copyright by Paul Goldstein and Bernt Hugenholtz, will go to the best effort received by midnight on Sunday 3 April.

... or do they?

"Do bad things happen to works when they fall into the public domain?"  Further to Professor Paul J. Heald's thoroughly entertaining and instructive seminar last week (noted here), the 1709 Blog can report that Paul's PowerPoints are now available here.

Bits and pieces

Grzegorz Pacek, a Polish lawyer who is currently also a Ph.D candidate at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, is working on a thesis on the use of copyright-protected works by the press in reliance on statutory permissions (eg news reporting as a part of 'fair use' or'fair dealing'). While Grzegorz is particularly concerned with Polish law, he is also interested in a comparative analysis, taking in other jurisdictions -- so he wonders if there are any readers who share his interest and who wold like to contact him with their thoughts and experiences (presumably this includes newspapers, reporters and authors of works to which the press has helped itself).  Do get in touch if you can. Grzegorz can be emailed here.

Professor Paul Torremans has informed us that "The ALAI Congress is this year being organised by our Irish colleagues. It will take place in Dublin on 30 June and 1 July 2011. The programme and registration details can be found at http://www.alaidublin2011.org/. The early bird registration rate applies only until 1 April".

In December 2009 the 1709 Blog mentioned the references to the Court of Justice of the European Union of Cases C‑431/09 et C‑432/09 Airfield NV and Canal Digitaal BV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (Sabam) and Airfield NV v Agicoa Belgium BVBA.  Well, the Advocate General's Opinion was published this morning here -- in a number of languages but not, alas, in English.  In French, AG Niilo Jääskinen opines as follows:

«La directive 93/83/CEE du Conseil, du 27 septembre 1993, relative à la coordination de certaines règles du droit d’auteur et des droits voisins du droit d’auteur applicables à la radiodiffusion par satellite et à la retransmission par câble, ne s’oppose pas à ce qu’un fournisseur de bouquets de chaînes de télévision satellitaires soit tenu d’obtenir l’autorisation des titulaires de droits d’auteur, ou de droits voisins du droit d’auteur, pour des opérations dans lesquelles un organisme de radiodiffusion lui fournit les signaux porteurs de ses programmes dans des circonstances telles que celles en cause au principal.»

In English, thanks to Google, this comes out as

"Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, does not preclude that a provider of channel satellite television is required to obtain permission from the holders of copyright or related rights of copyright, for transactions in which a broadcasting organization provides signals carrying programs in circumstances such as those at issue".

Readers' comments and clarifications are welcomed.

Three little pieces

Just because you're small shouldn't
mean you get kicked around

A friend writes to the 1709 Blog with the following little tale of woe, hoping for some advice in return:

"A friend of mine who has a sideline licensing use of her photographs recently came to me with a plea for help. An organisation has used one of her pictures and has refused to agree to, or even acknowledge, her request for her usual fee of around £50. Having sought advice from Own-It she was told that her course of action was to bring a claim for copyright infringement. However, she can only do this in the Patents County Court, and absent a Small Claims procedure for IP disputes (as proposed in the Jackson Report) this will be an expensive option. On her behalf I contacted a specialist IP litigator; they expressed interest and sympathy but noted that their normal costs regime meant that even writing a Cease-and-Desist letter would probably be disproportionately expensive given the low value of the dispute.

Is there any credible route to redress for my friend? It seems manifestly unjust that flagrant copyright infringement should go without remedy, but the current system for IP litigation does (and this is, I know, not news) seem to ignore the small-scale creators who are supposed to be the bedrock of innovation and our creative economy. Are we likely to see reform to address this, and in the mean time is there anything my friend can do that won't involve outlay an order of magnitude larger than the sum she wants to claim?"

All comments are welcome. This blogger wonders whether naming and shaming the organisation concerned via a concerted bit of social media  campaigning might be more effective than anything else -- and a lot more fun.


Meanwhile, in "Sony Asks Court to Remove PlayStation 3 Jailbreak From Net", Wired reports on the tale of  some nifty "jailbreaking" which, it seems, falls foul of the current regime for dealing with software hacking in the United States. This may be one to watch ...


Finally, Barry Sookman's "Copyright law 2010 –the year in review in Canada and around the world" can be accessed here, replete with slides and text. Thanks, Barry!