Home » Fairly Used Blog » Archives for Mary Minow
Published on:

By

CopyrightX: Lecture 11.3, Technological Protection Measures by William Fisher Published on Feb 20, 2014

This video is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike 2.5 License, the terms of which are available here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b….

This lecture was prepared for the course CopyrightX, which was offered by William Fisher under the auspices of Harvard Law School and HarvardX during Spring 2014. For more information on CopyrightX, please see http://copyx.org

By
Posted in: Videos
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

The highly successful open course from Harvard prepared and delivered by Prof. William Fisher is in its Spring 2014 incarnation. It has a clear organization that lets you dive into a specific area that interests you like Technological Protection Measures. A full set of lectures and other resources available to the public online. I especially like the copyright concept maps.  A vision for the course can be found here.

Published on:

By

Justia attorneys have summarized a number of unusually interesting recent copyright decisions that I’d like to call to your attention. If you click through, you’ll see human written, human readable case summaries.

Garcia v Google – or the Innocence of the Muslims case, aligns copyright interests with an actress’s interest in controlling the use of her performance but is juxtaposed to free speech interests by Google/YouTube

Anderson v. LaVere – heirs of Mississippi blues musician Robert Johnson dispute over royalties

Brownstein v. Lindsay – about whether a court has authority to cancel a copyright registration when a plaintiff’s authorship has been “expressly repudiated”

Swatch v Bloomberg – in which Bloomberg obtained a copy of a conference call recording discussion a company’s recent earnings report

 

By
Posted in: Cases
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

On January 16, 2014, Stanford’s Program in Law, Science & Technology along with CodeX: The Stanford Center on Legal Informatics hosted a discussion with UC Berkeley Professor Brian Carver to discuss the Free Law Project, which provides free public access to primary legal materials, develops legal research tools, and supports academic research on legal corpora.

 

By
Posted in: Videos
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

On January 28, 2014, Stanford’s Program in Law, Science & Technology hosted the discussion, “Congratulations, you have an app – now what? App Development and Marketing from A-Z.” The discussion featured a panel of high level, experienced practitioner who provide tips, checklists and a road map for addressing legal considerations relating to mobile apps, including best practices for mobile TOU and Privacy Policies, platform considerations and much more.

Panelists included Ian Ballon, Shareholder at Greenberg Traurig, Lothar Determann, Partner at Baker & McKenzie, Tristan Ostrowski, Product Counsel, Android at Google Inc., Geoff Griffith, Senior Counsel at Google Inc, Thomas “TJ” Angioletti, Associate General Counsel, Technology & Transactions at Netflix, Daniel Brennan, Director, Legal at Twitter, Inc. and Luis Villa, Deputy General Counsel at Wikimedia Foundation.

By
Posted in: Videos
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=8E18A9AA-1AA4-4D7C-8EBF-0284862EC44B

A little hidden on the Internets, so we bring the Congressional hearings on Fair Use here to you:

January 28, 2014

Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, 2141 Rayburn House Office Building

 

 

Published on:

By

The public meeting has been postponed until Dec. 12, but the public comment deadline remains the same, Nov. 13th.  The Department of Commerce is soliciting input on the Internet Policy Task Force’s green paper,  “Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy,”  produced by the USPTO and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

Questions from the Federal Register Oct. 3, 2013

Remixes

1. Is the creation of remixes being unacceptably impeded by this uncertainty? If not, why not? If so, how? In what way would clearer legal options result in even more valuable creativity?

2. In what ways, if any, can right holders be efficiently compensated for this form of value in cases where fair use does not apply?

3. What licensing mechanisms currently exist, or are currently under development, for remixes and for which categories of works?

4. Can more widespread implementation of intermediary licensing, such as YouTube’s Content ID system, play a constructive role? If so, how? If not, why not?

5. Should alternatives such as microlicensing to individual consumers, a compulsory license, or a specific exception be considered? Why or why not?

6. What specific changes to the law, if any, should be considered? To what extent are there approaches that do not require legislation that could constructively address these issues?

First Sale

7. What are the benefits of the first sale doctrine? And to what extent are those benefits currently being experienced in the digital marketplace?

8. To what extent does the online market today provide opportunities to engage in actions made possible by the first sale doctrine in the analog world, such as sharing favorite books with friends, or enabling the availability of less-than-full-price versions to students? 9. If the market does not currently provide such opportunities, will it do so in the near future? If not, are there alternative means to incorporate the benefits of the first sale doctrine in the digital marketplace? How would adoption of those alternatives impact the markets for copyrighted works?

10. Are there any changes in technological capabilities since the Copyright Office’s 2001 conclusions that should be considered? If so, what are they? For example, could some technologies ensure that the original copy of a work no longer exists after it has been redistributed?

11. To what extent are there particular market segments or categories of users that may warrant particularized legal treatment?

12. How will the Supreme Court’s decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 1351 (2013), impact the ability of right holders to offer their works at different prices and different times in different online markets? How will any such changes impact the availability of and access to creative content in the United States and elsewhere?

Statutory Damages

13. To what extent is application of the current range of statutory damages necessary for effective deterrence with respect to (a) direct infringement by individual file sharers and (b) secondary liability by online services?

14. Is the potential availability of statutory damages against online

services for large scale secondary infringement hindering the development of new, legitimate services or platforms for delivering content? If so, how? What is the evidence of any such impact?

15. If statutory damages for individual file sharers and/or services found secondarily liable for infringement were to be recalibrated, how should that be accomplished? Would legislation be required?

Government Role in Improving the Online Licensing Environment

16. What are the biggest obstacles to improving access to and standardizing rights ownership information? How can the government best work with the private sector to overcome those obstacles?

17. To what extent is a lack of access to standardized, comprehensive, and reliable rights information impeding the growth of the online marketplace? What approaches could be taken to improve the situation?

18. Are there other obstacles that exist to developing a more robust, effective, or comprehensive online licensing environment? If so, what are they?

19. In addition to those efforts to develop standardized, comprehensive, and reliable rights databases and online licensing platforms described in the Green Paper, are there other efforts under way by the private sector or public entities outside the United States? If so, what are they?

20. Would a central, online licensing platform for high-volume, low-value uses (a ‘‘copyright hub’’) be a useful endeavor in the United States? If not, why not? If so, how can the government support such a project?

21. What role should the United States government play in international initiatives at WIPO or elsewhere?

Operation of the DMCA Notice and Takedown System

22. The Task Force believes that at least the following issues could be  constructively addressed through a notice and takedown multistakeholder dialogue:

a. Reducing the volume of takedown notices sent to service providers;
b. Minimizing reappearance of infringing material;

c. Inaccurate takedown requests;

d. Misuse of takedown requests; and e. Difficulties in using the system for

individuals or small and medium-size enterprises (SME).

What other issues could be considered? For each issue to be considered, who are the stakeholders needed at the table?

23. How can the Task Force ensure participation by all relevant stakeholders, as well as effective and informed representation of their interests?

24. Are there lessons from existing multistakeholder processes in the realms of Internet policy, intellectual property policy, or technical standard- setting that could be applied here? If so, what are they and to what extent are they applicable?

25. In what ways could the stakeholder discussions be structured to best facilitate consensus?

 

 

Published on:

By

The Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force (Task Force) released its Green Paper on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy (Green Paper) July 31, 2013 and now seeks public comment on copyright issues critical to remixes, first sale, cultural development, economic growth, job creation, damages, secondary liability, licensing etc.

The Task Force will have an initial public meeting on October 30, 2013 in D.C., and will consider public comments received before Oct 15.

DATES: Comments are due on or before November 13, 2013. Any comments received before October 15, 2013 will be considered in the discussions in the public meeting. The public meeting will be held on October 30, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. Registration will begin at 8:00 a.m.
ADDRESSES: The Task Force intends to hold the public meeting in the Amphitheatre of the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20004.

Published on:

By

When we buy print books, we own them.  We don’t own the intellectual property, the copyright, but we own the print book. We can give it away, resell it, burn it. It’s ours.

When we “buy” ebooks, we rarely own them. We certainly don’t own the intellectual property, but we also don’t really have ownership of the files.  This makes library lending of ebooks truly problematic.  The libraries are paying for expensive licenses to files that can and do disappear, and that usually can’t be legally transferred from an old library ebook system to a new one.

Consumers face the problem of ebook ownership too. Even if the consumer is able to buy an ebook “file,”  he or she can’t do much with it besides read it in the original device that it enters.  They may not even be able to lend it or give it away, even if they delete their copy of the file.

Public Knowledge has just issued a thinkpiece, “Really Owning Your Stuff” that says that PK THINKS that consumers who legally own copies of works have personal property rights in those copies, just like they have property rights over other goods.  I agree. Well put.

PK points out that in the seminal Supreme Court case that determined that the user owns the print book, this language was used:   “secure to the owner thereof the exclusive right to multiply copies…”    This is an important point.  When we resell an ebook, we need to make a copy.  Yet if we delete the original, has there really been a “multiplication” of copies?  No.

 

Published on:

By

Theresa Hackett has alerted us that a new EIFL guide out for libraries on the EU Orphan Works Directive.  The October 2012 Directive 2012/28/EU, she says, set out common rules for digitization and online display of orphan works, but unfortunately it has not realized hopes for large-scale digitization of orphan works by libraries.

The Guide explains the background and key provisions, and it makes  recommendations for libraries to implement in EU countries, and advises libraries in countires that have bilateral agreements with the UE.

Download or browse the Guide.
Check out other EIFL resources here, http://www.eifl.net/eifl-ip-resources