The UCLA Library has made The Google Books Settlement: Issues and Options, a digital video featuring copyright expert Jonathan Band, available on YouTube.
Archive for the 'Digital Copyright Wars' Category
US District Court Judge Denny Chin has granted preliminary approval of the amended Google Book Search Settlement.
Here's the order.
An amended version of the Google Book Search Settlement has been filed by the AAP, the Authors Guild, and Google with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complete amended agreement is available from Google as a Zip file.
Exhibit 1 provides the primary text of the amended settlement agreement.
Read more about it at "Google Books Settlement Sets Geographic, Business Limits"; "Is the Google Books Settlement Worth the Wait?"; and "Terms of Digital Book Deal with Google Revised."
The UK Intellectual Property Office has released © The Way Ahead: A Strategy for Copyright in the Digital Age.
Here's an excerpt:
Based on the findings, the Government's reported intentions are:
- for authors of copyright works; to support fair treatment through new model contracts and clauses and fair returns for use of their work by improving education about and enforcement of rights;
- for rights holders; to help secure a viable future by encouraging the development of new business models, modernising the licensing process and maintaining support for education about and enforcement of rights;
- for consumers; to allow them to benefit from the digital age by seeking to legitimise noncommercial use of legitimately-purchased copyright works and improving access to 'orphan works' such as out-of-print books;
- for educators and researchers; to support them by improving access to works, resolving issues around copyright and contract and ensuring exceptions to copyright are right for the digital age; and
- for businesses and other users; to work towards a simpler copyright system by, improving the copyright licensing process and encouraging the development of new business models.
- UK action to improve access to orphan works, enable extended collective licensing, encourage the development of model contracts and clauses, and tackle P2P file-sharing; and
- A willingness on the Government's part to consider European action that provides commonsense rules for private, non-commercial use of copyright material that will give consumers much more freedom to do what they want (such as creating mash-ups) and make clear what they cannot do.
The European Commission has adopted a Communication from the Commission: Copyright in the Knowledge Economy.
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
The European Commission today adopted a Communication on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy aiming to tackle the important cultural and legal challenges of mass-scale digitisation and dissemination of books, in particular of European library collections. The Communication was jointly drawn up by Commissioners Charlie McCreevy and Viviane Reding. Digital libraries such as Europeana ( http//www.europeana.eu ) will provide researchers and consumers across Europe with new ways to gain access to knowledge. For this, however, the EU will need to find a solution for orphan works, whose uncertain copyright status means they often cannot be digitised. Improving the distribution and availability of works for persons with disabilities, particularly the visually impaired, is another cornerstone of the Communication.
On adoption, Commissioners McCreevy and Reding stressed that the debate over the Google Books Settlement in the United States once again has shown that Europe could not afford to be left behind on the digital frontier.
"We must boost Europe as a centre of creativity and innovation. The vast heritage in Europe's libraries cannot be left to languish but must be made accessible to our citizens", Commissioner McCreevy, responsible for the Internal Market, stated.
Commissioner Reding, in charge of Information Society and Media, said: "Important digitisation efforts have already started all around the globe. Europe should seize this opportunity to take the lead, and to ensure that books digitisation takes place on the basis of European copyright law, and in full respect of Europe's cultural diversity. Europe, with its rich cultural heritage, has most to offer and most to win from books digitisation. If we act swiftly, pro-competitive European solutions on books digitisation may well be sooner operational than the solutions presently envisaged under the Google Books Settlement in the United States."
The Communication addresses the actions that the Commission intends to launch: digital preservation and dissemination of scholarly and cultural material and of orphan works, as well as access to knowledge for persons with disabilities. The challenges identified by the Commission today stem from last year’s public consultation on a Green Paper ( IP/08/1156 ), the Commission's High Level Group on Digital Libraries and the experiences gained with Europe's Digital Library Europeana ( IP/09/1257 ).
Here's the abstract:
A copyright system is designed to produce an ecology that nurtures the creation, dissemination and enjoyment of works of authorship. When it works well, it encourages creators to generate new works, assists intermediaries in disseminating them widely, and supports readers, listeners and viewers in enjoying them. If the system poses difficult entry barriers to creators, imposes demanding impediments on intermediaries, or inflicts burdensome conditions and hurdles on readers, then the system fails to achieve at least some of its purposes. The current U.S. copyright statute is flawed in all three respects. In this article, I explore how the current copyright system is failing its intended beneficiaries. The foundation of copyright law's legitimacy, I argue, derives from its evident benefits for creators and for readers. That foundation is badly cracked, in large part because of the perception that modern copyright law is not especially kind to either creators or to readers; instead, it concentrates power in the hands of the intermediaries who control the conduits between creators and their audience. Those intermediaries have recently used their influence and their copyright rights to obstruct one another's exploitation of copyrighted works. I argue that the concentration of copyright rights in the hands of intermediaries made more economic sense in earlier eras than it does today. The key to real copyright reform, I suggest, is to reallocate copyright's benefits to give more rights to creators, greater liberty to readers, and less control to copyright intermediaries.
Noted copyright expert William Patry, Senior Copyright Counsel at Google and former copyright counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, has published Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars with Oxford University Press. Patry is also blogging on this topic at Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars. (His well-regarded previous blog was The Patry Copyright Blog.)
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
In Moral Panics And The Copyright Wars, Patry details the path that we have taken to get to our current misunderstanding of copyright laws. The most prolific scholar of copyright in history and the author of an eight-volume treatise on copyright and a separate treatise on the fair use doctrine, Patry argues that the cause of these copyright wars throughout history can be largely attributed to words—specifically, metaphors. Patry describes different kinds of metaphors, using them to further illustrate the ways that copyright laws have come to be unnecessarily expanded and misunderstood. For example, nowadays the term "pirate" is used in many instances to describe a type of copyright violation. Patry writes that it is the repetition of the pirate metaphor that makes the term stick, although the metaphor may be used incorrectly or may even be entirely false. This repetition of such metaphors causes whatever company or individual that has come to be associated with the word "pirate" to always be attached to the negative traits associated with a "pirate." This is just one of the ways that Patry shows the influence that words have had in negatively expanding copyright laws as well as causing the public, those who the laws are meant to help, to misunderstand them.
Patry contends that it has been this metaphoric language that has led to poor business decisions and obscured copyright law's true, public purpose. He concludes that calls for strong copyright laws, just like calls for weak copyright laws, miss the point entirely: the only laws we need are effective laws, laws that further the purpose of encouraging the creation of new works and learning—and that bring respect back to our copyright process.
The U.S. Department of Justice has submitted a brief to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota supporting the $1.92 million statutory damages award that Jammie Thomas-Rasset must pay for illegally sharing 24 songs ($80,000 per song).
Read more about it at "DOJ Doesn't Believe $80,000 per Song Unconstitutional or Oppressive," "Justice Department Defends Massive File-Swapping Fine," and "US Govt Says $1.92M P2P Damage Award Totally Fair."