from the forks-and-sandwiches dept of techdirt by Mike Masnick [grateful thanks to Tara at ResearchBuzz Firehose]
Nearly a decade ago, we wrote a bunch about an excellent book called Copyfraud, by law professor Jason Mazzone, which went into great detail about how the legacy entertainment industry companies have used copyright in ways that are clearly against copyright's intent -- to the point that they border on fraud. The concept of copyfraud should be referred to more frequently, and here's a perfect example. Just a couple months ago, we wrote about the amazing social media account of Jimmy O'Brien, who goes by @Jomboy_ on Twitter. He's combined his love of baseball, his video editing skills, his ability to read lips incredibly well, and with a sarcastic, dry sense of humor to make a ton of amazing videos about various things happening in baseball. We highlighted a bunch last time around and his profile has only grown a lot since then, including among Major League Baseball players.
About a month after that post, Jomboy may have had his biggest moment so far, in putting together a truly amazing video of NY Yankees manager Aaron Boone getting ejected -- following a bunch of players and Boone arguing with a young umpire over some bad calls. What took the video from normal great to amazing was that it revealed exactly what Boone was saying to the ump during their argument thanks to a bunch of "hot mics" from the broadcast. That allowed us to learn a lot more about this argument than anyone normally does in watching a manager scream at an ump:
Continue reading
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Thursday, 29 August 2019
Monday, 24 June 2019
What Aladdin — And Napoleon — Teach Us About Copyright
an article by Darian Woods for npr [via Library LInk for the Day]
A whole new Aladdin is in movie theaters. We went to see it last week. It has some amazing Bollywood-style dance scenes, a resplendent palace and the best magic carpet rides over Agrabah that money (and Industrial Light & Magic) can provide. At about 56% approval, Rotten Tomatoes didn't love it, but we enjoyed it, maybe because we were watching it with one eye on the dancing and one eye on economics, intellectual property rights and history.
In all, it cost $183 million to make. And, partly thanks to Disney's lobbying efforts, the Disney corporation will control the rights to this film for 95 years. That's because Disney has long been a major political force in the fight to lengthen copyright. In past decades, Congress has approved copyright extensions just when the copyright to Mickey Mouse was about to expire. The 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act is pejoratively nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
As Disney will argue, you don't want intellectual property law to be too permissive or there will be little incentive to create new music or movies. But, when copyright is too broad and strong, the consumer loses out. Great stories and characters can't enter the public domain, which makes it harder to riff on old ideas. Like many of Disney's products, Aladdin itself is a remix of an old story, one well out of reach of modern copyright laws.
These are the kinds of arguments that cropped up last year when Congress considered the Music Modernization Act. Also, when the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement was negotiated, persuading other countries to adopt American copyright law of life of the creator plus 70 years was a sticking point in negotiations.
Continue reading
A whole new Aladdin is in movie theaters. We went to see it last week. It has some amazing Bollywood-style dance scenes, a resplendent palace and the best magic carpet rides over Agrabah that money (and Industrial Light & Magic) can provide. At about 56% approval, Rotten Tomatoes didn't love it, but we enjoyed it, maybe because we were watching it with one eye on the dancing and one eye on economics, intellectual property rights and history.
In all, it cost $183 million to make. And, partly thanks to Disney's lobbying efforts, the Disney corporation will control the rights to this film for 95 years. That's because Disney has long been a major political force in the fight to lengthen copyright. In past decades, Congress has approved copyright extensions just when the copyright to Mickey Mouse was about to expire. The 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act is pejoratively nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
As Disney will argue, you don't want intellectual property law to be too permissive or there will be little incentive to create new music or movies. But, when copyright is too broad and strong, the consumer loses out. Great stories and characters can't enter the public domain, which makes it harder to riff on old ideas. Like many of Disney's products, Aladdin itself is a remix of an old story, one well out of reach of modern copyright laws.
These are the kinds of arguments that cropped up last year when Congress considered the Music Modernization Act. Also, when the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement was negotiated, persuading other countries to adopt American copyright law of life of the creator plus 70 years was a sticking point in negotiations.
Continue reading
Friday, 24 May 2019
Can Machines be Authors?
a post by Daniel Gervais (Institute for Information Law (IViR) for the Kluwer Copyright Blog
Using newer forms of Artificial Intelligence (AI), including General Adversarial Networks (GANs), AI machines are increasingly good at emulating humans and laying siege to what has been a strictly human outpost: intellectual creativity. AI machines have composed polyphonic baroque music bearing the “style” of J.S. Bach. “Robot reporters” routinely write news bulletins and sports reports, a process called “automated journalism.” Machines write poems and draft contracts. A machine named e-David produces paintings using a complex visual optimization algorithm that “takes pictures with its camera and draws original paintings from these photographs.” Machines can even write or enhance their own code.
At this juncture, we cannot know with certainty how high on the creativity ladder machines will reach when compared to or measured against their human counterparts, but we do know this: They are far enough already to force us to ask a genuinely hard and complex question, one that intellectual property (IP) scholars and courts will need to answer soon, namely whether copyrights should be granted to productions made not by humans, but by machines. This question is the subject of my forthcoming article, the key points of which are discussed in this post.
Continue reading
Using newer forms of Artificial Intelligence (AI), including General Adversarial Networks (GANs), AI machines are increasingly good at emulating humans and laying siege to what has been a strictly human outpost: intellectual creativity. AI machines have composed polyphonic baroque music bearing the “style” of J.S. Bach. “Robot reporters” routinely write news bulletins and sports reports, a process called “automated journalism.” Machines write poems and draft contracts. A machine named e-David produces paintings using a complex visual optimization algorithm that “takes pictures with its camera and draws original paintings from these photographs.” Machines can even write or enhance their own code.
At this juncture, we cannot know with certainty how high on the creativity ladder machines will reach when compared to or measured against their human counterparts, but we do know this: They are far enough already to force us to ask a genuinely hard and complex question, one that intellectual property (IP) scholars and courts will need to answer soon, namely whether copyrights should be granted to productions made not by humans, but by machines. This question is the subject of my forthcoming article, the key points of which are discussed in this post.
Continue reading
Wednesday, 13 March 2019
Preliminary question to the ECJ: Is the breach of a software licence agreement a copyright infringement?
a post by Brad Spitz for the Kluwer Copyright Blog
Following the Paris Court of Appeal judgment of 10 May 2016 (No 14/25055), the French courts have tended to consider that a licensee who breaches the terms of a software licence agreement does not commit copyright infringement, and that general contractual liability applies instead. In the aforementioned case, the Court dismissed the licensor’s (Oracle) claims that its licensee had committed copyright infringement. The case law is nevertheless not entirely clear-cut: in a judgment of 1 September 2015, the Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled that the use of a computer program in breach of a licence agreement does constitute copyright infringement (No 13/08074, SAS Technologies v SAS Infor Global Solutions).
Continue reading
Following the Paris Court of Appeal judgment of 10 May 2016 (No 14/25055), the French courts have tended to consider that a licensee who breaches the terms of a software licence agreement does not commit copyright infringement, and that general contractual liability applies instead. In the aforementioned case, the Court dismissed the licensor’s (Oracle) claims that its licensee had committed copyright infringement. The case law is nevertheless not entirely clear-cut: in a judgment of 1 September 2015, the Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled that the use of a computer program in breach of a licence agreement does constitute copyright infringement (No 13/08074, SAS Technologies v SAS Infor Global Solutions).
Continue reading
Thursday, 1 November 2018
Is plagiarism unlawful?
an article by Owen Dean (Spoor & Fisher, Claremont, South Africa) published in WIPO Magazine (September 2018)
“Plagiarism” is a much misunderstood and misused term in common parlance. In layman’s terms, it is generally used to convey the notion of copying or reproducing the work of another in a clandestine manner, usually without the permission of the author. It is often used as a synonym for “copyright infringement,” and it is generally thought to amount to the same thing. Presuming that plagiarism is copyright infringement by another name, it would naturally be unlawful. But is this perception correct?
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “plagiarize” as follows: “Take and use as one’s own (the thoughts, writings, inventions, etc., of another person); copy (literary work, ideas, etc.) improperly or without acknowledgement; pass off the thoughts, work, etc. of (another person) as one’s own.” “Plagiarism” is the noun form of this verb.
The term is said to have its origins in the writings of Martial(is), the Roman poet, who in one of his works drew a parallel between his poems and freed slaves; he termed another poet who had misrepresented his (i.e. Martial’s) works as being his own, a “plagiarius,” or, an abductor, of them.
Continue reading
“Plagiarism” is a much misunderstood and misused term in common parlance. In layman’s terms, it is generally used to convey the notion of copying or reproducing the work of another in a clandestine manner, usually without the permission of the author. It is often used as a synonym for “copyright infringement,” and it is generally thought to amount to the same thing. Presuming that plagiarism is copyright infringement by another name, it would naturally be unlawful. But is this perception correct?
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “plagiarize” as follows: “Take and use as one’s own (the thoughts, writings, inventions, etc., of another person); copy (literary work, ideas, etc.) improperly or without acknowledgement; pass off the thoughts, work, etc. of (another person) as one’s own.” “Plagiarism” is the noun form of this verb.
The term is said to have its origins in the writings of Martial(is), the Roman poet, who in one of his works drew a parallel between his poems and freed slaves; he termed another poet who had misrepresented his (i.e. Martial’s) works as being his own, a “plagiarius,” or, an abductor, of them.
Continue reading
Monday, 5 March 2018
Liability of Online Service Providers for Copyright Protected Content – Regulatory Action Needed?
a post by Jan Bernd Nordemann (Boehmert & Boehmert) for the Kluwer Copyright Blog
In an in-depth analysis for the European Parliament, the author has looked at liability of online service providers with regard to infringements concerning copyright protected content. In particular, the paper tries to answer the question of whether regulatory action is needed in relation to the liability of online service providers for copyright protected content.
The full paper may be downloaded here (PDF 30pp in English).
Summary
I have done my best to replicate the format from the original post in order to make the Summary more readable.
It is complex law which I presume Britain will need to take into account once we have left the EU.
In an in-depth analysis for the European Parliament, the author has looked at liability of online service providers with regard to infringements concerning copyright protected content. In particular, the paper tries to answer the question of whether regulatory action is needed in relation to the liability of online service providers for copyright protected content.
The full paper may be downloaded here (PDF 30pp in English).
Summary
- The liability privileges in Articles 12 to 15 E-Commerce Directive can remain unchanged; they seem to be sufficiently flexible to adopt to new business models, which also makes them, in general, future-proof.
- These privileges do not, however, establish liability.
- With regard to injunction claims, Article 8(3) Copyright Directive provides for a satisfactory pan-EU solution.
- EU rules establishing liability beyond injunctions (e.g. damages) should be harmonised to incorporate the requirements of (1) sufficient intervention by the internet provider; and (2) breach of an adequate duty of care by the internet provider.
- Articles 12 to 15 E-Commerce-Directive
- Hosting providers (Article 14 E-Commerce Directive)
While false hosting providers (Article 14 E-Commerce-Directive) may have emerged as a new category of hosting providers, not envisaged at the time of the adoption of the E-Commerce Directive in 2000, the E-Commerce Directive has proven fit to treat the issue adequately. The delineation between passive service providers caught by Article 14 and active role providers remains an issue for the Court, without it being necessary to change the article.
In relation to insufficiently collaborative hosting providers, running a dangerous business model which fosters infringements, the case law still has to find final answers as to whether, and to what extent, such hosting providers should profit from the liability privilege. But the concept and wording of Article 14 E-Commerce Directive seems to be sufficiently flexible to allow an adequate case by case result in such scenarios. No change of Article 14 E-Commerce Directive is deemed necessary. - Access providers (Article 12 E-Commerce Directive)
Concerning access providers, there seems to be no need to change the liability privilege of Article 12 E-Commerce Directive. Upstream providers, which operate at the borderline between access and hosting providers, may be adequately treated by the liability privilege. - Cache Providers (Article 13 E-Commerce Directive)
The liability privilege for caching providers (Article 13 E-Commerce-Directive) lacks practical importance. Therefore, there is no pressing need to change it. - Linking Providers
Linking providers, and more particularly search engines, are important players on the internet, and in principle deserve regulatory attention. So far, it has only been clarified by the CJEU that search engines may enjoy the liability privilege of Article 14 E-Commerce Directive in as far as they provide links against remuneration for advertising purposes. It can be expected that the CJEU will clarify in the near future whether Article 14 also applies to editorial links provided by search engines. As the Court has developed a flexible system of adequate duties of care to establish liability of linking providers in case of links to illegal content, there seems to be no need, however, to further refine the liability privileges of the E-Commerce Directive to linking providers. The system of duties of care seems to be sufficiently flexible to provide for just results in all different linking scenarios. - Prohibition on imposing general monitoring duties (Article 15 E-Commerce Directive)
On the prohibition on imposing general monitoring duties (Article 15 E-Commerce Directive) the CJEU case law is abundant. But it still lacks a final word from the Court with regard to such an important question as the delineation between general monitoring obligations (prohibited by Article 15 E-Commerce Directive) and specific monitoring duties, which may be imposed on providers, in particular to prevent infringements notified.
But as Article 15 E-Commerce Directive, pursuant to the CJEU case law, is strongly dominated by a balancing of fundamental rights, it can be expected that any solution provided by case law will respect all relevant interests in an appropriate way. No legislative action seems to be necessary concerning Article 15 E-Commerce Directive.
- Need for pan-EU Liability rules
The second part of the paper analyses the existence of a need for pan-EU liability rules. The EU legal framework provides for harmonised law concerning liability privileges in Articles 12 to 15 E-Commerce-Directive. They do not, however, establish liability. The EU system does not seem particularly developed yet so far as rules to establish liability are concerned.
- Injunction claims (Article 8 (3) Copyright Directive)
With regard to injunction claims, Article 8(3) Copyright Directive provides for a flexible and satisfactory solution with regard to internet providers. - Damages Claims: New CJEU case law
With regard to other claims, in particular damages claims, EU law only provides for a harmonised answer in cases of primary infringement, i.e. unauthorised use of the harmonised exploitation rights in copyright. For the (secondary) liability of other persons, until now different national secondary liability concepts have applied, which may lead to different results from member state to member state. This is unsatisfactory against the background of European harmonisation; in particular, this does not create a level playing field, e.g. for damages claims for right holders in the EU. But there is a development from CJEU case law which may harmonise secondary liability within the primary liability rules of EU law, in the series of judgments in GS Media/Sanoma, Filmspeler and BREIN/Ziggo.
- Injunction claims (Article 8 (3) Copyright Directive)
- Proposal for pan-EU liability rules
The last part of the paper consists of a proposal for a copyright sector specific regulation of liability. The liability of internet providers for damages would typically be seen as a form of secondary liability. Nevertheless, the CJEU is already starting to develop such an EU liability rule within the harmonised field of primary liability. Further development in Luxembourg at the CJEU could be awaited. Or the legislator could also take the initiative, but any such legislative initiative should go in the same direction as the CJEU: EU rules establishing liability beyond injunctions, and in particular establishing liability for damages, should require - (1) a sufficient intervention by the internet provider; and
- (2) a breach of an adequate duty of care by the internet provider.
The first part of the analysis is dedicated to the assessment of the necessity of a reform of the liability privileges in the E-Commerce Directive. Although Articles 12 to 15 E-Commerce Directive are more than 15 years old, there seems to be no pressing need for a reform. The provisions seem to be sufficiently flexible to adopt to new business models, which also makes them, in general, future-proof. Of course, certain legal questions arising with regard to Articles 12 to 15 E-Commerce Directive have not yet been finally answered by the CJEU. But such open legal questions do not in themselves justify a reform, as it can be expected that the case law will answer the questions in a way that adequately respects the different rights and interest at stake.
I have done my best to replicate the format from the original post in order to make the Summary more readable.
It is complex law which I presume Britain will need to take into account once we have left the EU.
Friday, 17 November 2017
How Digitization Has Created a Golden Age of Music, Movies, Books, and Television
an article by Joel Walford (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA and National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) published in Journal of Economic Perspectives Volume 31 Number 3 (Summer 2017)
Digitization is disrupting a number of copyright-protected media industries,
including books, music, radio, television, and movies. Once information is
transformed into digital form, it can be copied and distributed at near-zero
marginal costs. This change has facilitated piracy in some industries, which in turn has made it difficult for commercial sellers to continue generating the same levels of revenue for bringing products to market in the traditional ways.
The recorded music industry offers a vivid example. Revenue in the recorded music industry had grown steadily throughout the twentieth century but began a precipitous slide in 1999 and has now fallen by more than half (see Figure 1).
Yet despite the sharp revenue reductions for recorded music, as well as threats to revenue in some other traditional media industries, other aspects of digitization have had the offsetting effects of reducing the costs of bringing new products to market in music, movies, books, and television. On balance, digitization has increased the number of new products that are created and made available to consumers. Moreover, given the unpredictable nature of product quality, growth in new products has given rise to substantial increases in the quality of the best products and therefore the benefit of these new products to consumers.
Continue reading
Digitization is disrupting a number of copyright-protected media industries,
including books, music, radio, television, and movies. Once information is
transformed into digital form, it can be copied and distributed at near-zero
marginal costs. This change has facilitated piracy in some industries, which in turn has made it difficult for commercial sellers to continue generating the same levels of revenue for bringing products to market in the traditional ways.
The recorded music industry offers a vivid example. Revenue in the recorded music industry had grown steadily throughout the twentieth century but began a precipitous slide in 1999 and has now fallen by more than half (see Figure 1).
Yet despite the sharp revenue reductions for recorded music, as well as threats to revenue in some other traditional media industries, other aspects of digitization have had the offsetting effects of reducing the costs of bringing new products to market in music, movies, books, and television. On balance, digitization has increased the number of new products that are created and made available to consumers. Moreover, given the unpredictable nature of product quality, growth in new products has given rise to substantial increases in the quality of the best products and therefore the benefit of these new products to consumers.
Continue reading
Tuesday, 7 March 2017
Ground-breaking code of practice to tackle pirate websites
via the Current Awareness Service from The Inner Temple Library (by Sally)
‘A ground-breaking new initiative targeting online piracy brings together the creative industries and leading search engines under a voluntary code of practice to tackle copyright infringing sites. The deal, brokered by the UK Intellectual Property Office, with the support of Ofcom and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, will involve collaborative work to demote search results that link to illegal sites. There will be ongoing technical consultation and information sharing to improve the process and adapt to change.’
Full story
‘A ground-breaking new initiative targeting online piracy brings together the creative industries and leading search engines under a voluntary code of practice to tackle copyright infringing sites. The deal, brokered by the UK Intellectual Property Office, with the support of Ofcom and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, will involve collaborative work to demote search results that link to illegal sites. There will be ongoing technical consultation and information sharing to improve the process and adapt to change.’
Full story
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
How to Build an Orphanage, and Why
an article by Prof. Dr. Katharina de la Durantaye published in JIPITEC (Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law) Volume 2 Issue 2 (2011)
Abstract
Currently, lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling with the problem of orphan works. In the impact assessment of its proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain permitted uses of orphan works, the Eurpean Commission mentions six possible ways of dealing with the problem. Three of the six (a statutory exception to copyright; extended collective licensing; an orphan-specific license granted by collecting societies) have each had their heyday during the past few years. This article examines how and why these changes in popularity occurred. In addition, it explains why a limitation on remedies would be the most adequate solution for the problem in Europe.
Full text (PDF 9pp)
License
Any party may pass on this Work by electronic means and make it available for download under the terms and conditions of the Digital Peer Publishing License. The text of the license may be accessed and retrieved via Internet at http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/dppl/dppl/DPPL_v2_en_06-2004.html
Abstract
Currently, lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic are struggling with the problem of orphan works. In the impact assessment of its proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain permitted uses of orphan works, the Eurpean Commission mentions six possible ways of dealing with the problem. Three of the six (a statutory exception to copyright; extended collective licensing; an orphan-specific license granted by collecting societies) have each had their heyday during the past few years. This article examines how and why these changes in popularity occurred. In addition, it explains why a limitation on remedies would be the most adequate solution for the problem in Europe.
Full text (PDF 9pp)
License
Any party may pass on this Work by electronic means and make it available for download under the terms and conditions of the Digital Peer Publishing License. The text of the license may be accessed and retrieved via Internet at http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/dppl/dppl/DPPL_v2_en_06-2004.html
Monday, 12 December 2011
Who owns that menu?
A restaurant, with a well-known proprietor, has recently been accused of copying another restaurant’s menu and branding in what is an increasingly challenging area of IP law.
Whilst there are doubtless similarities between the two menus in terms of content and layout, being able to prove that someone has copied such an item (which in addition features rather commonplace dishes) is a difficult – if not almost impossible – task.
Read more in the November Newsletter from the Intellectual Property Office.
Whilst there are doubtless similarities between the two menus in terms of content and layout, being able to prove that someone has copied such an item (which in addition features rather commonplace dishes) is a difficult – if not almost impossible – task.
Read more in the November Newsletter from the Intellectual Property Office.
Thursday, 18 August 2011
Increase in the number of copyright offenders prosecuted, report says
via OUT-LAW News
The number of individuals found guilty of violating UK copyright laws has increased, according to a report into intellectual property (IP) crime.
Read OUT-LAW’s take on the issue,
The number of individuals found guilty of violating UK copyright laws has increased, according to a report into intellectual property (IP) crime.
Read OUT-LAW’s take on the issue,
Monday, 15 August 2011
Getting digital copyright right: pay artists, but don’t break the Internet
via Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow
I'm headed to Vancouver this weekend to give a keynote at SIGGRAPH; I did a long interview with Blaine Kyllo from the Georgia Straight about the subject of my talk – that is, how you build a digital copyright system that gives creators a fair deal, and why getting it wrong is bad for the whole society, not just artists.
BoingBoing items usually go into trivia – or nowhere. This is different, though. This is not only serious but is also work-related.
I'm headed to Vancouver this weekend to give a keynote at SIGGRAPH; I did a long interview with Blaine Kyllo from the Georgia Straight about the subject of my talk – that is, how you build a digital copyright system that gives creators a fair deal, and why getting it wrong is bad for the whole society, not just artists.
BoingBoing items usually go into trivia – or nowhere. This is different, though. This is not only serious but is also work-related.
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
A big week for copyright in the courts
via Open Rights Group blog by Peter Bradwell
Last week copyright court rulings were like London buses. There were loads of them, but not ones that we really wanted. On Wednesday and Thursday there were three big decisions covering three very different issues. Lots to pick over for copyright geeks, law experts and anybody who cares about how the Internet is regulated. Here's a quick run down of what's going on.
Read for yourself and get not only Peter Bradwell’s view of these cases but also links to the judgement documents from judiciary.gov.uk. Very useful.
Last week copyright court rulings were like London buses. There were loads of them, but not ones that we really wanted. On Wednesday and Thursday there were three big decisions covering three very different issues. Lots to pick over for copyright geeks, law experts and anybody who cares about how the Internet is regulated. Here's a quick run down of what's going on.
- The “Newzbin” judgement
- NLA / Meltwater
- The “Stormtrooper helmet” case
Read for yourself and get not only Peter Bradwell’s view of these cases but also links to the judgement documents from judiciary.gov.uk. Very useful.
Saturday, 9 July 2011
Copyright
“The remuneration payable to authors in the event of public lending cannot be calculated exclusively according to the number of borrowers”
a Court of Justice of the European Union press release No 66/11 (PDF 2pp) explains the thinking behind the ruling.
a Court of Justice of the European Union press release No 66/11 (PDF 2pp) explains the thinking behind the ruling.
The accidental criminal: …
Using policy to curb illegal downloading
an article by Kalika Navin Doloswala and Ann Dadich published in First Monday (Volume 16, Number 6 (June 2011))
Abstract
Illegal downloading is a multifaceted social issue. In addition to the loss of intellectual property and revenue for copyright-holders, it can implicate perpetrators into the criminal justice system. Despite legislative attempts to curb illegal downloading, lessons to date suggest these do little to reduce the activity. Drawing on psychological literature, this paper offers an innovative approach to address illegal downloading. Attribution theory argues that the activity might be moderated by increasing opportunities for engagement between the owners and users of intellectual property. Rather than using policy and legislation to restrain access to intellectual property, this theory suggests that policy that closes proximal distances and creates psychological contracts might curb these practices. Examples from the music industry are discussed as evidence that this approach can be successful in changing downloader behaviour. To date, social policy informed by attribution theory has not been tested as a way to prevent illegal downloading. The paper argues the need to examine and critically evaluate non-punitive approaches to curbing illegal downloading from a policy perspective.
Full Text: HTML
an article by Kalika Navin Doloswala and Ann Dadich published in First Monday (Volume 16, Number 6 (June 2011))
Abstract
Illegal downloading is a multifaceted social issue. In addition to the loss of intellectual property and revenue for copyright-holders, it can implicate perpetrators into the criminal justice system. Despite legislative attempts to curb illegal downloading, lessons to date suggest these do little to reduce the activity. Drawing on psychological literature, this paper offers an innovative approach to address illegal downloading. Attribution theory argues that the activity might be moderated by increasing opportunities for engagement between the owners and users of intellectual property. Rather than using policy and legislation to restrain access to intellectual property, this theory suggests that policy that closes proximal distances and creates psychological contracts might curb these practices. Examples from the music industry are discussed as evidence that this approach can be successful in changing downloader behaviour. To date, social policy informed by attribution theory has not been tested as a way to prevent illegal downloading. The paper argues the need to examine and critically evaluate non-punitive approaches to curbing illegal downloading from a policy perspective.
Full Text: HTML
Sunday, 26 July 2009
UK Copyright Law, In Verse
via Copyfight by drwex
No, that's not “inverse” as in backwards. It‘s “rendered in verse” as in “poetically”. Or at least, in rhyming couplets.
Back in 2006, Yehuda Berlinger put up a rendition of US Copyright Law in verse form. Now he's added the UK's copyright law – though he does point out that there are upcoming changes, which may require him to re-verse.
Monday, 19 January 2009
Public sector information and re-use – where is the UK now?
an article by Stephen Saxby in International Journal of Private Law Volume 1 Number 3/4 (2008)
Abstract
Information produced by the government does of course serve a number of purposes. First, it should inform the government so as to generate sound policy decisions and effective strategies. Second, through a variety of media, it should provide the general public with information to enable individuals to engage with government services and to deliver personal data that they are obliged to provide. Access to a wide variety of public sector information (PSI) is also important for individuals and businesses. In the UK, this has been under debate for many years through analysis of Crown copyright regulation. Current policy, as interpreted by HM Treasury, continues to argue that those wishing to exploit or add value to PSI for commercial purposes should at least contribute something to the cost of its supply. This paper traces the process of development of the policy through to the present.
Why? The information is there anyway, I’m not asking you to do anything so why should I pay you for doing nothing?
Abstract
Information produced by the government does of course serve a number of purposes. First, it should inform the government so as to generate sound policy decisions and effective strategies. Second, through a variety of media, it should provide the general public with information to enable individuals to engage with government services and to deliver personal data that they are obliged to provide. Access to a wide variety of public sector information (PSI) is also important for individuals and businesses. In the UK, this has been under debate for many years through analysis of Crown copyright regulation. Current policy, as interpreted by HM Treasury, continues to argue that those wishing to exploit or add value to PSI for commercial purposes should at least contribute something to the cost of its supply. This paper traces the process of development of the policy through to the present.
Why? The information is there anyway, I’m not asking you to do anything so why should I pay you for doing nothing?
Monday, 24 November 2008
Search engine cache does not infringe copyright, rules US court
via OUT-LAW News on 29 October
A court has ruled that Yahoo! and Microsoft had an implied licence to copy and display pages from a website because the operator of that site knew how the search engines’ opt-out procedures worked but chose to ignore them.
Read full article
A court has ruled that Yahoo! and Microsoft had an implied licence to copy and display pages from a website because the operator of that site knew how the search engines’ opt-out procedures worked but chose to ignore them.
Read full article
Sunday, 23 November 2008
Why I copyfight
Cory Doctorow in the November issue of Locus Magazine
Read it here and don't blame me for not wanting to précis it. Cory's writing does not easily lend itself to being summarised and the piece is far too good to be ignored!
Read it here and don't blame me for not wanting to précis it. Cory's writing does not easily lend itself to being summarised and the piece is far too good to be ignored!
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Smack down: copyright cases head to court (part 1) : Table of Contents
an article by Norm Medeiros in OCLC Systems & Services Volume 24 Issue 4
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to highlight two recent copyright controversies that have implications for academic institutions in the USA.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper focuses on the copyright infringement case against Georgia State University, detailing aspects of the lawsuit as they are noted in the complaint.
Findings
The paper recognizes the well-documented case against Georgia State University is strong, especially given contemporary views on fair use.
Originality/value
This paper offers depth to important copyright stories that may affect US institutions.
Hazel's comment:
May be offering depth to copyright stories that may affect US institutions but is also useful for institutions in other countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
