copy this blog

http://madisonian.net/archives/2005/04/05/limiting-software-licenses/

Here’s an interesting article about contracts and the legality of EULAs. I haven’t had the chance to get through it yet, but it looks very interesting at first glance.

Let’s look at answering some of those questions, with some research and help from Georgia Harper.
There is no “archival right” of copyright for someone to contract away.
“Publication” can have a contractual definition, but putting something on the Internet does not necessarily mean that something is published.
If you can meet the requirements for Section 108, you can use the exemption. Although our institutional repository is not an “established” archive, it does and can meet those requirements, even for electronic records. One of those requirements is that objects which are converted from analog to digital can only be accessible locally- that is, within the “four walls” of the institution. Hmm. In this case, I would guess the institution would be the School of Information, so maybe limited to the Sanchez building? We can probably use firewall rules or IP rules to block content, but that seems to be an all-or-nothing approach- we’ll need to see how we can use DSpace for those requirements. (The law doesn’t really address “born digital” objects.)
Like I mentioned in class, we could use permission from one author to put something online in cases of joint authorship- but then there is an ethical question on top of the legal question.
The archive itself may have copyrightable information in selection, arrangement, etc., so the students in the class should also sign a SIP agreement. ^_^

Pat Galloway’s course, INF 392K – Problems in Permanent Retention of Electronic Records currently has a very interesting project in which they are attempting to create a digital institutional repository, likely using DSpace.

I sat in on part of the course this morning because I was interested in the copyright issues associated with the project. The project is not only going to digitaize the School of Information web site, but also wishes to digitize faculty information, including publications.

Here are just a few of the questions that were raised:
1. Can a faculty member sign over typical fair use rights or the right to archive their work?
2. How does the existence of such a contract affect section 108 exemptions?
3. Does the section 108 exemption apply to institutional repositories such as this that are not necessarily associated with the official UT Libraries or other traditional archival institutions?
4. In issues of joint authorship, what kinds of permissions are necessary from the authors before including their works in such a repository, when the secondary author may not have a connection to the institution? (This became more of an ethical question than a legal question.)
5. Is placing a document online in this manner “publication” for purposes of evaluating exclusive publishing contracts?
6. What kinds of authorization restrictions need to be made available for this type of archiving, and does a “born digital” object have different requirements then a digitized object?

There were more, but those are a start.

I’m amazed by what I think are complete fabrications in many University and computer lab copyright policies and advice- including some I’ve found around UT (not including the brilliant Crash Course in Copyright, one of the best copyright resources available). I’ll share some later.

The oral arguments for Grokster v. MGM took place today.
For those of you who might not know, this case is quite important to the future of copyright here in the US. And it puts the Betamax doctrine pretty much on trial (which, basically, states that as long as a product is capable of noninfringing uses, it is a legal product). There are several blogs carrying stories about the arguments, including EFF’s Deep Links.

Scrivener’s Error also has commentary. I very much enjoy the blog, despite my complete disagreement with his copyright infringement=theft arguments (and many of his arguments in Ellison v. Robertson et al [AOL]) . The blog is very well written and I tend to view the great majority of the viewpoints favorably. One of the great services that he provides is the perspective of the author (rather than the more commonly seen publisher/distributer/RIAA/MPAA). He strongly favors author and moral rights, and provides an understandable voice for that view. While I disagree with the amount of protection a work should receive, I do agree that the current system is out of whack, and overall the blog is great reading. ^_-

Saw this link on Boing Boing.
Morning Musume was really popular when Holly was teaching in Japan in 2003. When I visited her, I ran across Morning Musume trading cards at anime and manga stores (most notably at Gamers in Akihabara), saw their show on television, and heard them on the radio. They were everywhere. 😛 Anyway, they’re one of Japan’s marketing-created Idol groups.
Here they are watching the Ring.

So, as it turns out, the TSA lied about their privacy protection practices. I can’t say that I’m shocked, but it is disturbing. I can only hope that there will be repercussions to these actions…

Quite the contrary, actually…
English PDF of Japanese P2P study

Wow. If you have a lot of time on your hands, this trademark and copyright case about mall company Taubman”, about a Website about a mall here in Texas, is an interesting read. I started reading it expecting it only to take a few minutes, and here I am about an hour and a half later…

In a nutshell: Guy made a website about a mall. Company sued for trademark infringment. Along the way, company’s lawyers were really lame. Guy wins (with help from Public Knowledge).
The end.

The story is also a very good example of what a pain in the ass some civil procedure is, and how a person absolutely has to have a lawyer when they’re sued like this- which IMHO, sucks.

There’s a lot of chatter about recent actions by the RIAA on the SANS Unisog (University Security Operations Group) list. (For some reason, not all the messages are appearing on the listserv, but there are more there.) Apparently, the RIAA is informing the universities that they will be subpeoned as to the identity of particular users. I’m not sure if those letters of intent indicate that the university in question should be treating their records retention in any way differently then they have been treating it. The letters allegedly cite 18 USC 2703(f) (see the link to the message above). My questions are: does that statute apply, and if so is the university then required to save those logs upon receiving that notice? That portion of the law seems to apply to governmental entities, so I would think that once the government requested it you would need to, but not when the RIAA requests it. But IANAL. I’ll have to find someone to ask.

On an unrelated related note ^_-, it’s interesting how security or IT people are often the people who receive DMCA notices. In my experience, not all of us are particularly copyright savvy, although that is changing to some extent. Thankfully, a lot of us have access to legal counsel. ^_^