copy this blog

Apparently so! George R. R. Martin’s fantasy series has been acquired by HBO. Excellent news for book and fantasy lovers. The Song of Ice and Fire series is one of the only fantasy series that my other half actually enjoys, so I’m particularly looking forward to it. ^_^ Let’s hope it doesn’t have the delays that Martin is known for. 😉

ZDNet is reporting that a virtual land owner in Second Life is sending DMCA takedown notices to persons using screen shots of the now infamous, to put it bluntly, flying penis attack at a CNET interview with that person. There are several problems with this tactic, as ZDNet notes. Although the person has copyright in their Second Life avatar, that does not mean that they can control all uses of their copyrighted work. They certainly can’t stop fair uses, of which the reports including screenshots almost certainly qualify as.

Another problem is that one of the people they sent the notice to was the Sydney Morning Herald, which does not currently have to follow the U.S. DMCA, although they have their own copyright issues over there. 😛

The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi (Spoilerific Wikipedia Entry) was one of my wife’s and my favorite shows of this past year. It’s unique in a lot of ways- from it’s play on traditional anime themes to it’s interesting use of chronology. Plus, it’s hilarious.

The anime community has had a long tradition of making works available in countries outside of Japan before they’re released in the form of fansubs, copies that are subtitled and distributed by fans. The practice of fansubbing has evolved a great deal since the creation and increase in use of the Internet. At any rate, it’s one of the reasons anime is so popular in the U.S. now. Now, Japan has always had interesting practices regarding fan based works. I’ve mentioned some of them before in the Otakon thread. Basically, a lot of things go on that are technically copyright infringement- such as the creation and sale of derivative doujinshi (fan comics)- but for whatever reason, some companies don’t enforce their copyrights. Even in the US, different companies have been known to appreciate fansubs. The fansubbing community has it’s own ethical standards as well- once a work is licensed in the U.S., distribution generally stops.

Well, Bandai has done something interesting now that they’ve licensed Suzumiya Haruhi.

http://www.asosbrigade.com/

First, they make a fan-like video with actors and actresses in the manner mirroring the show itself. They also thank fans who get the fansubs and buy DVDs, and specifically don’t thank people who get the fansubs and don’t buy the licensed DVDs. ^_^ They also make “mistakes-” like forgetting to subtitle the first video. (The “fixed” video is now up.) Fun. They’ve also got a MySpace page for the show.

Assuming the IGN article is based on correct information, the RIAA wants to lower artist royalties…

How do we measure whether or not copyright is working? That’s one of the main reasons I came to doctoral school. We’re stuck in a legal and strict economic framework rut in a lot of ways, in my opinion. This makes sense in many ways; copyright is both a legal issue and is based on economic incentives. Talking with Georgia has helped me think about these things. Legal research generally uses legal analysis to advocate for or against a particular position, using statutes and case law as primary sources and other information as secondary sources. When we talk about copyright research, that’s the type of research that immediately comes to mind for many people. Economics often plays a big role in copyright-related research, and in my survey of copyright-related research this semester economics and business were the sources for a lot of the empirical data that has been gathered related to copyright. But I don’t think they’re measuring the right things much of the time, and I think they’re coming to the table with a lot of assumptions that are neither elucidated nor entirely correct. The kinds of things that tend to be measured are profit-related, sales related, or otherwise market-related. That’s useful information, but there’s more to looking at the effectiveness of copyright than those things. However, we don’t have good ways of structuring arguments that judges and policy-makers seem to find compelling about effects other than those that are strictly market-oriented. That’s a problem.

The paper I was referring to in an earlier post was based on a number of questions, including the above. I was attempting to look at research about how copyright affects education. I’m interested for a variety of reasons: my association with ALA, my knowing people in education both primary and secondary, and so on. But how are its affects on the missions and practices of educational institutions measured? There really hasn’t been a great deal of research in the area. There isn’t a lot of empirical research about copyright in education. There are some exceptions to the usual market-based information produced- and Siva’s Critical Information Studies bibliography is a perfect starting point for that kind of research. CIS in general is useful as both a lens to use when examining existing copyright research and as a framework for using other types of research. So, what are the appropriate metrics and methodologies that should be used?

How effectively is copyright doing it’s job? How effectively is it promoting the progress of science and useful arts? Is the economic incentive actually helping the dissemination of knowledge and promoting the creation and use of new works? As is often pointed out on Scrivener’s Error, publishers and authors are not the same- and a lot of copyright talk treats them the same. I found this recent post related to the Gowers Report out of the UK particularly interesting.

Fascinating. Someone asked me some questions about webcasting, and I found this gem of misleading information on an RIAA page:

The lack of a broad sound recording performance right that applies to US terrestrial broadcasts is an historical accident. In almost every other country broadcasters pay for their use of the sound recordings upon which their business is based. For decades, the US recording industry fought unsuccessfully to change this anomaly while broadcasters built very profitable businesses on the creative works of artists and record companies. The broadcasters were simply too strong on Capitol Hill.

However, with the birth of digital transmission technology, Congress understood the importance of establishing a sound recording performance right for digital transmissions, and did so in 1995 with the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (“DPRA”). In doing so, Congress “grandfathered” the old world of terrestrial broadcasting, but required everyone (including broadcasters) operating in the new world of digital transmissions to pay their fair share for using copyrighted sound recordings in their business.

—–

I love the terminology here. “An historical accident.” “Congress understood.” “Fair share.” Translated, this means that in the past, Congress understood the point of copyright much better than they have in the more recent past.

The RIAA is an advocacy group. We know that. But they could do a better job of considering and acknowledging other perspectives.

I liked the concept of Critical Information Studies when Siva Vaidhyanathan first made his bibliographic manifesto available on his website. After a semester of “Doctoral Research and Theory I” at the School of Information, I like it much, much more. I’m currently working on a paper about copyright research in “the field” I study in, and CIS provides a great way to look at the field. More on this when I’m done.

And in the news, the Library of Congress has approved a few other exemptions to the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, including provisions for blind users, film professors, software archivists, and security researchers. These exemptions should stick around for three years- now I just wish they’d change the law altogether before they’re up for renewal… but what are the odds?

Of course, I missed an important part- the censorware exemption is gone. Boo.

From the University of Texas Police Department’s Campus Watch:

ART BUILDING, 2300 San Jacinto BLVD

Assault-Physical Contact-Offensive/Provocative: A class was conducting a
class project on the 4th floor deck. As part of his project, a UT
student threw a five gallon bucket of water on a group of students and
began referring to the group as “Nazis.” The group had no
advanced warning that they were going to be doused with cold water.
Occurred: 11-21-06, at 10:30 PM.

I was appalled when Grants.gov, the U.S.’s site for academics and others to apply for Federal grants, implemented and mandated the use of a Windows-only client. Who thought that was a good idea? Who checked for possible problems before mandating it?

It was painful last year, and it hasn’t greatly improved this year. At least now they’re acknowledging that there are problems with that approach, sort of. They’re providing a Citrix server for Mac and Unix users to connect to in order to start a Windows session to apply for grants. However, it’s slow and has been described to me as a nightmare to go through. It only allows a limited number of connections, and you have to save very often or you could get knocked off and lose all of your data. They’re switching to Adobe forms by April 2007 in order to support Mac and Unix users as well. (Still not ideal in my mind, but a great deal better than what is currently available.)

They are also touting IBM’s early release of a Mac version of Workplace. IBM has created and is providing this early relase (read: buggy), but it doesn’t support large documents (> 40 MB, which you’d better believe we have in grants), it’s not accessible at all and we’re warned of crashes and loss of data. Right now we’re checking out a Windows laptopto our faculty because of all of the problems associated with applying for grants on the platforms that some of our professors actually prefer. This situation is ridiculous.