copy this blog

The Anime News Network reported that sale of fan art based on properties that the artist does not own the copyright for or have a license to produce will not be permitted at the Otakon artists’ alley this year. The issue turned out to be not quite as broad as that. Here are my collected responses from forums (so I don’t lose ’em).

Read the rest of this entry »

50 Cent Sued for Allegedly Stealing Lyric

The reason this doesn’t make sense, of course, is Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.. In that case, 2 Live Crew was sued for using lines and music from Roy Orbison’s Pretty Woman. They won the case because the court determined that their use was fair. What’s wrong with this picture?

Vatican ‘cashes in’ by putting price on the Pope’s copyright – World – Times Online

Scary. Copyright as a tool of censorship is never a good thing, but to use copyright to get money from religion, particularly in this case- come on. First, you’re limiting the message, which is completely antithetical to the message itself. Next, if as a Catholic you believe that the Pope’s words are divinely inspired, then there are some bigger issues. 😛

CNN.com – Baseball statistics: history or property? – Jan 15, 2006

This is scary. Esseentially, MLB wants to have right sto “identites and statistical profiles” of their players. Statistics, even when associated with an individual, are clearly facts. If MLB wins, it will be disturbing- not only for the fantasy sports industry, as CNN alleges, but for any uses of copyright as well. If statistics associated with a person can be protected by IP, then why not databases? Or for that matter, phone books (currently not protected by copyright)?

City of Villains Community Site

Interesting. Marvel and NCsoft have settled, so no case law will be developed here… I don’t know if that’s a good or bad thing.

Wired 13.12: Thinking Outside the Box Office

Steveb Siderbergh’s new flick will be released on DVD, HDTV, and movies all at once… and a bit on copyright and the Grey Album, too.

I was amazed to see a message from a librarian who was applauding Sony’s DRM moves. This librarian believed that Sony had the right to limit copying as much as it wanted (an opinion), and that the problems with Sony DRM would just affect all those pirates out there. This was my response.

—

I’m sure most of us can agree that widescale copyright infringement is a problem, and is wrong as well as being illegal. However, the Sony situation is about something completely different- and I’d have concerns with the technology solutions described [in the message, the librarian advocated a small number of copies allowed, then the disk stopped working].

In this particular situation, Sony isn’t “sticking it” to people who are infringing copyright. They are “sticking it” to *anyone who puts one of the “protected” CDs in their computer.* Not just people who copy, but anyone at all. The rootkit opened up vulnerabilities to any Windows-based PCs of completely innocent consumers, leaving them vulernable to attackers, viruses, worms, and other online threats. That’s what the lawsuits are about.

Additionally, the protection measures are pretty consumer unfriendly anyway. No technology exists that is good enough to determine whether or not a use is infringing.

Sony could create a system to copy something only three times, but that completely ignores legitimate uses of copying. While “violating copyright” isn’t a right, there are legitimate and legal reasons for copying. Copying your CDs to our iPods (ie, space shifting), is an established and legal practice. Copying a software CD for backup is also allowed. Copying excerpts that are a fair use- for example, for purposes of scholarship, cricitism, education, and so on- may be completely fair. Not only are these uses fair and legal, but they are also very important. Technology can’t make that distinction. Sony’s “protection” mechanisms can’t make those distinctions. And these uses aren’t violating copyrights. They are exemptions to the exclusive rights that copyright holders have, and they are necessary uses.

Another big copyright exemption is the doctrine of first sale- the one that lets libraries lend out books and other materials. Many technological protection measures stop that, also.

It’s always good to go back to the Constitutional basis for copyright in the U.S. when looking at these types of situations. Copyright exists “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;” -U.S. CONST., art. I, § 8, cl. 8.

I can’t say that Sony’s actions represented progress in any sense of the word. Education would be a better option… but that’s my opinion.

New Copyright Law Lets Photographers Register Unfinished Work

“It’s one step removed from registering an idea,” says photographer John Harrington.

Disturbing…

I’ve returned from DC from the ALA copyright scholar program… there will be some big changes at the Library Copyright web site soon, and I think it will be a more useful resource soon. I got to meet a group of great people, all interested in copyright, and the ALA Washington Office staff, who were very cool.

Scrivener’s Error has some very interesting analysis the “plot patent” proposed by a very strange person. There’s some discussion on Groklaw as well, including a reply from the creator of this patent. Ugh.

According to news.com, the US Department of Justice is pushing for stronger copyright laws and really appears to have completely ignored the public interest entirely (perhaps “sold out the public,” but I’d have to learn more than is in the article) in it’s rush to create new types of copyright law and create greater penalties. What is considering “attempting to infringe?” The penalties are already ridiculous, and I view this move with a great deal of suspicion. It’s certainly not a positive development for the public. I doubt it’s a positive development for the industries that are supporting it, either. Many of the artists they represent are already testing the bounds of the existing law, and I suspect there will be more artists who are at cross purposes with their publishers and representative groups as time passes and the law leans more towards a maximalist society. This type of move serves to stifle creativity, and whatever deterrence to piracy (and their definition of piracy and others’ definitions of piracy are certainly different) is certainly not worth the outrageous harm they are proposing to the Constitutional basis for copyright law, promoting the progress of science and useful arts…

I mention this briefly in the 312 copyright module- the nature of fair use is contentious. On the one hand, we have people stating with 100% certainty that fair use is an affirmative defense (that is, an argument that you must bring up to defend yourself against claims of copyright infringement.) On the other hand, there are many people who argue that fair use is not an affirmative defense, but a right. On the other other hand (aliens), we have people who argue that fair use is neither a defense nor a right. ^_^ Fun. Why does it matter? It matters because a) you change the importance of fair use depending on how you frame the argument, and b) it determines who has the burden of proof. The statute doesn’t say that fair use is a privilege or an affirmative defense. It says that fair use is not copyright infringement. And different courts treat fair use differently.