Tagged: copyright Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • joly 2:54 am on 04/17/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , copyright, museums,   

    Copyright, Art & Wikipedia–April 21 and 26 at Columbia 

    The public is invited to attend the following presentations and discussions of copyright issues as they relate to artworks, the internet, and Wikipedia. Liam Wyatt of Wikipedia presenting on an innovative proposal for analyzing copyright and licensing in art museums. Each session is one hour and is open to everyone interested in the issues.

    TOPIC: Wikipedia, Museums, Libraries, and Access to Art Collections

    WHEN: Wed., April 21, 2010 ~ 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM
    WHERE: 203 Butler Library, Morningside Heights Campus, Columbia University

    WHEN: Monday, April 26 2010 : 11:00 am – Noon
    WHERE: Columbia Law School, W&J Warren Hall, Room 101.

    SPEAKER: Liam Wyatt
    Liam Wyatt is the Vice President of Wikimedia Australia and an info-philanthropy advocate. He received the University of New South Wales medal in history for his thesis on the Academic Lineage of Wikipedia. He works to try to find the common ground between the museum, education and Wikimedia communities. Previously he was the multimedia coordinator for the Dictionary of Sydney and Project officer for the Australasian Legal Information Institute. Liam will be visiting Columbia after a stop in Denver, where he will be leading the Wikimedia session as part of the “Museums and the Web” conference. He is en route to London, where he will be the inaugural “Wikipedian in Residence” at the British Museum.

    SPONSORS: Copyright Advisory Office and the Libraries Digital Program Division

    (More …)

     

  • joly 3:31 pm on 03/26/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: copyright, ,   

    Michael Geist – New Media in Canada 

    Law professor Michael Geist appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as its first witness on a new study on Canada and New Media. His opening remarks are here, but the subsequent 90 minute discussion is much more interesting as it covered a wide range of issues from copyright to the iPod levy to networks to the digitization in Canada.  An audio stream is available now and a transcript is promised.

    Via Michael Geist – New Media in Canada: My Appearance Before the Heritage Committee.

     

  • joly 1:39 am on 03/25/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , copyright   

    “Copyright for Librarians” – Online Open Curriculum 

    The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University today announced the launch of a new online, open access curriculum, “Copyright for Librarians”

    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/copyrightforlibrarians/

    developed in conjunction with eIFL.net [Electronic Information for Librarians]. “Copyright for Librarians” aims to inform librarians about copyright law in general, as well as the aspects of copyright law that most affect libraries, especially those in developing and transition countries.

     

  • joly 4:46 am on 02/25/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , copyright, ,   

    Movie studios appeal against iiNet piracy exoneration 

    The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft AFACT today lodged an appeal against the legal judgment which found Australian Internet provider iiNet was not responsible for illegal movie downloads by its customers, arguing the Federal Court had erred on 15 grounds

    “The court found large scale copyright infringements proven, that iiNet knew they were occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them,” said Neil Gane, executive director of AFACT.”In line with previous case law, this would have amounted to authorisation of copyright infringement.”

    via Movie studios appeal against iiNet piracy ruling.

     

    • joly 5:32 pm on 02/25/2010 Permalink | Reply

      More details of AFACT’s grounds for appeal are here.

      Central to the appeal is an argument that the judge applied an incorrect test for whether iiNet “authorised” the copyright infringement.

      Also AFACT will:

      • seek to overturn the ruling that iiNet had a repeat infringer policy that allowed it to claim safe harbour under the Copyright Act.

        • challenge Justice Cowdroy over his reasons for rejecting evidence.
        • raise further questions over what could be inferred from iiNet’s choice of witnesses. The film industry had questioned in the trial why staff with more intimate technical knowledge of the iiNet network were not called on to give evidence.
      • question the number of infringements, which was a contentious issue in the case.

    • joly 3:45 am on 02/26/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I thank Paul Brooks for the following info:

      Five ways AFACT lost-the-iiNet case

      I won’t quote the whole article, but one section jumped out to me as being of special relevence to this group (emphasis added by me):

      ”

      2. The time didn’t fit the crime

      AFACT put forward an argument that because iiNet had failed to stop users infringing copyright on its network, it had “failed to take reasonable steps” to gain protection under safe harbour provisions of the Copyright Act.

      But as John Fairbairn, partner at Clayton Utz points out, AFACT “held out” on defining what reasonable steps would have been beyond disconnection of a customer.

      As such, there were “no other reasonable steps” the judge could focus on.

      The Court found that iiNet’s only power to prevent infringement – to terminate users – was not a relevant power under the Copyright Act.

      Justice Cowdroy then found that cutting off access was not a reasonable step.

      “The Court does not consider that warning and termination of subscriber accounts on the basis of AFACT Notices is a reasonable step,” Cowdroy’s judgement said, as it would “also prevent that person or persons from using the internet for all the non-infringing uses.”

      In doing so, Cowdroy gave full appreciation to the significance of internet access and what it means to Australians, and the role of the courts in determining infringement.
      …and later…

      ”

      “AFACT’s notices were found to be defective because they did not establish copyright infringement as AFACT kept its methodology secret, they did not have any assurance of their veracity or indemnify iiNet for reliance, and they did not make clear AFACT’s right to give them on behalf of copyright owners,” said Australian Digital Alliance’s Dawes.

      “Thus, iiNet was entitled to be sceptical about the claims being made. Therefore it had no ‘knowledge’ of the alleged infringements by its users.”

      Determinations of infringement are complex, Cowdroy’s judgement said, and should only be made by a court. To do otherwise, he said, would be “highly problematic.”
      ”

      P.

    • joly 5:18 pm on 03/18/2010 Permalink | Reply

      News comes today that iiNet have filed a notice of contention in the appeal

      http://www.zdnet.com.au/iinet-contests-cooper-copyright-judgement-339301882.htm

      The first issue iiNet is contending relates to Section 112E of the Copyright Act 1968, which states that a carriage service provider that “facilitates … a communication is not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright in an audio-visual item merely because another person uses the facilities”.

      Cowdroy had said in his decision that he was bound to rule in line with the 2006 case, Universal Music Australia versus Cooper copyright case, in which the Full Court — on appeal — decided a critical factor was whether the service provider had knowledge of copyright breaches occurring on its facilities.

      The judge found that iiNet did have knowledge that infringements were occurring on its facilities, therefore the protections under 112E “ceased to have operation”.

      Cowdroy’s overarching decision was that iiNet had not authorised its customers’ infringements, which meant in terms of his final decision the point was moot. Yet it may come into play in the upcoming appeal process in which the legal teams of both sides will contest iiNet’s alleged authorisation of its customers’ breaches.

      The second point of contention was Cowdroy’s decision that privacy provisions under the Telecommunications Act did not prevent iiNet from using its customer information to assist AFACT’s investigations. The question here was whether iiNet had the power to prevent infringements on its network and whether it took “reasonable” steps to prevent this from occurring.

  • joly 10:18 am on 02/04/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , copyright, , , ,   

    Wireside Chat with Lawrence Lessig: Fair Use, Politics, and Online Video 3/25/10 

    The Open Video Alliance is teaming up with the Harvard Berkman Center to deliver a global webcast of a talk by Lawrence Lessig. It’s happening February 25th from 6:00 to 7:30 EST, live from Cambridge, MA. OVA has arranged screening events around the world. The hometown premiere event in New York will feature a live DJ, video mashup presentations, free food and tons of guests.

    The Talk:
    This is a talk about copyright in a digital age, and the role (and importance) of a doctrine like “fair use.” Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, and is essential for commentary, criticism, news reporting, remix, research, teaching and scholarship with video. As a medium, online video will be most powerful when it is fluid, like a conversation. Like the rest of the internet, online video must be designed to encourage creative expression and political participation, not just passive consumption.

    The lecture will last 45 minutes and will be followed by an interactive Q & A. The event will be moderated by Elizabeth Stark of the Open Video Alliance. Questions can be submitted using the hashtag #wireside.

    The Event:
    In New York, the event held at The Open Planning Project will feature special guests from the ReMixed Media Festival 2010, and Streetfilms.

    For more information, or to find out about screenings in other locations, visit the Open Video Alliance at http://openvideoalliance.org/event/lessig/.

    RSVP below or at http://openvideoalliance.org/event/newyorkrsvp/.

    The Wireside Chat is made possible with the support of iCommons and the Ford Foundation.

    Boston: http://bit.ly/WiresideBoston
    San Fran: http://bit.ly/WiresideSanFran

    Use the hashtag #wireside leading up to the event and to participate in the interactive Q & A.

    Facebook event

     

  • joly 9:05 pm on 02/03/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: copyright, ,   

    Australian court absolves ISP from copyright policing 

    http://tinyurl.com/y9puvds

    The studios had hired an online investigator firm to intercept
    BitTorrent traffic over 59 weeks and record instances of iiNet users
    downloading pirated movies.

    The barrister for the studios, Tony Bannon, said that iiNet failed to
    take any ‘‘reasonable steps’’ to combat copyright infringement.

    He said iiNet’s practice of forwarding infringement notices to police
    and stating in its terms and conditions that illegal downloading was
    not permitted – while not enforcing this rule – did not constitute
    reasonable steps.

    However, iiNet’s legal counsel, Richard Cobden, said privacy
    provisions in the Telecommunications Act prevented it from forwarding
    the studios’ infringement notices to customers.

    Cobden said the studios were trying to place an ‘‘unreasonable
    burden’’ on ISPs and that ‘‘we will not take on the rights holders’
    outsourcing of their rights enforcement’’.

    iiNet argued that it was not required by law to act on ‘‘mere
    allegations’’ of copyright infringement, that customers were innocent
    until proven guilty in court, and that the case was like suing the
    electricity company for things people do with their electricity.

    In a summary of his 200-page judgment read out in court this morning,
    Justice Cowdroy said the evidence established that iiNet had done no
    more than to provide an internet service to its users.

    He found that, while iiNet had knowledge of infringements occurring
    and did not act to stop them, such findings did not necessitate a
    finding of authorisation.

    He said an ISP such as iiNet provided a legitimate communication
    facility, which was neither intended nor designed to infringe
    copyright.

    “iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user uses that system to bring
    about copyright infringement … the law recognises no positive
    obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another,” Justice
    Cowdroy said.

     

    • joly 11:13 pm on 02/03/2010 Permalink | Reply

      ISOC Australia has issued a media release applauding the ruling:

      ISOC-AU applauds today’s decision of the Australian Federal Court in
      the case of Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNET Limited. The Court
      found that iiNet, by failing to take any steps to stop infringing conduct,
      did not ‘authorise’ copyright infringement by certain iiNet users.. iiNet
      did not sanction, approve or countenance copyright infringement; they
      did no more than provide an Internet service to their customers.

      ISOC-AU believes the Internet is for everyone. ‘The Internet is an
      essential part of how Australians live, work and play‘, said Narelle
      Clark, Vice President of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU) ‘and
      the Court has confirmed that ISPs are not required to be the
      gatekeepers of Internet use‘.

      ISOC-AU also welcomes the finding of the Court that, because iiNet did
      have a repeat infringer policy, they would have been entitled to the
      protection offered by the ‘safe harbour’ provisions of the copyright
      legislation.

      ISOC-AU recognises that people should be rewarded for their creative
      endeavours and that other models may need to be used or developed to
      reward content creation and distribution. We also support the right of
      all to due process under law, particularly to ensure that Internet users
      are not arbitrarily cut off from Internet access.

      and also a couple of links:

    • Full text of the judgement
    • iiNet’s response
    • the film industry’s response

  • joly 9:43 am on 02/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

    Business Week

    “The ruling will serve as a reference to similar cases in other jurisdictions,” said Charles Mok, chairman of the Internet Society’s Hong Kong division. “This case shows that if an Internet service provider can demonstrate it has put in place a mechanism for dealing with complaints from content owners, then the law will afford an adequate safeguard.”

  • Joly 1:10 am on 02/08/2010 Permalink | Reply

    A post courtroom interview with iiNet CEO Michael Malone, refers to conciliatory comments he had just made where he suggested that the movie companies work with him to find ways for his customers to legally download their works.

    It is to be noted that iiNet, which has bandwidth caps for customers, already operates a ‘freezone’ of locally hosted content that can accessed without limit – adding a PPV section would be no great leap.

  • joly 8:41 pm on 01/21/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: copyright,   

    Fri Jan 22 is the last day to make comments on $500 statutory webcasting fee 

    Tomorrow, Friday Jan 22 2010, is the last day to comment/object to the, arguably arbitrary, Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) imposed $500 minimum statutory royalty fee for webcasters.

    Details from the Federal Register after the jump.
    (More …)

     

  • joly 6:20 pm on 01/21/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: copyright, IFPI,   

    “we are heading into a world where copyright has no value..” IFPI report 

    http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2010.pdf p.21

    “The music industry was hit first, but now with increased broadband you have a situation where all the creative industries are at a tipping point” says Simon Renshaw, Los Angeles-based manager of a long list of major artists including the Dixie Chicks. “You can see it in the collapsing DVD market; you can see what’s going on in TV, newspapers and magazines. And now we’re seeing the same thing in the book publishing business and you’re going to start seeing piracy of novels and reference books.” Renshaw passionately believes that the stakes involved go far wider than the music industry. “What I worry about is that we are heading into a world where copyright has no value and where there’s no incentive for anyone to provide patronage and support for the creators of intellectual property.”

     

  • joly 12:43 am on 01/13/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: copyright, , , ,   

    Intellectual Property Laws In the Internet Age – Meetup 1/20/2010 

    What: Intellectual Property Laws In the Internet Age

    When: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:30 PM

    Price: $10.00 per person

    Where:
    Wix.com
    10 W. 18th St. 7th Floor
    New York, NY 10011

    Who owns your content on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn? How do you protect your work from being stolen?

    Please join us at this one-day-only lecture and Q & A aimed at addressing these and other online issues and offering tips on how to protect what you have created and placed online.

    Come join other members from Web2Fem, and MeetUp groups From Traditional2Digital, Black Creatives, Digital Creatives to learn how to protect your work and get a chance to increase your professional network with other attendees.

    The event speaker, Kelly Kocinski, was an attorney and Development Director at Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts before forming her solo practice, which focuses on the needs of individual artists and small businesses with a specialization in Intellectual Property (IP) Identification and Protection. She is also a teacher in the Design Management program at Pratt Institute.

    Ms. Kocinski will discuss the state of copyright, trademark, and patent law and how the law is trying to catch up to the technological and content-based advancements of the online world. She will discuss how those working online — whether on social media sites, blogs, or web development — can protect their content, as well as insulate themselves from liability. Finally, there will be a group discussion and Q&A to specifically address the concerns of the audience.

    Space is very limited, please RSVP soon. Please answer the 3 questions when you RSVP; by doing so, you will receive a recap of the lecture shortly after the event. This should be a great event with lots of relevant info!

    RSVP at any of these Meetup groups:
    http://www.meetup.com/From-Traditional2Digital-Media/
    http://www.meetup.com/BlackCreatives/
    http://www.meetup.com/DigitalCreatives/
    http://www.meetup.com/web2fem/

     

  • joly 4:17 pm on 01/12/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: copyright, , ,   

    Google Book Settlement Workshop in NYC on Jan. 20th 

    The Google Settlement — What it means for writers

    A FREE workshop will be held for writers in mid-town New York, Wednesday, Jan. 20 from 2-4:40 p.m.

    Are you out or in? Come get your questions answered.

    Hear the best-informed, best-known authorities on what the second version of the Google Book Search Settlement would mean for writers if it is approved by the court.  The second opt-out deadline is coming up a week after this seminar, so there is still time to figure out what’s best for you, personally, and then to act. This workshop will focus on the settlement and writers — just writers.

    Much of the public debate has settled on other aspects, like orphan books, yet we writers are still confused about what the proposed, new Book Rights Registry would mean for us.

    Sponsored jointly by the American Society of Journalists and Authors, ASJA, the National Writers Union, NWU, and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, SFWA.

    FREE but please tell us if you’re coming, either by calling 212-997-0947 or a quick e-mail to asjaoffice AT asja.org. (Put “Google settlement” in the subject line.)

    via Google Book Settlement Workshop in NYC on Jan. 20th.

     

  • joly 2:28 pm on 12/07/2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: copyright, , tenenbaum   

    “As it made clear previously, the Court was prepared to consider a more expansive fair use argument than other courts have credited—perhaps one supported by facts specific to this individual and this unique period of rapid technological change. For example, file sharing for the purposes of sampling music prior to purchase or space-shifting to store purchased music more efficiently might offer a compelling case for fair use. Likewise, a defendant who used the new file-sharing networks in the technological interregnum before digital media could be purchased legally, but who later shifted to paid outlets, might also be able to rely on the defense.” via How Team Tenenbaum missed a chance to shape P2P fair use law.
     

    • Newer posts →

    c
    Compose new post
    j
    Next post/Next comment
    k
    Previous post/Previous comment
    r
    Reply
    e
    Edit
    o
    Show/Hide comments
    t
    Go to top
    l
    Go to login
    h
    Show/Hide help
    shift + esc
    Cancel