Group items tagged

Oracle is suing Google over the use of their Java API's in Android. This should be an interesting case. Google argues that while you can copyright a finished product, you shouldn't be able to copyright the computer language used to build the product - just like a novelist can copyright a book but nobody can copyright English. Oracle disagrees and says that if the language is unique enough, then it should be protected. They cite Klingon as an example. I read through Oracle's filing and it actually looks pretty strong. I didn't bother reading Google's because it's pretty clear that Google is missing the point that Oracle isn't upset that they used Java, but that they bundled all the extra API's. I really feel for the judge and jury having to hear this case. Oracle's brief isn't exactly light on the technical details...

A fairly interesting read how copyright has diminished the availability of books from 1923 (the start of copyright protections for titles), so there is a large gap of material from before then that is out of copyright and widely available, and currently published material. However, material in between those times is scarce. However numbers can be deceiving as these are books in current publication, not available used copies, and it would make sense that copyrighted material not widely in demand would have low publication numbers.

An article that makes some good points about copyright, namely that the information we need to access, repair, or modify equipment we own is often copyrighted in itself. Which means by virtue of copyright we are unable to access the service manuals, error codes, or diagnostic tools we need to do anything with a technological device. The author makes a point that while works of art may be restricted by we own a performance right to it, physical objects we own outright.

A federal judge released a 350 page ruling that largely vindicated Georgia State University's use of materials in an Electronic Reserves system called ERES. at issue was how full chapters of books were made available among other material. In 74 cases of alleged infringement only 5 were proven valid as GSU did not place any limit on the amount copied or provided guidance to professors. Provided the ruling stands and is not appealed this could be a landmark decision in fair use. I found it interesting the suit was financially backed by not only the Association of American Publisher but also the Copyright Clearance Center, which provides authorization to use copyrighted materials in electronic reserves, among other things.

Well, this is ambitious and I imagine will be very time-consuming.  It's a good resource guide to the IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations)'s attempt to liberalize copyright laws on an international scale.

Some of the latest developments in the ongoing copyright infringement case with Georgia State going back to 2008. A judge last year had granted a nearly complete victory ruling that only 5 of the 99 instances broke copyright. However, the ruling has been appealed and there is some question if the DOJ may file a brief siding with the publishers.

Wayne Bivens-Tatum at the Library Journal offers a general criticism at how current copyright law is designed solely with the benefit of publishers in mind.

A ruling was held against the "Meltwater News Service" that using articles from the Associated Press as a "clipping service" violated copyright. Meltwater is a 12 year old service that helped clients monitor how they are covered in the press.

I think I'd heard of the Digital Public Library of America; I wonder if it will be able to get past the issues Google faced.

I think the article is right that a non-profit organization will get farther than Google did. It will also be nice to have an organization outside of the ALA that will make a stand on the copyright issues involved in digitization.

An article that covers some open access and peer reviewed projects such as the Public Library of Science (www.plos.org) and ultimately makes the conclusion that research should be free because no part of the process should cost very much, and some of the hold up is academia not considering open access journals "prestigious" enough to merit tenure. I would agree in principle, especially if commercial publishers are removed from the equation. However, a lot of applied science and research relies on funding that may involve copyrighted or trademarked material, so some research will always be restricted.

This was of interest considering my visit to the Wolfner Library during the conference. The issue seems to center around loosening copyright restrictions so blind readers can have more easy access to materials that have be converted into a format accessible to them, and the resistance of the entertainment and publishing industries even though it would be beneficial.

I would say this article is focusing more on headlines and making noise than something actually about to happen. The story is about a case going to the Supreme Court where a student from Thailand was studying at Cornell University and found that his textbooks made by Wiley were substantially cheaper in his home country. He began buying books there and reselling them in the U.S. on Ebay, making over $1.2 million. Wiley accused him of copyright infringement, and the student responded this was protected under the first sale doctrine. What is at stake is how this doctrine may be redefined; what is unique is not that the goods were made in foreign country, but owned and marketed by a U.S. company who sought to restrict sales of those items in the U.S.

A victory for fair use, with scanned materials that are used in the HathiTrust. The HathiTrust repository use materials scanned from the Google Books but he access is more restrictive, allowing full text searches only with the copyright holder's permission--but does allow full text for readers with print disabilities. A Federal judge ruled this is covered by fair use, while related lawsuits against Google continue.

An article that revisits an older issue (Amazon wiping or removing a book from a Kindle), just this time it was an entire eBook collection and was deleted because of a problem with the user's account. It reinforces what copyright holders have always had but weren't able to enforce until the digital era, that users have only rights to access or use a work, not to actually own it, and those rights can be limited. Further, Amazon is a private company that can dictate policies; all the user knows is her account is "related" to a blocked account without knowing why or how.

This is similar to a problem I'd heard about regarding non-copyrighted books, namely repackaging what could be had for free and charging for it when there's little to no added value. Now books with titles similar to popular offerings but otherwise having nothing in common are coming up in the hopes that buyers not paying attention will click on them. Examples are "I am the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and "Twilight New Moon." This is also a very old trick, as I've heard for years of knock-off electronics being sold under brand names like Panasoanic and JCV.

The Transparency Report is a report Google has recently made available that shows requests to remove copyrighted material from Google's search results but also requests from governments to remove information and inquiries from governments about Google's users. Unsurprisingly the U.S., is first in user data requests, but oddly followed by India and France.

The Church of "Copy-Me-ism," which holds file sharing as a sacred rite. Rather than having a dogma they have values. I'm unclear how much this is a sort of in-joke like the "Church of the Subgenius" or if it intends more cynically to circumvent copyright laws and rulings by declaring them against their religious sacraments.

The Internet Archice is now offering over one million items as peer to peer BitTorrent downloads. While in one sense it is only a different download method for materials that are copyright and royalty free, it is Torrents have been controversial as they are often used to download pirated movies and software. However, the Internet Archive does have a point in that it improves access for users with limited bandwidth. Downloads include 1.2 million books and 9,000 videos and movies.

An interview with William Noel, curator of the Walters Art Museum, which recently featured the Archimedes palimpsest in its collection-- both physical and digital.  What's wonderful about that is that its digital collection is under Creative Commons license. I'm a bit confused as to why Noel thinks that libraries don't want to advertise their collections, unless he's referring to the fact that libraries typically contain copyrighted material in their collections.

Oh, and you can get to the digital exhibition of the Archimedes palimpsest at http://archimedespalimpsest.net/. It's not terribly user-friendly (to quickly look at the images, select "Google Book of the Archimedes Palimpsest"), but being able to access the raw TIFF images is pretty darn cool.

An article that describes a problem but really offers no solutions. I would also describe the experience as not of a walled garden library but the attempts to make access available with copyright and software limitations, versus all material being only in print and physically having to go to a library that owns it to access it.