Copyright Talk

The proposed settlement between Google and various book publishers (which still needs final approval from the Court) is slowly getting more and more clear. There are more than 300 pages in the agreement, so much of it is still lacking full analysis by parties unaffiliated with the lawsuit, but what has come out so far is not necessarily to the liking of all those who will be affected. Read one author’s angry but articulate response here.

Authors might find a useful tool here.

There’s a difference between access and copying. But the difference is not so intuitively obvious in the case of online archives. It is critical, however, in determining the possibility of copyright issues.

This article in the University of California, SD Guardian discussed in depth various issues related to an online repository for tests from college courses, made available to subsequent students in those courses. But the bottom line for me is the almost accidental technical difference between handing someone a copy of your old test and scanning that same test into your computer.

When a college professor gives you a written test and allows you to keep that copy, you own the copy - that is, the physical piece of paper - with that test on it. Barring a specific agreement otherwise, or a school ethics code prohibition, you are free to hand that test to your roomate, or to file it in a place accessible to other students. The latter is a common practice in fraternities and other campus student groups. You could even sell the piece of paper to someone else.

But when you post the same test on the internet, you have created another copy of the test, which is prohibited by copyright law unless you have permission or the copy constitutes “fair use.” Even holding the paper up in front of a video camera and posting the video probably creates a new and separate “copy” of the test.

Many professors are not that concerned with the copyright issue. They are aware and prepared for the need to have new questions on each test they give, and don’t otherwise assign value to their tests that would make them object to the postings. In those cases, you may have “understood” permission to post the test. But other professors clearly do object, as discussed in the article. So while online filing cabinets are convenient, the best route to sharing tests may still be the old fashioned walk down to the student commons to check the metal filing cabinets in person.

The quick recap:
* peer to peer file swapping is huge
* recording industry believes song swapping interferes with sales
* Song swapping really is a copyright infringment in many cases
* Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sought to deter illegal file swapping by suing individuals (college students, mostly) for large damage claims, then settling for smaller amounts, typically $3000-$5000 per person.

Critics of the RIAA strategy say, well, they say many things, but the thing that is relevant to this particular post is that the statute under which the RIAA lawsuits are brought is unconstitutional. The short explanation is that the statute may create a criminal offense with a private enforcement mechanism. In other words, the “damages” that the RIAA seeks in these lawsuits are really a “fine” for copyright infringement, but instead of the usual criminal enforcement procedures - that include all the constitutional protections for the defendant - this statute allows enforcement in an ordinary civil lawsuit. The main problem with that is that the person being sued, who is in the position of “defendant,” is not innocent until probven guilty. In fact, nearly all of the lawsuits have settled for the simple reason that individuals will spend far less by settling for a few thousand dollars than they would spend to hire a lawyer to try and defend against the corporate law department of the RIAA, who would think nothing of spending far more on attorney fees than the amount of money they stand to win. They are in it for the deterrence effect.

Anyway, one of these lawsuits is about to be defended by an attorney with the argument that the underlying statute is unconstitutional. This is not an argument that the file sharing is protected or otherwise “okay.” It is merely an attack on the strategy being used by the RIAA. But to the extent that critics are right and the strategy is heay-handed, over-reaching, and unconstitutional, this is an important case.

You can read more from the AP here.

Remember the big dust-up over Google’s plans to digitize all books everywhere in the world and beam them into everyone’s head so all information throughout time would be universally available?

Okay, that wasn’t quite the plan, but close. Google began work several years ago on a project to digitize significant library collections. It raised concerns from many groups. Business Week had a good article on the issues when the project was first becoming known.

The battle has rage on since that time, with legal intervention, of course. Last week, Google announced an agreement had been reached to settle the matter, and it seems like a good outcome. Google’s website explains in some detail.

While I might not use quite as much hyperbole as Google does, this agreement does seem to reach a new level of cool in the internet world.

Can there be a Limited Edition of information products?

I thought about this after I came across a site that discusses nothing but limited edition foods. I didn’t realize this was the big business that it is. I’m certainly familiar with the Franklin Mint and all their limited edition products. And nobody who has kids these days is unaware of the long parade of Disney limited edition releases, but food was a new concept. There’s no collectible factor here (except the packaging, and everybody knows from watching Antiques Roadshow that the most value comes from having the product along with intact packaging). With food, there is a pure, fleeting experience and then memories. I guess you could take a picture of yourself eating the food, but the actual taste cannot be preserved (that I know of, anyway).

In the information age that we live in, it’s kind of refreshing to find an experience where preservation is not only not the goal, but is actually impossible. There is no digital storage of tastes (again, I add the disclaimer, “that I know of”).

And then I got to thinking, can there be a limited edition of copyrightable material? There can certainly be limited editions of the package that the information is put in - witness the Disney Classics Collection mentioned above - but what about the information itself? Kind of a philosophical question, I admit. Viewing a photograph can be a one-time experience, but what if the photo caused a shift in your perceptions? Written stories and articles can likewise change your view of the world, and are often disseminated further through the oral tradition.

I guess I’d like to think that information is not limited, even if it’s just to an edition.