 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Lessig Blog 
Senator Hatch (who used to understand stuff) has introduced the INDUCE Act, which will criminalize the act of inducing another to commit a copyright violation. This is a brand new theory of copyright liability, which, as this floor statement makes clear, is directed at overturning Sony with respect to p2p.
The proposal alone is troubling enough. But the outrageous part is that there is talk that this massive new layer of federal regulation of technology will happen without hearings — indeed, that it will be passed in the next weeks.
Whatever the merits of this new regulatory program are (and, imho, there are not many), it should not happen without an opportunity for Congress to consider the full implications of this new regulation. The ramifications of this reach far beyond p2p.
Cory’s speech at Microsoft on the mistake of DRM. (PDF) (thanks Jeremie!)
the local ordinance we call the first amendment
This comes to me from a reliable source, though I would very much like it if it were mistaken.
Apparently Microsoft has taken the first steps to filing a criminal defamation action against a Brazilian government official who was quoted criticizing Microsoft in a magazine article. Sergio Amadeu, head of the agency responsible for spreading free software within the Brazilian government, is reported to have accused “the company of a ‘drug-dealer practice’ for offering the operational system Windows to some governments and cities for digital inclusion programs. ‘This is a trojan horse, a form of securing critical mass to continue constraining the country’.”
He’s also quoted characterizing Microsoft’s strategy as a “strategy of fear, uncertainty and doubt.”
These statements have apparently earned Mr. Amadeu the right to defend himself in a defamation action. Microsoft characterizes Amadeu’s statements as “beyond being absurd and criminal” and as evincing an “excess in freedom of speech and freedom of thought.” “Freedom of speech and freedom of thought” is, Microsoft apparently believes, properly prosecuted in Brazil, and so it has brought this first step to prosecute the “felony of defamation” evinced by Amadeu’s words.
Such words could not rise to the level of defamation in the United States; I would be surprised if they were defamation in any sane state. But whether they are defamatory in Brazil or not, it is wrong for this company to use the law to silence a critic. In the American tradition, we meet bad speech with more speech, not with more lawyers. We should all teach Microsoft something of our tradition, by meeting its bad speech — a defamation action against a critic — with lots more speech criticizing it.
balanced and fair: Geist on copyright reform
Michael Geist’s latest column in the Tornoto Star maps a sane process to realizing balance in IP. Help spread the sanity.
I knew there had to be some. The comments to my query have a bunch, but this is a favorite. More?
If you’re in a pro-Kerry mood and in SF on June 19th, then check out this Grotto event. And as I’m being hassled to get people to go, please give the lessig blog some credit for the link.
TheBots have released an archive of George Bush Audio.
Not that one should expect that Apple reads blogs, but very cool idea in any case!
Robert Reddick produced this cool ad which very effectively makes a point that I’ve been blathering on about with less effect.
More from Jerry Lobdill, who writes about his own wonderful experiences with the existing copyright system:
I am a small businessman. Among other things I am interested in publishing a few things. I have multiple interests, so the subjects I’m interested in vary. One of my interests is the history of the US, especially the era of the wild west.I have discovered an out of print book that is extremely important to students of the wild west. It is extremely rare and was published only in first edition in 1928. This book was renewed in the name only of the author in 1955, and under present law will not enter public domain until 2022. (According to my research no published works will enter the public domain until 2019.) However, the author died in 1963. He had no children, and his wife died in 1976. Her will does not mention any copyrights. I am obtaining a copy of the will of the author but have not seen it yet. I have had the US Copyright Office do a paid search, and all they have on record is that the author renewed the copyright in 1955. There is no record of transfer of ownership on file.
I inquired of the original publisher if they knew anything about the author’s copyright and was first told that they knew nothing about the book of interest. Then, they said they thought they owned the copyright but were investigating to be certain. Then I was told that they definitely owned the copyright. When I asked for a xerox of the copyright transfer document that law prescribes, transferring the renewed copyright to them, they refused to produce it, saying that their policy is not to provide such information to “private parties”. When I explained that I was thinking of republishing the book and that the US Copyright Office records show that the renewal belonged to the author only, and that I needed proof of their claim before negotiating for publishing rights, I was told that I was too small a publisher to qualify.
So…here I sit, with an extensive file that contains no transfer document. The US Copyright Office has no record of a transfer of ownership, and I feel that there is a strong possibility that the publisher is lying about ownership. If so it would not be unusual in today’s environment. They probably hoped that I’d negotiate with them without proof.
As a result of this situation I have spent money and time and have only a written assertion of ownership without proof. Were it not for this unsupported claim I would know that there was a transfer or that there is no one alive who is likely to challenge my republication of the book.
The law is flawed in my opinion if it requires a written transfer of ownership (like real property) but does not require a claimant to produce the proof of ownership except in the context of a copyright infringement suit.
If you agree, what can be done to get the law repaired? The way it is now it invites and rewards false claims of this sort to the detriment of reasonable use of works that are effectively public domain.
(cf. “It’s simple.)
Kevin Werbach, who was at the FCC, and then worked with Esther Dyson, and will soon begin teaching at the Wharton School, has launched a group blog about unlicensed wireless issues. Check it out at http://www.wirelessunleashed.com.
Jerry Lobdill writes with this interesting story about a remix culture now regulated:
This is an example of the kind of art flamenco is--or was. And I speak particularly about the guitar here. The roots of flamenco are lost in the mists of time. They go back at least into the late 1700s, but probably farther. At this time there are over 40 distinct forms which are each characterized by a specific repetitive rhythmic pattern termed “compas”, a specified musical mode (major, minor, or phrygian), and certain signature resolution phrases or other unique musical features.I have played flamenco guitar for 47 years. When I was learning to play, the current versions of the forms could be traced back to a few virtuosos who came on the scene as early as 1905 or thereabouts. Every form is played as a series of sections that are distinct in melody and are sandwiched between more or less standard rhythmic sections characteristic of the form. The melodic sections are called “falsetas”. The sections are played in whatever order a player chooses and players spend spare time trying to invent new falsetas or modifying old ones. Most players know the genealogy of their falsetas to some extent, but anything that is older than a couple of generations is usually of unknown origin.
Lore has it that great flamenco guitarists invent falsetas on the fly during performance. This is nonsense. But that’s another story. Hardly any guitarist can read music and/or uses any kind of notation to commit falsetas to paper.
In the cante (song) the verses (letras) and the melodies are generally very old though most are associated with the name of the originator.
Through the 1950s it was expected that players would play mostly traditional things with minor additional innovations. The falsetas of a particular player did not usually evolve from one recording to the next, and, indeed, players had favorite falsetas that they played for years.
But as soon as recording industry moguls got involved all that changed. Nowadays they are claiming copyright on everything that is recorded, even the traditional portions that have been played since antiquity. Guitarists such as Paco de Lucia are pushed and prodded to innovate, and he has said publicly that the creation of new material is the most difficult part of what he does in this modern environment. Yet even his innovations (when he plays flamenco instead of the bastardized watered down stuff he mostly plays these days) contain traditional resolution phrases and rhythmic sections that define the forms and are ancient anonymous creations.
Spanish copyright has gone crazy locking up the public domain along with the new in recent years.
I have reams of manuscript transcripts of fabulous flamenco guitar music that will never be published because of the abuse and tyranny of copyright law. Like many non-Spanish flamenco guitar players, I play what I consider to be the best--just like Spaniards did before commercialization of the art. It’s sad that all this will never be published for the enjoyment of the world.
(cf. “It’s simple.”)
Michael Tucker sent this link to a film he’s making about the war in Iraq. “It includes two video clips that I think your readers will appreciate, no matter what their views on the war.” Favorite quote from a soldier: “For y’all this is just a show, but we live in this movie.”
And I can’t believe there isn’t any conservative remixes out there. Really?
The beauty of a duck. (Chill, lawyers.) (Thanks to Laura Arguello for the link.)
Rick Prelinger, father of public domain film, will show Panorama Ephemera, a feature-length collage film, at the San Francisco Cinematheque on Sunday, June 13 at 7:30 pm.
The film is made from “ephemeral film,” which either were not copyrighted when originally published, or have passed into the public domain. The supply of such film officially ended in 1978, when all film is automatically (federally) copyrighted. (CORRECTED!)
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.