Section 108 could apply to Google in a lot of ways. The Section 108 Study Group is set to draft amendments to Section 108. It could turn into something quite different than it is today. That's why Google should be at the table during the discussions. Section 108 could be changed to specifically allow the what Google wants to do with its Library Project. The libraries that participate in the Google Library Project are effectively outsourcing library content to Google. The Section 108 Study Group is discussing the issue of digital outsourcing.
Google should be involved in this discussion.
You don't need to register for copyright. Copyright is granted to any author who creates a new work and records it. See 17 USC 102. Registration is available under section 408, but it's not necessary. It's good to register though because you are then eligible to recover statutory damages under sections 412 and 504 in case of infringment. If you don't register and there is infringement you can go to court the get the infringing party to stop and you can recover actual damages, but you can't recover statutory damages.
I am a librarian. If this story is true, I am very concerned about how the Dept. of Homeland Security obtained a library patron's records. It is a violation of principle III of the American Library Association Code of Ethics to provide a library patron's records to anyone without the patron's consent. If the story is true, I would like to see the American Library Association take disciplinary action against librarians responsible for the release of these records.
FYI - The attorneys filing all of these subpoenas on behalf of the RIAA are Yvette Molinaro and Jim Trilling according to United States District Court for the District of Columbia documents available on PACER.
Lamar Smith (R-TX-21), John Conyers (D-MI-14) and Howard Berman (D-CA-28) are behind this bill, H.R. 2517. It has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee where Conyers and Berman are the top democrats and Smith is the number three republican. If you are a constituent of any of them, please let them know you are not happy about this bill.
All online pornographers ought to be relegated to a special domain name just for them -.xxx for example. That way it would be a lot easier to block the porn. Pornographers operating on other domains would be penalized.
Why do you think people who download music from the Internet are thieves?
Here is the letter I sent to Senator Hatch:
Dear Senator Hatch:
Do you really favor destroying people's computers as a remedy for Internet copyright infringement? Instead, you should consider expanding fair use provisions of 17 U.S.C. Â 107, so non-commercial sharing of copyrighted files would be legal. We need to embrace this great new technology of peer-to-peer file sharing, not fight it.
The entertainment industry feels threatened, but this is not the first time. Remember the Sony VCR case, Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)? The film industry wanted to block the sale of VCRs because they could be used to illegally copy movies. The supreme court decided that the VCR was capable of significant non-infringing uses and allowed the continued sale of VCRs.
Really, the film industry was afraid that the VCR would hurt its bottom line. It was wrong; cinema revenues are doing fine today in spite of the introduction of the VCR and now the DVD player. I see similarities with online file sharing. The recording industry needs to find a way to embrace this new technology, not shun it. Millions upon millions of people are already using it; there is no stopping it.
Maybe expansion of fair use provisions sounds a bit far-fetched to you, but remember what Thomas Jefferson said about intellectual property: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Intellectual property is unlike tangible property and so should be treated differently under the law. The origin of our intellectual property laws is in the constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8 grants congress the power âoeTo 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.â The primary intent of this clause is to promote progress of creativity, i.e., Progress of Science and useful Arts. The secondary intent is to reward creators, so they will have incentive to create. Seeing that the secondary intent is a means to serve the primary intent, creators should only be rewarded for their creative work insofar as the reward promotes progress of creativity. Progress of creativity is the foundation of our intellectual property laws, not exclusive ownership rights.
Here is a link to a Slashdot.com page where there is a discussion about your recent comments, http://xsls.com?472. Slashdot is an online forum for members of the tech community.
Wow! I have seen this before and have actually discussed this Web site in an academic setting! A lecturer at the University of Washington Information School showed this moist towelette site to us in class a while back. We tried to decide whether it was a collection or a catalog.
Slashdot Mirror
Section 108 could apply to Google in a lot of ways. The Section 108 Study Group is set to draft amendments to Section 108. It could turn into something quite different than it is today. That's why Google should be at the table during the discussions. Section 108 could be changed to specifically allow the what Google wants to do with its Library Project. The libraries that participate in the Google Library Project are effectively outsourcing library content to Google. The Section 108 Study Group is discussing the issue of digital outsourcing. Google should be involved in this discussion.
You don't need to register for copyright. Copyright is granted to any author who creates a new work and records it. See 17 USC 102. Registration is available under section 408, but it's not necessary. It's good to register though because you are then eligible to recover statutory damages under sections 412 and 504 in case of infringment. If you don't register and there is infringement you can go to court the get the infringing party to stop and you can recover actual damages, but you can't recover statutory damages.
I am a librarian. If this story is true, I am very concerned about how the Dept. of Homeland Security obtained a library patron's records. It is a violation of principle III of the American Library Association Code of Ethics to provide a library patron's records to anyone without the patron's consent. If the story is true, I would like to see the American Library Association take disciplinary action against librarians responsible for the release of these records.
FYI - The attorneys filing all of these subpoenas on behalf of the RIAA are Yvette Molinaro and Jim Trilling according to United States District Court for the District of Columbia documents available on PACER.
Lamar Smith (R-TX-21), John Conyers (D-MI-14) and Howard Berman (D-CA-28) are behind this bill, H.R. 2517. It has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee where Conyers and Berman are the top democrats and Smith is the number three republican. If you are a constituent of any of them, please let them know you are not happy about this bill.
All online pornographers ought to be relegated to a special domain name just for them - .xxx for example. That way it would be a lot easier to block the porn. Pornographers operating on other domains would be penalized.
Can ICANN an the FCC do this????
Why do you think people who download music from the Internet are thieves?
Here is the letter I sent to Senator Hatch:
Dear Senator Hatch:
Do you really favor destroying people's computers as a remedy for Internet copyright infringement? Instead, you should consider expanding fair use provisions of 17 U.S.C. Â 107, so non-commercial sharing of copyrighted files would be legal. We need to embrace this great new technology of peer-to-peer file sharing, not fight it.
The entertainment industry feels threatened, but this is not the first time. Remember the Sony VCR case, Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)? The film industry wanted to block the sale of VCRs because they could be used to illegally copy movies. The supreme court decided that the VCR was capable of significant non-infringing uses and allowed the continued sale of VCRs.
Really, the film industry was afraid that the VCR would hurt its bottom line. It was wrong; cinema revenues are doing fine today in spite of the introduction of the VCR and now the DVD player. I see similarities with online file sharing. The recording industry needs to find a way to embrace this new technology, not shun it. Millions upon millions of people are already using it; there is no stopping it.
Maybe expansion of fair use provisions sounds a bit far-fetched to you, but remember what Thomas Jefferson said about intellectual property: "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Intellectual property is unlike tangible property and so should be treated differently under the law. The origin of our intellectual property laws is in the constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8 grants congress the power âoeTo 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.â The primary intent of this clause is to promote progress of creativity, i.e., Progress of Science and useful Arts. The secondary intent is to reward creators, so they will have incentive to create. Seeing that the secondary intent is a means to serve the primary intent, creators should only be rewarded for their creative work insofar as the reward promotes progress of creativity. Progress of creativity is the foundation of our intellectual property laws, not exclusive ownership rights.
Here is a link to a Slashdot.com page where there is a discussion about your recent comments, http://xsls.com?472. Slashdot is an online forum for members of the tech community.
Sincerely,
Jeff Buckley
Seattle, WA
Wow! I have seen this before and have actually discussed this Web site in an academic setting! A lecturer at the University of Washington Information School showed this moist towelette site to us in class a while back. We tried to decide whether it was a collection or a catalog.