Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Jen Young passed over This One from the The Chronicle of Higher Education that says President Bush is expected to sign a bill, passed last week, that would open the door for professors to use some copyrighted works in online courses without having to seek permission.
There are 6 versions of Bill Number HR 2215 for the 107th Congress.
Yolanda writes \"This Economist Story says The original purpose of patents was to encourage innovation, and thus growth, by creating an incentive for inventors to disclose the details of their inventions in exchange for a limited monopoly on exploitation. Some argue that the modern system of IPR law is having the opposite effect—delaying the diffusion of new technology.
They cover a report from Commission on Intellectual Property Rights that says poor places should avoid committing themselves to rich-world systems of IPR protection unless such systems are beneficial to their needs. Nor should rich countries, which professed so much interest in “sustainable development” at the recent summit in Johannesburg, push for anything stronger.
The report is available here \"
Dan Gillmor says We must engage in copyright debate. He says we must stop letting the entertainment companies set the terms of the legal discussions. We need to re-establish some balance, we need to re-educate ourselves, congress, and the public, and to learn the alternatives to the cartel\'s offerings.
\"Average people are not part of the conversation, not in any way that matters. To the cartel and its chattel in the halls of political power, we are nothing but ``consumers\'\' -- our sole function is to eat what the movie, music and publishing industries put in front of us, and then send money.\"
writes \"TomPaine has a piece on The Endangered Public Domain
from the book \"Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth\"
He says content aggregators -- film studios, publishers, record labels --brazenly cast a broad net of claimed ownership rights in the intangibles of our culture. Whether it is an image, a sound riff, a screen persona or an acronym, chances are that some white-shoe attorney in Los Angeles or New York will send a \"nasty-gram\" letter claiming that our shared culture -- even silence -- belongs to some mega-corporation.
The Great and Powerful Joe writes \"Not that these stories are hard to come by these days, but Chronicle has a story on copyright and the DMCA among other things in this weeks Site Sampler.
If only Uncle Sam noticed the scarcity of articles talking about the wonderful cuddliness of 21st century copyright law.
Here\'s An LJ Interview with Stanford University professor Lawrence Lessig. They talk about Eldred, copyright, and other challenges threatening the work of libraries.
The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) is pushing congress to rethink its approach to copyright legislation, stating that, \"The experience of consumers in the information age reaffirms our belief in the need to ensure consumer rights. Consumers and the economy are best served by open standards and networks that afford them maximum choice, encourage use and promote unfettered innovation by both consumers and producers.\" He also makes reference to the view by movie companies in the 80s, that VCR\'s should never hit the public market. Videos now account for 40% of the movie industry\'s revenue. Read more.
Lee Hadden writes: \"The EU scientific community is disagreeing over the provisions of
copyright law. There is an article in the July 8, 2002 issue of The
Scientist by Eugene Russo about this difference in law and cultural
diversity, on page 18.\"
The Story [requires some kind of registration] raises some interesting questions. Who owns the mountains of data contained in
databases--whether stock prices, real estate values, or
countless genome sequences? What intellectual property rights
do database creators have? And how much protection is too
LLRX writes \"Library Digitization Projects and Copyright
Mary Minow\'s extensive guide for libraries documents the process of determining whether works have expired into the public domain so that they may then be made available via the Web.
See LLRX.com for June 28, 2002\"
You may know Mary from such sites as librarylaw.com. This one is worth a read!
They say after 200 years of lumbering down the tracks, the intellectual-property process in the United States is beginning to go off the rails. Branches of the government are intervening where they never have before. Opposing camps, many with money and influence, are forming. Small inventors are diverted from where they can make the greatest contributions. And a culture of litigation, circumvention, and secrecy has evolved from an area where openness and law had long ruled.