The EU is continuing its progress towards developing the European Digital Library, a networked collection of Europe's cultural works. One of the biggest obstacles facing further advancement has been copyright law. The EU Observer reported that part of the blockade has been cleared, and that the initiative is well on its way to digitalizing more texts. Interestingly, Google has been listed as a large broker in this deal, specifically in digitalizing orphaned works. Are they planning on extending their Google Books project to include works on the EDL? Equally curious is whether Google will receive ad revenue from searches conducted by its service. Has the EU sorted out a bigger deal with the internet company?
Fortunately several large libraries in the U.S. are in full support of digitalizing orphaned works. These works, which are still under copyright's protection but do not have a reachable holder, have for a long time been disenfranchised. Google's wide-scale scanning project has helped revitalize the use of orphaned works and has even generated interest in getting out-of-print books back into production.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Craigscrimes
An anonymous post on Craigslist has been the cause of quite some headache to a homeowner in Washington state. In response to a listing that literally declared, "Come and take what you want," truckloads of property were carried off, leaving the home stripped and its owner still in the dark.
This recent case is one of many "civil matters" that have facilitated by the online classified. The police have resolved to treat the incident outside of criminal courts, for reasons not clearly articulated. While many criminal offenses spurred by Craigslist have been put on trial, such as prostitution, drug dealing, and gambling, the open-house posting has not resulted in any criminal charges.
Why is that?
Well, fortunately the blame is not being pointed to the service provider. Coming down hard on Craigslist for facilitating the post would not be the proper solution. It would cripple the speed and openness of info exchange that we have come to expect from the internet. Online classified ads should be treated similarly to content hosting sites such as YouTube, where the service provider is not held responsible for content uploaded by individual users unless properly notified to remove it.
But in this case of invited burglary, who is responsible? Certainly the poster, who initiated the theft and provided information alerting users to the vulnerability of the house. A subpoena for the identity of the poster is thoroughly justified. They seem to me to be the true party at fault.
This recent case is one of many "civil matters" that have facilitated by the online classified. The police have resolved to treat the incident outside of criminal courts, for reasons not clearly articulated. While many criminal offenses spurred by Craigslist have been put on trial, such as prostitution, drug dealing, and gambling, the open-house posting has not resulted in any criminal charges.
Why is that?
Well, fortunately the blame is not being pointed to the service provider. Coming down hard on Craigslist for facilitating the post would not be the proper solution. It would cripple the speed and openness of info exchange that we have come to expect from the internet. Online classified ads should be treated similarly to content hosting sites such as YouTube, where the service provider is not held responsible for content uploaded by individual users unless properly notified to remove it.
But in this case of invited burglary, who is responsible? Certainly the poster, who initiated the theft and provided information alerting users to the vulnerability of the house. A subpoena for the identity of the poster is thoroughly justified. They seem to me to be the true party at fault.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Google announces Gmail Paper
Google has broken the mold once again. In an industry-shaking maneuver, Google announced today that it will be the first email service provider to print, organize, and send its customers emails...for free. The service, called Gmail Paper, will be provided at no cost to users, other than the obligatory advertisements located discretely on the back of the printed pages.
Gone are the days of intangible internet archives, Google claims. Users can request as many printed emails as they wish. There will be no charge for shipping and handling.
What accounts for this generosity? Certainly Google must plan to make a profit off of Gmail Paper in some manner. Albeit the company's pledge to not be evil, one cannot help but feel uneasy when inspecting the gift horse. After all, the advertisements seem subtle enough, but what's to prevent snoopy employees or other prying eyes from reading the contents and selling the information to advertising firms, or worse, the government? Google offers no clear privacy policy.
Responses to Google's radical program range the gauntlet. The most provocative have come from a certain April Folery, and she insists that Gmail Paper will be a thriving and lucrative business model. We can expect Yahoo to follow suit.
Gone are the days of intangible internet archives, Google claims. Users can request as many printed emails as they wish. There will be no charge for shipping and handling.
What accounts for this generosity? Certainly Google must plan to make a profit off of Gmail Paper in some manner. Albeit the company's pledge to not be evil, one cannot help but feel uneasy when inspecting the gift horse. After all, the advertisements seem subtle enough, but what's to prevent snoopy employees or other prying eyes from reading the contents and selling the information to advertising firms, or worse, the government? Google offers no clear privacy policy.
Responses to Google's radical program range the gauntlet. The most provocative have come from a certain April Folery, and she insists that Gmail Paper will be a thriving and lucrative business model. We can expect Yahoo to follow suit.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Viacom is Sued
In an interesting twist to the thickening plot of Viacom vs YouTube, the EFF and Stanford's Center for Internet and Society have filed suit against Viacom, claiming that the media company falsly submitted a request to remove a video from YouTube.
The video that was removed was a production by MoveOn.org Civic Action and Brave New Films LLC, which included clips from "The Colbert Report," a show from Viacom's daughter company, Comedy Central. The makers of the video claim that their use was fair, and that Viacom incorrectly filed for the removal of the video.
The fair use doctrine stipulates that a copyrighted work may be used, so long as the portion used is small and that it does not harm the market for the copyrighted work, among others. The EFF and CIS maintain that video fell under the protection of fair use, and that it was inappropriate for Viacom to demand the removal of the video.
This side lawsuit brings up the interesting question of the role of DMCA for service providers, since the law does not rule in favor of the provider if they take too long to investigate the content upon receiving notice for its removal.
The video that was removed was a production by MoveOn.org Civic Action and Brave New Films LLC, which included clips from "The Colbert Report," a show from Viacom's daughter company, Comedy Central. The makers of the video claim that their use was fair, and that Viacom incorrectly filed for the removal of the video.
The fair use doctrine stipulates that a copyrighted work may be used, so long as the portion used is small and that it does not harm the market for the copyrighted work, among others. The EFF and CIS maintain that video fell under the protection of fair use, and that it was inappropriate for Viacom to demand the removal of the video.
This side lawsuit brings up the interesting question of the role of DMCA for service providers, since the law does not rule in favor of the provider if they take too long to investigate the content upon receiving notice for its removal.
YouTube vs ThemTube
News Corp and NBC announced today that they will be launching their own video site, one that reviews say may rival YouTube, the video-sharing community now owned by Google, and the defendant in a huge copyright case against Viacom.
The new site by News Corp and NBC promises to give viewers what they want...for free. Sure, there will be the obligatory commerical, the annoying banner ads, and probably lots of cookies tracking views and user data, but it is a step towards progress when these Big Media heavyweights agree to release the content of shows like The Simpsons and Saturday Night Live online, on their own terms.
Only a few months ago tech-naysayers were scolding sites like YouTube and claiming the end of video streaming for copyrighted material. And here we have the News Corp/NBC site springing up. The tribe has spoken. The people want content, they want it online, and they want it for free. Now the media outlets have to adapt themselves to those demands.
The only real downside, in my opinion, in these new sanctioned forums, is that the platform for sharing user-produced content disappears. People like YouTube not just for the Jon Stewart clips, but also because they like to see videos of other users, from people like them. YouTube is as much about community as it is about a new format of television. Projects by News Corp and NBC seem to gloss over that fact.
The new site by News Corp and NBC promises to give viewers what they want...for free. Sure, there will be the obligatory commerical, the annoying banner ads, and probably lots of cookies tracking views and user data, but it is a step towards progress when these Big Media heavyweights agree to release the content of shows like The Simpsons and Saturday Night Live online, on their own terms.
Only a few months ago tech-naysayers were scolding sites like YouTube and claiming the end of video streaming for copyrighted material. And here we have the News Corp/NBC site springing up. The tribe has spoken. The people want content, they want it online, and they want it for free. Now the media outlets have to adapt themselves to those demands.
The only real downside, in my opinion, in these new sanctioned forums, is that the platform for sharing user-produced content disappears. People like YouTube not just for the Jon Stewart clips, but also because they like to see videos of other users, from people like them. YouTube is as much about community as it is about a new format of television. Projects by News Corp and NBC seem to gloss over that fact.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Copyright: the Metaphysics of Law
Today, American copyright is an all-or-nothing, all-rights-reserved federal protection. The moment an “original work of authorship” is “fixed in any tangible medium of expression,”[1] its author receives an automatic claim to exclusive rights in that work. The duration of a single, “flesh-and-blood” author’s copyright is his entire life plus seventy years after his death. After that, the work passes into the public domain. Is this term too extreme?
Since its initial inception, the term of copyright’s protection has increased dramatically. In 1790, following the drafting of the Progress Clause of the United States Constitution, authors enjoyed fourteen years of federal protection in their published works. After that, they could renew their copyrights for a maximum fourteen more years. In those days, an author had to register his copyright by first submitting a printed title page of the work with a local court, then running a notice of publication in a newspaper within two months of publication, and finally placing a copy of the work with the Secretary of State within six months of publication.[2] Today, copyright is awarded without hassle or formality the moment a work achieves “fixity.” It seems that the arena of copyright, the law may indeed approach “what may be called the metaphysics of law,” a regulatory realm “where distinctions are, or at least may be, very subtle and refined, and sometimes, almost evanescent.”[3]
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Holding Class in Cyberspace
I just wanted to post a few thoughts in response to the class we had last week online. I thought it turned out to be an interesting experiment that demonstrated the pros and cons of digital communication.
Pros:
People seemed less intimidated to contribute. Although at times questions became too numerous, I felt that the class on a whole was more involved in the conversation.
A degree of anonymity that I think may have allowed people to talk more freely about subjects such as .xxx sites.
The comfort of your own room. I usually travel 1 hr each way on the bus to class. Meeting online saved me a nice chunk of time.
Written transcript of the class. We could refer to it later if need be.
Cons:
People could be "present" in the room, but absent in the discussion. This is probably only a problem for the professor who has to take attendance. For the students, it's a nice way to the folks who want to be there to stay, and for those that don't care, to surf the net.
Tempo of the conversation could seem very rushed. Especially at the beginning, when questions flew at our guest.
Some people monopolize the conversation. There is no easy way "not to call on someone" online. If they want to say something, they will.
Harder to thread topics. I constantly felt like I was scattering and trying to figure out what response was to whom.
Overall, like I said, an interesting experiment. It had its perks, but I say will full conviction that I am glad that we meet regularly in person.
Pros:
People seemed less intimidated to contribute. Although at times questions became too numerous, I felt that the class on a whole was more involved in the conversation.
A degree of anonymity that I think may have allowed people to talk more freely about subjects such as .xxx sites.
The comfort of your own room. I usually travel 1 hr each way on the bus to class. Meeting online saved me a nice chunk of time.
Written transcript of the class. We could refer to it later if need be.
Cons:
People could be "present" in the room, but absent in the discussion. This is probably only a problem for the professor who has to take attendance. For the students, it's a nice way to the folks who want to be there to stay, and for those that don't care, to surf the net.
Tempo of the conversation could seem very rushed. Especially at the beginning, when questions flew at our guest.
Some people monopolize the conversation. There is no easy way "not to call on someone" online. If they want to say something, they will.
Harder to thread topics. I constantly felt like I was scattering and trying to figure out what response was to whom.
Overall, like I said, an interesting experiment. It had its perks, but I say will full conviction that I am glad that we meet regularly in person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)