gmane.org.freeculture.discuss

Re: Orphan Works Act of 2008

Fred Benenson — 2008-05-11T14:59:32

_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss< at >freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: Orphan Works Act of 2008

Gavin Baker — 2008-05-11T14:57:50

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Fred Benenson wrote: [...] | One way to think of it, and I haven't given this as much thought as I | should, would be that it essentially adding a 5-factor to fair use, | which I think is probably a good thing. Well, except the other 4 factors are actually defenses to infringement. This bill doesn't get the infringing user off the hook entirely, but limits the monetary and injunctive relief available. So I can see the way it's analogous to fair use, but it's not quite the same thing. - -- Gavin Baker http://www.gavinbaker.com/ gavin< at >gavinbaker.com in the dream my dog has a whistle only I can hear ~ John Stevenson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIJwlttLXQdLhFpekRArbdAJ93Lowvpzjeqg4N1a7PzU4g5K/DcQCdFlzl DN+B1gLF+AJnJdEPaJBY7bA= =sEpF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Orphan Works Act of 2008

Fred Benenson — 2008-05-11T14:45:10

_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss< at >freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: Orphan Works Act of 2008

Crosbie Fitch — 2008-05-11T11:47:06

This act is necessary for the publishing cartel because as they start changing copyright infringement into a crime, they can no longer rely upon self-publishers having no hope of prosecuting infringement when they wilfully appropriate their works - they're now faced with such appropriation being prosecuted by the state. This orphan works act thus restores the carte blanche they've always been used to to appropriate copyrighted works from the little guy. Hopefully, we can take it as another reminder that copyright is a weapon to be wielded by large and commercial publishers, not mere citizens (even if they do end up on its pointy end). So, if you thought the NC on CC-NC had any positive effect at all (it has plenty of negative, self-harming and community-harming effects), you should now realise it's completely impotent against commercial publishers. What the traditional/corporate publishers don't realise is that by preserving their ability to appropriate 'supposedly copyrighted' work from the little guys (d

Re: Orphan Works Act of 2008

Creighton Samuels — 2008-05-10T22:49:59

The RIAA is supporting it because it won't really harm their business model, and it delays the push to shorten the term for copyrights. The businesses that the RIAA represents are not hard to locate. Creighton

Re: Orphan Works Act of 2008

Nelson Pavlosky — 2008-05-10T18:55:34

I found this really good article laying out the bill and the issues surrounding it in detail: http://emg-zine.com/item.php?id=396 If you want to see people *flipping out* over this bill who do not seem to really understand what it is about, check out this Daily Kos thread: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/9/15437/07227 I have to admit, I was a little skeptical of the bill because of Howard Berman sponsoring it, and the RIAA supporting it, but as far as I can tell it's a good bill in its current form. Does anyone know exactly why the RIAA are supportive of it? Is there something I'm missing? I need to sit down and carefully read the text myself and research it some more, once finals are over in a few days, but right now it seems to me to be something SFC should support. Peace, ~Nelson~ Gavin Baker wrote: _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss< at >freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: Orphan Works Act of 2008

Gavin Baker — 2008-05-10T18:35:02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Public Knowledge supports it: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1553 So does the American Library Association (though apparently they prefer the Senate version to the House bill): http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/2969/library-group-favors-senate-over-house-bill-on-orphan-works I haven't been following this in great detail but I'm inclined to take the response of some artists' groups as histrionics/misunderstanding. Unless the bill really is awful (and I have a lot of faith in PK not to back a bad bill), it seems unfortunate they're holding up progress on this crucial issue. Of course, the best way to prevent orphan works is to shorten the copyright term. But this is an important and necessary approach as well. Dean Jansen wrote: | I haven't seen much discussion around this bill yet: | http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h5889/show | | "This bill would limit the amount of damages a copyright holder could | collect from an infringer if the infringer

Orphan Works Act of 2008

Dean Jansen — 2008-05-10T18:14:26

I haven't seen much discussion around this bill yet: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h5889/show "This bill would limit the amount of damages a copyright holder could collect from an infringer if the infringer performed a diligent search for the copyright holder before using their work. The goal of the legislation is to free up for reuse copyrighted works whose holders cannot be found. It would also set up a process for the Copyright Office to certify commercially-produced visual registries to help people locate the holder of a copyright and prevent the orphaning of works in the future." The representative behind it has plenty of entertainment industry ties: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00008094 Visual artists seem to hate it: http://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/ Looks like it actually passed in the house a few days ago: http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/2978/orphan-works-bill-sails-through-house-panel Anyone have any interesting links or opinions on it?

H.R. 4279: Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008

FreeCulture.org - Students for Free Culture — 2008-05-09T20:15:01

Writes Alex Kozak on our blog: The House passed H.R. 4279 (PRO-IP Act) yesterday, which, among other things, would create the "Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative" under the Executive Office of the President. It also increases the amount of resources and personnel related to CHIP (Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property) enforcement. [Read a summary here][1] [See the full text here (PDF)][2] The [EFF][3] has this to say about the legislation ([House Passes Controversial PRO IP Act):][4] federal bureaucracies devoted to intellectual property enforcement. None seems more ridiculous than language creating a Cabinet-level "IP enforcement czar" that would report to the President and coordinate enforcement efforts across government, a proposal that has been [loudly opposed][5] by the Department of Justice."_ In a time when many public University systems are facing huge budget deficits (for example, the University of California faces a $400 million deficit), is cr

Re: Blizzard v. Glider v. Public Knowledge

Christian Curtis — 2008-05-08T19:08:13

_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss< at >freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: Blizzard v. Glider v. Public Knowledge

Crosbie Fitch — 2008-05-08T15:12:26

No it isn't. An unethical law is being abused to protect a revenue stream supposedly dependent upon no mechanical assistance being utilised by human players in their mechanical 'play' (because it upsets all the other members of the chain gang who have to use brute force to crush rocks in the penitentiary yard). The game designer's artistic choices remain unaffected - unless you include "And this will be played by people without computer assistance" as an 'artistic choice'. That's more of a naïve wish than an artistic choice. As for a virtual treadmill, this isn't really an artistic choice either, but a commercial choice informed by player psychology. If you have a theme park, perhaps you can police it and require that no-one picnics on the grass but utilises restaurants instead (or gets ejected). If it's your space you can choose who is permitted to enter or remain, but really, it's a folly of the highest conceit to demand that people 'enjoy' the space in the way the designer intended and abstain from

Re: Blizzard v. Glider v. Public Knowledge

Matthew J. Agnello — 2008-05-08T13:53:51

_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss< at >freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: Blizzard v. Glider v. Public Knowledge

Crosbie Fitch — 2008-05-08T09:36:00

I don't think you address mine. I haven't made any point to the contrary. I haven't made any generalisation as to why someone would play Warcraft. I haven't criticised Warcraft. I haven't even criticised it as a game because a robot could excel at it (or even assist play in it). I've tried to briefly (because I appreciate people don't like to discuss issues tangential to free culture) point out that the provider of a networked game cannot expect to prevent players utilising computer assistance for those (typically 'monotonous') aspects of gameplay that do not require intelligence. Just as a record label cannot expect to prevent purchasers of CDs making copies for their MP3 players. I have not questioned players' reasons for playing Warcraft, only alluded to the motivation of those using computer assistance, which is either because they don't find the mechanical aspects sufficiently amusing or probably that they hope to sell/exchange the completed mechanical labour to those who also don't find the

Re: Summer Internship < at > Participatory CultureFoundation (Free Culture Focused)

sharatchandra shekar — 2008-05-08T06:19:30

_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss< at >freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: Blizzard v. Glider v. Public Knowledge

Matthew J. Agnello — 2008-05-07T23:29:59

_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss< at >freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: Blizzard v. Glider v. Public Knowledge

Matthew J. Agnello — 2008-05-07T23:07:00

_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss< at >freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Summer Internship < at > Participatory Culture Foundation(Free Culture Focused)

Dean Jansen — 2008-05-07T20:12:05

What: Internship < at > Participatory Culture Foundation (Free Culture Focused) When: Start ASAP Specifically on: The Open Video Project We've got an awesome opportunity for a Free Culture enthusiast to make a big difference in the online video ecosystem. We're looking for someone who can commit to working 15-25 hours per week as a summer Participatory Culture Foundation intern. You'll be working directly with Elizabeth Stark and me, plus partner organizations including: Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Wikimedia Foundation, One Laptop Per Child, and more. *What is the Open Video Project?* The Open Video Project seeks to create a framework surrounding the issue of digital video, one that promotes participation, decentralization, interoperability, and access. These are emerging issues, and they are off the radar screens of many people in the field. The OVP will raise awareness about the trend toward a closed and more restrictive future of online video, and will provide realistic and implementable steps in

Harvard Law commits to open access

Gavin Baker — 2008-05-07T17:44:42

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/05/harvard-law-school-joins-harvard-fas-in.html - -- Gavin Baker http://www.gavinbaker.com/ gavin< at >gavinbaker.com It is high time the ideal of success should be replaced with the ideal of service. ~ Albert Einstein -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIIeqKtLXQdLhFpekRAujsAJ9EpgmRhPDmdr9Yh086Nj745Vj8nQCggY58 jeK6oImDbKU3tOIV5p+ICQA= =5Hwo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Blizzard v. Glider v. Public Knowledge

Fred Benenson — 2008-05-07T16:01:30

_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss< at >freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: Blizzard v. Glider v. Public Knowledge

Nicholas LaRacuente — 2008-05-07T15:08:21

I was once a WoW player. I only got to around level 40 (out of a possible 60, not to mention all the equipment) before quitting, because I did not believe that it was worth it to invest hours every day on top of the monthly fee in order to reach a point where the game might become more enjoyable. Still, there are many who do believe that the sheer amount of time one puts into often repetitive tasks and quests is spent well, and they are Blizzard's main audience. I can see why they would be offended by the existence of a tool that allows others to reach that same place without the effort, especially since play is often competitive. I can see why Blizzard would be threatened by something that so offends their core audience. So Blizzard intends to fully control the environment in WoW, and usually they have done so technologically. My guess is that they decided to pursue any means possible in this case, and that they might not have fully recognized the worldwide copyright question that they ar

Re: Blizzard v. Glider v. Public Knowledge

Parker Higgins — 2008-05-07T14:26:54

_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss< at >freeculture.org http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss