Author: john

Briefly…

New Orphaned Works Act would limit copyright liability (Ars)
Without passing any kind of judgment on our copyright structure, we should realize that “orphan works” wouldn’t be a problem in earlier versions of the law. Shorter terms and registration/renewal requirements would solve this in the clearest possible way.

State Secrets (New Yorker)
I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but I understand it’s a worthwhile overview of a wiretapping case.

Your virginity for Net neutrality (MSNBC)
Um, I’ll let this speak for itself.

The Music Industry’s Extortion Scheme (Slate)
$5 a month conveniently added to your Internet bill for all the music you could want. Aside from the slippery slope to fees for other media, this would literally make music worthless. Where’s the identity in ownership for music you didn’t even have to take time to consider what you want?

Georgia only occasionally on my mind (Patry)
A great catch on the issue of sovereign immunity in the Georgia State decision. Who’s liable in this case? The instructors?

Here, Warren and Cobb focus on the fact that their allegedly infringing activities were done in the scope of their employment. As discussed above, however, the test is not whether the acts were done in the course of an employee’s official duties but whether a judgment against the employee would in fact operate against the state.

Here’s an interesting read on sovereign immunity.

Legal limits on hobbies-homebuilt Macs?

The week of weird connections continues…

Macworld talks about the homebuilt Mac hobby community. One thing stuck out for me:

One approach—which appears to be the approach Apple’s taken thus far—is to simply ignore these hobbyist hackers. Since there’s no real measurable impact on Apple, fighting the hobbyists may be more trouble than it’s worth.

The article then goes on to describe some of the benefits for Apple.

One of the issues I’m hoping to address in my dissertation is the role that the law plays in people’s hobbies (specifically, copyright and groups like mash-up artists).  The quote above captures a sentiment that is often felt by hobbyists, but to the contrary, many media companies feel the impact is not negligible and that it is worth the trouble. There are so many fascinating connections here: between the law against the hobby, the market for the machines protected by the law, and the desire to express a connection to the party that could change their mind and sue you. I never would have thought of any of this in the context of hardware.

Connecting some dots on owning media

Three stories caught my eye today.  At first glance, they seem completely unrelated–but there are underlying (undefined?) characteristics about the way we interact with our media that tie them together. Here are the short versions

Laptop searches at the border: No reason? No problem: The 9th Circuit rules that laptops can be searched at the border without cause.

Court Ruling Denies EMI Access to Millions of Personal MP3 Files: An online storage service (ok, one that promotes its ability to store-but-not-share music) wins against EMI, who wanted access users’ music files.

Defunct MSN Music has a DRM controversy on its hands: Microsoft switches off computers which let MSN Music customers move music files they paid for to another machine.

It seems to me that, when we buy a piece of media (be it a book, CD, or digital file) it:

  1. Makes a statement about who we are: Back to the CDs or DVDs on a shelf idea of being able to tell how much you share with another.  I am mostly thinking of this as a public act, but it could be a more private identity assertion.
  2. Is closely tied to our individual intellectual or artistic development and freedom: The things we read, watch, and hear have an effect on us yet we have a right to travel our own path in choosing media. S. R. Ranganathan’s five laws of library science fit well here, as well as librarian’s ideals on the privacy of patron information.

These two characteristics, I believe, drive certain expectations that we have about the media we buy:

  1. First, that there is an element of permanence or ownership to media we own. Asserting one’s identity and claiming a work as a piece of their intellectual history can’t be taken away, and many might say the same should go for owned media that sparked it.
  2. Second, control over privacy is expected because, just as we wouldn’t want anyone to see what goes on inside our heads, we might also not want others to know about the media that impacts what goes on in there.
  3. Finally but on a related note, control over where a work resides, or its format can also be thought of as personal. The order of books on a shelf, or the privacy of files locked in a network drive might be another aspect of a right to control one’s intellectual or artistic domain.

It just seems like there is “something” here we haven’t put our finger on in law or theory. Perhaps that explains what, looking back, all of this again feels random to me. Any ideas?

From the education department

A number of recent stories about higher ed regarding copying and technology to share:

From the copyright department: Librarians React to Lawsuit Against Georgia State U

Also from the copyright department: Universities’ Intellectual Property Stance Criticized

From the plagiarism-not-copyright department: Journals May Soon Use Antiplagiarism Software on Their Authors

Finally, from the wireless in the classroom department: Hey, You! Pay Attention!