IPcentral Weblog: February 2006 Archives

February 2006 Archives

(previous | next)

02.28.2006

Library of Congress and Google Book Search

The Library of Congress is conducting an examination into whether Google Book Search and its partner libraries are exempt under Sec. 108 of the Copyright Act. (See notice.) They are having two roundtables on the subject, one March 8 in LA and one March 16 in DC. From March 17 until April 18 they are accepting comments on the subject. (Tip of the hat to Tech Law Journal.)

CLARIFICATION (3/1/06): I was careless in reading Tech Law Journal's account of the Library of Congress action and was negligent in not carefully reading the LoC's own notice, to which I linked. I've been informed that the LoC's Sec. 108 Study Group predates the Google Book Search controversy, and the proceeding underway is not intended to specifically address Google Book Search. I would suspect the issue could come up at the roundtables and in comments, but that is not the objective of the LoC. For further info please see the LoC notice linked to above.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 4:58 PM | Books

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)| Post a Comment (0)

Artists and Culture

Artists know best what is in their best interests.

Common sense? One would think so. But common sense often seems to be missing in the intellectual property debate. There is a large body of scholarship in the free culture movement that argues first and foremost for preservation of culture, adding that protection of artists must be accommodated as best as possible once that culture is preserved.

This is a$$-backward, pardon my French. The very culture these self-appointed protectors are seeking to preserve is created by artists. Artists chose to extend intellectual property rights that permitted their works to enter the culture to begin with. If we want culture to continue to grow, the artist must be paramount. (We can dismiss artists if all we care about is seizing existing culture and freezing society at that point, but I don't believe anybody wants that.)

The best, most elegant and fairest way to preserve culture is to empower artists to pursue their own best interests rather than end users deciding on an artist's behalf what those interests are. An empowered artist will be motivated to have her art be part of the culture and will make use of her bundle of intellectual property "sticks" in a way that benefits both her and society. The self-appointed culture guardians should be working toward artist empowerment, not emasculation.

You can read more on this subject in a Progress on Point I wrote that PFF released today. It's called "Artists and Culture: Empowering the Former to Foster the Latter." Feedback is welcome.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 2:49 PM | Free Culture Movement

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)| Post a Comment (0)

Addendum on GPLv3 & Web Businesses (ASPs)

The following is being added to Tony Healey's Progress Snapshot GPLv3 and Web Businesses.

CLARIFICATION (Feb. 28, 2006): We were asked why a web services company (an ASP) would be required to disclose source code for technology it created itself. Here is Tony Healy's answer:
The disclosure requirement in GPLv3 would apply to web companies because many of them have taken advantage of having Linux source code to partially integrate their systems into the operating system, for performance and convenience reasons. Therefore their systems, or parts of them, are defined as enhancements of the Linux source code.

This is particularly the case with Google, which utilises the performance benefits of reaching into the operating system to speed up searching. An example of this work is described in a 2003 paper by Ghemawat, Gobioff and Leung describing the development of a scalable, fault tolerant distributed file system called the Google File System.* They corrected esoteric protocol mismatches that caused quiet failures, and contention between file and network locks that caused timeouts even under light load.

* Sanjay Ghemawat, Howard Gobioff, and Shun-Tak Leung, The Google File System, 19th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Lake George, NY, October, 2003.

(Corrected 02/28/06, 06:15 p.m.)

posted by James DeLong @ 2:49 PM | Software

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)| Post a Comment (0)

The Spanish Main (Modern Style)

From CIO Today Report:

Illegal file traders are generating more P2P traffic by offering high-quality copies of movies released on DVD rather than illicitly filmed cinema releases, according to Internet security Relevant Products/Services from company BayTSP.
Sin City, starring Bruce Willis, was released on DVD in the US on August 16, 2005, yet still topped the illegal downloading chart in December.

A full 52,973 copies of the film were available for download across the eDonkey, FastTrack and BitTorrent networks -- 2,500 more than November's most popular film, The Interpreter.

A spokesman for BayTSP said that the majority of films on the list are available on DVD, indicating that "file traders are downloading DVD-quality rips of older films rather than lower quality copies of new releases."

Note: BayTSP has several interesting reports on piracy available, in exchange for free registration.

Link from DC Info (Weekly Newsletter of the Distributed Computing Industry),

posted by James DeLong @ 9:28 AM | Internet: P2P, Search Engines...

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)| Post a Comment (0)

EU v. Microsoft Heats Up

Microsoft has released a slightly redacted version of various documents it has submitted in connection with the ongoing dispute over the company's compliance with the EU's antitrust requirements.

A couple of aspects of this action are unusual. First, that it was done. EU proceedings are usually kept quiet, lest the hoi polloi find out what is going on. Second, Microsoft's comments have a blunt tone that contrasts with the usual practice in which everyone pretends that the EU people are acting in good faith. As described in the Channel Register:

Continue reading EU v. Microsoft Heats Up . . .

posted by James DeLong @ 8:42 AM | Antitrust

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)| Post a Comment (0)

Part II: GPL3 In the World But Not of the World

I come now to the point about accountability and open source. Part I described how by mistake or by intent, the current draft of GPL3 potentially potentially requires Google, Amazon and other successful web-based deployers of open source to expose their code to imitators--and have little recourse against them but to download and imitate in turn. GPL3 potentially screws them, assuming upstream adopters and a desire on their part to update their GPL2 code. This presents an accountability puzzle:

Google and Amazon are among open source's biggest success stories. They trusted the letter of the license to allow them to do exactly what they did. But they weren't paying for the open source code that they used... and so future developers of open source have no reason not to mess with their heads. Open source for all its community is missing the simplest of market accountability mechanisms--that users of a product pay for it, and so its developers pay attention to users needs, with most successful users being particularly respected. It is hard to imagine if, say, Novell had developed some of the code that Google relies on and sold it under a traditional license, that Novell's next-generation product would be "out to get" Google.

So, a caveat: if this version of GPL3 is not, in fact, business friendly after all . . . there is a reason this happened. And it is likely to happen again. A cautionary tale.

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 8:38 AM | Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation , Software

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)| Post a Comment (0)

Part I: GPL3 In the World, But Not of the World

Reviewing some interviews with Richard Stallman's concerning his hopes for this draft of his open source license, GPL3, it struck me as very "in the world, yet not of the world." Or perhaps I should say, "in the market but not of the market." What I mean: The latest version of the license provides an interesting illustration of how accountability to users differs between more traditional "closed" or "proprietary" licenses and open source. Bear with me, this argument has two parts...

Part I: Closing the ASP Loophole--More Business Friendly?

In a NewsForge interview in 2000, Richard outlined the "ASP Loophole," the problem of application service providers whose users access software online, but do not download it. These providers may be characterized as taking without giving back to the open source community, within the letter of the license if not its spirit. But

Continue reading Part I: GPL3 In the World, But Not of the World . . .

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 7:51 AM | Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation , Software

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)| Post a Comment (0)

02.27.2006

IP Book Reviews

A new website, IPLawBookReviews.com, reviews all 170 currently-published books on patent, trademark, copyright, trade secrets, and licensing that are directed at practicing attorneys (not students).

Readers are invited to add their comments -- sort of Wiki for IP lawyers. The proprietor's intent is to become a centralized source of info for IP books:

Each review includes the cost of the book, its updating frequency and update costs, actual or projected, as well as a candid, descriptive review of the book, often comparing it to other similar books and discussing its suitability for use by practicing IP attorneys.

posted by James DeLong @ 3:40 PM | General

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)| Post a Comment (0)

Article on Orphan Works

Jerry Brito and Bridget Dooling, both associated with George Mason University, have written "An Orphan Works Affirmative Defense to Copyright Infringement Actions," 12 Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review 75 (2005).

Part I of this Article defines the orphan works problem and provides examples of how it interferes with the use of creative works. Part II describes the causes and costs of the orphan works problem. Part III outlines and critiques four of the leading proposed solutions to the orphan works problem. Part IV proposes a new and practical solution to the orphan works problem.

The recommendations are similar to those proposed by the Copyright Office in its recent report.

posted by James DeLong @ 3:15 PM | Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)| Post a Comment (0)

The Fashion Industry and Copyright

Tyler Cowan has an interesting post on the fashion industry, where one sees "innovation" without copyright. Though not, I might add, without trademark and patent, particularly for new materials.

A further caveat to keep in mind while pondering what policy lessons might be derived from observations about fashion:

Continue reading The Fashion Industry and Copyright . . .

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 1:43 PM | Art , Big Tent , Liberty and IP , Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)| Post a Comment (0)

02.27.2006

DRM & Mistrust

posted by James DeLong @ 8:48 AM | DRM & Watermarks, etc.

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | TrackBacks (0)| Post a Comment (0)