Legal Matters of the Day

A couple of things I should probably be paying attention to:

1)

A court in France ruled in favor of a man who sued Google for defamation based on the search results returned for his name (via Staring at Empty Pages). So essentially Google is responsible for passing along what other people say about you in France, if it's not true.

This will probably be appealed, but will obviously have a big, fairly chilling effect on search engine business in general if it stands. If a company has to be aware of the nature of the results returned by a query and make sure none of them are defamatory before allowing them to appear...well, damn, how would you even do that?

Also, what about the people who specifically want the defamatory material? Customer satisfaction among that group goes way down if all they can get is whatever has been approved, and you know that's no good for business. Although it could allow lots of small black market search engines to pop up and thrive, which would be good for that business.

"All the results that aren't fit to print!"


2)

There's a case about electronic reserve reading underway involving Georgia State University that could mean a lot to many in academic fields. Barbara Fister at Inside Higher Ed sums it up nicely, but basically, some journal publishers sued GSU, saying that putting articles on reserve through library e-reserves or course management systems is a violation of copyright.

Now a lot of universities do this (or so I've heard!), so the results of this case will be a pretty big deal.

Copyright is one of those areas that both fascinates and frustrates me, and I do work in an academic library (although we've made the copyright-fear-based decision to stay the heck out of electronic reserves until we know if it's legal), and I will hope to learn and understand more about this in future.

I heard about it this time from Dorothea on Book of Trogool.

.

Ever More Reason to Hate Disney

Oh, copyright. Forever looking for news ways to complicate life.

I refer now to this piece on Staring at Empty Pages, about how music rights-holding organizations want to charge fees to venues where live music is played, just in case any of that music happens to be a cover of a song they own.

So if I own a small bar, and I like to sometimes have local musicians come in to play, I have to pay these performance rights organizations a fee, just to cover any songs that any of those musicians might play that are owned by those organizations (or the copyright owners they represent).

The author argues that this is not really fair--what if none of my live musicians ever does cover one of those copyrighted songs? What if they play strictly original compositions and ancient folk ballads?

The interesting argument raised here is, why should I (as merely the manager of a space where someone performs) be responsible for making sure that copyright isn't violated? Ideally, the musicians themselves would take care of copyright.

And if they don't, why is it my problem? Again, I just run this little bar. I have nothing to do with the music business. If you think someone is violating your copyright, talk to them!

It's a pretty nice deal for the rights organizations, though, basically making performance venues handle compliance for them (also, I wonder, do they get fees from those musicians who do pay copyright fees, in addition to fees from venues? Double-dipping is great if you can manage it).

As the post notes,

That’s prompted some small places to stop having music, and that’s a sad thing. And I wonder where it ends. Square dance callers, who use recorded music and often call dances in school gyms and church social halls, have long had to have BMI and ASCAP licenses. But will the halls now have to get licenses as well? If so, will they refuse to rent their facilities to events such as those, which use copyrighted music?

Good questions, indeed.

.

Generously Sharing Other Peoples' Stuff

Jim C. Hines on SF Novelists has a post about why libraries, despite also giving people the chance to read books they didn't personally buy, are not the same as file-sharing sites.

There are also some interesting replies in the comments from library users and workers about library purchases, the future of e-book lending, and more.

This makes me feel like a horrible person and a disgrace to my entire profession, but I have to  shamefacedly confess that I hardly ever visit my public library. I mean, it's probably been a couple of years since I've checked anything out. Even though it's an excellent library (Boston Public Library, of course, and also my smaller local branch), and I know I could constantly get books there that I'd like to read.

It's just not on the way to anywhere I usually go. I'm sorry! Really, really sorry. I do love you, public library. We just don't hang out in the same circles anymore. I cherish our time together in the past, and I hope someday we'll be close again.

It's possible that e-books might be a way for me to resume contact with my public library, but I sort of wonder if the relationship would be the same. We wouldn't have the same kind of real-world connection, me browsing the stacks for stuff that catches my eye but that I'd never think to look for specifically, and checking out the "new arrivals" for exciting new topics.

Plus, I'd have to get an e-book reader to effectively take books on the train, and I don't see that happening anytime soon, because I'm super cheap. Aside from the train issue, I'm not bothered by screen glare the way some people are, so I can pretty much read all day on a computer, but it works better for short pieces, I think. It's hard to really get excited about sitting down to a fat novel on the laptop. Something about the type of concentration the lighting fosters, it seems easier to work on smaller chunks of material.

I know there are also all kinds of interesting questions about file sharing in general and video/music sharing in particular, like "is illegal copying destroying the music industry?" and "is it just as bad as taking money right out of the pockets of starving musicians and filmmakers?" and "even if you're just copying a CD you bought onto your own computer?" and "but if someone gives me a copy of a song, or a bad copy of a movie, and I like it I might buy more songs and/or a better, legal copy of the movie, so isn't it actually helpful advertising?" and "hey, don't you like to get paid for stuff you worked on?"

I'm feeling too bad about myself to get into that, though. As a pathetic excuse for a library-loving person,
all I can really do is hang my head in shame and go sit in the corner.

Anyway, the original point is, you should go check a book out from the library and feel good about it, because libraries are truly awesome, but authors prefer you not download an illegal copy.

.

Ruling the Internet

Yowch. The Distant Librarian has news about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which I have to confess I was really not paying attention to, but which apparently could have a lot to say about copyright.

It's a treaty and is still in negotiations, so all information must be rumors at this point, but it doesn't sound great.

One of the leaks around ACTA suggests that there's a provision which will require ISPs around the globe to monitor and adhere to takedown notices upon mere accusation of copyright infringement, as well as a three-strikes and you're off the internet forever.

I should probably pay more attention.

.

These Sentences Are Mine!

Well, not the ones in the block quote there, those are just borrowed.

I haven't put too much attention toward copyright lately, being distracted by other things, like ARL and AAHSL statistics, but this post On Kirby, Marvel, Copyright and Moral Claims: Scattered Thoughts (from Stephen Frug at Attempts, via Alas! A Blog) reminded me of why it's a fascinating topic.

It starts with the fact that the descendants of Jack Kirby, a famous figure in comics, have expressed interest in ownership of the copyright to some of the superheroes he helped create while working for Marvel Comics, and sets out a lot of interesting thoughts about copyright in general.

I especially like this point:

The moral case for creators’ rights is both essential and irrelevant to the Kirby-copyright issue.

It’s irrelevant because neither party has a very good moral (as opposed to legal) claim. On one side we have Kirby’s biological heirs; on the other, the corporate descendants of the companies he worked for. Neither set of people had much to do with the effort or talent put into these characters; they are fighting for an inheritance, and like any fight for inheritance they are fighting for things they may have title to but don’t in any moral sense particularly deserve.

But it’s essential because it was only because of the (perceived) moral rights of creators that copyright was extended in the first place.

Copyright is of course about morality--protecting the right of a creator to control/benefit from use of the creation, because that's fair--but indeed, to what extent does this still apply once the creator is no longer in the picture?

Does it make moral sense--is it fair--that intellectual property should still be property once the intellect is gone?

.