106 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2019
    1. However, in the present era of publishing, those rights are consistently being called into question. Gennaro (2012) is particularly frank about how copyright law has come to privilege publishers at the expense of those who created the work in the first place: ‘Once you have transferred copyright to a journal [in order to publish] you cannot ethically use the words that you have written in another journal article; you no longer own those words’ (p. 109). Nevertheless, Bently (1994) remarks on Roland Barthes’ contention that once text has been published, the words no longer belong to that author or anyone else for that matter.

      What about publishing to your own site...or from your own site?

  2. Sep 2019
  3. Aug 2019
    1. In January 2019, most works published in 1923 entered the public domain. If Congress does not interfere by creating new copyright extensions, this will occur every year with works from successive years.

      In 2024, the first Mickey Mouse cartoon is scheduled to enter the public domain. Theoretically, anyone will be able to publish new stories using that particular image of Mickey Mouse. But later designs and characters will still be under copyright. And the publisher will have to make sure that they cannot easily be mistaken for an official Disney product, because trademark rights never expire.

    1. associated with activism contesting copyright and intellectual property legislation

      This is so important and such a hot topic issue!!!

  4. Jul 2019
    1. Responsabilità dell'hosting provider nella giurisprudenza italiana, in rapporto alla presenza nella sua infrastruttura di materiale illecito.

      Si evidenziano le differenze rispetto alla direttive e-commerce che stabilisce il framework europeo su questo tema, con l'identificazione della figura dell'hosting provider attivo (non meritevole dell'esenzione prevista dalla normativa europea) e quello passivo.

  5. Mar 2019
    1. In a perfect world, the author would sell you a license to the book and you'd just read it on whatever platform suited you. For now, the leading ebook providers are not making this easy so I end up with some titles (and associated annotations) on one platform and other titles on another, which is far more complicated than it needs to be.

    1. This article originally appeared at http://katab.asia and all the copyright belongs to them.

  6. Dec 2018
    1. This blog post from the Copyright Licensing Agency based in England explains the main concerns surrounding copyright in college and education settings.

    1. New rules always create confusion but that is not a strong argument against them. The legal complexities of CC reflect the complexity of copyright. That the CC licenses are being used suggests that they are useful. The question is how? Claiming they are not useful is unlikely to be correct. Perhaps the usefulness is social not individual, so people are using them to do good. I take no position on this.

      This opinion/ editorial and the resulting dialogue adds some dimension to some of the pro and con arguments for adapting Creative Commons practices.

  7. Oct 2018
  8. Aug 2018
    1. 3 Steps for Licensing Your 3d Printed Stuff by Michael Weinberg. CC BY-SA 3.0 A set of instructions for how to license 3d printed materials https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/3_Steps_for_Licensing_Your_3D_Printed_Stuff.pdf

      Relevant content in the unit: Unit 3.2, Acquiring Essential Knowledge, What types of content can be CC-licensed, suggested additional content (related to both paragraphs in current content).

      While the primary purpose of this paper is about 3-D printing, this resource is a great overview of copyright law related to electronic files, whether they be photographs or the files for a 3-D printing project.

      This is an especially good resource for those interested in specific examples of the delineation of the functional, non-copyrightable aspect of a work and the artistic expression, copyrightable aspects of a work.

  9. Jul 2018
    1. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

      I prefer sources that are short and to the point, with links allowing me to explore various topics if  I need to.  This piece goes over all of the basics of creating and maintaining a copyright license. While that is not the objective, typically, of someone taking a Creative Commons course, it helps to see this information from a pro-copyright perspective to understand all sides of the issue.

      It's also a primary source, meaning that the department issuing the copyrights in the United States also wrote this piece, which means it should be as accurate as possible.

    1. So basically in an effort to stop 1,000 pieces of infringing content, you'd end up pulling down 50,000 pieces of legitimate content. And that's with an incredible (and unbelievable) 99.5% accuracy rate. Drop the accuracy rate to a still optimistic 90%, and the results are even more stark:
  10. May 2018
    1. Copyright Bradford District Infrastructure Partnership (2018)

      Is BDIP going to be kept running? Implications of copyrighting to BDIP?

    1. Old Navy / Gap is using stolen designs on clothing. Instead of settling with the artist, they are denying copyright infringement, and fighting the artist in court. Sleazy.

  11. Feb 2018
  12. Nov 2017
    1. Whilemuchofthefocusonthedigitalcommonshasfocusedonitasthecauseofintellectualcopyrightproblems,arguablyitistheotherwayaround:digitalcommonsaroseasachallengetothisconcentrationandusurpationofcreativeproduction.Howrapidlythisconcentrationhappenedoverthreedecadesandhowthedigitalcommonsemergedasachallengetothisoligopolisticsystemisasignificantaspectofunderstandingactsofcommoning.
    2. Yetthedigitalcommons—theriseofaninternationalmovementtocreate,contribute,share,anddistributedigitalobjects—isamorefundamentalchallengethanareactiontothemorerecentrestrictionsofcopyrightlaw.Thechallengeisagainsttherelentlessdrivetoconvertknowledgeintocapitaloverthepasttwocenturies

      [...] As Lawrence Lessig puts it starkly, ‘[E]very act on the Internet is a copy. Every act in a digital network produces a copy.’[64] This results in the creation of something called digital commons: a commons produced by the participation of creators and commoners.[65] The very principle that creates digital commons also creates tendencies against commodification: its very production entails creators contributing resources without the direct monetization of their contributions and commoners enjoying the benefits of these resources. Thus, digital commons constitutes a major challenge to the commodification of creative or immaterial labour, and this is why the battle over intellectual property law has become decisive.

      La naturaleza cooperativa de estos movimientos y la mercantilización de movimientos centralistas como el capitalimos entran en profunda confrontación. Puede un movimiento de naturaleza distribuida, tener la influencia propias de los sistemas de acumulación? Por ejemplo, los hashtags que crean tendencias a las cuales se suman los usuarios de manera distribuida, se hacen visibles gracias a plataformas centralizadas (como Twitter) que se benefician de la centralización y la usurpación del valor. Podría, por ejemplo, una nueva criptomoneda que explicite la mercantilización en la economía de la atención, como lo hace Steemit, de manera que use una técnica similar a la del capitalismo (mercantilizar conocimiento) para explicitar la usurpación de valor que está creando o permita contravernirla. El tema de cómo estas redes alternativas se viralizarían es aún una pregunta abierta.

    3. Copyrightderivesitslegalforcefromlawsthatprotectexclusiverightstoandcontrolofintellectualproperty.EvenifitsoriginscanbetracedtoearlymodernEurope(sixteenthtoeighteenthcenturies),itismoderninthesensethattheformationofintellectualproperty—thatis,theconversionofcreativeproductssuchaswords,data,images,andsoundintopropertyforexchange—isaresultoftheaccumulationofcapitalinmodernsocieties.

      This is what Lyotard highlighted as the commodification of knowledge in what he then called computerized societies. The conversion of intellectual or, more broadly, cultural capital into economic capital is possible under the protection of copyright laws. This is the force of copyright law. Since it introduces a tension between creativity and calculability, it is doubtful that copyright law either protects or encourages creativity. Instead, creativity is commodified by copyright. The performative force of copyright is that both the creator and consumer must—knowingly and unknowingly—repeat and iterate it. The force of copyright law would be nothing if it were not performed. That is the reason why maintaining its imaginary force requires enormous energy: copyright mobilizes massive efforts to maintain its legal, performative, and imaginary force. If creativity were not commodified, copyright would not exist. Commodification transforms the use value of things into exchange value for being sold and bought.

  13. Oct 2017
    1. what does it mean to be human in a digital age

      Been thinking about this from the infolit angle for a few years. Info is easy to find and access, and a little less easy to filter and evaluate. What matters more is creativity - what we can do with info, how we can connect it, what we can make out of it - all of which is impeded by copyright and enabled by openness.

  14. Sep 2017
  15. www.europarl.europa.eu www.europarl.europa.eu
    1. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should alsobecovered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive.

      The European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) also suggests that scientific publications be covered by Article 13of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market.

      This means that a right of reproduction of press and scientific articles is hold by the publisher.

      Refers to https://hyp.is/08MxBJ4GEeeMFI_wNQiGuA/eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:167:0010:0019:EN:PDF

    1. Filtering obligations -Undermining the foundations of Open Access7.The provisions of Article 13 threaten the accessibility of scientific articles, publications and research data made available through over 1250 repositoriesmanaged byEuropean non-profit institutions and academiccommunities. These repositories, which are essential for Open Access and Science in Europe, are likely to face significant additional operational costs associated with implementing new filtering technologyandthe legal costs of managing the risks of intermediary liability. The additional administrative burdens of policing this contentwould add to these costs. Such repositories, run on a not-for-profit basis, are not equipped to take onsuch responsibilities, and may face closure. This would be a significant blow, creating new risks forimplementing funder, research council and other EU Open Access policies.
  16. www.europarl.europa.eu www.europarl.europa.eu
    1. Les publications périodiques qui sont diffusées à des fins scientifiques ou universitaires, telles que les revues scientifiques, devraientégalementêtre couvertes par la protection accordée aux publications de presse en vertu de la présente directive.

      The European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) also suggests that scientific publications be covered by Article 13of the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market.

      This means that a right of reproduction of press and scientific articles is hold by the publisher.

      Refers to https://hyp.is/08MxBJ4GEeeMFI_wNQiGuA/eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:167:0010:0019:EN:PDF

    1. Article 2Reproduction rightMember States shall provide for the exclusive right to authoriseor prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent repro-duction by any means and in any form, in whole or in part:(a) for authors, of their works;(b) for performers, of fixations of their performances;(c) for phonogram producers, of their phonograms;(d) for the producers of the first fixations of films, in respect ofthe original and copies of their films;(e) for broadcasting organisations, of fixations of their broad-casts, whether those broadcasts are transmitted by wire orover the air, including by cable or satellite.Article 3Right of communication to the public of works and rightof making available to the public other subject-matter1. Member States shall provide authors with the exclusiveright to authorise or prohibit any communication to the publicof their works, by wire or wireless means, including themaking available to the public of their works in such a waythat members of the public may access them from a place andat a time individually chosen by them.2. Member States shall provide for the exclusive right toauthorise or prohibit the making available to the public, bywire or wireless means, in such a way that members of thepublic may access them from a place and at a time individuallychosen by them:(a) for performers, of fixations of their performances;(b) for phonogram producers, of their phonograms;(c) for the producers of the first fixations of films, of theoriginal and copies of their films;(d) for broadcasting organisations, of fixations of their broad-casts, whether these broadcasts are transmitted by wire orover the air, including by cable or satellite.3. The rights referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not beexhausted by any act of communication to the public ormaking available to the public as set out in this Article.
    1. copyright is about ambiguity, not right and wrong answers, may be a helpful way of framing copyright education

      Does this relate to Perry https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html ? I wonder.

    2. want to remain neutral or impartial

      Education, in a broad sense, is the pursuit of truth. If we support the pursuit of truth, we are not neutral.

  17. Aug 2017
    1. Submission Form for Student Work

      waiver form allowing uni to use students' work

      Why not just use CC license?

    1. In the United States, before 1989 no creative work was protected by copyright unless the creator opted in to protection by reigstering. Open (free + permissions) was the default. It was only in 1989, when the US joined the Berne Convention, that protection of all creative works became automatic and closed became the new default, requiring people to opt-in to sharing.

      Wow, I did not know about this historical shift.

  18. Jul 2017
    1. 1790 first American copyright law. Almost identical to Statute of Anne in England (1710)

    1. But the goal of the dealing was also, from York’s perspective, to keep enrolment up by keeping student costs down and to use whatever savings there may be in other parts of the university’s operation.

      What a crass analysis.

  19. Apr 2017
    1. It is a change related to creativity, collaboration and innovation, seen as non-political processes.

      I tend to talk about it in entirely political terms, highlighting the difference between the purpose of copyright as written in the US Constitution and the purpose as practiced today.

  20. Mar 2017
    1. A U.S. Supreme Court decision on cheerleader uniform design copyrights will expand the number of 3-D printed objects with intellectual property protection, attorneys told Bloomberg BNA March 22.

      I was wondering how long this would take to come about.

    1. any person who obtains from the Copyright Office a certified report that the records provided by subsection (d) disclose nothing

      This bit is quite controversial, because of this new executive order.

    2. the statement shall also identify the person filing it, the nature of that person’s interest, the source of the information recorded, and the particular work affected, and shall comply in form and content with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

      With a note like this.

  21. Dec 2016
    1. copyright law regulates our exercise of all these newfound capabilities – so that what is technically possible is also legally forbidden.

      I keep coming back to this question: does web annotation open up copyrighted texts?

      Let's set aside whether it's ultimately legal for me to annotate a document and share that annotated document--or "republish" a portion of targeted content from a copyrighted source through an annotation service.

      Web annotation does allow me to "open" copyrighted content to critique, commentary, and a certain kind of remixing. Quoting and critiquing/commentating is the oldest remix tool in the humanities scholar playbook.

  22. Sep 2016
    1.  all  intellectual  property  rights,  shall  remain  the  exclusive  property  of  the  [School/District],

      This is definitely not the case. Even in private groups would it ever make sense to say this?

  23. Jul 2016
    1. "In December, documentary photographer Carol Highsmith received a letter from Getty Images accusing her of copyright infringement for featuring one of her own photographs on her own website. It demanded payment of $120. This was how Highsmith came to learn that stock photo agencies Getty and Alamy had been sending similar threat letters and charging fees to users of her images, which she had donated to the Library of Congress for use by the general public at no charge."

    1. "The new report shows that unauthorized access to copyrighted media is on a steady decline, with only 5% of Internet users getting all of their online media through rogue methods, and only 15% of users consuming any infringing content. Similar studies in the US have shown a steady decline in unauthorized downloads here too. The numbers show that if Hollywood really wants to curb infringing media consumption, the best thing it can do is improve its official offerings."

    1. Amazon.com has started allowing Chinese suppliers to sell direct on the site. This has created a problem with counterfeit products, which can be dangerous.

      This post suggests that counterfeit physical products are one result of failure to protect intellectual property rights on the Internet. (It looks like a good site for arguments supporting intellectual property rights. It has a podcast.)

  24. Jun 2016
    1. The synthesis of opposing ideas, coupled with the ability to source knowledge freely leads to an infinite number of new combinations, and growth can become exponential.

      However, current laws impede growth and prevent progress in science and useful arts.

  25. May 2016
  26. Apr 2016
    1. Encourage researchers not to transfer the copyright on their research outputs before publication.

      This statement is more generally applicable than just to TDM. Besides, "Encourage" is too weak a word here, and from a societal perspective, it would be far better if researchers were to retain their copyright (where it applies), but make their copyrightable works available under open licenses that allow publishers to publish the works, and others to use and reuse it.

  27. Jan 2016
    1. The prohibition on reporting bugs in systems with DRM makes those bugs last longer, and get exploited harder before they're patched. Last summer, the US Copyright Office collected evidence about DRM interfering with reporting bugs in tractors, cars, medical implants, and critical national infrastructure.
    2. DRM exists to stop users from doing things they want to do and to stop innovative companies from helping users do things they want to do -- or would want to do, if they had the option. Your cable box, for example, will be designed to stop you from recording your favorite shows for long-term storage and viewing on the go.
    3. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the nonprofit body that maintains the Web's core standards, made a terrible mistake in 2013: they decided to add DRM
  28. Dec 2015
    1. We feel the pernicious practical effects of lengthy copyright terms every day. For example, a study last year of books on Amazon showed that books published after the critical public domain cut-off date of 1923 are available at a dramatically lower rate than books from even an entire century before. The result is a "missing 20th century" in the history of books.
    1. sensible copyright policies face huge practical barriers, in large part because few are willing to challenge the default assumption of copyright law that every time a copy is made the rightsholder's permission is required. That assumption makes no sense in the digital age, but it's hugely difficult to dislodge

      The efforts of publishers and music companies to prohibit "piracy" today are analogous to trying to prohibit the sharing of books, photocopies, records, and mix-tapes in the pre-Internet era.

      The world is changing fast. Get used to it. Adapt. Quit trying to alter reality with legislation.

    1. Of course, if you take my idea and use it to make money then my business will suffer and I will have less incentive to have ideas in the future. We need a period of protection for ideas to ensure that creators keep coming up with them because they are vital to our culture. It is, more than anything, part of what makes use human. But for exactly that reason protection periods should also be kept as short as possible. Once that period has expired, others should be free to reuse, rethink and remix those concepts and incorporate them into their own ideas.

      Copyright laws are of less benefit to creators than to corporations who market their work, giving them a meager share of the profit. If Disney no longer had a lock on material that should be public domain by now, maybe they'd have to employ more creators. And maybe someone else would make a decent Mickey Mouse cartoon -- which I don't think they've done since the 1940s.

    2. News outlets have seen their content atomized and readers can now get their news from sites that bring together links to articles from a range of sources. Some providers argue that these aggregators should pay for the privilege of linking to them.

      This notion of "link copyright" or "link tax" is a shameful example of childish greed. Instead, maybe you should be forced to pay the linker for each visitor who follows a link to your site. No? It's earning you ad revenue and introducing new customers.

      If you don't want your content linked:

      • don't put it on the Web, or
      • put it behind a paywall
    1. However, a German museum argues that photographs of public domain artworks don't fall under public domain license, because the photographs themselves fall under normal copyright law.


    1. legal changes often lead to negative outcomes. New laws can limit use, introduce new payments or make open licensing incompatible with the given legal system. In such cases, OER advocates need to take a stance in defense of the existing rules.
    2. not all of the resources needed for education will be openly licensed — for example, modern education requires use of cultural resources that are in copyright and will never be openly licensed. We therefore need good and balanced rules allowing educators acting in the public interest to use these resources.
    3. the development of OER provides proof for the need of strong user rights in education. By looking at effects of successful OER projects we can describe a future educational reality, in which institutions, educators, and students benefit from a more liberal copyright law. Part of the success of Wikipedia as an education tool is the fact that no one accessing the site, or copying it for students, needs to worry: “Is this legal?”
  29. Nov 2015
    1. Remixing books is popular on services like Wattpad where users write fanfiction inspired by books, celebrities, movies, etc. From a legal perspective, some fanfiction could be seen as copyright or trademark infringement. From a business perspective, the book industry would be smart to learn from the PC gaming business. Instead of fighting over pieces of a shrinking pie, try to grow the pie by getting more people to read and write books.
    1. the virulent carrier of the patriarchal, colonial, canonical, proprietary, hierarchical and authoritarian values of a past that is no longer with us.

      That imposition is not about creation but about "copyrights" and its canonical sense of property that fits that old fashioned liberalism in arts. Creative commons is the best example of how we are trying to become free from those bounds.

    1. Every three years, the Librarian of Congress issues new rules on Digital Millennium Copyright Act exemptions. Acting Librarian David Mao, in an order (PDF) released Tuesday, authorized the public to tinker with software in vehicles for "good faith security research" and for "lawful modification." The decision comes in the wake of the Volkswagen scandal, in which the German automaker baked bogus code into its software that enabled the automaker's diesel vehicles to reduce pollutants below acceptable levels during emissions tests.
  30. Oct 2015
  31. Jul 2015
  32. Apr 2015
    1. Co nsequently, circumvention of the above TPMs for purposes of “per sonalization, modification, or other improv ement” is likely to encourage the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and use of copyrighted software and content.

      I'm thinking there are easier ways.

  33. Jun 2014
    1. Anna von Veh

      Other articles on fanfiction and publishing by Anna von Veh

      von Veh, Anna. 12 June 2012. What Can Trade Publishers Learn from Fanfiction?. Publishing Perspectives. von Veh, Anna. 12 October 2012. Why Fanfics are Like Startups. Publishing Perspectives. von Veh, Anna. 25 June 2013. Kindle Worlds: Bringing Fanfiction Into Line But Not Online?.


      Lenz, Daniel. 31 May 2013. Anna von Veh über Perspektiven der „Kindle Worlds“. buchreport. Molinari, E, Draghi E. 11 February 2014. Anna von Veh: «Ecco perchè le fanfiction sono il prossimo business model per l'editoria»Giornale della Libreria. Frossard, Flavia. 29 January 2014. Digital Publishing Market and FanFiction – An Interview with Anna Von Veh. Widbook blog. Webb, Jen. 3 October 2011. The agile upside of XML. Interview with Anna von Veh and Mike McNamara. O'Reilly Tools of Change for Publishing.

      Articles and posts on tech/art in publishing

      von Veh, Anna. 10 May 2012. Let’s Improvise! Jazz as a Metaphor for Publishing Progress. Publishing Perspectives. von Veh, Anna. Musings on Digital: a collection of blog posts

  34. Feb 2014
    1. The dissidents of intellectual property have had a rich history among avant-garde artists, zine producers, radical musicians, and the subcultural fringe. Today the fight against intellectual property is being led by lawyers, professors and members of government. Not only is the social strata of the leading players very different, which in itself might not be such an important detail, but the framework of the struggle against intellectual property has completely changed. Before law professors like Lawrence Lessig became interested in IP, the discourse among dissidents was against any ownership of the commons, intellectual or physical. Now center stage is occupied by supporters of property and economic privilege. The argument is no longer that the author is a fiction and that property is theft, but that intellectual property law needs to be restrained and reformed because it now infringes upon the rights of creators.

      would like to know more about the dissidents. well said

    2. Romanticism was born as a contradictory response to these developments. It was an opposition to capitalism, but one expressed through the language of private property and the assumptions inherited from the philosophical discourse that legitimated capitalism’s mode of production. Romanticism denounced the alienation and loss of independence spawned by industrial production and market relations, and portrayed the artist in heroic opposition to the drive for profit.

      reminds of "NC" contradiction

    3. Ideas are viral, they couple with other ideas, change shape, and migrate into unfamiliar territories. The intellectual property regime restricts the promiscuity of ideas and traps them in artificial enclosures, extracting exclusive benefits from their ownership and control. Intellectual property is fraud - a legal privilege to falsely represent oneself as the sole “owner” of an idea, expression or technique and to charge a tax to all who want to perceive, express or apply this “property” in their own production. It is not plagiarism that dispossesses an “owner” of the use of an idea; it is intellectual property, backed by the invasive violence of the state, that dispossesses everyone else from using their common culture. The basis for this dispossession is the legal fiction of the author as a sovereign individual who creates original works out of the wellspring of his imagination and thus has a natural and exclusive right to ownership. Foucault unmasked authorship as a functional principle that impedes the free circulation, the free manipulation, the free composition, decomposition, and recomposition of knowledge. The author-function represents a form of despotism over the proliferation of ideas. The effects of this despotism, and of the system of intellectual property that it shelters and preserves, is that it robs us of our cultural memory, censors our words, and chains our imagination to the law.


    4. And yet artists continue to be flattered by their association with this myth of the creative genius, turning a blind eye to how it is used to justify their exploitation and expand the privilege of the property owning elite. Copyright pits author against author in a war of competition for originality – its effects are not only economic, it also naturalizes a certain process of knowledge production, delegitimates the notion of a common culture, and cripples social relations. Artists are not encouraged to share their thoughts, expressions and works or to contribute to a common pool of creativity. Instead, they jealously guard their “property” from others, who they view as potential competitors, spies and thieves lying in wait to snatch and defile their original ideas. This is a vision of the art world created in capitalism’s own image, whose ultimate aim is to make it possible for corporations to appropriate the alienated products of its intellectual workers.


    5. a widespread consensus that copyright has been perverted into a tool that benefits corporations rather than the authors for whom it was originally intended. But no such golden age of copyright exists. Copyright has always been a legal tool that coupled texts to the names of authors in order to transform ideas into commodities and turn a profit for the owners of capital.

      well said

    1. The fourth of the theories is as yet the least influential but seems to be gaining strength. Its key ideas are that human nature causes people to flourish more under some conditions than under others, and that social and political institutions should be organized to facilitate that flourishing. What, more specifically, are the conditions or “functionings” that enable people to flourish?
      • Life
      • Health
      • Bodily integrity – protection against physical hazards and against physical and sexual assault
      • Autonomy – in the sense of the ability to choose freely one’s vocations and avocations
      • Competence – the ability to confront and solve problems
      • Engagement – active involvement in professional and leisure activity, as opposed to passive consumption of goods and services
      • Self-expression – the ability to speak one’s mind and express one’s creative impulses
      • Relationships – participation in freely chosen communities
      • Privacy – access to zones of intimacy in which relationships can be nurtured and identity developed
    1. On one hand, there are infinite ideas, and so the taking of one idea as private property clearly leaves “enough,” and debatably “as good” for others (Locke, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 8   1690, Chap. V, Sect. 27).

      This statement seems to me a stretch-- a very far stretch.

      What does it mean to have "infinite ideas"? And how do you arrive at the judgments "enough" and "as good" here?

      Ideas don't exist in isolation; they are not individual fruits to be plucked from the world of thought. Ideas are built upon other ideas. They are embedded within each other, juxtaposed one next to the other, stacked, remixed; varied one from the other, sometimes as a derivation, sometimes an inspiration.

      And in the face of this, what is the notion of "creation"? Given a certain base of knowledge, there are some natural next steps that can be built from those basic building blocks.

      Here we have to disentangle the notion of discovery from creation. I think maybe that, in part, is the notion of patents vs copyright, but in the land of software we seem to have a tangled mess.

    2. Unlike in copyright law, where derivative works require authorization, new inventions can incorporate prior inventions wit hout permission — in these cases, the patents are independent of each other (the patent of one inventor does not give him or her any rights over the patent of the other inventor).

      Copyright law requires authorization for derivative works, but under patent law new inventions can incorporate prior inventions without permission.

    3. U.S. intellectual property law originates (as law) from the Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution makes copyright and patent law possible (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 4   respective Writings and Discoveries”) ,

      Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 makes copyright and patent law possible.

    4. First, the popularization of the Internet upset the copyright paradigm and led to vigorous public and governmental lobbying by copyright holders in the face of rampant infringem ent.
    5. Keywords : anticommons, copyright, intellectual property, Lockean Proviso, patent, property rights, state of nature, trademark, utilitarian theory
    1. National governments are also weighing in on the issue. The UK government aims this April to make text-mining for non-commercial purposes exempt from copyright, allowing academics to mine any content they have paid for.

      UK government intervening to make text-mining for non-commercial purposes exempt from copyright.

    2. “Our plan is just to wait for the copyright exemption to come into law in the United Kingdom so we can do our own content-mining our own way, on our own platform, with our own tools,” says Mounce. “Our project plans to mine Elsevier’s content, but we neither want nor need the restricted service they are announcing here.”

      This seems to be a sensible move rather than be hindered not by copyright, but by the onerous contract that Elsevier wants to put in place.

    1. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 11 – 697
    2. These rights are quali- fied, however, by the application of various limitations set forth in the next several sections of the Act, §§107 through 122. Those sections, typically entitled “Limitations on exclusive rights,” include, for example, the principle of “fair use” (§107), permission for limited library archival reproduction, (§108), and the doctrine at issue here, the “first sale” doctrine (§109)
      • §107 - the principle of “fair use”
      • §108 - permission for limited library archival reproduction
      • §109 - the “first sale” doctrine
    3. Section 106 of the Copyright Act grants “the owner of copyright under this title” certain “exclusive rights,” including the right “to distribute copies . . . of the copy- righted work to th e public by sale or other transfer of ownership.” 17 U. S. C. §106(3)
    1. i t i s b e y o n d d i s p u t e t h a t c o m p i l a t i o n s o f f a c t s a r e w i t h i n t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f c o p y r i g h t . C o m p i l a t i o n s w e r e e x p r e s s l y m e n t i o n e d i n t h e C o p y r i g h t A c t o f 1 9 0 9 , a n d a g a i n i n t h e C o p y r i g h t A c t o f 1 9 7 6
    2. T h i s c a s e r e q u i r e s u s t o c l a r i f y t h e e x t e n t o f c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o t e l e p h o n e d i r e c t o r y w h i t e p a g e s
  35. Nov 2013
    1. your use of the Website will not infringe or misappropriate the intellectual property rights of any third party

      Once again, Automattic is asking for your assurances that any content you post on your WordPress site either belongs to you or was posted with the permission of the owner.

      See the “Indemnification," "Copyright Infringement," and “Termination” sections to learn about what could happen if you violate this part of the agreement.

  36. Oct 2013
    1. The copyright extension Clinton signed will expire in five years. Copyright holders like the Disney Corp. and the Gershwin estate have a strong incentive to try to extend copyright extension yet further into the future. But with the emergence of the Internet as a political organizing tool, opponents of copyright extension will be much better prepared. The question for the coming legislative battle on copyright is who will prevail: those who would profit from continuing to lock up the great works of the 20th century, or those who believe Bugs Bunny should be as freely available for reuse as Little Red Riding Hood.

      I just encountered the rootstrikers.org petition to stop the CTEA renewal (http://www.rootstrikers.org/#!/project/stop-ctea), making me wonder what's up with the Act, exactly. A quick Google search landed me on this WP story -- and this is a nice little paragraph summary of the current state of affairs.