Jay Hollander's Weblog - Intellectual Property

Welcome to the weblog for Intellectual Property Law.

Thu Jul 06, 2006

Copyright Filing Fee Increase

The below link announces changes to the fee structure for copyright registration at the U.S. Copyright Office.

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/fees2006.html

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Sun Nov 13, 2005

Bush Backing Tougher Copyright Laws

CNET reports that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez outlined the Bush Administration's latest proposals to strengthen the Nation's copyright laws at an anti-piracy summit hosted by the Department of Commerce.

Among the proposals is one to create the crime of "attempting to infringe copyright", which would subject inept infringers to the same penalties as those of their more successful counterparts.

But that's not all. In a nod to Farenheit 451 ( not to be confused with Michael Moore's you know what), the proposals allow the Government to both seize and destroy counterfeit goods as well as the equipment used to make them.

And, best of all, the proposals allow the criminal penalties attending violation of the laws regarding registered copyrights to extend to unregistered works as well, on the theory that searching for registrations retards the enforcementr process.

On the other hand, those suing for Civil remedies will have to continue to do their own homework.

The proposals can be downloaded by clicking this link: http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.publicknowledge.org%2Fpdf%2F20051110-doj-ip-prot-act.pdf&siteId=3&oId=2100-1028-5944612&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Mon Nov 07, 2005

Grokster Gives Up

Like Napster before it, Grokster succumbed to adverse court determinations.

Also like Napster, Grokster promises a legal version of its much publicized file sharing service to come.

If you can't beat 'em......

http://www.grokster.com/

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Sun Oct 16, 2005

On the Hunt for Web Copyright Infringement

The Wall Street Journal reports that stock photography licensing companies like GettyImages.com and Corbis have been using new "digital fingerprint" technologies to trace unauthorized use of their licensed images on the web. Even less customized search efforts, such as those using Google to search for images, are increasingly being used to combat what these companies consider an increasing perception of bloggers and others that they can use copyrighted stock photography images found on the web for all purposes without permission.

http://tinyurl.com/87jfd

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Sun Oct 09, 2005

Copyright? Well, We are Copying, Right?

The Author's Guild and certain individual author plaintiffs have brought suit against Google, challenging the search engine giant's new program of digitizing libraries of printed matierial, including those still protected by copyright. http://www.multireg.com/article577.html

The program being attacked is Google Print, still in Beta. Google describes the project like this:

"What is Google Print?
Google's mission is to organize the world's information, but much of that information isn't yet online. Google Print aims to get it there by putting book content where you can find it most easily – right in your Google search results.

How does Google Print work?
Just do a search on the Google Print homepage. When we find a book whose content contains a match for your search terms, we'll link to it in your search results. Click a book title and you'll see the page of the book that has your search terms, along with other information about the book and "Buy this Book" links to online bookstores (you can view the entirety of public domain books or, for books under copyright, just a few pages or in some cases, only the title’s bibliographic data and brief snippets). You can also search for more information within that specific book and find nearby libraries that have it.

Where do these books come from?
The book content in Google Print comes from two sources: publishers and libraries."
Read more »

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Fri May 13, 2005

FCC Over the Line on Broadcast Flags

Avid readers of PC technology magazines are sure to know that, beginning in July, a host of hardware providers, ranging from Tivo to multimedia computer makers like HP, will be shipping new versions of their hardware designed to use broadcast flags, a method of preventing excessive copying of digital over the air signals, in response to rules promulgated by the FCC.

Only one problem. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia says the FCC didn't have the authority to do so. http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/04-1037b.pdf

So will hardware makers now re-tool or will they ship hardware that will constrain copying pursuant to invalid agency rules? Stay tuned.

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Wed Jan 05, 2005

A 2nd Appeals Court Rejects DMCA Subpoena Process

A second appeals court, this time for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Michigan, has rejected the RIAA's use of the DMCA subpoena process to try to flush out the names of music sharers from their ISPs.

The ruling finds that internet service providers are conduits and not responsible for the conduct of their customers. The RIAA had sued Charter Communications, an internet service provider, trying to use the 1988 Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) to compel it to identify users allegedly downloading copyrighted music files.

Under the easier subpoena process of the DMCA, a copyright holder can get a subpoena from a court clerk, without a judge's approval, a tactic two courts have now rejected. In this ruling, the court said that Charter was not responsible for the conduct of its users. Copyright holders will have to make use of the courts and ask the courts to identify "John Doe" defendants, a much more expensive and elaborate process, and one that permits "John Does" to be heard prior to any turning over of their identities.

The lower court had ordered Charter to turn over some 200 names to the RIAA, and it complied, but only after the court ruled against its efforts to quash the subpoenas. That ruling is now reversed and the RIAA has been ordered to return the information and destroy all records of it.

In the earlier ruling, ISPs including Verizon fought the DMCA subpoenas on the grounds that they were too easy to obtain and could be misused by stalkers, rapists, and others to find the names and home addresses of ISP customers. The Eighth Circuit ruling makes similar arguments.

The new ruling says that subpoenas only apply to material stored on ISP servers, according to language in the DMCA. "As a court we are bound to interpret the terms of the statute and not to contort the statute so as to cover the situation presented by this case," he wrote.

The RIAA spokesman was quoted as saying that the organization will continue its enforcement efforts. It has now filed some 7,000 such John Doe lawsuits since December of 2003.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2005-01-05-downloader-id-protection_x.htm
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01/05/riaa/index.php

Ruling: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/033802P.pdf
DMCA: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

Verizon ruling: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/opinion-20031219.pdf

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Wed Dec 29, 2004

IT Officers Checking Their Code

The fiasco of the SCO litigation has had one very useful effect. IT officers at companies are now understandably concerned about exactly what's in their software. Many are now actively looking to see if any careless employees have inadvertently put any Open Source code into their products that shouldn't be there.

However, while there is room for valid concern, some fears, reflected in the media may be somewhat exaggerated.

Code placed under the General Public License, the GPL, which is the most widespread such license and the one that Linux is distributed with, can be used, copied as often as you like on as many computers as you wish and modified at will in any company's in-house code, without any negative consequences. It is not a violation of the license to do any of those things, and there is no obligation to redistribute, or share, any such proprietary modifications.

It is only when such code is included in a distributed software product that certain obligations arise under the license. If the company uses any GPL code in its product, and it's a combined product, meaning the company's code cannot run without the GPL code, then the entire product must be released under the GPL license and source code made available.

Read more »

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Mon Dec 06, 2004

New Survey Says Most Musicians Say File Sharing Not A Major Threat

Well, knock the RIAA over with a feather. A new study by the Pew Institute and American Life Project says that most musicians, two-thirds in fact, say the Internet has helped them make more money from their music, despite file sharing, and that file sharing isn't a major threat in their eyes.

43% said that file sharing services helped them promote and distribute their work, while 47% said such services interfere with their ability to earn royalties, but the majority still agreed that file sharing wasn't a major threat. Less than a third thought file sharing is a major threat to creative industries. Only 3% of those surveyed said the Internet hurt their ability to protect their music.

"Across the board," the Pew Institute's Executive Summary says, "among those who are both successful and struggling, the artists and musicians we surveyed are more likely to say that the internet has made it possible for them to make more money from their art than they are to say it has made it harder to protect their work from piracy or unlawful use."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/12/06/tech.music.reut/index.html

Pew Institute report and questionnaire:
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/142/report_display.asp

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Wed Dec 01, 2004

Internet Archive et al Lose Copyright Case; Will Appeal

The Internet Archive and the Prelinger Archives have had their challenge to the Copyright Law dismissed by a US District Judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California, which granted the US Justice Department's motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs, archivists, had argued that copyright laws currently are damaging the public domain, and asked that orphan works, as they call them -- works that have little or no commercial value or are out-of-print -- be made freely available to the public unless the copyright holder registers them with the Copyright Office.

Specifically, plaintiffs argued that four copyright laws are unconstitutional: the Copyright Renewal Act, the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, the Copyright Act of 1976, and the Berne Convention Implementation Act, as applied to work created between January 1, 1964 and December 31, 1977.

Their position was that by changing the law so that it is no longer necessary to take affirmative action to indicate a desire for copyright protection, Congress tipped the balance radically by extending automatic copyright protection to works that otherwise would have entered the public domain. In 1976, Congress abolished any registration, deposit or renewal requirement as a prerequisite for obtaining or maintaining copyrights.

The Court relied heavily on last year's Supreme Court ruling in Eldred v. Ashcroft, that said Congress has the power to write copyright laws as it sees fit and that the courts have no power to second-guess them. The plaintiff, Internet Archive, says it will appeal and that it always expected to have to bring the fight to the appellate courts.

http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-5466329.html
Ruling: www.joegratz.net/files/Kahle-ChesneyDismissal.pdf
Internet Archive: http://www.archive.org/
Eldred v. Ashcroft: http://tinyurl.com/3svj5

Posted by: Jay Hollander
[0] Trackbacks

Disclaimer. The material provided on this site is for information purposes only and its availability to you does not establish an attorney-client relationship nor constitute legal advice. If you are interested in becoming a client of Hollander and Company LLC, please contact Jay Hollander, Esq. at jh@hollanderco.com.