Sunday, September 28, 2014

Round-Up Of Copyright-Related News

"Most copyright holders are individuals; most infringers are businesses." Alex Wild.

This is not the picture that copyright infringers would like the world to see. Most big Tech for instance is young, anarchic, inclined to worship "distruptiveness" and to value the means of distributing "content" rather than the "content" itself, which is why they call movies, music, photography, literature, games etc "content" rather than art.

If they called art "art", they'd have to call an individual photographer an artist, instead of "The Man".
Anyway, be careful when you "share" glorious pictures on Facebook and its like. You might be infringing someone's copyright.

"....many times infringing content gets taken down, only to reappear on the same site, sometimes only a matter of hours after it is removed..."  and "... in one case, the same textbook was uploaded to the same website 571 times..."

Quoting from the above linked article:
"Representative Judy Chu whipped out her iPad and did a Goole search. She pointed out that all she did was search "watch 12." which Google auto-completed to "watch 12 Years a Slave free..."

Gotta love Judy Chu!
So, Google was asked why Google auto-completes to pirate sites. Google would not answer that, but the probability is that Google auto-completes to pirate sites, because pirate sites make money for Google.
  1. Section 512 of Title 17 Hearing; The exchange runs from 1:43:00 to 1:46:14 
This is a highly entertaining article and well worth reading.
The cut and thrust here is also excellent.

"... the Turtles struck a major blow in the struggle against the new boss (Big Tech and Big Radio) in their case against Sirius to protect the rights of artists who recorded prior to 1972..."

Well worth reading, IMHO.  For those who don't know, many radio stations and internet stations have decided not to pay performers anything at all for all those Classic Rock and Golden Oldies channels that play music recorded before 1972. That is just exploitation, IMHO.

The [Copyright] Office thinks it is unreasonable for the age of a sound recording to dictate whether royalties are paid on public performances by means of digital audio transmissions, so long as copyright subsists in that sound recording.


All the best,
Rowena Cherry

No comments:

Post a Comment