Copyright case ends

It appears that the hope that a new trial for Jammie Thomas-Rasset to lessen the fines for file sharing have been squashed. After the second trial, the jury fined Jammie Thomas-Rasset $1.92 million. Divide that among the 24 songs she shared and that is an astounding $80,000 a piece.

Unfortunately I have not had access to the trial or materials presented at the trial(s). However, there is already buzz that the fines are too harsh and a change in copyright law is needed. I am sure an appeal will be made in the near future. How does one, not wealthy already, come up with that sort of money?

Hopefully wiser minds will prevail and discover that the penalties prescribed by US copyright law are grossly out of proportion to the crime.

"3 Strikes", your diconnected

Over the past few months the implementation of the "3 Strike Scheme" for disconnecting Internet users for alleged copyright infringement has circled the globe. One key point is that they are only allegations of copyright infringement until a court of law finds the Internet user in breach of copyright. However, the "3 Strike Scheme" forgoes a finding of guilt and imposes punishment almost immediately; from short periods of Internet disconnection to permanent disconnection. Those against such a system in Ireland and New Zealand have caused many to contemplate the scheme again.

I do want to rebroadcast, if you will, that the "3 Strike Scheme" is actually in place on American university and college campuses now. In short universities acting as ISPs must respond expeditiously to remove or disable access to infringing materials (17 USC 512(c)(1)(C)) in order to avoid liability. Again this is just for notifications of alleged copyright infringement, not for proven copyright infringement.

Which brings up another important point of contestation, the definition of a 'strike'. Is it a strike per item infringed? Does the strike represent the totallity of infringements for a specified period of time regardless of the number of items infringed? This is a fundamental issue that still needs to be addressed.

The development of the "3 Strike Scheme" is a mystery to me. Perhaps it is based on the system California imposed years ago, but in the California system allegations were not enough to impose punishment. In most of the "3 Strike Schemes" I have read, it appears they all end up with the same punishment, banishment from campus network access. As a student in the modern era, how can a student be expected to participate fully in the educational system without access to the campus network or Internet? Not to mention wholly online students, what are they to do? The last time I looked in my campus library, the only way to find materials was by using a networked computer to access the OPAC (that is card catalog for non-librarians).


So, as we support or decry the employment of the "3 Strike Scheme" across the globe, let us remember that the system is already in place on American university and college campuses and perhaps it is time we revisit its implications there as well.

(See: HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, THE INTERNET, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, SEPTEMBER 22, 2005, Serial No. 109–56

and

THE INTERNET AND THE COLLEGE CAMPUS: HOW THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY AND HIGHER EDUCATION ARE WORKING TO COMBAT ILLEGAL PIRACY, HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION, September 26, 2006, Serial No. 109–58

Intellectual Property and the American Individual

So much of my studies this semester have centered on copyright and, in a sense, the American individual. To simplify, which may pose issues later, copyright is a property right held by an individual or a single entity to control their creative works. It is more or less a concept that individuals have control over those works. However, the explosion of creative works based on existing works, YouTube etc..., endless copyright battles, and the issue of 'pirating' have made me wonder if a new generation of Americans has begun to change the notion that intellectual property is owned by society and not the individual.

I cannot say for certain, but I very much doubt many cases of copyright infringement are done out of hate for copyright, the idea that intellectual property is overvalued (I don't want to pay for the latest hit song), completely misunderstanding or lack of education on the subject of intellectual property (colleges are stressing copyright at orientations for first years), or the simple rebellious nature of youth. (Those are certainly possibilities on my mind.)

Instead, I am interested to know if there is a fundamental shift that the newest American individual is treating intellectual property as a common good/commodity freely available for use. This would constitute a very marked shift in the American individual which has historically valued their private property and acted to protect said property by instituting such legal protections as copyright.

*Just a loose idea that struck me after being up for almost 36 hours. Also please ignore spelling, grammatical errors. Thank you! *

Copyright infringement

Professor Tomas Lipinski hinted at a great research topic during a visit to the seminar class I am taking this semester. However, it was the consensus of the seminar class that the information for the research may not be available because of legal or public relations issues.

So I have come to the blogospere to ask if anyone has any information about the following data or how to obtain the data.

Under 17 U.S.C 512(c)(3)(a), "a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider". In this case I am specifically looking only for data from higher education institutions; colleges, universities, etc. I would like to know the number of notices and, though I doubt possible, the outcome of those notices. How many instances was 17 U.S.C 512(c)(3)(g) asserted.

My immediate thought it that the various Freedom of Information Acts from state to state can be used to obtain this data. Has/does anyone have any information or knowledge of gathering this data?

The goal of this investigation is to see how the process is working for analysis purposes.

Google and Book Scanning

Coming out of my comprehensive examination preparation last week, I had to reach out to friends to figure out what the deal is with Google and book scanning.

If you don't know already, Google is attempting to scan in the contents of libraries for various reasons. (I don't know them all, and I am not sure anyone does truly). Here is the issue.

Google is scanning in some copyrighted books, along with works in the public domain. How has Google not been shut down for violating copyright? There are certain provisions in the Copyright Act for libraries, Section 108. I would call attention to this section as it seems that Google is violating the copyright arrangements since Google is neither a public library, a non-commercial entity, not open to the public, nor has the format of the book become obsolete.

Thought I do not know what Google plans to do with the vast amount of information it has already scanned, the section I call attention to seem to show that it is not protected and is infringing on copyright. Google has recognized this in some ways by attempting to reach agreements with publishers.

Joyfully, my comprehensive examination did not have a question about Google book scanning or the copyright implications. Though I would have loved to take a stab at answering the question.

In the library profession, it seems there are three facets to the Google book scanning situation. First, is the group of librarians that love the idea. It will keep libraries relevant. How will it keep libraries relevant if patrons can simply go to Google.com and find all the books.. Second, is the group that Google is evil and stealing away from the public, while also breaking the law. I somewhat agree, but by virtue of this being my blog, I am in a third group. Those who see that the Google book scanning project has issues pertaining to libraries, copyright, and various other issues.

So I am interested in seeing Google move forward, only to see how the situation develops for all those involved.

Cox Communtions and computer scanning

The term scanning may be incorrect, but I cannot think of a better adjective at the moment. Please note this is a story about a friend, not myself. I am a reformed 'pirate' or 'patriot for free information'.

Last week my friend received a telephone call concerning his Internet connection. It seems that he had finally been busted for downloading the newly released movies and music from other users of Limewire. Cox informed him that they would turn off the Internet connection until they could verify that he had deleted the infringing copyrighted works.

They went so far as to tell him what the file names were and a general time line pertaining to when they were downloaded. Shocked, my friend complied and deleted the files.

When he called Cox back, they activated his Internet service. After about 5 minutes of my friend waiting on hold, Cox confirmed that he had deleted the files.

Here is the conundrum floating around in my head. How did Cox know that he deleted the files? I am pretty sure I know how they discovered they were shared, but how did they know he deleted them? Unless all they did was activate the Internet service and analyze the traffic of Limewire.

My other puzzle is how can they legally monitor the traffic of a user. Obviously they knew the files were there, they had the exact file names. I have read about the services of companies that monitor and download copyrighted work to identify copyright infringement. How is Cox involved though.

So not only do we have the US Government potentially sniffing our communications, but also our ISPs looking into the packets of our communications. (Though some have said this has been going on for a long time).

It should make anyone uneasy. The situation does highlight the need for privacy reform in the United States.