COPYRIGHT AND COPYLEFT
Do Not use any literary interpretation of copyright law that you read on the web unless it is DATED AT LEAST in the last 12 months!
Find a long list of exclusions to exclusive use rights now included in the law.
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
This is the first copyright act in the world, the British Statute of Anne, from 1710.
" If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."-- Thomas Jefferson
NO PATENTS ON IDEAS
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine: as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." -- Thomas Jefferson
Plagiarism in Dylan, or a Cultural Collage?
"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."
"Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act" (the TEACH Act)
The Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act
The New Legislation
On November 2nd, 2002, the "Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act" (the TEACH Act), part of the larger Justice Reauthorization legislation (H.R. 2215), was signed into law by President Bush. Long anticipated by educators and librarians,
TEACH redefines the terms and conditions on which accredited, nonprofit educational institutions throughout the U.S. may use copyright protected materials in distance education-including on websites and by other digital means--without permission from the copyright owner and without payment of royalties.
New Copyright Law for Distance Education - PDF
The New Legislation
* Background of Copyright Law Context of Distance Education
* Benefits of the TEACH Act Requirements of the TEACH Act
* Duties of Institutional Policymakers Duties of Information Technology Officials
* Duties of Instructors Role for Librarians
The case, known as Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Patton et al., involves a popular practice known as e-reserves, or electronic reserves, on college campuses and the murky contours of copyright and fair use in the digital age. But perhaps the most notable aspect of the suit is that publishers are in essence suing their very partners in the scholarly publishing enterprise (including a university librarian), something critics say represents something of a waterloo for publishing.
Georgia on Their Minds
For those unfamiliar with the practice, e-reserves takes its name from the traditional library "reserve" model, where a professor makes a limited number of physical copies of articles or a book chapter available for students. Those copies were generally subject to permission, and proper reproduction fees were paid to the publishers.
In the digital world, that's all changed. Rather than make multiple physical copies, faculty now scan or download chapters or articles, create a single copy, and place that copy on a server where students can access it (and in some cases print, download, or share). Since the practice relies on fair use (creating a single digital copy, usually from a resource already paid for, for educational purposes), permission generally isn't sought, and thus permission fees aren't paid, making the price right for students strapped by the high cost of tuition and textbooks, as well as for libraries with budgets stretched thinner every year.
Not surprisingly, e-reserves are widely used and are immensely popular. Students and instructors love the convenience, ease of use, and accessibility. They are efficient and fit with the way teachers teach and students learn in the digital age. In addition, e-reserves facilitate innovations, like distance learning and collaboration.
The problem, publishers say, is that e-reserves are unmonitored, and the practice is so varied that the system is routinely abused. In reality, the term e-reserve today represents pretty much any kind of digital course content, whether managed by the library, placed in a course management system (CMS) like Blackboard, or hosted on a personal or faculty Web site. And e-reserves also encompass the full range of course reading, from a fraction of supplemental reading to 100% of assigned works, denying publishers the reproduction fees (or sales) they'd come to rely on.
It's interesting that the article mentions peer review as a service provided by the academic publishers. In fact, the publishers parcel out peer reviews to experts in the field for low or no compensation. These experts typically work at the same universities being accused of infringement. So if there really is a Waterloo, universities can prohibit their staff from peer-reviewing articles except for open access journals.
the purpose of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license
2016 Creative Commons licenses under scrutiny—what does “noncommercial” mean? Commercial v. noncommercial use of CC licenses. Where's the line of demarcation?
The case began, according to Great Minds, when the education company discovered that FedEx stores were reproducing the materials without Great Minds' permission. Great Minds said it contacted FedEx, and FedEx said it would not pay royalties. In court documents, FedEx said Great Minds' lawsuit "is a case of a flawed legal theory that simply cannot prevail." "The law is clear that FedEx Office can assist licensee school districts in exercising their rights under the License and no additional facts can change that," FedEx said (PDF).
Copyrights and Copywrongs Why Thomas Jefferson would have loved Napster
Written in plain english, nice, easy-to-follow intro. on copyright in the digital age. "Intellectual property law can be traced back to Ireland in the fourth century, where renegade bishop St. Columba snuck into Old Man Finnean's library and copied his psalter by hand, and then gave copies out for free to local churches. Finnean had an absolute fit, and dragged Columba's ass to court, which meant King Diarmit's royal court. The King decreed “To every cow its calf, to every book its copy”, and fined St. Columba 40 head of cattle for making an unauthorized copy. Here's the deal, though: Finnean of Clonard didn't write the psalter in question, which is a book full of psalms, he just owned it. The issue decided by Diarmit was about allowing the wealthy and powerful to control the flow of knowledge, and allowing the commoditization of information."
Essentially, this is a battle over whether people who use emerging technologies will be users as we were in the PC and the Internet revolutions, or whether we will be consumers as the television era treated people. Will we actively use the technology to create media, as people did with the PC and the Internet? Or will we be passive consumers of content that is sold to us by others, as the television viewers are?
Copyright is Dead July 2000
Excerpt from Mac Edition Soup Says
The legal principle behind copyright has been sold down by the river, by: the motion picture industry, the recording industry and the major publishers. Intellectual property law can be traced back to Ireland in the fourth century, where renegade bishop St. Columba snuck into Old Man Finnean's library and copied his psalter by hand, and then gave copies out for free to local churches. Finnean had an absolute fit, and dragged Columba's ass to court, which meant King Diarmit's royal court. The King decreed "To every cow its calf, to every book its copy", and fined St. Columba 40 head of cattle for making an unauthorized copy. Here's the deal, though: Finnean of Clonard didn't write the psalter in question, which is a book full of psalms, he just owned it. The issue decided by Diarmit was about allowing the wealthy and powerful to control the flow of knowledge, and allowing the commoditization of information.
Mickey Mouse goes into the public domain on1/1/2024, just in case you wanted an exact deadline by which US Copyright Law will change.
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Reprinted under the Fair Use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. Full copyright retained by the original publication. (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
House Panel Votes to Ease Copyright Restrictions
Chronice of Higher Education, 2.8.9 By ANDREA L. FOSTER
The enactment of a bill that would make it easier for educational institutions to use films and songs in online instruction was all but assured last month after a key House of Representatives committee approved the legislation.
The House Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the bill, the Technology Harmonization and Education Act, S 487, on a voice vote without debate. It is identical to a bill the Senate approved in June 2001.
The legislation would expand the exceptions under the Copyright Act of 1976 that allow colleges and schools to use copyrighted material for instruction without securing copyright holders' permission. The act allows distance-education providers to digitally transmit nondramatic literary and musical works. Under the bill, they would also be able to show students selected portions of movies, plays, and other dramatic works.The legislation applies only to accredited, nonprofit educational institutions. <snip>
Copyright, Congress, Due Diligence, And Coase by Frank Forman
Economist at the U.S. Department of Education author of "The Metaphysics of Liberty"
Silent Theft - The Private Plunder of our Public Wealth PDF
About Counter - Copyrights [CC]
As an alternative to the exclusivity of copyright, the counter-copyright invites others to use and build upon a creative work. By encouraging the widespread dissemination of such works, the counter-copyright campaign fosters a rich public domain.
Australian Copyright Update August 23,2002
in a landmark decision for defamation law, Australia's High Court ruled that a Melbourne businessman can sue New York publishing company Dow Jones & Co. in Australia over an article published in the U.S. and distributed via the Internet. The article was published in Barron's, a Dow Jones business and financial weekly. Dow Jones also publishes The Wall Street Journal.
Source: New York Times (Circuits-D13) 6/18/98 Author: Michael Pollak