Canada’s ADISQ Calls For a Stop to Copying CDs at Libraries
Those who argue for balanced copyright policies are often characterized as anti-copyright. Yet in my research I’ve seen at least two examples that suggest that the characterization (which I would prefer not be used at all) might be appropriately applied to the collectives, at least with respect to how the Supreme Court of Canada interprets copyright.
First, Quill and Quire, a Canadian publication on the book industry, featured a revealing article on pressure from Quebec creator groups against the Grand Bibliothèque, Montreal’s new library. The library reportedly boasts an impressive collection of works from Quebec creators, including 13,000 films and 90,000 CDs and DVDs. The library permits personal copying by providing computers with CD burners in the library. It says that it is vigilant about ensuring that patrons do not make multiple copies.
Nevertheless, the copying has angered ADISQ, the Quebec association of performing artists and producers. The article notes that several ADISQ members are calling on the library to stop the copying of CDs from its collection. Eduardo Da Costa, the agent for a popular Quebec singer Marie-Chantal Toupin, says, “there’s no difference between copies sold at flea markets and those made in the library.”
Arguments that equate piracy in flea markets to private copying, which generated more than $39 million last year, are so far removed from what Canada’s courts say are the policy goals of copyright that advocates of that line of thinking could be characterized as anti-copyright.
Similarly, Access Copyright issued a press release responding to a CMEC press conference on education and copyright. Maureen Cavan, Access Copyright’ s Executive Director, is quoted as saying that “the government cannot legislate that Canada’s creators and publishers be made to work for free when their works are copied from the Internet instead of purchased, but that is precisely what would happen if they allow the exemption the education sector is seeking.”
Once again, arguments that suggest that the exercise of user rights forces creators to work for free distorts what the Canada’s courts say copyright is all about. The copyright protection that creators enjoy is based on a policy decision that providing such protection is in the public interest. The protection is not absolute: there are user rights that balance such protection and enable Canadians to copy works under appropriate circumstances without further compensation. This is particularly true in the education context, where there are broad exceptions for research and private study.
What is most troubling about the anti-copyright rights holder view is its impact on those who sit in the middle. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Grand Bibliothèque is entitled to assume that their patrons will use their equivalent lawfully (much like the Great Library in Toronto). Similarly, the library is not only entitled to provide a paper copy to patrons, but following CCH is presumably entitled to provide patrons with faxed (and likely electronic) copies of those same works under the fair dealing user right.
That is the law as it is. Yet under pressure from anti-copyright rights holders, the library practices a law as rights holders would like it to be, finding it necessary to be vigilant about stopping multiple copies and declaring that it “is ready to work out more stringent anti-pirating policies with interested parties.” The same is true of Canada’s universities, who appear to have bought the Access Copyright vision of copyright hook, line, and sinker, paying millions in annual license fees for copying that is likely covered by their user rights.
[thanks to michael geist and kitonlove via cc]
Top 5 Ways to Prevent Copyright Theft of Your WordPress Blog
If you are launching a new site, especially a new blog, there are several things that you can do to make sure that your copyright is as protected as possible.
Simply put, when you are starting from scratch, you have a rare opportunity to get things right from the start and many of the best tools to protect your work function at their best when you use them from day one.
So, if you’re preparing to launch a new site, whether it is a static one or a blog, here are the steps you need to take today to protect your work or, if you’re not interested in enforcement, track it and encourage its sharing.
1. Register with the U.S.Copyright Office
Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is both slow and expensive. It’s also hopelessly out of date with the current Web and can take some nine months get your certificate.
Still, the fact remains that, if you want execute your full rights in the U.S., you need that registration. You need it both to file suit in a Federal Court and you need to have either registered before the infringement or within three months of publication to be able to collect statutory damages.
If you think you might ever want to sue for copyright infringement, you will want to register your work promptly. It’s a pain and it costs $35 but it can be invaluable down the road.
Likewise, as you add content to your site, you will likely want to re-register every 3 months to ensure that the registration is up to date and all content is protected.
2. Register with FairShare or Use Google Alerts
If you have a site where most of the content will be in an RSS feed, set up an account with FairShare so it can begin tracking the content in your feed from the first post. The service is free and only requires you to subscribe to the provided RSS feed where it will list where matches of your work were discovered along with some basic information.
If your content is largely static, you can use Google Alerts. I’ve covered Google Alerts before, but basically you just find good, unique phrases within your content and have Google search for those phrases and email you with any results it finds.
3. Set up an RSS Footer
If your site will put a large part of its content into an RSS feed, add a footer to the feed. You can use a simple WordPress plugin to do that if you’re a self-hosted WordPress user or, Blogger users can simply use the option in their admin panel.
Ideally, it should include a copyright statement, a link back to your site and, possibly, a digital fingerprint to make the tracking of your content even easier.
Since RSS scraping is one of the biggest problems content creators face, this can make sure that such use is at least attributed and trackable, even if it won’t put a stop to it.
4. Set Up Your Site’s Footer
Though you don’t technically need to include any copyright information for your work to be protected, it is a very good idea to do so as many have the misconception that, if it is not marked, it is free to use.
Make sure your footer includes all the basic copyright information including the year, which you can configure to update automatically, the copyright symbol, your name and the license information for the work (All Rights Reserved, Creative Commons, etc.)
5. Add Contact Information for Permissions
Finally, as you’re setting up how people will contact you, make sure to have a means for people to contact you to ask permission to use your work.
This is a good idea even if you use some form of blanket licensing, such as Creative Commons, as people will still contact you about these issues. This happens both because they don’t understand or see the license and because they want to use the work in a way that goes beyond it.
If you offer a clear path to contact you about these issues, even if it is just through your regular contact page, you’ll find people to be much more likely to ask permission than they would otherwise.
Bottom Line
When starting a new site, whether your first or your hundredth, it is a chance to get things right and avoid mistakes that you made with the other efforts. Copyright is no different in that regard.
If you value your content, its worth taking some time before launching to make some adjustments and make sure that your work is protected. Doing so will not only help you enforce your copyright, but also track where it appears on the Web, legitimately and unlawfully, letting you better understand your audience and reach.
So take the opportunity and spend a few minutes making sure your work is adequately protected.
[thanks to paul keller and jonathan bailey via cc]
The Many Faces of iPad: Fujitsu & STMicro Take on Apple
Apple is in danger of being made subject of a lawsuit by Japan’s Fujitsu and European chipmaker STMicroelectronics, in the wake of Apple’s adoption of the name “iPad” for its latest tablet PC eye candy. “iPad” has been a registered trademark by STMicro since 2000 for its semiconductor technology. For Fujitsu’s part, it is claiming that it created a palmtop computer of the same name, launched internally for use by its shop assistants beginning 2002. At present, Fujitsu has a pending application for the use of the trademark.
There are other companies that hold rights to use “iPad” as a trademark for products under certain categories, including Siemens for engines and motors, and Coconut Grove Pads for padded bras. These trademark infringement issues bring us back to 2007, when Apple introduced the iPhone to the public. This caused Cisco—registered owner of the name—to go to the courts. The matter was later settled when the contenders agreed to own the name jointly, for undisclosed terms.
Asked what STMicro intends to do, its representative said they were studying their options. Fujitsu’s official statement said: “[The company] is aware of Apple’s iPad announcement and the possible infringement on our trademark . . . We are currently discussing our options with our trademark counsel and have no further comment at this time.”
Trademark disputes – especially those that involve brand giants like Apple and Fujitsu or Cisco – are usually not enough to hinder the infringing company from launching the product, or to compel it to rebrand. However, if Apple loses its bid for “iPad” and Fujitsu is allowed to continue its application, or if Apple fails to justify that the two products are not confusingly similar, it will have no recourse but to buy the rights from Fujitsu.
The iPad Comparisons
Fujitsu’s iPad is a gadget that has a 3.5-inch screen, powered by an Intel processor, uses a Microsoft OS, and is Wi-fi and Bluetooth-enabled. Its purpose is to connect shop assistants and managers to sales and stock data. STMicro’s iPad, on the other hand, is less similar. “iPad” is an acronym for “integrated passive and active devices,” referring to the technology that used to manufacture semiconductors. But here’s the caveat: STMicro’s products are used in cars, washing machines, smartphones and mobile phones, among other gadgets. The implication: STMicro’s iPad technology could someday be applied to handheld devices like Apple’s iPad.
Fujitsu’s prior application in the US is dated March 2003. It was suspended after the US Patent and Trademark Office found a prior filing by Mag-Tek for keypads used to enter personal identification numbers. The application was subsequently declared abandoned, but was revived by Fujitsu in June 2009. A month later, Apple sent its proxy to the patent and trademark office of Trinidad & Tobago to register “iPad” and secure a priority date that it can claim when it applies for registration in other parts of the world. In the last quarter of 2009, Apple requested the US PTO for more time to oppose Fujitsu’s application. February 28 is the deadline for Apple to decide if it will contest Fujitsu’s application or not.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Fujitsu’s trademark lawyer, Hanify & King’s Edward Pennington said: “They probably need to talk to us and we haven’t had any direct communications with Apple,” and went on to describe Apple’s position as “awkward”.
