Uncategorized

Third CopySouth Workshop

International Conference on Copyright Issues

The CopySouth Research Group is holding a conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil at the end of June.

The CSRG is the source of the wonderful Copy/South Dossier and the Alternative Primer on National and International Copyright Law, which we’ve written about here before.  Here’s their announcement about the conference…

The CopySouth Research Group (CSRG) invites you to attend and join in the debates at its three day international conference on copyright to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil at the end of June.

It is an important moment to discuss these issues. In 1710 — exactly three hundred years ago — the first copyright law in the world was enacted in England. Is this an anniversary worth celebrating? Around the world, the antiquated assumptions of copyright law and ideology are again being questioned and new conflicts are breaking out. In Brazil, for example, more than 500 musicians, writers, academics and others signed an open letter in late May calling on their government to reform its copyright laws so that users can have more access to music and books. Meanwhile, the well-financed campaign against so-called copyright “piracy” has become even more vocal and threatens us all… except large corporations. Although three of the most important countries in the global South — China, India and Brazil —  were not even invited to the talks, a new anti-piracy treaty called ACTA is about to be signed by rich nations in North America and Europe, as well as Japan and a few smaller countries.

As we meet, a list of long-standing and complex questions is demanding new answers. Do most musicians benefit from the copyright system and the current way that the music industry is organised? How can we promote far more access to educational materials in the countries of South America, Africa and Asia than already exists? And, speaking of access and sharing, why do so many ideas and so many cultural products flow from the North to the South… and why do so few flow the other way? Can we justify the current economic logic of the global copyright system? And what are viable alternatives to the current system?

To address these questions and many more that you may want to raise, the CSRG has assembled a group of leading critical researchers, musicians and activists from around the world to come to Rio and to speak on seven panels. The speakers are from Brazil (7), Chile (1), Bolivia (1), Cuba (2), the United States (3), South Africa (2), Ghana (1), the Philippines (2), Switzerland (1), and the United Kingdom (2).

We expect some strong opinions to be voiced and some good open debates to occur. So we extend an open invitation to all people interested in these issues, such as students, librarians, teachers, researchers, musicians and information activists, to attend.

There will be simultaneous interpretation in Portuguese, Spanish and English. We hope to see you in Rio on 28 June.

The Internet Archive launched a new service yesterday, bringing free access to more than 1 million books in the specially designed format to support those who are blind, dyslexic or are otherwise print-impaired.

This is great news just in terms of giving so many people easier access to books, but it’s also interesting as an application of a little-known provision of U.S. copyright law — the Chafee Amendment of 1996, which states:

“…it is not an infringement of copyright for an authorized entity to reproduce or to distribute copies or phonorecords of a previously published, nondramatic literary work if such copies or phonorecords are reproduced or distributed in specialized formats exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities.”

The new service demonstrates the principle behind the Chafee Amendment: that copyright is a conditional monopoly, not a property right, and that when we decide the monopoly is hampering an important public purpose, we can change it. The Chafee Amendment is an open acknowledgement that monopoly-based distribution was not serving the needs of the blind, the visually impaired, or dyslexic people very well, and that fixing that situation is simply a policy decision. It reminds us that copyright itself is a policy decision, and that if it is not serving the public well, we can change the policy.

The Internet Archive’s press release is below:

More than doubling the number of books available to print disabled people of all ages, today the Internet Archive launched a new service that brings free access to more than 1 million books — from classic 19th century fiction and current novels to technical guides and research materials — now available in the specially designed format to support those who are blind, dyslexic or are otherwise visually impaired.

“Every person deserves the opportunity to enhance their lives through access to the books that teach, entertain and inspire,” said Brewster Kahle, founder and Digital Librarian of the Internet Archive. “Bringing access to huge libraries of books to the blind and print disabled is truly one of benefits of the digital revolution.”

Kahle also announced that the Internet Archive will be investing in the growth of its virtual bookshelf by funding the digitization of the first 10,000 books donated. Individuals and organizations are welcome to donate their favorite book or a collection of books. Books in all languages welcome. To donate books visit: http://openlibrary.org/bookdrive

Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, said: “Blind people must have access to repositories of digital information if we are to reach our goal of becoming full and equal participants in society. Access to the books that have been scanned by the Internet Archive in a format accessible to the blind will be another step toward that goal. We are excited about continuing to work with Internet Archive to make access to more books a reality.”

The 1 million+ books in the Internet Archive’s library for print disabled, are scanned from hard copy books then digitized into DAISY — a specialized format used by blind or other persons with disabilities, for easy navigation. Files are downloaded to devices that translate the text and read the books aloud for the user to enjoy. To access books visit: http://openlibrary.org/subjects/accessible_book

Jessie Lorenz is a 31 year old woman who was born blind and is the Associate Director of at the Independent Living Resource Center in San Francisco. She believes, “Knowledge is power – and like everyone else, blind and print disabled people need equitable access to books to help them be innovative, productive, contributing community members.”

Older books are available from the Internet Archive’s unencrypted DAISY library and modern books can be accessed by “qualified users” through their NLS key — an encrypted code provided by the Library of Congress’ National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS), that is dedicated to providing materials to the print disabled. Currently, over 800,000 people in the US are registered with the Library of Congress as being print disabled.

As of today, the Internet Archive offers over one million books for print disabled people. Other large libraries for the print disabled including NLS, Bookshare.org, and Reading for the Blind & Dyslexic.

“This demonstrates why having open and public access to published works is so important,” said Kahle.

Ben Foss, President of Headstrong, an advocacy group for people with dyslexia said, “As dyslexic and print-disabled students scramble to complete their end-of-year research papers and projects, beginning today, there is a great new library of resources that will expand the tools these young people need to be successful in school and in life.”

By leveraging automated scanning and conversion processes, Internet Archive technicians can conduct a cost-efficient scan of more than one thousand books per day. Books are scanned at sites located in San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles and other major cities in five countries. Most of the older scanned books have been reformatted for the print-disabled from broad digitizing projects. Scanned physical books came from the collections of over 150 libraries, most of which are in the Open Content Alliance, but others as well. The funding of those scanning projects is coming from foundations, corporations and governments.

Most of the older books have been scanned from library collections, with newer books having been donated to the Internet Archive by companies such as the online bookseller Alibris, libraries and individuals.

The print disabled collection of books are now available through the Archive’s new Open Library site (www.openlibrary.org), which serves as a gateway to information about millions of hardcopy books and more than 1 million electronic books.

The Internet Archive will continually increase the number books it makes available. They are currently seeking donations of books and ebooks from individuals, libraries and publishers. The Archive is announcing today its commitment to fund the scanning and automatic processing of the first 10,000 donated books. Any organization or individual that would like to make particular books or collections available are encouraged to donate them by sending them to the Internet Archive. For donations of large collections please contact the Internet Archive. Financial support is also welcome to expand the program.

To access all books, a United States resident with print disabilities must register with the Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/nls/signup.html.

The Internet Archive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that was founded to build an Internet library. Its missions are to offer universal access to all knowledge and provide specialized services for adaptive reading and information access for the blind and other persons with disabilities. Internet Archive, 300 Funston Avenue, San Francisco California 94118, info@archive.org, www.archive.org www.openlibrary.org +1-415-561-6767.

Press contact: Pattie Haubner phaubner@douglasgould.com
(914) 833-7093, (914) 275-2984

The first official release of Copying Is Not Theft is now ready, with a new sound track arranged by Nik Phelps and sung by Connie Champagne:

Download the high-res version at archive.org.

Question Copyright’s first Minute Meme is a response to messages that have tried to convince people that copying information is the same as stealing property, when it’s an entirely different (and generally positive) thing. Until the air is cleared on that point, it’s hard to have any kind of useful conversation about copying, sharing, copyright, or licensing.

The purpose of these Minute Memes is to give educators and commentators more tools to help clear the air. Copying is not Theft conveys its simple idea with a catchy tune, clever lyrics, and delightful animation by Nina Paley. Many thanks to Nik Phelps and Connie Champagne for a terrific sound track. We also thank the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts for supporting this meme and others with a generous grant. Copying Is Not Theft is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license.

See the Minute Memes home page for more about the project. See the Copying Is Not Theft home page for more about this meme and for other arrangements, remixes, and mashups, based on the draft Nina released last December.

Brian Lehrer renowned radio host at WNYC (New York Public Radio) interviewed Nina Paley and Karl Fogel on his CUNY TV show Brian Lehrer Live on February 17th.  The conversation ranged from Nina’s distribution model for her film Sita Sings the Blues to the broader copyright reform movement, and they showed two of the Minute Memes as well.  The video is now available:

It’s the middle segment of a three-segment show. The entire show is worth watching, too. The first segment is a debate about the ACTA (“Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement”) treaty and how it tightens international copyright restrictions. If you follow copyright reform at all, you’ll be frustrated at how resolutely the participants neglect to question the assumptions (for one thing, copying is not counterfeiting). We tried to come back to some of those points during the middle segment. The third segment is a fascinating interview with Jen Bekman and Jonathan Melber of 20×200, with artist Clare Grill joining by video chat. In all segments, the host, Brian Lehrer, asks good questions; he’s obviously been thinking about the issues.

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget has put out a request for written submissions from the public:

SUMMARY: The Federal Government is currently undertaking a landmark effort to develop an intellectual property enforcement strategy building on the immense knowledge and expertise of the agencies charged with enforcing intellectual property rights.

Part I: …IPEC seeks written submissions from the public identifying the costs to the U.S. economy resulting from infringement of intellectual property rights, both direct and indirect, including any impact on the creation or maintenance of jobs. In addition, the IPEC seeks written submissions identifying threats to public health and safety posed by intellectual property infringement…

Part II: …IPEC requests written submissions from the public that provide specific recommendations for accomplishing one or more of the objectives of the Joint Strategic Plan, , or other specific recommendations for significantly improving the U.S. Government’s enforcement efforts. Recommendations may include, but need not be limited to: Proposed legislative changes, regulations, executive orders, other executive action, guidelines, or changes in policies, practices or methods. …

(Emphases ours.)  This a fine idea — it’s about time, really.  Below is the letter we sent, lightly edited. Please feel free to use it, verbatim or modified, to send in your own letters whenever public comments are solicited.

To:      intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov
Subject: Re: Comments on the Joint Strategic Plan

Victoria Espinel
Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
Filed via email

Dear Ms. Espinel:

The Federal Government's initiative to develop a coherent and
public-minded enforcement strategy has the potential to do much good.

Any accounting of the cost of infringement must include the jobs lost
because of business models that are suppressed when the public's right
to enjoy and use its intellectual property is infringed upon.  For
example, Google scanned millions of books, many of which have no
discoverable copyright holder, and yet must now pay a ransom to make
the results of those scans available to the public even in restricted
form.  This infringement of the public's right to its own culture has
costs in economic terms, not only for Google, but for the authors and
publishers would like to build upon and add value to past works.

Many web sites are also forced to remove content when requested by
monopolists who hold an exclusive right to distribute that content,
and also by would-be monopolists who do not actually have the
legal right to enforce the takedown, but do so anyway because the cost
of resisting bogus requests is too great a burden for most targets.
These practices interfere with the business models of those web sites,
costing jobs and, again, infringing on public access to information
and art.

Regarding public health and safety concerns: copyright is used to
restrict public access to the computer code that runs medical devices,
thus preventing any public audit of code on which patient's lives
depend.  See http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2010/feb/16/0x21/
for just one example.  This too is an infringement on public access
that I hope the IPEC will give serious attention to.

Here are specific strategies that IPEC could undertake itself,
recommend to other agencies, or recommend to the legislature:

  1) Require open, unfettered access to source code for all medical
     devices, in order for those devices to receive FDA approval.

  2) Impose statutory penalties for bogus takedown requests that abuse
     the takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
     If an entity delivers an improper takedown request, and cannot
     demonstrate that it did so in good faith, then it should either
     lose the right to deliver any takedown requests (and this fact
     should be recorded in a list kept by the Register of Copyrights),
     or pay a penalty sufficiently severe to deter future abuses.

  3) IPEC should take the responsibility to accurately measure both
     the economic costs of overzealous copyright restrictions, and the
     incidence of censorship, suppression, and credible threats to
     public safety resulting from abuses of copyright law.

     IPEC should never rely on figures gathered by holders of
     copyright monopolies, as those figures have historically been
     methodologically suspect and extremely inflated (as when the
     record industry counts illegally downloaded songs as "costing"
     the industry the same price as those songs sold on a retail CD).
     Common sense indicates that IPEC cannot outsource this research.

  4) Treat attribution separately from copyright.  Attribution should
     really fall in the domain of trademark law, which is also within
     IPEC's purview, but which is unrelated to copyright.  The
     current conflation of attribution with restrictions on
     distribution causes much confusion in public policy debates.

  5) Likewise, treat counterfeiting separately from unauthorized
     copying.  The U.S. has an unfortunate history of conflating these
     unrelated issues, for example through its participation in the
     Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), whose very name
     undeservedly tars unauthorized copying with the same brush as
     counterfeiting.  Counterfeiting, whether of currency or trade
     goods, is simply fraud, because it involves lying about the
     provenance or uniqueness of the counterfeited item.  Unauthorized
     copying, by contrast, is not fraud; it is merely unauthorized.

  6) Most importantly, IPEC should phrase its solicitations for
     comments without bias in favor of a particular outcome.  For
     example, the solicitation recently sent by Thomas L. Stoll from
     your office said: "Explain why copyright is critical to you
     as a commercial artist, how infringement affects you, and what
     the U.S. government can do to better protect the rights of
     American artists."

     That is putting the answer before the question.  There are many
     artists for whom copyright is not critical, and who are in fact
     mainly hampered by its restrictions.  If IPEC does not solicit
     their input too, it will have an inaccurate picture of the
     effects of copyright.

Thank you,
-Karl Fogel
 Editor, QuestionCopyright.org
 P.O. Box 20165
 Stanford, CA  94309-0165
 +1 (312) 772-2726

Thanks to Public Knowledge for their post drawing attention to this public comment period, and also to reader Mark Ashworth, who wrote us independently about it.