SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) Is Shortsighted - Will Hurt More Than Help

SOPA Will Not Kill Online Piracy

As is often the case, legislators jump into creating new laws (often with the noblest intentions) to correct inequities but write the legislation in such a way that the intended outcome winds up hurting peripheral entities more than the focused inequity correction is worth! And we end up with extremely bad legislation with unintended consequences that far outweigh any perceived benefits.

Could be our elected officials need to hire professional writers to spell out the legislation. You see, good writers are good thinkers/visionaries who can connect the 3-dimensional dots, 100% of the time, much better than the legislative bunch in D.C. today :)

Case in point: Jennifer Grassman, a musician, writer, journalist, and creative person nailed the SOPA weaknesses in an article for the Washington Times:

Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA): Will censoring the web stop online piracy?

As a musician, writer, journalist, and creative person, the title of the “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) has a distinctly pleasant ring to it. Equally innocuous sounding, PIPA stands for “Protect IP Act.”

But what, may one ask, is in a name? If the spider that lives on the back porch was named Fluffy, would it make her less menacing.
Most people do not have time to read the actual legislation (which, between the two bills, is a scintillating 108-page read), let alone the know-how to decode all the legal jargon. As a result, the dramatic and often contradictory claims of the bill's proponents and opponents become all the more difficult to sort.

Some claim SOPA will protect the rights and property of content creators. Others seem to think it will usher in a 1984-esk dark age of book burnings and fascist government censorship.

With melodramatic flare, on Wednesday, January 18, Wikipedia went black in protest of SOPA and PIPA, stating, “Imagine a world without free knowledge. For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet.”

Will SOPA restrict sites like Wikipedia with its crowd-sourced information gathering dynamism? Is America actually entering 1984 à la George Orwell?

Or will SOPA simply cut the lifeline on pirate websites that are explicitly engaged in criminal activity, i.e. theft or my, and your intellectual property?

CNN Money explains, “SOPA's main targets are 'rogue' overseas sites like torrent hub The Pirate Bay, which are a trove for illegal downloads of movies and other digital content. If you remember Napster you know that content creators have battled against piracy for years, learning that it is nearly impossible to take action against foreign sites. So SOPA's goal is to cut off pirate sites' oxygen by requiring U.S. search engines, advertising networks, and other providers to withhold their services. That means sites like Google would not show flagged sites in their search results, and payment processors like eBay's PayPal could not transmit funds to them.”

In other words, the U.S. Government wants to lay siege to online foreign smuggling enterprises. It's not their intentions many question, but rather their proposed methods.

We all have friends or relatives who illegally download music, movies, video games, and computer programs. Some of them know they are stealing and think it is funny. Others seem to have a romanticized idea of the underdog valiance of piracy, as if they are trotting through Sherwood Forest with Robin Hood and his Merry-file-sharing-Men.

Many seem to think that they are entitled to get everything they want for free, while still others are under the misapprehension that digital products (like MP3s and downloadable software) cost the creator nothing to make, and therefor ought to be free for everyone to enjoy, just like sunshine, sidewalks, and junk mail.

One Facebook user posted the comment, “This is about freedom and knowledge. Ever heard [sic] about how 'Knowledge should be free?' it is because it belongs to the world. SOPA is the typical Republican crap, and I think they are 100% wrong. So only rich people should be allow to watch HBO and get Adobe Acrobat? No way man! That cripples the knowledge. Should I be limited because I do not have money to pay for a class, or software, or books? [Instead], I can 'tweak it' and learn it by myself for free because I skipped their steps, and was smart enough not to get trapped in their BS. I'm the 1% bro, but I'm savvy enough to get the stuff the 99% enjoys because of my knowledge.”

Read and learn more

The Writers Welcome Blog is available on Kindle :)))










  

Prominent French Publisher, La Martiniere, Reaches E-Book Detente with Google

La Martiniere, the third largest publisher in France (behind Hachette and Editis), fought a five year battle to stop Google from scanning and selling (mostly out-of-print) copyrighted works willy-nilly ... and they have successfully reached a detente.

I wouldn't have thought it would be so hard, even for out-of-print works, given that they are supposedly copyrighted for life ... unless the copyright ownership was in question.

Anyway, publishing intrigue is alive and well and shouting all over the place and across formats and platforms.

This from Barbara Casassus as reported in TheBookSeller.com:

La Martinière and Google sign agreement

French publisher La Martinière has dropped its legal action against Google and signed an agreement with it to scan specified out-of-print French language titles.

The publisher was locked in a five-year long legal battle against Google for having digitised copyrighted books without permission. The pact is similar to the one finalised last month with Hachette Livre, which was aimed to serve as a model for other French houses.

The difference is that La Martinière and Google will draw up a catalogue including both the titles already scanned in partnership with American libraries and those to be covered by the latest deal, a Google France spokesperson said. The publisher will decide which titles will be withdrawn and which will be scanned.

Several thousand titles could be involved, La Martinière c.e.o. Hervé de La Martinière said. The group will be able to sell the scanned books through the Google e-books platform on a revenue-sharing basis, with the publisher earning the undisclosed majority share, the Google spokesperson added.

Read and learn more

Writers Welcome Blog is on Kindle :)








 

Copyright Intrigue - Courts Still Can't Get It Right!

The supreme court is still trying to decide copyright ramifications? Phew!...I don't care if the intellectural property is domestic OR foreign, the damn work should be automatically copyrighted on behalf of the creator!

Simple concept that should be reflected in any and all agreements between countries...Even the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (“Article 18”), which the United States joined in 1989, requires that signatory nations provide copyright protection to certain foreign works. (John's Note: What's with this certain foreign works? should read: 'signatory nations provide copyright protection to ALL foreign works.'...The copyright concept is simple and should apply across the board in domestic as well as foreign works!).

More details by Dan Himmelfarb on Lexology.com

US Supreme Court grants certiorari in Golan v. Holder

Article 18 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (“Article 18”), which the United States joined in 1989, requires that signatory nations provide copyright protection to certain foreign works. In 1994, Congress implemented Article 18 by enacting Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“Section 514”), which restores copyright protection to certain foreign works that were previously in the public domain. On March 7, 2011, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545, to decide whether Section 514 violates the U.S. Constitution’s Copyright Clause or First Amendment. The case is important both to businesses whose works received renewed protection under Section 514 and to businesses that wish to make use of such works.

Petitioners are orchestra conductors, educators, performers, publishers, film archivists, and motion-picture distributors who record, manufacture, and distribute foreign works in the public domain. Under Section 514, certain foreign works are now copyright-protected, and petitioners thus are prohibited from using those works unless they pay a licensing fee.

Read and learn more

Remember to get this GREAT blog on your Kindle here!

SAP to Pay Oracle $1.3 Billion for Copyright Infringement!

Another publishing copyright infringement case...BUT, this one pops for one of the largest settlements ever: $1.3 BILLION!

This one involves SAP, a German software company, illegally downloading millions of Oracle's files...Well, howdy dodo!

From Reuters by Dan Levine:

SAP AG must pay Oracle Corp $1.3 billion for software theft, a jury decided, awarding damages that could be the largest-ever for copyright infringement.

The decision, by a U.S. district court jury in Oakland California, drew a gasp from the courtroom and prompted hugs and handshakes among Oracle's legal team, which has pursued their case for years.

Oracle's shares rose 1.5 percent in after-hours trade, while those of SAP slipped 1.4 percent.

SAP, Europe's top software maker, said it was disappointed by the verdict and might appeal.

"We are, of course, disappointed by this verdict and will pursue all available options, including post-trial motions and appeal if necessary," SAP said in a statement in response to the verdict.

Attorneys for Oracle called the verdict the largest ever for a copyright infringement case.

While SAP could appeal, Oracle attorney David Boies said, that would raise the possibility of a retrial. "If I were SAP, and I'm not, but if I were SAP, I'm not sure I would want to have another trial," Boies said.

SAP SAYS $40 MLN AT MOST

At the outset of the trial, the German company acknowledged that its TomorrowNow subsidiary had wrongfully downloaded millions of Oracle's files.

With the admission of liability, the issue before the jury was how much Oracle was owed in damages. SAP said no more $40 million, while Oracle at least $1.65 billion.

"The mark of a leading company is the way it handles its mistakes. As stated in court, we regret the actions of TN, we have accepted liability, and have been willing to fairly compensate Oracle," SAP said after the verdict was announced.

Read and learn more

French Intellectual Property Law Stronger than US Copyright Law for Authors

More clarity and detail RE the Google copyright infringement case with US and French authors and publishers...AND why the French agreement is superior!

For a little background on this intriguing issue, read my 11/18/10 post on Writers Thought for Today Blog .

Diane Mullenex and Jacques Mandrillon, legal beavers for the French legal firm, Ichay & Mullenex Avocats, write this for Lexology.com:

In 2004, Google launched its “Books Library Project” in order to create a universal library online by digitising books and making it available for consultation on one of its application. This initiative was followed, the next year, by a copyright infringement case brought by the US Authors Guild and five majors US publishers.

Finally, in October 2008, they reached a settlement which has been amended some months later. The Google Book Settlement is not finalized yet, awaiting US Department of Justice approval. Nonetheless, the deal was the best they could get at the moment.

On the 17th of November, Google and Hachette Livre, the largest publisher in France and the No.2 trade publisher by sales worldwide, have reached an agreement authorizing Google to scan and sell electronically its out-of-print French language titles under the control of the publisher. This agreement covers about 50,000 French titles, including literature and nonfiction works, still under copyright protection.

The two deals are different: but why?

Judicial history is different, culture is different and political background is different

In December 2009, the search engine company was found guilty of copyright infringement by the High Court of First Instance of Paris for digitising the books of the French publisher La Martinière and putting extracts online without its written prior approval. The case was brought by La Martinière, the French publisher’s union (SNE – Syndicat national de l’édition) and a publishers and authors’ group (SGDL – Société des gens de lettre). All the more, several French major publishers, including Hachette, declared their intentions to sue Google for the same reasons.

These cases are related to the initial version of the Books Library Project. In this Google application, in order to answer to their search queries, users were allowed to read the full text of public domain books but only few paragraphs in titles still protected by copyright.

Read and learn more