From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sat Jan 5 13:35:05 2008 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:35:05 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Small labels, big sounds Message-ID: <908adbd0801050005g7a60d7d1o4e48eebcefa56aa8@mail.gmail.com> Small labels, big sounds http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c.php?leftnm=10&autono=309677 Arati Menon Carroll / New Delhi January 5, 2008 This is the best time to be an "Indie" artist in India. Home studios producing experimental labels are fast becoming a rage. Sometimes record labels are born out of frustration. Frustration that there are no alternative sounds to the mainstream. Or, as Ashutosh of singer-songwriter duo Ashu & Dhruv says, because "you sometimes feel like an NRI in your own country". He laments, "Why should we be embarrassed about our global music identities?" To correct the bias of music majors towards mainstream, and therefore profitable, sounds, some music lovers have gone ahead and taken content-generation into their own hands (and recording studios). Blue Frog, started by Ashu & Dhruv along with other partners, is a bar, a record label and talent management company, all rolled into one. The Blue Frog bar with its avant garde design and acoustics came first, located in an industrial estate in Mumbai's Lower Parel, with live acts on stage every night. The record label is to be launched in February; eight artists have tentatively been lined up. "We are not genre-biased, but we will not cater to any music that already has representation," says Pathak. The criteria for music selection is equally straightforward for other labels. "We represent music that sounds good to us," says Craig Fernandes, promotions executive for Phat Phish records. Phat Phish was started by Channel V creative guy Anand Purapur in the late '90s as an ad film production house. Then came the propitious but unplanned launch of Rabbi in 2002, and suddenly the company found itself scripting a long-term vision for music production. Now, with six artistes in its catalogue including what will be its first release since a Malayalee rock band called Avial, the label prides itself representing progressive sounds with language not a barrier. Call it Indian funk, new rave, trip hop or what you will, these hard-to-define sounds are finding their way into music listeners' lexicons thanks to labels that are stretching the spectrum of music. "It's never been a better time to be an 'Indie' artist in India," says Sonal D'Silva, a writer and musician scouting for a label. "The major labels have a list of demands before they will even meet you, including a ready-to-run music video," she says. D'Silva generates music digitally in a home studio to avoid studio costs that range from Rs 1,000-1,500 an hour. "Entry costs of artistes are low today because home studios actually produce halfway decent sound," says Ambrish Kumar of MummyDaddy records, another independent label on its way to its first compilation release come 2008. "In fact," says Kumar, "it's the big guys that are bleeding because fixed costs are so high and music sales are so low." Kumar believes you can follow a low-cost model and still hold out hope to a wide release. "I want to get good music out there and get the damn thing heard by paanwallas on their radios," he continues. And while most of these independent labels say they will employ physical distribution channels for primary revenue generation, all agree that they will need to supplement income from album sales with some creative marketing. Blue Frog intends to release "Live at the Blue Frog" DVDs. Kumar says MummyDaddy might in the future venture into content aggregation that would work on a subscription model for consumers. Interestingly, while the web and its community of free-downloaders cause infinite angst for the larger labels, it offers a world of opportunities for the small guys who say free downloads actually work for word-of-mouth plugging. Globally as well, several niche acts have been choosing to self-promote on the Internet instead of traditional major labels. British band Radiohead recently created a splash when it allowed digital downloads of its latest album allowing customers to choose their own price. "Our MySpace profile has had 15,000 hits already since August," says Fernandes. Of course, what never fails for independent labels is taking their artistes straight to listeners in the form of live shows. "It's like the 1960s in the United States, where live music was the biggest earner for artistes and their labels," says Kumar. Blue Frog's business model is built around this — its recorded music division dovetails into its live music division and most labels will double up as artiste management companies and booking agents. "Only Bollywood makes money off album sales. For artistes, earnings come from live sets," says Arjun Vagale, one of the founders of Jalebee Cartel — a progressive electronic act. Organised festivals are doing their bit for niche music. This December, the first ever Sunburn electronic dance music festival attempted to create a community out of the scattered audience for electronic dance music in India. For 48 hours on a beach in Goa, local dance music acts like Shaa'ir + Func (most of them supported by independent labels) were provided a platform alongside legends like DJ Carl Cox and Above & Beyond. Earlier in summer, the Big Chill festival in Goa drew 5,000 electronic music fans. Produced by Counter Culture records, another small record label, the festival was a testament to Counter Culture Record's viability. Having started off as an artiste management company called Only Much Louder (OML), Counter Culture Records was started to release the music of bands that OML managed. Today, it has nine artistes on its roster. So, any chance of the biggies biting? Vagale reveals that HMV has offered Jalebee Cartel (they've been recording singles with foreign production houses for a decade now) an album deal, but they've signed on with MummyDaddy records in India. "I don't blame the large labels because the entire gamut of radio stations and music channels feed into it and sales of CDs are low. But the time has come to experiment," he says. No one is quite sure when niche music categories will draw in the big bucks, but like Pathak says, "If us as musicians don't take the gamble, who will?" Kumar echoes that, "If Mummy Daddy records ever near-breaks, even I will be delighted." Keep listening. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080105/23bf2856/attachment-0001.html From the.solipsist at gmail.com Sun Jan 6 00:12:50 2008 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 00:12:50 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Copyright, the Music Industry, and Hockenberry on the MSM Message-ID: <4785f1e20801051042r60ee34aap1ad90980a667e68@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, Continuing from the David Byrne article I posted about a few days back (which, I repeat, is a _must read_), just today (h/t: Ars Technica) I came across an excellent explantion of the boilerplate terms that go into the contracts the big labels (most, though not all, of the labels under Sony BMG, EMI, Warner, and Universal) sign with musicians, and what they mean in plain English. Can anyone with knowledge of the Indian music industry respond with how much of this applies here? I am guessing that a large part of it will apply. Which are the big players in India? I know of T-Series (Super Cassettes), Saregama, and Tips (all of which are independent, right?) Does anyone have any statistics as to market shares in India? (Globally, the Big Four control around 70-75 per cent of all music sales.) From: Future of Music Coalition *Major Label Contract Clause Critique* October 3, 2001 *Preface* We've all heard the stories criticizing major record label contracts. Anecdotally we understand that many of the deals signed by artists are bad, but what does "bad" mean and just how bad are these deals? More importantly, how exactly are they bad? These are questions that Future of Music Coalition (FMC) has been trying to answer for more than a year now with much help from the legal and artistic community. We began this process first by picking the brains of over a dozen major label and artist attorneys to identify which major label contract clauses and standard industry deductions are considered to be the most onerous. Then we began preparing this document, which quotes ACTUAL contract language from ACTUAL record label contracts, with care taken to preserve the doublespeak that makes the documents so confusing. Finally, we translated these onerous and confusing contract clauses into PLAIN ENGLISH and paired them with easy-to-understand critiques in the hopes that even those who are completely unfamiliar with the music business can understand the implications that result from signing a standard major label deal. This is a first step and nowhere near the final word in criticizing traditional record contract language. See the full document at: http://www.futureofmusic.org/contractcrit.cfm or download http://www.futureofmusic.org/images/FMCcontractcrit.pdf -------------------- Also, you might find interesting this insightful article in MIT's Technology Review about the decline of the MSM (especially TV news) from an insider's perspective: *"You Don't Understand Our Audience" *What I learned about network television at Dateline NBC. By John Hockenberry http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=19845 Quote, ripped from BB : To get airtime, not only did serious news have to audition against the travails of Diana or a new book by Dr. Phil, but it also had to satisfy bizarre conditions. In 2003, one of our producers obtained from a trial lawyer in Connecticut video footage of guards subduing a mentally ill prisoner. Guards themselves took the footage as part of a safety program to ensure that deadly force was avoided and abuses were documented for official review. We saw guards haul the prisoner down a greenish corridor, then heard hysterical screaming as the guard shooting the video dispassionately announced, "The prisoner is resisting." For 90 seconds several guards pressed the inmate into a bunk. All that could be seen of him was his feet. By the end of the video the inmate was motionless. Asphyxiation would be the official cause of death. This kind of gruesome video was rare. We also had footage of raw and moving interviews with this and another victim's relatives. The story had the added relevance that one of the state prison officials had been hired as a consultant to the prison authority in Iraq as the Abu Ghraib debacle was unfolding. There didn't seem to be much doubt about either the newsworthiness or the topicality of the story. Yet at the conclusion of the screening, the senior producer shook his head as though the story had missed the mark widely. "These inmates aren't necessarily sympathetic to our audience," he said. The fact that they had been diagnosed with schizophrenia was unimportant. Worse, he said that as he watched the video of the dying inmate, it didn't seem as if anything was wrong. "Except that the inmate died," I offered. and Networks have so completely abandoned the mission of reporting the news that someone like entrepreneur Charles Ferguson, who sold an Internet software company to Microsoft in 1996 [and whose writing has appeared in this magazine; see "What's Next for Google," January 2005 --Ed.], can spend $2 million of his own money to make an utterly unadorned documentary about Iraq and see it become an indie hit. Ferguson's No End in Sight simply lays out, without any emotional digressions or narrative froth, how the U.S. military missed the growing insurgency. The straightforward questions and answers posed by this film are so rare in network news today that they seem like an exotic, innovative form of cinema, although they're techniques that belong to the Murrow era. In its way, Ferguson's film is as devastating an indictment of network television as it is of the Bush administration. Also see this good (barring the mis-spelling of Jon Stewart's name) piece in Ars about the Hockenberry article. * *Cheers, Pranesh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080106/9ef2c721/attachment.html From anujbhuwania at gmail.com Mon Jan 7 10:05:22 2008 From: anujbhuwania at gmail.com (Anuj Bhuwania) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:05:22 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Invitation: JNU Distinguished Lecture, Prof. Marc Galanter, January 16, 2008 Message-ID: The Centre for the Study of Law and Governance Jawaharlal Nehru University cordially invites you to its Special Distinguished Lecture by Prof. Marc Galanter John and Rylla Bosshard Professor of Law and South Asian Studies University of Wisconsin - Madison and LSE Centennial Professor London School of Economics and Political Science On Everyday Justice in India with Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar, Delhi High Court in the Chair Wednesday, 16 January 2008, 5.00 PM School of Arts and Aesthetics Auditorium, JNU You are requested to join us for tea after the lecture RSVP: Tel.: 2670 4021, Email: dir_cslg at mail.jnu.ac.in From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Mon Jan 7 15:41:06 2008 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:41:06 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] =?windows-1252?q?=27Goa=92s_Kaju_Feni_in_the_proces?= =?windows-1252?q?s_of_getting_patent=27_=28GI=29?= Message-ID: <908adbd0801070211p7e1e53f0w4c41d1a85b32f601@mail.gmail.com> *http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/258481.html * *Goa's Kaju Feni in the process of getting patent* ** Raju Nayak *Posted online: Monday, January 07, 2008 at 0000 hrs IST * PANAJI, JANUARY 6 The efforts of Goa-based Feni Producers' Association and the state Government to get patent rights for the famed Kaju Feni seems to be finally bearing fruit. A team of officials from the Geographical Indications Registry, Chennai, visited various distillaries in the state last week and met people engaged in the process. Goa is the only place in the world where feni (liqour) is made from the juice of cashew apple. Though the process was introduced to Goa some 450 years ago by the Portuguese rulers, today nowhere in Portugal or in its former colonies liquor is extracted from Kaju fruit. In fact, Goa today has a roaring business of feni with more than 2,000 distillation outlets and a handful of modern factories working overtime. According to Gurudatt Bhakta, president of Feni Producers Association, the distillation is done in the most modern way in factories. Claiming that the Association was proud about the quality of the product, he said: "We can easily export it, provided we get patent for it which will automatically make it a standard quality product." "We have satisfied the experts from the GIR and their queries were answered," said Bhakta. The bottling, preservation, blending and maturity of feni were also discussed. The Goa Government's Science and Technology department also presented the case as a unique geographical product pertaining to the region with unique characterisation to country and the world. Michael D'Souza, an official from the Science and Technology department told The Indian Express that they were quite satisfied with the presentations. The Government expects certification by first week of May. "The Committee has asked us to submit more information on the product and then they plan to publish the information in the 'World Trademark' journal inviting objections. Then, after a period of 120 days, the actual certification is given," he informed. The certification will protect the interest of small horticulturists and feni producers of the state, officials said. In fact, any GIR certification prevents the Indian geographical indications from becoming generic and thereby not eligible for protection under the TRIPs Agreement of 1994. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080107/ef08574f/attachment.html From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Wed Jan 9 11:45:58 2008 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:45:58 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Sarkozy proposes taxing new technology to finance the old Message-ID: <908adbd0801082215r5a07a357l62b07a6c6cabe8a6@mail.gmail.com> http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=9086678 Sarkozy proposes taxing new technology to finance the old By Katrin Bennhold and Victoria Shannon Tuesday, January 8, 2008 PARIS: In a move that could profoundly reshape the media landscape in France, President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday proposed banning commercials from public television and making up for some of the lost revenue with a first-of-its-kind tax on the Internet and mobile phones. A government tax on Internet connections would be virtually without precedent and could be politically controversial, given that public policy experts say that Internet access drives a country's economic growth and productivity. But France, like other countries around the world, is struggling to find ways to keep cultural industries, like video and music, afloat at a time when their traditional audiences are waning. Sarkozy, proposing "a real cultural revolution" and stressing twice that his proposal was "unprecedented," said: "I want us to profoundly review the requirements of public television and to consider a complete elimination of advertising on public channels." Instead, he said, those channels "could be financed by a tax on advertising revenues of private broadcasters and an infinitesimal tax on the revenues of new means of communication like Internet access or mobile telephony." Analysts point out that the Internet and mobile phones are relatively new and still-developing economic and communications tools, while traditional television and other mass media are drawing fewer and fewer viewers. "This could be seen as drawing on new technology to fund old technology," said Taylor Reynolds, economist at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, based in Paris. Some observers cautioned that the proposal was still under review, but others noted that the announcement contained enough information to suggest that Sarkozy, a close friend of Martin Bouygues, whose namesake construction company owns TF1 as well as a mobile phone carrier, was serious about the plan. Sarkozy's director of communications, Franck Louvrier, said the president was determined to implement the measures this year. "The goal is to wrap this up in 2008," Louvrier said. Within minutes of the midday announcement, the shares of private broadcasting companies TF1 and M6 jumped in anticipation of less competition for lucrative advertising contracts, gaining 9.9 percent and 4.5 percent respectively. TV advertising in France increased by 7 percent to €6.7 billion last year, according to Yacast, a market research firm. TF1's channels accounted for €3.3 billion, while state-owned television company France-Televisions attracted €1.18 billion. The benefit of public broadcasters no longer competing for advertisers would far outweigh any tax on advertising revenue, analysts said. This would not be the first time France has been a leader in proposing changes in the digital economy. In 2006, French legislators approved a controversial law that would have reduced the penalties for the illegal downloading of music to little more than a parking fine; key parts of the law were later overturned. Some people in France have also lobbied for a "global license" that would essentially levy a fee on Internet users that would pay musicians and others in the music industry for revenue theoretically lost because of digital music piracy. For Sarkozy's proposal to become policy, his government would have to draft a bill which would have to be approved by both houses of Parliament. The Culture Ministry has set up working groups to review a 1986 broadcast law and present a reform proposal by the spring of 2008, an official said. The earliest these measures could take effect is Sept. 1, but more likely, industry insiders said, was Jan. 1, because of a busy parliamentary agenda and municipal elections in March. In France, competition for Internet customers is intense, resulting in prices that are well below those of elsewhere, and an "infinitesimal" tax would presumably not discourage potential subscribers. The French pay an average of 37 percent less than the OECD average, or $36.70 a month as of October, compared to $49.36 for all 30 countries belonging to the group. The share of residents with fast Internet connections in France is also slightly higher than elsewhere - 22.5 subscribers per 100 inhabitants, compared to 18.8 for the OECD as a whole. But policy experts mostly advise making the Internet cheaper and not weighing down its growth with extra charges. The U.S. Congress last year extended a federal moratorium on Internet taxes for the next seven years. While it is far from widespread, there are a few other examples of government levies on new technologies or communications to help older ones. In Europe, many countries tax blank storage media like CDs and devote that money to support music. Turkey and South Korea have also used telecommunications taxes to raise money for other industries. Sarkozy's proposal was part of a dense salvo of measures fired off in a New Year's speech aimed at redirecting the focus from his Hollywood-style love affair with the Italian singer Carla Bruni to his vision for France. In the 45-minute speech, Sarkozy declared the death of the 35-hour week, suggested that large companies may have to double or triple the part of their profit they are obliged to share with employees and vowed to replace gross domestic product with a more holistic indicator of economic welfare that he has commissioned from two Nobel laureates in economics, Amarthya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz. He also said that he would put a state bank in charge of defending French industry against sovereign wealth funds and other financial predators. From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sat Jan 12 15:03:55 2008 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:03:55 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Cyber crime could invite death under new Pak law Message-ID: <908adbd0801120133q74cdd7e3ue15ea7ce1340756f@mail.gmail.com> *http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/260466.html * *Cyber crime could invite death under new Pak law* ** Press Trust of India *Posted online: Saturday, January 12, 2008 at 2342 hrs IST * ISLAMABAD, Jan 11 Acts of cyber terrorism in Pakistan can be punished with a death sentence or life imprisonment and cyber stalkers can be given a seven-year prison term under a new law. Under the Cyber Crimes Ordinance, issued on December 31, last year, the Government will set up special IT tribunals in Islamabad and the four provincial capitals to investigate and counter cyber crimes. "The ordinance outlines knowledge about electronic crimes and illegal on-line intrusion to spread it among the general public," Caretaker Information Technology Minister Abdullah Riar said here on Thursday. The law covers cyber terrorism and stalking, criminal data access, electronic fraud and forgery, misuse of electronic systems or electronic devices, unauthorised access to codes, misuse of encryption, malicious code, spamming and unauthorised interception. The ordinance also states that electronic fraud and forgery will be punished with a non-bailable prison term of seven years. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080112/9765f7db/attachment.html From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sat Jan 12 15:12:06 2008 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:12:06 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] 6 illegal radio stations shut down in Bengal Message-ID: <908adbd0801120142m90c2b2exbb3f844bd9da1197@mail.gmail.com> http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/260507.html *6 illegal radio stations shut down in Bengal* ** Express news service *Posted online: Saturday, January 12, 2008 at 0004 hrs IST * KOLKATA,: The West Bengal Police on Friday raided six unauthorised private radio stations operating on Prasar Bharati frequencies in various pockets of South 24 Parganas, following a tip-off from amateur radio operators. "We raided and dismantled six radio stations and arrested four youths who had been running them for some time," said SP (South 24 Parganas) Praveen Kumar. The stations had been operating under names like Nagraj Betar Kendra, Ma Bishalakkhi and Ma Kali Asthayi Betar Kendra. A large number of music CDs, DVDs and microphones as well as six radio transmitters were seized from these offices. Anukul Shaw, Shanatan Jana, Srikanta Pramanik and Gaur Chandra Maity, who have been arrested, are all in their twenties. A year back, amateur HAM radio operators had warned the monitoring station at Gopalpur in South 24 Parganas about the unauthorised radio stations. The monitoring station is under the jurisdiction of the Wireless Planning and Co-ordination of Department of Communications, GoI. Though a formal complaint was lodged with the police last year, it had been difficult to locate the base stations. The makeshift stations were operating on local made transmitters. The operators in Sagar were making money by airing local ads. The unauthorised radio broadcasts often suppress Prasar Bharati signals as the transmitters are quite powerful within a radius of five to seven km. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080112/4fbf9466/attachment.html From the.solipsist at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 11:18:10 2008 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:18:10 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Swedish debate and Atlantic v. Howell Message-ID: <4785f1e20801152148r1e766240o4ebea2d7e3ea5035@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, Two interesting tidbits of news. 1. Debate in Sweden over "decriminalization" of file-sharing. 2. EFF submits surprise amicus brief in *Atlantic v. Howell.* 1. In Sweden, there's a proposal that ISPs should be prevented from allowing known copyright-infringers from accessing the internet. This is a response from seven (now, thirteen) Swedish parliamentarians of the Moderate Party to that proposal, calling instead for the "decriminalization" of file-sharing. It's main argument is that of a privacy slippery-slope. It has apparently "started a loud debate in Swedish media". This news item is interesting because it is not the Pirates Party but the Moderate Party which is currently leading this charge. http://sigfrid.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/decriminalize-file-sharing/ Excerpts: "Decriminalizing all non-commercial file sharing and forcing the market to adapt is not just the best solution. It's the only solution, unless we want an ever more extensive control of what citizens do on the Internet. Politicians who play for the antipiracy team should be aware that they have allied themselves with a special interest that is never satisfied and that will always demand that we take additional steps toward the ultimate control state. Today they want to transform the Internet Service Providers into an online police force, and the Antipiracy Bureau wants the authority for themselves to extract the identities of file sharers. Then they can drag the 15-year-old girl who downloaded a Britney Spears song to civil court and sue her. "Will the Antipiracy Bureau be satisfied with this? Probably not, because even the harsher laws now proposed will not stop the file sharing. Already there are anonymization services on the market that make the new laws ineffective. For this reason, the Antipiracy Bureau will demand new tools that further intensifies the surveillance of the Internet. The simple truth is that almost all communication channels on the Internet can be used to distribute copyrighted information. If you can use a service to send a message you can most likely use the same service to send an mp3-song. Those who want to prevent people from exchanging of copyrighted material must control all electronic communication between citizens. "In the late 1970s, the copyright industry wanted to prevent people from recording TV-shows with then-new Video Cassette Recorders. In 1998 the recording industry tried to get mp3 players banned. We politicians have to make clear that we are not prepared to build the technology-hostile control state that would be necessary to satisfy the Antipiracy Bureau and their likes." 2. From EFF's Effector: "Attempted Distribution" Not a Crime EFF Files Brief in Atlantic v. Howell Challenging RIAA's Bogus Theory Last Friday, EFF filed an amicus brief in Atlantic v. Howell, an Arizona lawsuit brought as part of the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) national campaign against individuals for file-sharing. Although the case has received attention recently over the issue of whether CD ripping is legal, EFF believes the most important issue in the case is about something different: can the RIAA sue people for *attempted* copyright infringement? EFF says no. As in more than 20,000 other lawsuits, the recording industry claims that Mr. and Mrs. Howell committed copyright infringement by using P2P file sharing software. But rather than attempting to prove infringing copying or infringing distributions, the record labels argue that simply having a song in a shared folder, even if no one ever downloaded it from you (i.e., "making available"), infringes the music industry's distribution right. This essentially amounts to suing someone for attempted distribution, something the Copyright Act has never recognized. Sure, it would make it quite a bit easier for the RIAA if it could go to court and simply say, "This person had our artists' songs in her shared folder, we win." But that's not the law. If the RIAA wants to bring tens of thousands of lawsuits against individuals, it has to play by the rules and prove its cases. That means proving that actual infringing copies were made or that actual infringing distributions took place. It's not enough to prove that they could have taken place. For EFF's amicus brief in Atlantic v. Howell: http://www.eff.org/files/EFF%20amicus%20brief.pdf For the complete post by EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred von Lohmann: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01/eff-files-brief-atlantic-v-howell-resisting-riaas-attempted-distribution-theory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080116/0667f960/attachment.html From the.solipsist at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 11:31:50 2008 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:31:50 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] =?windows-1252?q?Goa=92s_Kaju_Feni_in_the_process_o?= =?windows-1252?q?f_getting_patent=27_=28GI=29?= Message-ID: <4785f1e20801172201mfb32c94qdfbd5f67373f973a@mail.gmail.com> This is report is symptomatic of the lack of background legal research on the part of reporters and editors. While most of the report is correct, the egregious conflation of GI with patents is done at least twice in the report. What Goa's Feni Producers Association has applied for is not a patent, but a geographical indication. Calling it a patent would make one think that the distillation process is being covered by a patent and that no one else can use that process of distilliation. What has actually been applied for is the recognition that only the liquor made in regions in Goa (under specific standards) out of the cashew fruit can be known as (Goan?) Kaju Feni/Fenny. What's surprising is that even Gurudatt Bhakta, president of the Feni Producers Association, is shown (by a quote) to be ignorant of the difference between patents and GI. Oh well. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Prashant Iyengar" > To: "Commons law" > Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:41:06 +0530 > Subject: [Commons-Law] 'Goa's Kaju Feni in the process of getting patent' > (GI) > > *http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/258481.html > * > > *Goa's Kaju Feni in the process of getting patent* > > Raju Nayak > > *Posted online: Monday, January 07, 2008 at 0000 hrs IST * > > PANAJI, JANUARY 6 > The efforts of Goa-based Feni Producers' Association and the state > Government to get patent rights for the famed Kaju Feni seems to be finally > bearing fruit. A team of officials from the Geographical Indications > Registry, Chennai, visited various distillaries in the state last week and > met people engaged in the process. > > Goa is the only place in the world where feni (liqour) is made from the > juice of cashew apple. Though the process was introduced to Goa some 450 > years ago by the Portuguese rulers, today nowhere in Portugal or in its > former colonies liquor is extracted from Kaju fruit. In fact, Goa today has > a roaring business of feni with more than 2,000 distillation outlets and a > handful of modern factories working overtime. According to Gurudatt Bhakta, > president of Feni Producers Association, the distillation is done in the > most modern way in factories. Claiming that the Association was proud about > the quality of the product, he said: "We can easily export it, provided we > get patent for it which will automatically make it a standard quality > product." > > "We have satisfied the experts from the GIR and their queries were > answered," said Bhakta. The bottling, preservation, blending and maturity of > feni were also discussed. The Goa Government's Science and Technology > department also presented the case as a unique geographical product > pertaining to the region with unique characterisation to country and the > world. > > Michael D'Souza, an official from the Science and Technology department > told The Indian Express that they were quite satisfied with the > presentations. The Government expects certification by first week of May. > "The Committee has asked us to submit more information on the product and > then they plan to publish the information in the 'World Trademark' journal > inviting objections. Then, after a period of 120 days, the actual > certification is given," he informed. > > The certification will protect the interest of small horticulturists and > feni producers of the state, officials said. In fact, any GIR certification > prevents the Indian geographical indications from becoming generic and > thereby not eligible for protection under the TRIPs Agreement of 1994. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080118/1aa35527/attachment-0001.html From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 14:33:04 2008 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:33:04 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Whose pashmina? In-Reply-To: <908adbd0801180100o1b6f9211q81000d812ca1af2b@mail.gmail.com> References: <908adbd0801180100o1b6f9211q81000d812ca1af2b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <908adbd0801180103x18fd84e5r970ae3e979086376@mail.gmail.com> http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c.php?leftnm=10&autono=311006 Whose pashmina? Business Standard / New Delhi January 18, 2008 Squabbles between Pakistan and India over trade-related issues are multiplying. The latest to erupt is over intellectual property protection for the prized pashmina wool and the products made from it, by getting a geographical indication tag. In dispute is the application filed by a Jammu and Kashmir-based handicrafts association to register "Kashmiri Pashmina" as the exclusive brand for products made in this Indian state. This will lend "Kashmiri Pashmina" the same kind of brand protection enjoyed by, say, champagne and Darjeeling tea. And the challenger, predictably, is a pashmina-trading organisation in Pakistan which wants products produced in the part of Kashmir under that country's occupation to be given the same IPR protection. Prima facie, Pakistan would appear within its rights to put forth such a plea, as pashmina is produced from the under-growth of the hair of a special changthangi or pashmina breed of goat that has been indigenous to the high altitudes of the Himalayas, including the Pakistan-occupied region. But if that logic is applied, Nepal too should be made a party to this patent protection as its upper mountainous reaches have also been home to pashmina goats for thousands of years and pashmina-based products have been woven there for a long period. Even in India, for that matter, pashmina goats have not been confined to the Kashmir region, and have inhabited the higher hills of Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal as well. The real difference lies in the quality, as also exclusivity, of the pashmina fleece and its products produced in different regions though, admittedly, all kinds of genuine pashmina wool possess the envious trait of being incomparably soft. India's case might be that additional scientific effort has gone into refining the quality of pashmina and improving the fleece yield of these goats. While it must be presumed that these aspects will be kept in mind by the geographical indications tribunal when considering the application in question, it is important to recognise that pashmina imitations have been in circulation, and been widely traded, in many parts of the world, jeopardising the monopoly of the Himalayan region over this unique wool. For most westerners, cashmere is a synonym for pashmina and even genuine pashmina shawls, scarves and other garments made in Kashmir are traded as cashmere shawls or scarves. Worse still, the growing demand and below-par supplies of genuine pashmina garments have enabled some unscrupulous manufacturers to make and sell products of soft synthetic viscose as pashmina products, and thus to take advantage of the high prices commanded by pashmina. All this needs to be curbed, so fighting the IPR battle for getting a geographical indication tag is only a part of the battle. So, while the need for getting intellectual property safeguards for pashmina is self-evident, it is not pashmina alone that needs to be protected. There are other products as well, like aromatic basmati rice, which are the common heritage of the sub-continent and which, therefore, need to be safeguarded through mutual cooperation rather than confrontation. Had Pakistan cooperated with India in getting a geographical indication tag for basmati in the same way that it now seeks protection for its pashmina, it would have provided a basis for working together. It is not too late for the two countries to sit together and work out a joint strategy on such issues. From patrice at xs4all.nl Fri Jan 18 15:19:28 2008 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:49:28 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] Whose pashmina? In-Reply-To: <908adbd0801180103x18fd84e5r970ae3e979086376@mail.gmail.com> References: <908adbd0801180100o1b6f9211q81000d812ca1af2b@mail.gmail.com> <908adbd0801180103x18fd84e5r970ae3e979086376@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080118094928.GA82284@xs4all.nl> Whose pashmina is a good question. The answer is in any case NOT the people who tend and own the pashmina goats. A few days ago there was a documentary on TV5 Monde (the French satellite sender) where it appeared that the semi-nomadic herders very up in the mountains were getting a pitance for their wool, which immediately decupled (10x) in value as soon as it reached the valley, and then went thru a hundredfold increase again before reaching shops in the North, where customers again... etc etc. (Although the docu was filmed was in Ladakh, but one can safely assume it's no different in "Pakistani'or 'Indian' Kashmir) And if I am not mistaken, the numbers were even worse than in the drugs trade! I'd suggest that this is the urgent issue to be addressed rather than who owns the brand name... (yes I know Commons-Law is about this sort of """IP""" problems, but I thought that a little reality check was in order here) On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 02:33:04PM +0530, Prashant Iyengar wrote: > http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c.php?leftnm=10&autono=311006 http://tinyurl. com transforms this unwieldy URL into: http://tinyurl.com/ytforj USE tinyurl in future, please! > > Whose pashmina? > Business Standard / New Delhi January 18, 2008 > Squabbles between Pakistan and India over trade-related issues are > multiplying. The latest to erupt is over intellectual property > protection for the prized pashmina wool and the products made from it, > by getting a geographical indication tag. In dispute is the > application filed by a Jammu and Kashmir-based handicrafts association > to register "Kashmiri Pashmina" as the exclusive brand for products > made in this Indian state. This will lend "Kashmiri Pashmina" the same > kind of brand protection enjoyed by, say, champagne and Darjeeling > tea. And the challenger, predictably, is a pashmina-trading > organisation in Pakistan which wants products produced in the part of > Kashmir under that country's occupation to be given the same IPR > protection. > (...) From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 17:38:45 2008 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:38:45 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Biodiversity information system to be created soon Message-ID: <908adbd0801180408q78a0f73cyf5cd9f2f550dbe03@mail.gmail.com> Date:18/01/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/01/18/stories/2008011857150600.htm Back Tamil Nadu Biodiversity information system to be created soon Special Correspondent Existing databases to be brought together to form 'meta-database' CHENNAI: The National Biodiversity Authority will soon create an Indian Biodiversity Information System, NBA Chairman S. Kannaiyan said on Monday. Talking to reporters here, Mr. Kannaiyan said the Authority would bring together the existing databases to form a 'meta-database.' The Indian Biodiversity Information System would have all the information about India's biodiversity and bio-resources and their traditional knowledge, including the people's biodiversity register. A village-level biodiversity management committee, to be formed all over the country, would prepare the people's biodiversity register, in consultation with the locals. The register would contain comprehensive information on the availability and knowledge of local biological resources, their medicinal or any other use and traditional knowledge associated with them, he said. The Authority and the State Biodiversity Boards would provide guidance and technical support to the committee for preparing the register. It sought an allocation of Rs. 50 crore in the 11th Plan for creating the Indian Biodiversity Information System and the people's biodiversity register.. Seminar for journalists Together with the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Authority would organise a two-day seminar for journalists on writing about issues related to biodiversity. It was expected to be held in the first week of March, he said. (c) Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 18:31:35 2008 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:31:35 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Leading drug firms raided in EU probe Message-ID: <908adbd0801180501g2545454y6a672a3761d1a43f@mail.gmail.com> Leading drug firms raided in EU probe http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c.php?leftnm=10&autono=311001 Andrew Jack / London January 18, 2008 European regulators raided some of the world's biggest pharmaceutical companies on Wednesday in an inquiry into whether they conspired to keep up the price of drugs after patents expired. Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Aventis were among those that confirmed they had been visited as part of a European Commission-led probe into delays in the launch of low-cost generic drugs. Teva, the world's biggest generics company, was also targeted. The inquiry will focus on whether the industry has abused patent rights to delay the introduction of low-cost generic alternatives. It will assess whether companies have made spurious attempts to extend the life of intellectual property rights or cut deals with one generic rival to the exclusion of others. The EU is increasingly concerned about the rising cost of medicines and declining innovation. Neelie Kroes, competition commissioner, said: "If we have the feeling that something is rotten in the state, then let's take the opportunity to find out." The raids, which began on Tuesday, broke with Commission practice in that no advance notice was given. Previous sectoral inquiries were launched with questionnaires sent to companies. "It's certainly novel and rather aggressive. Dawn raids presuppose that the Commission has got a whiff of something they want to investigate," said a Brussels-based lawyer specialising in competition issues. Europeans spent ¤200 billion a year on pharmaceuticals, or ¤400 each, Kroes said. "If innovative products are not being produced, and cheaper generic alternatives to existing products are in some cases being delayed, then we need to find out why and, if necessary, take action," she added. The Commission stressed that its visits were the starting point for a broad inquiry, rather than a response to "positive indications of wrongdoing" by the targeted companies. It said that the "unannounced inspections" were designed to gather "highly confidential ... information [which] may also be easily withheld, concealed or destroyed". The inquiry is set to issue interim findings by the autumn and final results in spring 2009. It will examine whether pharmaceutical practices infringe EU treaty prohibitions on restrictive practices. The generic drugs industry, which produces cheaper but chemically identical versions of medicines once their patents expire, has long accused innovative drug manufacturers of "ever-greening", or using spurious grounds to delay competition by extending their exclusive intellectual property rights. Pfizer, GSK, Teva, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Merck of the US all confirmed that they were contacted by commission officials. Most would make no further comment. "We are co-operating with the inquiry," said AstraZeneca. From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 13:14:25 2008 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:14:25 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] The bitterest pill Message-ID: <908adbd0801282344v492cdc7hfb780031d5980411@mail.gmail.com> http://www.financialexpress.com/printer/news/266297/ The bitterest pill Posted online: Monday , January 28, 2008 at 2212 hrs "If we have the feeling that something is rotten in the state, then let's take the opportunity to find out." So said Neelie Kroes, the European Commission's competition commissioner, seeking to justify a spectacular raid recently on big pharmaceutical companies. Officials are investigating whether sellers of expensive branded pills conspired together to delay the launch of cheap generic rivals. America's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is also looking into it. Many of Big Pharma's biggest blockbusters will soon lose their patent protection. Deloitte, a consultancy, estimates that $55 billion of products will go off patent in 2009 and will then face competition. At the same time, pharma bosses are being asked to defend patents in costly legal battles against an increasingly confident and litigious generics industry. As generics firms evolve from mere copycats into innovators in their own right, many such firms—led by Israel's Teva, India's Ranbaxy and Dr Reddy's Laboratories—are vigorously challenging patents. The best way out for the established drugs industry would be to find lots of clever new blockbusters to replace the ones going off-patent. But as the industry's sagging share valuations suggest, the new-drugs pipelines at big firms have run dry. So their managers are relying on two controversial new strategies. First, they are settling the lawsuits brought by generics firms, sometimes paying them to delay launching cheap pills. Novartis, a big Swiss firm, recently made a private settlement for Dr Reddy's to drop a lawsuit in return for the Indian firm delaying the launch of a generic rival to Exelon, its Alzheimer's remedy. This month it emerged that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a big British pharmaceutical firm, has also settled a patent lawsuit with Ranbaxy concerning the generics firm's launch of a cheap version of Imitrex, GSK's migraine reliever. Under American laws designed to encourage generic drugs, which save money for patients, the first generic maker to win regulatory approval for its version of any given branded drug is supposed to enjoy a six-month monopoly. This promised pot of gold was designed to support small generics firms—but Big Pharma has found a loophole. It is pre-emptively launching generic versions of its own branded pills, which wipes out those six months of monopoly profits and undermines the economics of generics firms. Merck, a big American pharmaceuticals firm, is soon expected to launch an authorised generic version of Fosamax, an osteoporosis drug that is due to lose patent protection in February. A recent survey of global branded-drugs firms by Cutting Edge Information, a consultancy, found that a third of them had launched authorised generics between 2005 and 2007—and the number will grow to 44% between 2008 and 2010. Pfizer has set up an in-house division to handle such generics. The recent steps taken by regulators in America and Europe to investigate Big Pharma looks like good news for generics firms—unless, that is, some of them turn out to have been complicit in the alleged dirty tricks. Earlier this month, America's FTC extended its probe to include generics companies. And during last week's raid by European investigators, one of the firms targeted was Teva, a generics pioneer. The generics industry is defiant, arguing that it remains the consumer's best friend despite its settlements with the enemy. Kathleen Jaeger, head of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, insists that officials must avoid taking action that "sweeps the bad settlements in with the good settlements". It remains to be seen whether the upstart pillmakers have been playing for time or selling out. —(c) The Economist Newspaper Limited 2008 From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 13:17:35 2008 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:17:35 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] French plan e-mail warnings for illegal downloads Message-ID: <908adbd0801282347s6a530458g3f9003f35a3e62dc@mail.gmail.com> http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c.php?leftnm=10&autono=311950 French plan e-mail warnings for illegal downloads Ben Fenton / Cannes January 29, 2008 Legislation allowing the French government to send e-mail warnings to anyone downloading music tracks without paying for them should be passed by the summer, a senior official said on Sunday. Illegal downloading in France had reached such a point, said Jean Berbinau, general secretary of Armt, the regulatory authority for digital copyright, that the authorities had to act. "We have to do something, but it is only transitional, only to give time to the industry to adapt and maybe to encourage a new business model," said Berbinau at the Midem international music market. He is charged with implementing the measures announced last year by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. They include a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" policy for people downloading illegally. After two warnings, another breach would mean Internet service providers would have to block a person's web access. The e-mail warnings, which would tell people they had been caught breaking copyright laws, would not only be sent to those involved in large-scale file-sharing, he said. "They would be sent to each IP [Internet protocol] address. It is not a huge technical challenge." Berbinau did not agree with Professor Lawrence Lessig, who urged delegates to Midem to realise that criminalising young music fans was not the way to cope with the problems. "I don't think it is possible for society to have laws and then to tolerate a universal breach of them," he added. From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 14:25:00 2008 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:25:00 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] IITs to invest Rs 1,500cr for virtual varsity Message-ID: <908adbd0801290055p7d79b7d6l360f988cbb3cc0b0@mail.gmail.com> http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c.php?leftnm=10&autono=311957 IITs to invest Rs 1,500cr for virtual varsity Kalpana Pathak / Mumbai January 29, 2008 To be modelled on the Carnegie Mellon University. The Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are in talks with US-based Carnegie Mellon University to set up a Virtual IIT. To be set up at a cost of over Rs 1,500 crore over the next three to four years, it will enable aspiring IITians and engineering students who could not make it to the premier engineering institutes of technology to bag an IIT-equivalent degree online. Currently, a four-year BTech (IIT) tuition fee is around Rs 27,000 per year while that of a two-year MTech (IIT) is around Rs 5,000 per year. The Virtual IIT, on the other hand, will be online, and therefore cheaper. Details on charges for an online degree, forms submission, evaluation and exams are being worked out. The IITs will study the Carnegie Mellon University's distance learning programme — Open Learning Initiative started in 2002 — which is considered one of the most successful so far. "We are studying the models of western universities as we plan to have a full-fledged online degree-granting programme. A large number of private institutions do not have good teachers. We want to provide an online programme in which not only students but also professional engineers and faculty can benefit from the engineering courses delivered by IITs," said an IIT director. The IITs plan to shortlist around 50 national-level engineering colleges to set up well-equipped laboratories where students taking online courses could go for practical sessions. The IITs have already discussed this idea with some leading Indian IT companies that are willing to support this initiative. To begin with, the online National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (NPTEL) course content that the IITs deliver currently on the website http://nptel.iitm.ac.in could become the base for Virtual IIT. The IITs also plan to make the courses available on Google and You Tube. An online evaluation process could also be devised followed by certification for Virtual IIT courses. NPTEL has registered about 770,000 visits since September 2006 and in a survey conducted by IIT Madras lasting eight to ten months when the IITs had login/register utility, about 180,000 accessed it more than a few times, 50 per cent of whom are employed after a degree, 40 per cent students and about 10 per cent teachers. Access by users in India is predominant (90 per cent), followed by those in the US, Canada, the UK, West and South Asia (8 per cent) and the rest scattered over 130 countries. From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 14:55:30 2008 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:55:30 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] XLRI, NIF sign MoU to create research council Message-ID: <908adbd0801290125uaab642ah6d5b69f370e72b20@mail.gmail.com> http://www.financialexpress.com/printer/news/266520/ XLRI, NIF sign MoU to create research council State Bureau Posted online: Tuesday , January 29, 2008 at 0045 hrs Jamshedpur, Jan 28B-School XLRI has entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the National Innovation Foundation (NIF) for creation of a research advisory council (RAC). The council will assess different innovations sourced by the NIF from Jharkhand, Bihar, part of West Bengal, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and eastern Uttar Pradesh. The innovations will be sourced from the NIF's national register for grassroots innovations. The selected ones will be supported through nomination to the biennial national innovation award, refining the product, protection of intellectual property rights associated with it and offering risk capital investment by NIF's micro venture fund for setting up enterprises. According to the MoU signed here on Sunday by NIF national coordinator (business development & micro venture) L Chinzah and XLRI director Father E Abraham, the RAC will comprise professors from the B-School, industry experts and NIF members. The XLRI's student body, Social Initiative Group for Managerial Assistance , will also be involved in mentoring and monitoring those projects. The Sigma will also assist in market benchmarking innovations and developing business plans. The NIF plans to provide institutional support in scouting, spawning, sustaining and scaling up grassroots innovations and help them grow into self-supporting ventures. Its 'Honey Bee' database of around 10,000 innovations collected and documented by Sristi is part of the national register of innovation managed and supported by the NIF. According to Chinzah, the NIF was looking forward for support from the Sigma and Face for "adding value to" the innovations it came across in the eastern region during scouting works. "As the NIF cann't do much on its own following the networking philosophy, we are trying to build capacities here so that existing institutions like XLRI can be brought to the platform to add value to such innovations," said Chinzah. Speaking on the occasion, the XLRI director said the Sigma and faculty supported initiative would be of much use to the B-School as "our students need to go out to villages and see what the real world looks like". From the.solipsist at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 16:02:18 2008 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:02:18 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Copyright Violation of Copyright-Violation Cease and Desist Notices Message-ID: <4785f1e20801290232v362d24ddg7e270e17741a436a@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, A court in the U.S. has ruled that there is prima facie evidence of a case against a blogger who put up a registered-with-copyright-office cease-and-desist letter. That doesn't mean that there is no fair use right/defence allowing the defendants to post the letter, though. For details: http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2008/01/does-copyright.html I wrote something a while back about a different case involving the same lawyer (in which this issue of C&D letter is the same). ---------------- There is a new claimant to the title of *Maker of the Most Ridiculous Claims about Copyright Ever*: the U.S. law firm Dozier Internet Law P.C. Only a short extract of it's User Agreement/Privacy Policyis needed to make readers understand why that is so: Dozier Internet Law, P.C. has a lot of intellectual property on our site. For instance, we are the creators of all of the text on this website, and own the "look and feel" of this website. We also own all of the code, including the HTML code, and all content. As you may know, you can view the HTML code with a standard browser. We do not permit you to *view* such code since we consider it to be our intellectual property protected by the copyright laws. You are therefore not authorized to do so. [emphasis added] A basic primer in copyright law seems to be required here. It is true that copyright goes beyond just copying these days. In some situations, "copyright law" even prevents *access* to the material that is to be read, as is the case with anti-circumvention laws (which are a part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Copyright Act in the U.S.). But what copyright does not do: prevent you from reading something. Copyright basically grants the holder certain rights which only she can enjoy. Hence, she has the exclusive right to creat copies of the work, to communicate it to the public, etc. However, she does not have the sole right (at by virtue of only copyright law) to read her own work. For the technically uninitiated, the HTML code referred to in the terms of the User Agreement is what all pages on the World Wide Web actually are, behind all that gloss and glitter. A web browser, whether is Opera, Safari, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Konqueror or even something like Mosaic or Lynx, basically passes that HTML code through a 'rendering engine', and displays the output. Web authoring software, CMS's and blogging platforms only make it easier for you to write that HTML code by doing the coding for you. (Going through the source code of the Dozier site shows they've used Adobe GoLive for HTML authoring.) What is finally put on the web is only HTML. And finally, whether you like it or not, each time a person visits your webpage, a copy is made on that person's computer. What a browser shows you is not the actual webpage, but a copy of that webpage. (You can test this out by opening an HTML file saved on your computer in your browser, and when it is being displayed, deleting that file. Your browser will continue to show it.) All browsers allow you to view the HTML source code of the page you're on. In most, you just have to go to "View" on the menu bar, and click on "Source" or "Page Source". So, basically, after you (or, to be more precise, your computer/mobile phone/Wii, etc.) has * copied* this code, Dozier Internet Law tells you that because they own the copyright in the code (not a completely true claim, as we'll see shortly), you may not *read *it (even though just by viewing the site your browser has 'read' and copied it)! If you actually go through the source code, on line 47 you shall see the following: // OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004 That is a comment preceding a particular javascript function (that they have used on their webpage) noting that the function was authored by a Mr. Nate Baldwin of MindPalette.com. So, they don't actually "own all of the code, including the HTML code, and all content" as they claim to. The agreement continues: The name "Dozier Internet Law, P.C.", and similar derivatives of it, constitute our trademark and servicemark, and should not be used* in any manner* without our permission. . . . You are not authorized to use our name, or any derivative of it. In other words, do not put our law firm on your website suggesting you have an attorney/client relationship with us without our permission. The protection afforded to safeguard a trade mark holder's commercial interests, and certainly does not cover such things as commenting about a corporation by referring to it by its name (as we are doing here). Sony, for instance, is a trade mark, and I do not violate the trade mark by using that word in this posting nor by posting an opinion as to the exceptionally short lifespan of their Trinitron CRT TVs. However, all these provisions don't rely solely on copyright and trade mark law, but on the tacit acceptance of a viewer to be bound by those contractual terms, regardless of whether they are within the limits of IP law. So, interestingly, it would seem that a person who has not visited Dozier Internet Lawyer's website, but has only read about them, can validly (as per Dozier's user agreement) link to their website, and do any of the things that those who visit the website are prohibited from doing! Practically speaking, this would now (since this issue has gained prominence) make it almost impossible for Dozier Internet Law to sue anyone for breach of contract. For instance, in this post there is no quotation from the firm's website or from their source code that is not already available on third-party websites. Thus it would be impossible for Dozier Internet Law to prove that I have, while writing this post, violated their User Agreement, because I always have open the defence that I never visited their site to be bound by those terms. Dozier Internet Law has come into the limelight recently for seeking to enforce such contractual provisions on behalf of one of its clients. (It has also gained notoriety for having sent out cease-and-desist notices, which contained a warning to the recipient not to publish the notice as that would constitute infringement of their copyright in the notice. That shall be the subject of another post.) That client is a company called Inventor-Link LLC , which promises to help inventors get their inventions to the marketplace. (For a more complete account, please read this excellent entryin the civil rights group Public Citizen's Consumer Law and Policy Blog.) Inventor-Link's Privacy and User Agreementnotes: By using this site you agree and understand that the HTML code, look, feel, content, *company name*, logo, text, and any likeness or derivative of such content is the sole property of Inventor-Link LLC and *may not be used in any manner *without the expressed written permission of Inventor-Link LLC. Furthermore, we strictly *prohibit any links and or other unauthorized references to our web site without our permission*. A website, InventorEd.org , which has details on invention-promotion scams, posted a link to the Inventor-Link website,along with a short bit copied from an about-us page on Inventor-Link's site. Following that, they had criticisms of the company's practices. Dozier Internet law promptly sent off a notice to InventorEdciting defamation and breach of contract. So, they are trying to prevent all criticism ("company name. . . may not be used in any manner") and through contractual means are trying to stop what would constitute fair use (fair dealings) under copyright law. For an analysis of when such "browse-wrap" contracts (analogous to shrink-wrap contracts) are valid, refer to the CL&P Blog's postings on the Inventor-Link case, and in a court-decided case. But, as the CL&P Blog notes, the desired effect of such otiose provisions is usually achieved, as "[c]onsumers who receive threats of litigation over purportedly binding contractual terms are often more likely to shut up than to bear the expense of retaining an attorney and defending their rights." Note: In the past, copyright law itself has been invoked to prevent hyperlinking to certain content. However, the content in that case (the much criticised Eric Corley/2600 case) was content deemed to be illegal in nature (the DeCSS code that broke CSS protection on DVD, allowing you to copy the DVD's contents on to your hard drive). That could possibly be forgiven as a judgment that was rendered when judges were ill-informed about the nature of the internet. After all, analogously, pointing someone toward a banned book in a library is not an offence. Even walking over to the shelf and handing the book to that person would not be an offence if the person asked you to help get the book; publishing the book would (as perhaps would distributing it wilfully). The only other case I can think of when people object to hyperlinking to their site is when they don't want their site indexed on a search engine. Even then, it is a technical matter (using a no-robots tag) and not one of contract. As far as I know, there is no precedent to someone trying to contractually bind you not to link to the site. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080129/8def193d/attachment.html From the.solipsist at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 15:22:55 2008 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:52:55 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Karaoke Copyright Royalties in China Message-ID: <4785f1e20801020152o7061b555m88457be83c9ad44@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, Interesting news about karaoke in China. * *http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/01/content_7349628.htm* Half of Chinese provinces pay karaoke copyright royalties* BEIJING, Jan. 1 (Xinhua) -- Nearly half of Chinese provinces have taken initiatives to collect karaoke copyright royalties by the end of 2007 in an effort to protect intellectual property rights (IPR) in audio and video sectors. China Audio and Video Association (CAVA) and China Copyright Society of Works of Music (CCSWM) said 15 provinces and municipalities, including Beijing, Guangdong and Jiangsu, had so far agreed to pay copyright royalties, and the practice should be spread nationwide. Karaoke operators are required to pay a daily charge of 12 yuan (1.6 USD) for each karaoke room -- less in underdeveloped regions -- for the use of musical and video products, as stated in a National Copyright Administration notice in Nov. 2006. Liu Chuntian, an IPR expert, said the charges represented the fact that China's IPR protections had shifted from words to practice. An official with the country's IPR protection group echoed Liu, saying that the move marked new progress in property protection. However, some Karaoke operators were still trying to avoid or delay paying the fee, and using the song databases illegally. Lv Wenju, spokesman with the CAVA and the CCSWM, said the associations would accelerate IPR protection campaigns, and resort to court proceedings against illegal use of the songs. Yunnan province had recently found a case of illegally copying of a 20,000-song-database. The two suspects have been taken into custody. The other 16 Chinese provinces have plans to implement IPR for karaoke performances, but no timetable has been provided as to when this will be carried out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080102/a88e944b/attachment-0001.html From the.solipsist at gmail.com Thu Jan 3 13:24:40 2008 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:54:40 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Important study by Center for Social Media on usage of copyrighted material in user-generated videos Message-ID: <4785f1e20801022354t2b1a7792vb1462c243b8508c6@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, American University's Center for Social Media (generously funded by the Ford Foundation) has conducted what I believe is a very important study on categorisation of copyrighted material usage in user-generated video. They've found that much usage of copyrighted materials falls into one of the following categories: 1. Satire and Parody 2. Negative or Critical Commentary 3. Positive Commentary 4. Quoting in Order to Start a Discussion 5. Illustration or Example 6. Incidental Use 7. Personal Reportage/Diaries 8. Archiving of Vulnerable or Revealing Materials 9. Pastiche or Collage They give the "top five" examples for each of those at http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ The complete database of all the videos they consulted: http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/files/pdf/Recut_Reframe_Recycle_Excel_Database.xls The full report is available at http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/files/pdf/CSM_Recut_Reframe_Recycle_report.pdf I haven't gone through the report yet, but have my doubts as to whether all nine of those would fall within the bounds of fair use under U.S. law. For instance, as far as I remember, parody (very narrowly construed) has been given protection as fair use, but satire has not (in *Campbell v. Acuff-Rose *). Also suspect are uses 6 through 10. 6 (Incidental use) on factual grounds, that the uses are not in fact incidental. 7 (personal reportage) because while your appearing in a show can possibly give you some right (say publicity rights, etc.), it does not give you a fair use defence (or does it?). 8: Can all archiving be said to be legitimately "for archival purposes"? Don't you have to be a library, or such to do so? (The Internet Archive, at http://www.archive.org is recognized as a library under Californian law now.) And finally as for 9: I just don't get it. Why would that be given protection? Any corrections or comments? http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ *Recut, Reframe, Recycle* When college kids make mashups of Hollywood movies, are they violating the law? Not necessarily, according to the latest study on copyright and creativity from the Center and American University's Washington College of Law. The study, Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video, by Center director Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, co-director of the law school's Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, shows that many uses of copyrighted material in today's online videos are eligible for fair use consideration. The study points to a wide variety of practices—satire, parody, negative and positive commentary, discussion-triggers, illustration, diaries, archiving and of course, pastiche or collage (remixes and mashups)—all of which could be legal in some circumstances. Fair use is the part of copyright law that permits new makers, in some situations, to quote copyrighted material without asking permission or paying the owners. The courts tell us that fair use should be "transformative"—adding value to what they take and using it for a purpose different from the original work. So when makers mash up several works—say, The Ten Commandments , Ben-Hur and 10 Things I Hate about You , making Ten Things I Hate about Commandments —they aren't necessarily stealing. They are quoting in order to make a new commentary on popular culture, and creating a new piece of popular culture. Unfortunately, this emerging, participatory media culture is at risk, with new industry practices to control piracy. Large content holders such as NBC Universal and Viacom, and online platforms such as MySpace and Veoh are already crafting agreements on removing copyrighted material from the online sites. Legal as well as illegal copying could all too easily disappear. Worse still, a new generation of media makers could grow up with a deformed and truncated notion of their rights as creators. The study recommends the development of a blue-ribbon committee of scholars, makers and lawyers to develop best-practices principles. Such principles, similar to ones documentary filmmakers developed in the Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use can help new creators and online providers decide what's legal, and assure that the Internet remains a safe space for new forms of self-expression. The study is part of a larger Participatory Media project, funded by the Ford Foundation as part of the Center for Social Media's Future of Public Media Project. When college kids make mashups of Hollywood movies, are they violating the law? Not necessarily, according to the latest study on copyright and creativity from the Center and American University's Washington College of Law. The study, Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video, by Center director Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, co-director of the law school's Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, shows that many uses of copyrighted material in today's online videos are eligible for fair use consideration. The study points to a wide variety of practices—satire, parody, negative and positive commentary, discussion-triggers, illustration, diaries, archiving and of course, pastiche or collage (remixes and mashups)—all of which could be legal in some circumstances. Fair use is the part of copyright law that permits new makers, in some situations, to quote copyrighted material without asking permission or paying the owners. The courts tell us that fair use should be "transformative"—adding value to what they take and using it for a purpose different from the original work. So when makers mash up several works—say, The Ten Commandments , Ben-Hur and 10 Things I Hate about You , making Ten Things I Hate about Commandments —they aren't necessarily stealing. They are quoting in order to make a new commentary on popular culture, and creating a new piece of popular culture. Unfortunately, this emerging, participatory media culture is at risk, with new industry practices to control piracy. Large content holders such as NBC Universal and Viacom, and online platforms such as MySpace and Veoh are already crafting agreements on removing copyrighted material from the online sites. Legal as well as illegal copying could all too easily disappear. Worse still, a new generation of media makers could grow up with a deformed and truncated notion of their rights as creators. The study recommends the development of a blue-ribbon committee of scholars, makers and lawyers to develop best-practices principles. Such principles, similar to ones documentary filmmakers developed in the Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use can help new creators and online providers decide what's legal, and assure that the Internet remains a safe space for new forms of self-expression. The study is part of a larger Participatory Media project, funded by the Ford Foundation as part of the Center for Social Media's Future of Public Media Project. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080103/435c02be/attachment-0001.html From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Fri Jan 4 12:51:04 2008 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:21:04 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Andhra Pradesh :Special court for trial of video piracy cases Message-ID: <908adbd0801032320p519d6d30h4f7e4812a78ed71c@mail.gmail.com> *Date:03/01/2008* *URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/01/03/stories/2008010350070100.htm* ------------------------------ Andhra Pradesh * Special court for trial of video piracy cases * — A file photo * Dicey business: With piracy eating into the films' collections, producers have to be satisfied with just the first week's rush. * HYDERABAD: It's a game of technology versus creativity. And the Telugu film industry is the obvious loser in this game. Nowadays, the pirated version of any movie hits the market within a week after the movie release. The Telugu film industry suffers a loss of Rs. 200 to Rs. 300 crore, according to a survey conducted by Motion Pictures Association (MPA) of US and AP Film Chambers of Commerce (APFCC). Film producer Shyam Prasad Reddy told newsmen on Wednesday that despite serious efforts of the movie industry to check the problem, piracy menace continued to blight the industry. He was speaking at the inaugural function of the special court for trial of video piracy cases in Hyderabad. This is for the first time that a dedicated court has been set up to handle piracy cases. "Within a week of a movie release, its pirated version floods the market. In our anti-piracy cell, there are 60 retired police officers helping police to check 50,000 video shops in State," Mr. Reddy said. Presently, there are over 6,000 video-piracy cases pending in courts and since 2005, the number of convictions is a paltry 27. "We started an anti-piracy drive three years ago and since then the going has been tough. APFCC is collaborating with MPA to chalk out new strategies to curb piracy. This is the first court in India to exclusively deal with piracy cases," Mr. Reddy claimed. Between May, 2005 and December, 2007, the number of piracy cases reported from Hyderabad is 403 while throughout the State, it is at 4,687 cases. The number of accused arrested for piracy is 4,799 in the State. "These numbers are paltry compared to the overall impact piracy has on the film industry. If curbed, it would have a huge impact on the GDP of the State. Over 900 piracy cases have been reported from Vijayawada alone," said Chief Co-ordinator of Anti Video Piracy Wing of AP Film Chambers P. Keshav Reddy. The new court was inaugurated by High Court Judge Justice T. Meena Kumari. President of Metropolitan Criminal Court's Bar Association D. Ram Reddy and Metropolitan Sessions Judge S. Govindarajulu were present. * * (c) Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20080104/15f16a0b/attachment-0001.html