SpaceX launch footage was taken down thanks to bogus copyright claim

Enlarge / The Falcon 9 rocket climbs to space on Saturday. (credit: Trevor Mahlmann)
This weekend’s launch, in which SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket successfully propelled the Crew Dragon spacecraft and the two astronauts on board from Florida safely into space, was amazing, awe-inspiring, and frankly, just plain cool to watch. And here in the age of inexpensive, tiny high-definition cameras and streaming content, it should be easy to catch up on it if you missed it—or even if you just want to watch it again for fun. But for most of the weekend and into this morning, you couldn’t watch it at all, thanks to copyright content ID bots working overtime.
The May 30 launch was streamed live to NASA’s YouTube channel and then archived, along with several shorter clips and highlights taken from the day-long livestream. NASA footage, like photo and video from other government agencies, is generally published into


Original URL: https://arstechnica.com/?p=1680275

Original article

Justices debate allowing state law to be “hidden behind a pay wall”

Carl Malamud, founder of Public.Resource.Org. (credit: Kirk Walter)
The courts have long held that laws can’t be copyrighted. But if the state mixes the text of the law together with supporting information, things get trickier. In Monday oral arguments, the US Supreme Court wrestled with the copyright status of Georgia’s official legal code, which includes annotations written by LexisNexis.
The defendant in the case is Public.Resource.Org (PRO), a non-profit organization that publishes public-domain legal materials. The group obtained Georgia’s official version of state law, known as the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, and published the code on its website. The state of Georgia sued, arguing that while the law itself is in the public domain, the accompanying annotations are copyrighted works that can’t be published by anyone except LexisNexis.
Georgia won at the trial court level, but PRO won at the appeals court level. On Monday, the case reached the Supreme Court.
Read


Original URL: https://arstechnica.com/?p=1627091

Original article

Download Famous Art in High Resolution

The Art Institute of Chicago recently revamped its website and released a searchable database of high-resolution art. Even better, a lot of the art is in the public domain, meaning you can legally use it however you want, even for commercial purposes. (Check the copyright notice on each artwork’s page.) You’ll notice…Read more…


Original URL: https://lifehacker.com/download-famous-art-in-high-resolution-1830393319

Original article

The Internet Archive’s OpenLibrary project violates copyright, the Authors Guild warns

Four years ago, on the old site, I wrote about how Archive.org’s OpenLibrary project was systematically violating the copyrights of a number of authors, including Diane Duane and Mercedes Lackey. Archive.org seemed to feel that making digital copies of paper books and loaning them out as if they were the paper books as long as it restricted the paper books from circulating while the digital media were out was a fair use of those books. Even though the Authors Guild had been absolutely gung-ho about chasing Google all the way to the Supreme Court just for serving up snippets, the Internet Archive checking out entire books was somehow beneath its notice.
After that, the strangest thing happened: nothing.
For four years, Archive.org has chugged right along digitizing books and setting them up for checkout, without the Authors Guild or anyone else saying one word about it. And while I will admit that, in


Original URL: https://teleread.org/2017/12/19/the-internet-archives-openlibrary-project-violates-copyright-the-authors-guild-warns/

Original article

SCO, the Not-Walking Dead, Returns

It appears that the once cancelled SCO Show has again been rebooted after a federal judge okays an appeal.

SCO. There’s a name I’ll bet you thought you’d never hear again. Guess what? It’s back.
Wasn’t there a Bond film called “Live to Die Another Day.” Even if there wasn’t, that applies here.
When last we talked about SCO, in March, 2016, we told you this might happen, although Judge David Nuffer had all but put a bullet through the already dead and bankrupt company’s brain (there’s an oxymoron if ever I wrote one) on February 29, 2016. But exactly a month after the judge’s ruling, the company had somehow managed to scrape together enough spare change to pay the filing fee for an appeal. Today, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that that the appeal could go on, on a claim of misappropriation, but upheld Judge Nuffer’s other two orders.
In


Original URL: http://fossforce.com/2017/10/sco-not-walking-dead-returns/

Original article

DNS attack hits Library of Congress, other gov sites

Librarians complained on Facebook yesterday that they couldn’t get into the Library of Congress Web site. I tried LoC myself just now. No luck. And here’s the reason. A DNS attack from an unknown source began July 17 and apparently is still happening. It’s crippled not only LoC, including the Copyright Office, but also Congress.gov.
LoC has been criticized for technological backwardness, including in the security area, but within the federal government the problem really goes beyond the library itself, as indicated by last year’s breach of the personal data of four million federal workers. We really really need to get more serious about cybersecurity, and, yes, there’s an ebook angle here. Hackers in the future could compromise the integrity of books and many other kinds of items. This could happen not just at LoC but also at institutions to which it or the Digital Public Library of America or other library organizations may link. DNS attacks are


Original URL: https://teleread.org/2016/07/19/dns-attack-cripples-library-of-congress-other-gov-sites/

Original article

EU to set publicly funded research free for open access

european-union-flag-1-300x238-300x238The European Union has decided that “all scientific articles in Europe must be freely accessible as of 2020,” because “EU member states want to achieve optimal reuse of research data.” This marks a wholesale defeat for the various claims and rationales of the scientific publishers who have sought to keep publicly funded scientific research behind their paywalls.

According to the statement on the website for the Netherlands EU Presidency for 2016, “open access means that scientific publications on the results of research supported by public and public-private funds must be freely accessible to everyone. That is not yet the case. The results of publicly funded research are currently not accessible to people outside universities and knowledge institutions. As a result, teachers, doctors and entrepreneurs do not have access to the latest scientific insights that are so relevant to their work, and universities have to take out expensive subscriptions with publishers to gain access to publications.”

The announcement does state that in certain instances intellectual property rights will override the basic obligation for free access. But it’s clear that overall the thrust of the legislation is directed particularly at the high rates and access restrictions championed by the academic publishing industry. It’s also very clear that the industry’s moves to address these concerns haven’t gone anything like far enough to satisfy the EU.

What makes the EU”s argument especially damning for the defenders of restricted access in scientific and academic publishing is that it explicitly links economic and technological progress, and even employment and social stability, across the whole of Europe to open access. The Competitiveness Council of the EU was responsible for the decision. Netherlands State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science Sander Dekker, who led the process, said that: “Research and innovation generate economic growth and more jobs and provide solutions to societal challenges. And that means a stronger Europe. To achieve that, Europe must be as attractive as possible for researchers and start-ups to locate here and for companies to invest. That calls for knowledge to be freely shared. The time for talking about open access is now past. With these agreements, we are going to achieve it in practice.”

The EU plan may not end the run for pro-open access initiatives like Sci-Hub, but it certainly puts a big cramp in the arguments of their opponents. But with the likes of Joseph E. Stiglitz arguing for open access, it’s no surprise that the EU finally decided to follow their arguments and do something. I’ll be watching Reed Elsevier’s stock price with great interest over the next few days.

The post EU to set publicly funded research free for open access appeared first on TeleRead News: E-books, publishing, tech and beyond.


Original URL: http://teleread.com/eu-set-publicly-funded-research-free-public-access/

Original article

From Blue to Indigo to …

indigo

A New Citation Guide

A legal citation guide of a different hue, The Indigo Book, arrived on the scene this spring. Like the University Chicago Law Review’s Maroonbook, it was born of frustration over The Bluebook – but frustration of a very different kind.  The Maroonbook, first published in the late 1980s, still followed and revised by the University of Chicago Law Review, aimed to supplant The Bluebook’s complex and detailed dictates with “a simple, malleable framework for citation, which authors and editors can tailor to suit their purposes.”  In contrast, The Indigo Book, seeks to pry loose those very dictates, or at least the subset most important for participation in U.S. legal proceedings, from the proprietary claims made by The Bluebook’s proprietors.

Working under the guidance of NYU copyright expert, Professor Christopher Sprigman, a team of students spent over a year meticulously separating the “system of citation” reflected in The Bluebook from that manual’s expressive content – its language, examples, and organization.  The Indigo Book is the result.  Like the ALWD Guide to Legal Citation, first published in 2000, it endeavors to instruct those who would write legal briefs or memoranda on how to cite U.S. legal materials in complete conformity with the system of citation codified in the most recent edition of The Bluebook while avoiding infringement of that work’s copyright.

Unlike the ALWD Guide, which completes with The Bluebook for a share of the lucrative legal education market at a similarly substantial price, this new entrant is free.  It can be viewed online or downloaded, without charge, in either of two formats – PDF or HTML.  As the work’s forward explains, providing “pro se litigants, prisoners, and others seeking justice but … lack[ing] resources … effective access to the system lawyers use to cite to the law” was, for its creators, an important goal.

Relatively few U.S. jurisdictions formally require that citations in court filings conform to scheme set out in The Bluebook.  (I count one U.S. circuit court, a handful of U.S. district courts, and the appellate courts of eleven states.)  But Bluebook-compatible citations are consistent with the rules of most.  By removing price as a barrier and focusing on the legal materials most frequently cited in U.S. proceedings, this guide of a different color seeks to improve access to the nation’s judicial system.

Establishing a Space for Innovation

The Indigo Book is free in a second, more radical sense.  It has been released with a Creative Commons public domain dedication.  Anyone can copy and redistribute it.  Anyone can create new and different works based upon it.  No further permission from the creators or publisher is required.  The aim here is said to be the clearing of this zone, so important to our legal system, for further innovation.

From the very outset, The Indigo Book project has been both goaded and troubled by overbroad copyright threats and innuendo from The Bluebook’s proprietors and their attorneys.  By separating the widely used system of citation codified in the latter reference from its particularized expression, The Indigo Book seeks to build a wall between such claims and the projects of future software and database developers and citation guide authors.

“Not Authorized by Nor in Any Way Affiliated with …”

Why indigo?  As discussed in an earlier post, the four law journals that publish The Bluebook hold registered trademarks in three variations of that name.  The Indigo Book was, for a time, going to be “Baby Blue.”  The law firm representing the Harvard Law Review Association demanded that the title be changed and that it not be replaced by one “consisting of or comprising the word ‘Blue’”While denying that “Baby Blue” posed any risk of trademark confusion or dilution, the creators of the new guide decided, nonetheless, to change its name rather than waste time and money on litigation.  Quite possibly they shared Isaac Asimov’s view:

It is customary to list indigo as a color lying between blue and violet, but it has never seemed to me that indigo is worth the dignity of being considered a separate color. To my eyes it seems merely deep blue.

What Are the Likely Prospects for the New Guide?

In legal education

The Bluebook is published by four law journals and commands the allegiance of nearly all law student-edited reviews in the country.  Due to the place of those reviews in law school culture, faculty members responsible for courses on legal writing are under powerful pressure to teach the “Bluebook” rules.  Over time that pressure induced the Association of Legal Writing Directors (ALWD) to bring that organization’s competing guide into complete conformity.  Like the new Indigo Book, the ALWD guide is better organized than The Bookbook itself and, on many points, clearer in explanation and illustration.  It, too, has saved space and maintenance burden by limiting itself to U.S. sources.  Even so, powerful network effects have limited its market share.  For The Bluebook is not merely manifest in the format of the citations it enables journal editors, legal academics, lawyers, and legal assistants to produce.  It also represents a matrix of rule numbers and tables that facilitate communication about and resolution of citation issues.  Biblical exegesis is characterized by reference to chapter and verse.  Law review debates over proper citation form refer to Bluebook rule numbers, tables, and text.  Even at the powerfully attractive price point of free, The Indigo Book will run up against the dependence of most citation discourse within America’s law schools, student-edited journals, and large firms on The Bluebook’s classificatory scheme.

As a Resource for “pro se litigants, prisoners, and others seeking justice”

In the form released the new guide is unlikely to be of much aid to those navigating the legal system on their own.  By seeking to liberate the full system of citation explicated in 350 or so of The Bluebook’s pages, Indigo had, of necessity, to be far more detailed than any useful self-help guide should be.  Furthermore, that detail incorporates numerous points on which The Bluebook reflects the undue influence of major publishers and others in which is out of step with the evolving citation practice of lawyers and judges responding to the proliferation of electronic sources.

By placing their guide in the public domain, however, The Indigo Book’s creators have made it possible for groups preparing pro se handbooks, web site resources, and courthouse kiosks to draw upon it in preparing appropriately tailored citation guidance.  Other derivative work possibilities abound.  Bar groups or court systems may well be tempted to prepare citation manuals adapted to state-specific citation requirements and norms.  Citation software developers should be able to proceed without infringement fears. All of this is to be hoped for.

As the author of a free citation reference, now in its twenty-third year, I welcome The Indigo Book and all its future progeny.


Original URL: http://citeblog.access-to-law.com/?p=617

Original article

Supreme Court affirms Google Books scans of copyrighted works are fair use

hero_books A Supreme Court order issued today closes the book on (or perhaps merely ends this chapter of) more than a decade of legal warfare between Google and the Authors Guild over the legality of the former’s scanning without permission of millions of copyrighted books. And the final word is: it’s fair use. Read More


Original URL: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/PRh6pZuG1gA/

Original article

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Baskerville 2 by Anders Noren.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: