In the spirit of April 1, Miracle Jones at Slashdot writes, "In a move that has shocked the publishing world, Judge Denny Chin has filed a brief saying that he has decided to cut the Google Book Settlement in half, letting Google host the first half of every book the company has scanned, and letting other interested stakeholders fight for the rights to the rest." link here

More compelling is Annalee Newitz' long highly critical discussion of the proposed GBS (Google Book Settlement" entitled 5 Ways The Google Book Settlement Will Change The Future of Reading link here.

The five ways are: 1. It may become harder to get information online about books from writers you love.

2. You will find yourself reading free books online, by authors who have disappeared. And Google will make money when you do.

3. Google will be competing with Apple and Amazon and everybody else to be your favorite online bookseller.

4. Libraries and bookstores will be the same thing.

5. Pulp science fiction will make a comeback in ways you might not expect.

These points don't really do justice to the content of the piece. For those hung up on copyright monopolies, the GBS won't do. For those who want to see all those books that have evaporated into the "Out of Print" ether or are in libraries with the only copy, some settlement like the one proposed makes sense. Still, it might be better if time is allowed to run and wear the two sides down to a compromise.

The brilliantly innovative band OK Go has decided to leave its label, EMI, and and starting up its own company, Paracadute Recordings. The band's Damian Kulash explains why in a fascinating interview with Leo Laport on TWIT. This presages the direction a lot of creators and artists will start to take as they leave the copyright-mired Old Media Dinosaurs behind.

Is this the end of gene patenting?

David Post over at Volokh.com lends his (blogging) voice against the international cabal (and I don't feel that such a phrase is hyperbole in this instance) that is trying to foist a stricter copyright regime throughout the world via the ACTA treaty.

Read it here:

http://volokh.com/2010/03/26/outrageous-treaty-nonsense-or-the-copyright-tail-wagging-the-internet-dog/

Studio publicity execs were unimpressed by the move. "It's a terribly analog way of thinking in a digital world," said one studio PR chief. "It's just a totally unrealistic response, since if we've learned anything about the flow of information these days, it's that it gets out in all sorts of uncontrollable ways. The minute we have a meeting or make a decision, it's up on someone's blog. We're not the announcer anymore. We're the responder to what someone's already written. All we can do most of the time is damage control."

Read about what he is referring to here:

http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2010/03/variety_threatens_studios.php

David S. Olson of the Boston College Law School has an important new law article that should be must-reading for every federal judge out there:

First Amendment Based Copyright Misuse

Abstract:

We are at a crossroads with respect to the under-developed equitable defense of copyright misuse. The defense may go the way of its sibling, antitrust-based patent misuse, which seems to be in a state of inevitable decline. Or - if judges accept the proposal of this Article - courts could reinvigorate the copyright misuse defense to better protect First Amendment speech that is guaranteed by statute, but that is often chilled by copyright holders misusing their copyrights to control other's speech.

The Copyright Act serves First Amendment interests by encouraging authors to create works. But copyright law can also discourage the creation of new works by preventing subsequent creators from using copyrighted work to make their own, new speech. Courts have long recognized this inherent tension, and have also recognized that the conflict should sometimes be decided in favor of allowing a subsequent speaker the right to make unauthorized use of others' copyrighted works. Accordingly, courts created, and Congress codified, the fair use defense to copyright infringement, which allows unauthorized use of copyrighted works under certain circumstances that encourage speech and creation of transformative works. The problem with fair use, however, is that the informational uncertainties and transaction costs of litigating the defense make the fair use right unavailable to many as a practical matter. Subsequent creators are left open to intimidation by copyright holders threatening infringement suits. By decoupling the copyright misuse defense from its basis in antitrust principles and basing it in First Amendment speech principles, the legal protections for fair use shift from theoretical rights to practical rights for many. Copyright misuse has two deterrent features that will allow fair use as a practical right. First, a copyright holder's misuse of its copyrights against anyone can be used to prove the defense of misuse. Second, once misuse is found, the copyright owner loses its ability to enforce its copyright against everyone, at least until the misuse is cured. Thus, by defining as copyright misuse the unjustified chilling of speech that some copyright holders perpetrate, the misuse defense will encourage important speech rights that are currently under-protected.

Download the whole thing here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1574385

[H/T: Larry Solum]

Dale Sheldon-Hess writes:

I thought the folks at Against Monopoly might get a kick out of this, if you hadn't already seen it: a well-known and respected mainstream publication off-handedly endorsing copyright "abuse".

The January 2010 issue of Better Homes and Gardens had an article called "25 easy ways to conquer clutter"; number 20 on that list (on page 41) says the following:

"Convert your compact discs into digital music files, either yourself or using a service such as ripdigital.com or riptopia.com. (They give you materials to send in in your CDs, convert them to digital, and burn them on DVDs for you.) Then, donate or* sell the returned CDs.* --Sabrina Soto, host of HGTV's Real Estate Intervention"

(Emphasis added.)

Isn't that technically illegal? Is this an example of a dead-tree publication "getting it", or simply an example of naiveté in the face of the absurdity of copyright?

In another of those court decisions that infuriate critics of intellectual property, Judge Denise Cote, of the United States District Court in New York, ruled in favor of Barclays, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley. The banks claimed that the website, theflyonthewall.com, violated their copyright when it published headline news like changes in stock ratings link here. The site must now wait until 10 a.m. to publish news about research that was issued before the 9:30 a.m. opening bell or if issued during the day, by a full two hours.

The court found that fair use was topped by the "hot news" doctrine, which protects organizations from theft by competitors. The ruling clearly gives big Wall Street clients a head start each trading day. "The banks claimed Fly's practice of publishing pieces of research reports almost instantly undercut their work by making key nuggets meant for exclusive client use available to a wider audience immediately. Why would clients pay big money those reports--which themselves cost the banks money to produce--if Fly was going to publish the important stuff right away? link here

Fly will appeal. The monopolists win, if only for the moment, but the lawyers profit, no matter what.

After reading this article, I am left with the thought, "A pox on all of their houses!".

Current copyright law not only fails in its basic function in maximizing the creation and distribution of new works, but it also happens to be disastrously constructed. With more and more creations now being considered 'derivative works', the law now prevents any clear certainty as to who owns what without going through a lengthy and expensive litigation process.

When it comes to our tools of culture and speech, the one area of law that should be easily accessible to all should be IP laws. Sadly, that is not the case. It has become little more than a self-justified business to employ IP attorneys - the 21st Century's breed of ambulance chasers.

Read the sorry tale here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/business/21marvel.html?pagewanted=1

From Stefan Molyneux's post on the Mises forum:

The Freedomain Radio Book Club had a great discussion with Stephan about intellectual property which I thought you might enjoy...

FDR1616 Stephan Kinsella on Intellectual Property from Freedomain Radio

Play Now

We did this yesterday, Mar. 20, 2010. It was about an hour and was a nice, intelligent discussion of IP and related libertarian issues. (Local MP3 file -- 59MB)

[Mises; SK]