Clive Thompson ponders false memories and interactive marketing after reading a paper to be published this month in the Journal of Consumer Research by Ann Schlosser, a business professor at the University of Washington.
collision detection: Why interactive websites can create false memories
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Monday, December 04, 2006
Friday, December 01, 2006
Detritus: Manifesto (Journal of Recycled Culture)
Detritus: Manifesto: "Detritus: the Manifesto
- in nature, detritus is dead plant and animal matter that makes new life possible. The very bottom of the food chain, detritus is the rotting leaves in the forest, the silt on the bottom of the pond, the thick dark mud in the salt marsh. It sticks to your shoes, it smells, but someday it will be food for something else, and that something will be food in turn, on and on up the food chain until you pick it up in the supermarket and put it in your mouth.
Our society spends a lot of time telling us that there is some brand new, fresh cultural produce, generated from thin air and sunshine, slick and clean. They package it with pretty plastic & ribbons and then feed it to us. A lot gets thrown away: the ribbons, the wrapping; culture becomes garbage, or it dies, and rots behind the refrigerator. But the new fluffy shiny stuff still gets churned out, and it gets forced between our teeth. And we are told to swallow it.
We will not swallow. We will chew, and then spit. We will play with our food, and create something new and interesting from it."
- in nature, detritus is dead plant and animal matter that makes new life possible. The very bottom of the food chain, detritus is the rotting leaves in the forest, the silt on the bottom of the pond, the thick dark mud in the salt marsh. It sticks to your shoes, it smells, but someday it will be food for something else, and that something will be food in turn, on and on up the food chain until you pick it up in the supermarket and put it in your mouth.
Our society spends a lot of time telling us that there is some brand new, fresh cultural produce, generated from thin air and sunshine, slick and clean. They package it with pretty plastic & ribbons and then feed it to us. A lot gets thrown away: the ribbons, the wrapping; culture becomes garbage, or it dies, and rots behind the refrigerator. But the new fluffy shiny stuff still gets churned out, and it gets forced between our teeth. And we are told to swallow it.
We will not swallow. We will chew, and then spit. We will play with our food, and create something new and interesting from it."
India Culture of Copy :: Publics and Music
[Reader-list] Culture of Copy :: Publics and Music: "f the singers and the tunes became secondary and were replaced by the creators of new tunes. Cassettes began to be sold in their name. One of them was ‘Bali Sagu’. It was a new experiment and became popular. It influenced the films after a few years. Whole songs of the films began to be remixed. Some of the films whose remixed songs were like very were ‘Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge’, ‘Taal’, ‘Pardes’, etc. "
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
U.S. Official Presses China to Punish Piracy - New York Times
U.S. Official Presses China to Punish Piracy - New York Times: "“These are criminal organizations and one of the things they do is run a supply chain for illicit goods, pirated goods,” Mr. Gutierrez said during an interview on the second day of a four-day visit to China at the head of an American business delegation. “This is organized crime. One day it could be T-shirts, the next day it could be watches and the next day it could be medicines.”"
Hmmm...who are the bad guys again?
Hmmm...who are the bad guys again?
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Saturday, November 18, 2006
flamingos: real, fake, real fakes, fake fakes, copied no more
Follow the pink flamingos cultural trajectory...
From The New York Times
From The New York Times
November 17, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
In the Pink No More
By JENNY PRICE
Los Angeles
ON Nov. 1, just two months shy of its 50th birthday, the plastic pink flamingo went extinct. Or more accurately, it stopped reproducing, when its manufacturer, Union Products, shut down the factory in Leominster, Mass.
That’s sad news, but hardly surprising. The flamingo’s glory days were behind it. Union Products cited the rising cost of plastic resins and of electricity, along with financing woes. Yet while the bird reigned as an icon in the late 20th century, it was bound to succumb to the very different tastes — or the absence thereof — in the 21st.
In 1957, the flamingo that would become lawn-art king was invented by a young Union Products designer with the fitting name of Don Featherstone. Sears sold the bird for $2.76 a pair: “Place in garden, lawn, to beautify landscape,” the 1957 catalog read. Working-class homeowners readily planted it on their modest lawns — a nod to the marble or bronze sculpture on vaster properties — and art critics promptly pegged it as a prime example of the despicable spread of kitsch. In the 1960s, the suburban lawn flamingo — cheap, mass-produced, artificial and unusually neon pink — was widely reviled as the dregs of bad taste.
Which is exactly what John Waters loved about it. He made his breakout film, “Pink Flamingos,” in 1972, and to his delight the critics were outraged: “It’s like getting a standing ovation,” he said, “if someone vomits watching one of my films.”
In the 1970s, my rebel generation of middle-class baby boomers adopted the plastic bird to challenge the boundaries of high art and good taste. The gay male subculture made it a mascot, and in 1979 the student government at University of Wisconsin planted a thousand flamingos on the lawn outside the dean’s office. The bird had become a signpost for the transgression of social and cultural convention. And Union Products was reaping the rewards.
By the 1980s, flamingo-themed installations were appearing in avant-garde galleries. But the baby boomers were also carrying the flamingo in backpacks across Europe, and kayaking with it through the wilderness. The bird became the ultimate marker for crossing boundaries of every conceivable kind. By the 1990s, it had become a popular housewarming gift. In 1994, the “pink flamingo relay” at the Gay Games in New York featured a swim race and costume pageant. By 1996, you could mark a birthday by hiring the company Flamingo Surprise to plant 30 or 40 flamingos on the celebrant’s lawn the night before. And as Don Featherstone — by this point the president of Union Products — remarked proudly, “I’ve never seen a wedding cake with a duck on it.”
Which is why I’d peg the beginning of the end to the moment in the late 1990s when the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles began selling the Union Products flamingo in its gift shop. Or perhaps to the Sundance Film Festival’s 1997 celebration of the 25th anniversary of “Pink Flamingos.” Or — maybe — to the day in 1987 when Mr. Featherstone inscribed his signature in the original plastic mold, to distinguish the authentic fake flamingo from the knockoffs.
After 30 years of assaults on the cultural barricades, kitsch had become high art, and bad taste had become thoroughly acceptable.
An object that marks the crossing of borders works effectively only when the object transgresses boundaries a majority of people believe should exist. And in 2006, art is pretty much whatever you call art. The boundary of bad taste can be hard to find: decades ago, Variety called “Pink Flamingos” “one of the most vile, stupid and repulsive films ever made,” but film critics now hail the Farrelly brothers as auteurs and find “Jackass” merely annoying. And anyway, who actually knows what’s fake anymore?
The boomers’ children and grandchildren cannot possibly see a plastic flamingo lawn sculpture as outrageously funny or transgressive. My 15-year-old nephew calls it “lame.” My 16-year-old cousin says, “I don’t really think about it one way or the other.” The members of this YouTube generation will find their own conventions to challenge, but they will also have to find their own objects with which to do it.
My generation is beginning to retire, and our plastic flamingo has met its demise — officially the victim of oil prices, but really the inevitable victim of its own legitimacy.
Rest in peace, my pink plastic friend. It was fun while it lasted.
Jenny Price is the author of “Flight Maps: Adventures With Nature in Modern America.”
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Mixi, Japan’s Biggest Social Network - Mashable!
Mixi, Japan’s Biggest Social Network - Mashable!
Mashable discusses some of the differences between the Japanese social networking site Mixi and US-based sites.
One of the mmost interesting aspects of Mixi is the "social commerce" element
Mashable discusses some of the differences between the Japanese social networking site Mixi and US-based sites.
One of the mmost interesting aspects of Mixi is the "social commerce" element
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Tim Wu-How the Bell lobby helped midwife YouTube. - By Tim Wu - Slate Magazine
You Tube and the benefits of "Tolerated-Use"
How the Bell lobby helped midwife YouTube. - By Tim Wu - Slate Magazine
How the Bell lobby helped midwife YouTube. - By Tim Wu - Slate Magazine
Does YouTube Really Have Legal Problems?
How the Bell lobby helped midwife YouTube.
By Tim Wu
Posted Thursday, Oct. 26, 2006, at 4:28 PM ET
When Google bought YouTube, the conventional wisdom—expressed in op-eds, newspaper articles, and scary editorial cartoons—was that they'd also bought themselves a whole heap of copyright trouble. The New York Times used the phrase "litigation-laden landmine." Part-time copyright theorist Mark Cuban warned that YouTube would face the same copyright fate as Napster.
There's only one problem with these theories: the copyright law itself. Under the copyright code, YouTube is in much better legal shape than anyone seems to want to accept. The site enjoys a strong legal "safe harbor," a law largely respected by the television and film industries for the choices it gives them.
But the most interesting thing is where all this legal armor protecting YouTube—and most of the Web 2.0 (user-generated content) industry—comes from. It's the product of the Bell lobby—Google's bitter opponent in the ongoing Net Neutrality debates. So, while YouTube may be the creative child of Silicon Valley, it is also, as much, the offspring of Bell lobbying power.
Back in the early 1990s, when the "information highway" was the talk of the town, Hollywood and the recording industry worked hard to make Internet companies responsible for any and all copyright infringement that happened via the Internet. Jack Valenti, Hollywood's chief lobbyist, warned that without congressional action, "the information superhighway … will collapse the great wonder of intellectual property." The recording industry, for its part, dispatched Johnny Cash to rhetorically link Internet piracy and, yes, a "ring of fire."
This summer, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, earned the bemused contempt of geeks everywhere when he described the Internet as "a series of tubes." But back in 1995, Hollywood was insisting that the Internet be characterized as "a bookstore." And a bookstore, unlike a series of tubes, breaks the law if it "carries" pirated novels. So too, Hollywood urged, Internet companies should be liable if they carry any illegal materials, whether the companies know it or not.
Had that view prevailed, there would probably be no YouTube today, and also no free blog sites, and maybe not even Google or Web 2.0. What venture capitalist would invest in a company already on the hook for everything its users might do? But, in one of the lesser-known turning points in Internet history, Hollywood never got its law. Its unstoppable lobbyists ran into an unmovable object: the Bell companies, who own those "tubes" over which the Internet runs. In the mid-1990s, fearing a future of liability, the Bells ordered their lobbyists to fight Hollywood's reforms, leading to one of the greatest political struggles in copyright history. (This paper provides a history of this and other struggles.)
Hollywood employs legendary lobbyists, like Jack Valenti, but when they ran into the Bells, it was like Frazier meeting Foreman. The Bells quickly put holds on all the legislation the content industries wanted. Telecom lobbyists like Roy Neel, a close friend of Al Gore (and later Howard Dean's campaign manager), went to Congress and began saying things like, the "copyright law threatens to put a damper on the expression of ideas on the Internet."
Facing stalemate, in 1997 the industries settled on a compromise: something called the Online Copyright Liability Limitation Act, which became Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (§512 of the Copyright Code). It is this law that makes YouTube worth paying more than what you pay for its videos. And its long-term effects have been enormous—you might call §512 the Magna Carta for Web 2.0.
Why? Section 512(c) of the law applies to "Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users." In 1998, that meant Geocities and AOL user pages. But in 2006, that means Blogger, Wikipedia, Flickr, Facebook, MySpace, and, yes, YouTube—all the companies whose shtick is "user-generated content."
Thanks to the Bells, all these companies are now protected by a "notice and take down" system when they host user content. That means that if Jon Stewart notices an infringing copy of The Daily Show on YouTube, Comedy Central can write a letter to YouTube and demand it be taken down. Then, so long as YouTube acts "expeditiously" and so long as YouTube wasn't already aware that the material was there, YouTube is in the clear. In legal jargon, YouTube is in a "safe harbor." Earlier this week, when YouTube took down 30,000 files after requests from a Japanese authors' group, that was §512(c) in action.
Of course, as with any law, YouTube's legal status might not be 100-percent airtight. The law suggests (in §512(c)(1)(A)(ii)) that YouTube might be liable if, in the absence of notice, it is "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent." Also, YouTube provides a search, and maybe it could be liable for that. There might be enough to make trouble in the hands of a judge who really hates "that whole Web 2.0 thing."
But we may never find out. What's really interesting is that the content industry actually likes §512 more than anyone will admit. The notice-and-takedown system gives content owners the twin advantages of exposure and control. When stuff is on YouTube, the owners have an option. They can leave it posted there, if they want people to see it, and build buzz. But they can also snap their fingers and bring it all down. And for someone who is juggling her desire for publicity against her need for control, that's ultimately a nice arrangement.
Stated otherwise, much of the copyrighted material on YouTube is in a legal category that is new to our age. It's not "fair use," the famous right to use works despite technical infringement, for reasons of public policy. Instead, it's in the growing category of "tolerated use"—use that is technically illegal, but tolerated by the owner because he wants the publicity. If that sounds as weird as "don't ask, don't tell," you're getting the idea. The industry is deeply conflicted about mild forms of piracy—trapped somewhere between its pathological hatred of "pirates" and its lust for the buzz piracy can build.
But what about Mark Cuban's copyright argument? Why isn't YouTube in trouble in the same way Napster and Grokster were? The first difference, as indicated, is that Napster simply wasn't covered by the §512 safe-harbor law, and YouTube is. Napster wasn't "hosting" information at the direction of its users, but rather providing a tool for users to find and download predominantly infringing content. It may sound odd that Napster gets in more trouble for helping you find illegal stuff than YouTube does for actually hosting it. But that's the law and why YouTube should really, really thank its friends at Bell.
There may also be deeper differences. If the Internet were not a bookstore, or tubes, but rather a red-light district, YouTube would best be imagined as the hotel, and Napster, well, the pimp. YouTube, like a hotel, provides space for people to do things, legal or not. It's not doing anything illegal itself, but its visitors may be. But Napster, everyone more or less now admits, was cast as the pimp: It was mainly a means of getting illegal stuff. Right or wrong, we seem to accept the benign vision of YouTube as an entity which, unlike Napster, was basically born as a place to showcase stupid human tricks.
The upshot is, as YouTube goes mainstream, copyright's etiquette rules are becoming clearer. Yes, these sites can make it easier to infringe copyright. But so long as that's not the principal aim of your company, you have more breathing room today than you once did. And under the emerging regime, if you do cause infringement, you have to be nice about it and make determined efforts to stop it. Apple has learned that dance well, even as its iPods make swapping music all the more part of being American. And YouTube has, in turn, learned from Apple the early lessons of Napster: You can act out in cyberspace. Just don't be a copyright pimp.
Tim Wu is a professor at Columbia Law School and co-author of Who Controls the Internet?
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2152264/
Copyright 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
Inside Google: YouTube Deals To Obtain Copyrights For Its Users � InsideGoogle � part of the Blog News Channel
Another perspective on the You Tube deals with media companies.
Makes argument that we're seeing a new copyright model emerging, one in which the owners of the copyright obtain rights for users. Communities build up around the owners of the copyright.
� YouTube Deals To Obtain Copyrights For Its Users � InsideGoogle � part of the Blog News Channel
Makes argument that we're seeing a new copyright model emerging, one in which the owners of the copyright obtain rights for users. Communities build up around the owners of the copyright.
� YouTube Deals To Obtain Copyrights For Its Users � InsideGoogle � part of the Blog News Channel
The Mike Abundo Effect � Blog Archive � Comedy Central Back on YouTube
New Biz practices? Media companies sue then sign deals with YouTube.
The Mike Abundo Effect � Blog Archive � Comedy Central Back on YouTube
The Mike Abundo Effect � Blog Archive � Comedy Central Back on YouTube
Automatic Meaning Discovery Using Google
[cs/0412098] Automatic Meaning Discovery Using Google
Automatic Meaning Discovery Using Google
Authors: Rudi Cilibrasi (CWI), Paul M. B. Vitanyi (CWI, University of Amsterdam, National ICT of Australia)
Comments: 31 pages, 10 figures; eliminated some typos etc. On pages 1-3 corrected Eq (1) and handcrafted horse-rider and by-with examples using now 10 decimal precision
Subj-class: Computation and Language; Artificial Intelligence; Databases; Information Retrieval; Learning
ACM-class: I.2.4; I.2.7
We have found a method to automatically extract the meaning of words and phrases from the world-wide-web using Google page counts. The approach is novel in its unrestricted problem domain, simplicity of implementation, and manifestly ontological underpinnings. The world-wide-web is the largest database on earth, and the latent semantic context information entered by millions of independent users averages out to provide automatic meaning of useful quality. We demonstrate positive correlations, evidencing an underlying semantic structure, in both numerical symbol notations and number-name words in a variety of natural languages and contexts. Next, we demonstrate the ability to distinguish between colors and numbers, and to distinguish between 17th century Dutch painters; the ability to understand electrical terms, religious terms, and emergency incidents; we conduct a massive experiment in understanding WordNet categories; and finally we demonstrate the ability to do a simple automatic English-Spanish translation.
Automatic Meaning Discovery Using Google
Authors: Rudi Cilibrasi (CWI), Paul M. B. Vitanyi (CWI, University of Amsterdam, National ICT of Australia)
Comments: 31 pages, 10 figures; eliminated some typos etc. On pages 1-3 corrected Eq (1) and handcrafted horse-rider and by-with examples using now 10 decimal precision
Subj-class: Computation and Language; Artificial Intelligence; Databases; Information Retrieval; Learning
ACM-class: I.2.4; I.2.7
We have found a method to automatically extract the meaning of words and phrases from the world-wide-web using Google page counts. The approach is novel in its unrestricted problem domain, simplicity of implementation, and manifestly ontological underpinnings. The world-wide-web is the largest database on earth, and the latent semantic context information entered by millions of independent users averages out to provide automatic meaning of useful quality. We demonstrate positive correlations, evidencing an underlying semantic structure, in both numerical symbol notations and number-name words in a variety of natural languages and contexts. Next, we demonstrate the ability to distinguish between colors and numbers, and to distinguish between 17th century Dutch painters; the ability to understand electrical terms, religious terms, and emergency incidents; we conduct a massive experiment in understanding WordNet categories; and finally we demonstrate the ability to do a simple automatic English-Spanish translation.
Good Morning Silicon Valley: iTunes saves "The Office" from NBC-series-in-jello gag
Digital copies 'save' a show from cancelation.
Is iTunes a better indication than Neilson ratings? Could "My So called Life" have been saved?
Good Morning Silicon Valley: iTunes saves "The Office" from NBC-series-in-jello gag
Is iTunes a better indication than Neilson ratings? Could "My So called Life" have been saved?
Good Morning Silicon Valley: iTunes saves "The Office" from NBC-series-in-jello gag
Gathering to Celebrate Food Made the Old, Slow Way - New York Times
Seed saving at slow food festival, as reported in the New York Times
Gathering to Celebrate Food Made the Old, Slow Way - New York Times: "Seed diversity was another a rallying cry. “Every seed saved is a seed of freedom for the farmer,” said Vandana Shiva, a physicist and author from New Delhi and a leader of the anti-globalization movement. Her seed manifesto was in the hands of many people at Terra Madre.
Workshops explored the disappearing stock of seed varieties and the growth of seeds engineered to produce only one crop, which sends the farmer back to the large corporations to buy more each year."
Gathering to Celebrate Food Made the Old, Slow Way - New York Times: "Seed diversity was another a rallying cry. “Every seed saved is a seed of freedom for the farmer,” said Vandana Shiva, a physicist and author from New Delhi and a leader of the anti-globalization movement. Her seed manifesto was in the hands of many people at Terra Madre.
Workshops explored the disappearing stock of seed varieties and the growth of seeds engineered to produce only one crop, which sends the farmer back to the large corporations to buy more each year."
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Lost in Light � 8mm film to video project
Lost in Light � About: "This is a project about the 8mm film format. But 8mm is dead, you say? On the contrary! Not only is the format alive with innovation by filmmakers around the world, but hours and hours of Super 8 and regular 8mm film exist in attics and basements the world over—as home movies, educational films, works of art—that is slowly fading from the historical record.
We’re here to preserve that record before these films are lost, and to make those films available for viewing by the public and for use by artists seeking new, compelling footage. Lost in Light is a project devoted to preserving, showcasing, and celebrating films created on the small-gauge 8mm film format.
To that end, we provide free Super 8 and 8mm to video transfers to anyone who asks, in exchange for posting their video to the Lost in Light site and on the Internet Archive with their choice of Creative Commons licenses. In addition, Lost in Light includes articles and features by members of the filmmaking and film preservation communities, video tutorials for making 8mm films, as well as creative work, all with the goal of preserving and championing this important film format.
Lost in Light is a labor of love by Aaron Valdez and Jennifer Proctor. We are filmmakers who love small-gauge filmmaking, and we maintain this project at no profit to ourselves. "
We’re here to preserve that record before these films are lost, and to make those films available for viewing by the public and for use by artists seeking new, compelling footage. Lost in Light is a project devoted to preserving, showcasing, and celebrating films created on the small-gauge 8mm film format.
To that end, we provide free Super 8 and 8mm to video transfers to anyone who asks, in exchange for posting their video to the Lost in Light site and on the Internet Archive with their choice of Creative Commons licenses. In addition, Lost in Light includes articles and features by members of the filmmaking and film preservation communities, video tutorials for making 8mm films, as well as creative work, all with the goal of preserving and championing this important film format.
Lost in Light is a labor of love by Aaron Valdez and Jennifer Proctor. We are filmmakers who love small-gauge filmmaking, and we maintain this project at no profit to ourselves. "
Apple's iPod code 'cracked' - Digital Music - Gadgets - Technology - smh.com.au
Apple's iPod code 'cracked' - Digital Music - Gadgets - Technology - smh.com.au
From Asher Moses in the Sydney Morning Herald
From Asher Moses in the Sydney Morning Herald
Apple's iPod code 'cracked
Asher Moses
October 24, 2006
Cracked the code ... Jon Lech Johansen.
Cracked the code ... Jon Lech Johansen.
Photo: AP
AdvertisementAdvertisement
The iPod has just had its fifth birthday, but Apple's celebrations may be cut short thanks to a 22-year-old Norwegian who claims he's cracked Apple's proprietary iPod-iTunes ecosystem.
Jon Lech Johansen, affectionately known as DVD Jon, garnered worldwide fame and notoriety when, at the age of 15, he cracked the encryption scheme used by DVD. This allowed for DVDs to be copied and played back on any device.
Now Johansen claims he's mastered the inner workings of the iPod and its FairPlay encryption technology, allowing him to remove many of the restrictions Apple places on its users.
Today, songs purchased from Apple's iTunes store can't be played on non-iPod devices, and, if you've bought songs from other music stores, the chances are you won't be able to play them on the iPod either since they use a form of copy protection that Apple doesn't support.
Johansen's latest company, DoubleTwist, has developed programs to get around these restrictions, and plans to license them to digital music stores that are looking to sell copy-protected songs capable of being played on the iPod.
Johansen's driving force is his belief that users have the right to listen to songs they have bought legally on any device they own.
"Today's reality is that there's this iTunes-iPod ecosystem that excludes everyone else from the market," he told Fortune magazine.
"I don't like closed systems," he added.
Specific details on how his programs work are as yet unknown, but it's understood that they trick an iPod into thinking it's playing an iTunes-purchased song by emulating Apple's own FairPlay encryption technology.
Unlocking the iPod-iTunes ecosystem is seen by many as a good thing for consumers, as it will most likely result in increased competition to the iTunes Store, possibly resulting in lower prices and a higher quality service.
DoubleTwist has already signed its first client, which it refuses to name. It remains to be seen whether or not other companies will license the technology, as it's possible they could be sued by Apple.
Johansen says that his new business is operating well within the law, because, rather than removing protection, his programs are technically adding copy protection.
"The law protects copyrights, but it doesn't keep you locked into the iPod," Johansen told Fortune.
Whether or not US law agrees with him remains to be seen, and may only be determinable in court since there are few previous cases that can be used as precedents.
A spokesman for Apple Australia refused to comment on this story, and would not confirm or deny whether or not Apple would be taking legal action against DoubleTwist.
Either way, Johansen doesn't appear to be concerned, as indicated by the title of his personal blog: So Sue Me.
Recording industry targets Aussie downloaders - Digital Music - Gadgets
My understanding is that the individuals who have been targeted by the music industry in the US were those who made files available for download rather than those who downloaded. Article is ambiguous about this.
It would seem an invasion of privacy and undue burdon if ISPs were asked to moniter and police the online activity of their customers.
Recording industry targets Aussie downloaders - Digital Music - Gadgets
Recording industry targets Aussie downloaders
Asher Moses
October 31, 2006
Chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, John Kennedy.
Chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, John Kennedy.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
The peak body representing the interests of the world's music companies has issued a stern warning to Australians: obtain your music illegally and we'll get your internet provider to terminate your service.
John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), will be meeting members of the local music industry today to formulate a strategy around clamping down on people who download pirated music.
Mr Kennedy, who is based in London, arrived in Sydney on Sunday for the ARIA Awards.
He plans to first approach internet service providers (ISPs), urging them to terminate the contracts of those who obtain their music through illegal means.
"What we hope is our next step is to engage ISPs in performing a role in dealing with piracy online," he said.
Mr Kennedy added that the terms and conditions of most ISPs state that "if you infringe copyright they will disconnect you", but he said these provisions were "hidden further down".
If ISPs refuse to co-operate, Mr Kennedy said he would take his requests up to Australian politicians.
"We're saying to governments: 'If the ISPs aren't willing to do this on a voluntary basis, isn't this something you're prepared to regulate?' " he said.
To date, targeting individuals for music piracy has occurred mainly in the US and Europe.
Earlier this month, the IFPI launched 8000 lawsuits against alleged file-sharers in 17 countries.
The industry has up until now filed approximately 18,000 lawsuits in the United States and 13,000 in the rest of the world.
Mr Kennedy admits that the measures he has taking are "draconian", but said it was the only way to convince users to obtain their music legally.
"It's very hard to shift those who have got into the habit of taking their music illegally," he said.
"Free is very difficult to compete with.
"It would be wonderful to think that human nature is such that if you point out online piracy isn't a victimless crime ... this would be an awakening ... [for] consumers and they would suddenly go to consume their music legally. Life isn't like that, unfortunately."
In a recent report, the IFPI said global digital music sales climbed 106 per cent during the first six months of 2006, to $US945 million ($1.2 billion). This represents 11 per cent of worldwide recorded music sales.
But in total, music sales are down 4 per cent during the same six-month period, a result of lagging compact disc sales.
While his campaign in Australia "hasn't really started" yet, Mr Kennedy said that global support had been "close to zero".
But political support was beginning to ramp up, he said.
"When we first started the fight against online piracy, we were in a very hostile market. Media and politicians seem to be concerned about taking a draconian approach," he said.
"And then when we sat down and discussed it ... there was a sea change and they realised that if we didn't take action, then this industry, which provided employment and nurtured talent and helped local culture and delivered wonderful entertainment to consumers was going to fall to its knees."
Taking action at the ISP level is seen as the next step up from flagging the illegal use of copyrighted music on services such as MySpace and YouTube.
Today MySpace announced that it would use "audio fingerprinting" technology to block its users from uploading copyright music.
The company said users who repeatedly attempted to upload copyright music files would be barred permanently from the site.
It would seem an invasion of privacy and undue burdon if ISPs were asked to moniter and police the online activity of their customers.
Recording industry targets Aussie downloaders - Digital Music - Gadgets
Recording industry targets Aussie downloaders
Asher Moses
October 31, 2006
Chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, John Kennedy.
Chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, John Kennedy.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
The peak body representing the interests of the world's music companies has issued a stern warning to Australians: obtain your music illegally and we'll get your internet provider to terminate your service.
John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), will be meeting members of the local music industry today to formulate a strategy around clamping down on people who download pirated music.
Mr Kennedy, who is based in London, arrived in Sydney on Sunday for the ARIA Awards.
He plans to first approach internet service providers (ISPs), urging them to terminate the contracts of those who obtain their music through illegal means.
"What we hope is our next step is to engage ISPs in performing a role in dealing with piracy online," he said.
Mr Kennedy added that the terms and conditions of most ISPs state that "if you infringe copyright they will disconnect you", but he said these provisions were "hidden further down".
If ISPs refuse to co-operate, Mr Kennedy said he would take his requests up to Australian politicians.
"We're saying to governments: 'If the ISPs aren't willing to do this on a voluntary basis, isn't this something you're prepared to regulate?' " he said.
To date, targeting individuals for music piracy has occurred mainly in the US and Europe.
Earlier this month, the IFPI launched 8000 lawsuits against alleged file-sharers in 17 countries.
The industry has up until now filed approximately 18,000 lawsuits in the United States and 13,000 in the rest of the world.
Mr Kennedy admits that the measures he has taking are "draconian", but said it was the only way to convince users to obtain their music legally.
"It's very hard to shift those who have got into the habit of taking their music illegally," he said.
"Free is very difficult to compete with.
"It would be wonderful to think that human nature is such that if you point out online piracy isn't a victimless crime ... this would be an awakening ... [for] consumers and they would suddenly go to consume their music legally. Life isn't like that, unfortunately."
In a recent report, the IFPI said global digital music sales climbed 106 per cent during the first six months of 2006, to $US945 million ($1.2 billion). This represents 11 per cent of worldwide recorded music sales.
But in total, music sales are down 4 per cent during the same six-month period, a result of lagging compact disc sales.
While his campaign in Australia "hasn't really started" yet, Mr Kennedy said that global support had been "close to zero".
But political support was beginning to ramp up, he said.
"When we first started the fight against online piracy, we were in a very hostile market. Media and politicians seem to be concerned about taking a draconian approach," he said.
"And then when we sat down and discussed it ... there was a sea change and they realised that if we didn't take action, then this industry, which provided employment and nurtured talent and helped local culture and delivered wonderful entertainment to consumers was going to fall to its knees."
Taking action at the ISP level is seen as the next step up from flagging the illegal use of copyrighted music on services such as MySpace and YouTube.
Today MySpace announced that it would use "audio fingerprinting" technology to block its users from uploading copyright music.
The company said users who repeatedly attempted to upload copyright music files would be barred permanently from the site.
remixes and current copyright law
Report on Legal Scholars Damien O'Brien and Brian Fitzgerald ponder the question of remixes and mash-ups under current Australian copyright law. Story refers to this paper: O'Brien, Damien and Fitzgerald, Brian (2006) Mashups, remixes and copyright law. Internet Law Bulletin 9(2):pp. 17-19.
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00004239/
YouTubers cut and paste at their peril - Technology - smh.com.au
From the Sydney Morning Herald
YouTubers cut and paste at their peril
Asher Moses
October 30, 2006 - 11:32AM
AdvertisementAdvertisement
The days of anything goes on YouTube are over. If you're planning on using copyrighted content as part of your own creative masterpiece, you're more or less inviting legal action, says a new research paper.
The paper, authored by Damien O'Brien and Brian Fitzgerald of Queensland University of Technology, identifies "remixes" and "mash-ups" of copyrighted content as a critical factor that's been overlooked by the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, in his new copyright reforms, announced on May 14.
"We now inhabit a 'remix culture', a culture which is dominated by amateur creators - creators who are no longer willing to be merely passive receptors of content," the paper reads.
"The challenge for creativity and the economy of digital content production is the extent to which mash-up and remix artists should be allowed to borrow."
YouTube serves more than 100 million short video clips per day, which includes many from amateur film producers who use copyrighted material in conjunction with their own creativity to develop something new. Permission from the original copyright owners is rarely sought.
One example cited in the paper is a video remix from December last year, where a Perth group called Dean Gray uploaded a remixed version of Green Day's album American Idiot - dubbed American Edit - to the internet.
"Within days they received a cease and desist letter on behalf of Warner Bros and Green Day," the paper reads.
"Dean Gray is like many of a new generation of amateur creators. They can sit at home in the bedroom and produce the most wonderful things. Most often they do not want money. Merely, they wish to share the finished product with the world."
The paper poses the question: should Dean Gray (and authors of other remixes) pay for a licence, even if their clip is non-commercial and doesn't necessarily rob Green Day of album sales?
Under current copyright laws, unless permission has been given in advance through an open content licence, such as Creative Commons, according to the law the answer is "yes".
"The exclusive rights of the copyright owner over acts such as reproduction/copying, communication, adaptation and performance - unless licensed openly - by their very nature reduce the ability to negotiate copyright material without permission," says the paper.
The copyright reforms announced by Mr Ruddock do little to remedy the issue, which means legal action could be taken against Australian mash-up and remix artists, says the paper.
"There appears to be no provision for any fair dealing exception for mash-ups or remixes which are highly transformative, non-commercial derivatives that do not compete with the primary market of the copyright owner."
The legal implications of this could be felt sooner rather than later, having already surfaced in the US. It appears copyright owners are far more confident in taking legal action against YouTube now it has the weight of Google's substantive cash reserves behind it.
On October 20, YouTube removed no less than 29,549 videos that used material from Japanese copyright holders without permission. Six days later the site removed 1000 sports videos (including Australian Open Tennis footage), while on Friday YouTube removed all clips taken from The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and South Park, at the request of Comedy Central.
About the Author
Brian Fitzgerald
Law School, Queensland University of Technology
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/about/staff/lsstaff/fitzgerald.jsp
Professor Brian Fitzgerald
BA (Griff) LLB (Hons) (QUT) BCL (Oxon.) LLM (Harv.) PhD (Griff)
Head of Law School, QUT Brisbane Australia
Brian is a well-known intellectual property and information technology lawyer. He has published articles on Law and the Internet in Australia, the United States, Europe, Nepal, India, Canada and Japan and his latest (co-authored) books are Cyberlaw: Cases and Materials on the Internet, Digital Intellectual Property and E Commerce (2002); Jurisdiction and the Internet (2004); Intellectual Property in Principle (2004). Brian is also Project Leader for the DEST funded Open Access to Knowledge Law Project OAK Law Project, looking at legal protocols for open access to the Australian research sector. His current projects include work on intellectual property issues across the areas of Copyright and the Creative Industries in China, Open Content Licensing and the Creative Commons, Free and Open Source Software, Research Use of Patents, Science Commons, e-Research, Licensing of Digital Entertainment and Anti-Circumvention Law. Brian is a Project Leader for Creative Commons in Australia. From 1998-2002 Brian was Head of the School of Law and Justice at Southern Cross University in New South Wales, Australia and in January 2002 was appointed as Head of the School of Law at QUT in Brisbane, Australia.
Damien O'Brien
Law School, Queensland University of Technology
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/
Damien is a research assistant with the law school’s Intellectual Property: Knowledge, Culture and Economy research program at Queensland University of Technology. Damien holds a bachelor of laws and a graduate certificate in international studies (international relations). His research interests include copyright law, internet law and other associated technology law issues.
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00004239/
YouTubers cut and paste at their peril - Technology - smh.com.au
From the Sydney Morning Herald
YouTubers cut and paste at their peril
Asher Moses
October 30, 2006 - 11:32AM
AdvertisementAdvertisement
The days of anything goes on YouTube are over. If you're planning on using copyrighted content as part of your own creative masterpiece, you're more or less inviting legal action, says a new research paper.
The paper, authored by Damien O'Brien and Brian Fitzgerald of Queensland University of Technology, identifies "remixes" and "mash-ups" of copyrighted content as a critical factor that's been overlooked by the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, in his new copyright reforms, announced on May 14.
"We now inhabit a 'remix culture', a culture which is dominated by amateur creators - creators who are no longer willing to be merely passive receptors of content," the paper reads.
"The challenge for creativity and the economy of digital content production is the extent to which mash-up and remix artists should be allowed to borrow."
YouTube serves more than 100 million short video clips per day, which includes many from amateur film producers who use copyrighted material in conjunction with their own creativity to develop something new. Permission from the original copyright owners is rarely sought.
One example cited in the paper is a video remix from December last year, where a Perth group called Dean Gray uploaded a remixed version of Green Day's album American Idiot - dubbed American Edit - to the internet.
"Within days they received a cease and desist letter on behalf of Warner Bros and Green Day," the paper reads.
"Dean Gray is like many of a new generation of amateur creators. They can sit at home in the bedroom and produce the most wonderful things. Most often they do not want money. Merely, they wish to share the finished product with the world."
The paper poses the question: should Dean Gray (and authors of other remixes) pay for a licence, even if their clip is non-commercial and doesn't necessarily rob Green Day of album sales?
Under current copyright laws, unless permission has been given in advance through an open content licence, such as Creative Commons, according to the law the answer is "yes".
"The exclusive rights of the copyright owner over acts such as reproduction/copying, communication, adaptation and performance - unless licensed openly - by their very nature reduce the ability to negotiate copyright material without permission," says the paper.
The copyright reforms announced by Mr Ruddock do little to remedy the issue, which means legal action could be taken against Australian mash-up and remix artists, says the paper.
"There appears to be no provision for any fair dealing exception for mash-ups or remixes which are highly transformative, non-commercial derivatives that do not compete with the primary market of the copyright owner."
The legal implications of this could be felt sooner rather than later, having already surfaced in the US. It appears copyright owners are far more confident in taking legal action against YouTube now it has the weight of Google's substantive cash reserves behind it.
On October 20, YouTube removed no less than 29,549 videos that used material from Japanese copyright holders without permission. Six days later the site removed 1000 sports videos (including Australian Open Tennis footage), while on Friday YouTube removed all clips taken from The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and South Park, at the request of Comedy Central.
About the Author
Brian Fitzgerald
Law School, Queensland University of Technology
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/about/staff/lsstaff/fitzgerald.jsp
Professor Brian Fitzgerald
BA (Griff) LLB (Hons) (QUT) BCL (Oxon.) LLM (Harv.) PhD (Griff)
Head of Law School, QUT Brisbane Australia
Brian is a well-known intellectual property and information technology lawyer. He has published articles on Law and the Internet in Australia, the United States, Europe, Nepal, India, Canada and Japan and his latest (co-authored) books are Cyberlaw: Cases and Materials on the Internet, Digital Intellectual Property and E Commerce (2002); Jurisdiction and the Internet (2004); Intellectual Property in Principle (2004). Brian is also Project Leader for the DEST funded Open Access to Knowledge Law Project OAK Law Project, looking at legal protocols for open access to the Australian research sector. His current projects include work on intellectual property issues across the areas of Copyright and the Creative Industries in China, Open Content Licensing and the Creative Commons, Free and Open Source Software, Research Use of Patents, Science Commons, e-Research, Licensing of Digital Entertainment and Anti-Circumvention Law. Brian is a Project Leader for Creative Commons in Australia. From 1998-2002 Brian was Head of the School of Law and Justice at Southern Cross University in New South Wales, Australia and in January 2002 was appointed as Head of the School of Law at QUT in Brisbane, Australia.
Damien O'Brien
Law School, Queensland University of Technology
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/
Damien is a research assistant with the law school’s Intellectual Property: Knowledge, Culture and Economy research program at Queensland University of Technology. Damien holds a bachelor of laws and a graduate certificate in international studies (international relations). His research interests include copyright law, internet law and other associated technology law issues.
The You Tube Comedy Central Purge
you tube purge reporting in mediabistro.com: FishBowlNY
mediabistro.com: FishBowlNY
mediabistro.com: FishBowlNY
This morning's New York Times reported that YouTube is "purging" copyrighted clips — from some of YouTube stalwarts like the Daily Show, Colbert Report and South Park — in preparation for the finalizing of its $1.65 billion sale to Google.
The Times, however, was relying on "'third-party notification by Comedy Central' according to one such e-mail message sent to a YouTube user, Jeff Reifman, who broke the news on the Web site NewsCloud." YouTube did not respond to the Times.
FishbowlNY spent about 25 minutes on YouTube this afternoon, and the news of an all-out purge seems to have been a bit premature. For instance, a user named "SouthParkSeason10" reports he "just recently got suspended," yet his "Director's Channel" page continues to play clips of the show.
A simple search for "south park" turned up 6,714 results — and not one of the handful of clips we checked [including the one above] had been pulled.
According to some users, it appears that clips under 5 minutes in were not removed. Those over 5 minutes were.
YouTube has yet to respond to FishbowlNY's e-mails seeking comment.
Posted by Dylan | 03:15 PM | TV
MySpace takes steps against copyright infringement - Los Angeles Times
Word of Mouth is every marketers dream. Yet My Space is taking steps against it in their attempt to prevent users from uploading copyrighted songs to their My Space pages.
Not only does this make their product less powerful for both users and marketers, but it also gives an advantage to their independent competitors who allow people to pass on the message their trying to convey and (hopefully) sell.
Reuters story as published in the LA Times
MySpace takes steps against copyright infringement
From Reuters
October 31, 2006
News Corp.'s MySpace.com said Monday that it had licensed a technology to stop users from posting unauthorized copyrighted music on the social networking website and oust frequent violators of its policy.
The move comes amid pressure from major studios and record labels against popular online sites such as MySpace and YouTube, which they accuse of infringing the copyrights of their artists' music and videos.
Santa Monica-based MySpace, one of the most popular sites on the Internet, licensed technology from privately held Gracenote Inc. enabling it to review music recordings uploaded by community members to their profiles.
The technology compares those filed with Gracenote's database of copyrighted material and can block uploads without proper rights. Terms of the licensing agreement were not disclosed.
Popular sites such as MySpace and YouTube are littered with copyrighted music and video posted by legions of users, who hope to share them with friends and strangers alike.
Both sites say they remove unauthorized copyrighted material when notified.
But MySpace, increasingly seen as a destination to see and hear music and video, will soon begin selling songs from nearly 3 million unsigned bands. It aims to eventually offer copyright-protected songs from major record companies.
Once Emeryville, Calif.-based Gracenote's technology is integrated into its service, users who repeatedly try to upload unauthorized music will have their accounts deleted, MySpace said.
YouTube, which recently agreed to be acquired by Google Inc., has similar aspirations to cash in on Web video use and protect itself from legal challenges.
EMI Group, Vivendi's Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment own about 75% of mainstream popular music. Most of this music is available on MySpace only for live streaming as a promotional tool.
MySpace was acquired by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. for $580 million less than a year ago. It boasts more than 90 million active users.
Not only does this make their product less powerful for both users and marketers, but it also gives an advantage to their independent competitors who allow people to pass on the message their trying to convey and (hopefully) sell.
Reuters story as published in the LA Times
MySpace takes steps against copyright infringement
From Reuters
October 31, 2006
News Corp.'s MySpace.com said Monday that it had licensed a technology to stop users from posting unauthorized copyrighted music on the social networking website and oust frequent violators of its policy.
The move comes amid pressure from major studios and record labels against popular online sites such as MySpace and YouTube, which they accuse of infringing the copyrights of their artists' music and videos.
Santa Monica-based MySpace, one of the most popular sites on the Internet, licensed technology from privately held Gracenote Inc. enabling it to review music recordings uploaded by community members to their profiles.
The technology compares those filed with Gracenote's database of copyrighted material and can block uploads without proper rights. Terms of the licensing agreement were not disclosed.
Popular sites such as MySpace and YouTube are littered with copyrighted music and video posted by legions of users, who hope to share them with friends and strangers alike.
Both sites say they remove unauthorized copyrighted material when notified.
But MySpace, increasingly seen as a destination to see and hear music and video, will soon begin selling songs from nearly 3 million unsigned bands. It aims to eventually offer copyright-protected songs from major record companies.
Once Emeryville, Calif.-based Gracenote's technology is integrated into its service, users who repeatedly try to upload unauthorized music will have their accounts deleted, MySpace said.
YouTube, which recently agreed to be acquired by Google Inc., has similar aspirations to cash in on Web video use and protect itself from legal challenges.
EMI Group, Vivendi's Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment own about 75% of mainstream popular music. Most of this music is available on MySpace only for live streaming as a promotional tool.
MySpace was acquired by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. for $580 million less than a year ago. It boasts more than 90 million active users.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Books banned in Australia
Book ban anger: it will hinder freedoms - National - smh.com.au
"The books, Join the Caravan and Defence of the Muslim Lands, were banned in July by the Classification Review Board after an application by the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, who was acting on advice from the federal police.
A ruling on a third book, The Lofty Mountain, is pending.
All were written by Abdullah Azzam, the so-called Godfather of Jihad, who was murdered in 1989."
"The books, Join the Caravan and Defence of the Muslim Lands, were banned in July by the Classification Review Board after an application by the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, who was acting on advice from the federal police.
A ruling on a third book, The Lofty Mountain, is pending.
All were written by Abdullah Azzam, the so-called Godfather of Jihad, who was murdered in 1989."
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Jefferson Debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jefferson Debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Thomas Jefferson's August 13, 1813 letter to Isaac McPherson read in part:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light "
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light "
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Fader on ITunes
What's a music magazine without the music? Media Bistro examines The Fader's decision to launch an iTunes "issue" and wonders why so many other magazines are so far behind in this regard.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Steely Dan: America's first men of the borrowed couch?
To what extent does an artist/writer/musician 'own' the characters they create once they've released their artwork/book/song into the public sphere?
70s studio band Steely Dan have written an open letter to actor Owen Wilson, via his brother Luke, essentially accusing the film he's starring in "You, Me and Dupree," of appropriating the character they created in their Grammy winning song "Cousin Dupree". They complain that they have not crediting them (or as seems more important in their letter, compensating them financially) in any way.
As Salon's Audiofile blog explains: "Both the song and film feature a moocher named Dupree living on a borrowed couch and getting up to no good, or as Becker and Fagen put it in their letter: "They, like, took our character, this real dog sleeping on the couch and all and put him in the middle of some hokey 'Down and Out in Beverly Hills' ripoff story and then, when it came time to change the character's name or whatever so people wouldn't know what a rip the whole thing was, THEY DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO THINK UP A NEW FUCKING NAME FOR THE GUY!"
It's a pretty funny letter but besides their, like, obviously ripping off the speech patterns of the youth of the nation and, like, not apologising for putting out crappy songs like "Rickey Don't Lose That Number" or other indulgent over-produced 70s numbers (watch the jaws drop when you play them Turn That Heartbeat Over Again) do they really believe that there was something terribly original about a a mooch on a borrowed couch? If their song had any resonance in the first place, it was because they captured something familiar, not really that they invented something new. The film in question certainly seems like a genre flick and that it pays open hommage to the name of the character in their song inserts that filmmaker's script into the artistic continuum of 70s couch moochers (and thankfully leaves out the whole kissing cousin part of the Steely Dan song story.) It's called clever writing.
But what Steely Dan actually seem worried about is money. They're making an intellectual property grab, an incresingly common occurence, and acting hard done by at the same time. However even under US copyright law, characters are only protected if they are significantly original and not stock characters-not sure that Dupree really qualifies.
Why they're targeting the actor and trying to shame him is another interesting development and can be seen as part of the ongoing attempt to change the public's mind about what constitutes ownership and fair use. (A PR campaign so they look like good guys instead of whining rich guys a la Metallica and Napster?) Indeed, do copyright holders even think of their work as going public anymore or has it become all about private market transactions?
Here's Ivan Hoffman, an American lawyer's take on copyright and trademark of characters.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Woody Guthrie on copyright
http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2004/07/27/woody_guthrie_on_copyright.php#comments
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
American Copyright law in verse
An amusing (if nerdy, in the best way possible) rendering of US copyright law into verse at Yehuda
iThenticate, Ann Coulter and intellectual property grabs
A while ago, I noted the existence of iParadigm, a company in the US who had gone into the business of finding instances of Plagarism in students work. I was also fascinated by their iThenticate, a similar service that looked for what could be deemed was the unliscensed use of material protected under copyright in other media. I was intrigued by this company because their entire business model was contingent on the ability to make and use copies of freely available material as well as licensed material. But more than an amusing irony, I also wondered if such a system could be used by companies with the money to use the service to make sweeping claims for intellectual property. It could prove to be a tangled web, afterall.
Here is an Editor & Publisher story that chronicles the accusations of plagarism against Columnist Ann Coulter via this aforementioned service.
Apart from the interesting issues of the potential for money being the only deciding factor in who gets to use and own copies, this whole saga brings up a lot of interesting ideas about originality and it's limits.
Whether or not the accusations against Coulter are true or false, I was thinking about how many popular columnists, musicians etc. are often not the most "original" creators, but instead they are folks who are good at distilling ideas that are bubbling up on the fringes to the mainstream or capturing the mood and ideas of something a large group of people are already thinking or talking about. Conservative columnists and politicians, talk radio etc are all particularly good at this. The mainstream music industry has also proved adept at creating a version of underground music that will sell to a broad audience. The oft cited example in this regard is Madonna, a genius at distilation and making something her own.
But I don't think that the limits of originality are only about commercial culture, a simple case of co-opting the little guy and telling people what they want to hear. I suspect that most of cultural creation is derivative in some sense.
In terms of non-fiction writing, there are only so many ways you can state a fact. When I write reported article, I assemble the facts according to the strictures of a genre and while I may be pleased with some turn of phrase or particularly proud of a quote I managed to get or fact I managed to unearth, I know that there probably won't be a lot of difference between my piece and someone else's who is similarly trained. The originality comes simply from how I link the information together. But what sort of "property" claim can I make on that is a big question and one we're all grappling with now.
While I recorgise that there are people who knowingly attempt to co-opt and commercialise the creative work that other people do, I don't think this also means that non-commercial or idependent cultural creation works outside a sphere of shared knowledge and common ideas. Perhaps the difference will be recognising what we owe to each other rather than trying to stake out our own territory. This may be the spot from which true originality may flow.
Here is an Editor & Publisher story that chronicles the accusations of plagarism against Columnist Ann Coulter via this aforementioned service.
Apart from the interesting issues of the potential for money being the only deciding factor in who gets to use and own copies, this whole saga brings up a lot of interesting ideas about originality and it's limits.
Whether or not the accusations against Coulter are true or false, I was thinking about how many popular columnists, musicians etc. are often not the most "original" creators, but instead they are folks who are good at distilling ideas that are bubbling up on the fringes to the mainstream or capturing the mood and ideas of something a large group of people are already thinking or talking about. Conservative columnists and politicians, talk radio etc are all particularly good at this. The mainstream music industry has also proved adept at creating a version of underground music that will sell to a broad audience. The oft cited example in this regard is Madonna, a genius at distilation and making something her own.
But I don't think that the limits of originality are only about commercial culture, a simple case of co-opting the little guy and telling people what they want to hear. I suspect that most of cultural creation is derivative in some sense.
In terms of non-fiction writing, there are only so many ways you can state a fact. When I write reported article, I assemble the facts according to the strictures of a genre and while I may be pleased with some turn of phrase or particularly proud of a quote I managed to get or fact I managed to unearth, I know that there probably won't be a lot of difference between my piece and someone else's who is similarly trained. The originality comes simply from how I link the information together. But what sort of "property" claim can I make on that is a big question and one we're all grappling with now.
While I recorgise that there are people who knowingly attempt to co-opt and commercialise the creative work that other people do, I don't think this also means that non-commercial or idependent cultural creation works outside a sphere of shared knowledge and common ideas. Perhaps the difference will be recognising what we owe to each other rather than trying to stake out our own territory. This may be the spot from which true originality may flow.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Village Voice, Code Warriors Jan 10, 2006
Education Supplement 2006
Code Warriors
Free culture takes flight at NYU
Code Warriors
Free culture takes flight at NYU
by Carla Blumenkranz
January 10th, 2006 11:32 AM
January 10th, 2006 11:32 AM
 Steal this look: Inga Chernyak and Fred Benenson photo: Brian Kennedy |
In fact, just explaining this maneuver may constitute aiding and abetting. "And for you to publish it!" Chernyak gasps. In response to cyberspace logistics, which create a copy each time a user takes a listen online, music industry corporate interests are bearing down hard on individual users, with a vast array of copyright protections on their side. It's a familiar story, and one that usually places the blame on "piracy," which supposedly robs artists of their due profits. But new ideas about the bounds of "fair use" are slowly shifting the blame to antiquated notions of intellectual property, for making copies a crime. Contrary to popular logic, there's an argument to be made that access to our common culture has never been as restricted as today, when the simple act of circulating a song comes with the threat of a lawsuit.
Chernyak and her friend Fred Benenson, a recent NYU graduate, make this argument at length, eyes widening. For them, the freedom to download music, as well as art in any medium, doesn't just mean sticking it to Sony: It's about maintaining a national tradition of grassroots cultural development. And if artists don't have access to our natural resources—if all digital copies are crimes—then that tradition, Chernyak says, is at risk. She and Benenson are the founders of Free Culture NYU, one chapter of what they predict will be the next great student movement. The man this time is RIAA, and Chernyak and Benenson are gearing up, cautiously, for a revolution.
Fittingly, they cribbed their arguments from the work of copyright lawyers— specifically, a popular 2004 nonfiction book called Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig. In the book, Lessig, a Stanford law professor, argues that piracy as we know it is just the latest development in technology distribution, and that this development makes it worth rethinking how we protect intellectual property. The American public shouldn't let corporations stifle our creative culture, he argues, simply because copyright legislation is working on outdated terms. Lessig says, in retrospect, that he never expected his book to inspire a student movement, but of course he's "thrilled." He had a hint, though, when he first came onto the campus scene in 2003 to help Free Culture's eventual founders, Swarthmore students Nelson Pavlosky and Luke Smith, take on Diebold, a voting-machine manufacturer. (Pavlosky and Smith had posted online some of the company's internal e-mails, and Diebold had responded by invoking copyright protections.) College campuses, Lessig notes, are natural incubators for Free Culture ideology. Today, a national network of chapters hosts websites, wikis, and blogs, as well as conventional meetings and protests. (The first regional Free Culture conference is scheduled for January 13 and 14 at Columbia.)
Despite some similarities, the movement hasn't lent itself easily to free-property ideology on the left, or free trade on the right. (This lack of partisan staging may be why Free Culture takes so much flack, from both sides, for not tackling more "important" problems.) Lessig remembers arriving at Swarthmore and finding "one self-acknowledged socialist," and "one self-acknowledged libertarian"; Chernyak proclaims herself a free-market radical, while Benenson broaches vague objections to American internationalism. What holds the group together is its consumer rights orientation: a broad and well-considered objection to the way copyright restrictions make most listeners and viewers into "passive consumers." Free Culture's mission is to convince students that the law, and not just their downloading habits, ought to work otherwise. "In a sense, we're a copyright reform organization," Chernyak explains. "What we aim to do is give direction to the way copyright reform is going to evolve."
At a recent meeting, Free Culture NYU, a dozen members strong, was exploding with responses to the latest in blogs. (Benenson says, "That in itself is tremendous, to have a weekly forum where you're talking about the cutting edge of copyright.") Then it was on to the group's best prospects for civil disobedience. Benenson, an aspiring digital artist, was advocating for a Free Culture–sponsored film-remixing contest: Tisch students would be presented with a feature film or two and, within a short time frame, encouraged to figure out what they can make of it.
As usual, the problem is copyright. Offer access to studio films too freely, and risk a lawsuit; then again, isn't risk, for these supposed rabble-rousers, just the point? An adult agitator who's been showing up lately—Trina Semorile, a former Ph.D. candidate at NYU's Steinhardt School of Education— keeps trying, clearly, to pull the group back to reality. Instead, what she's exposing is a generational gap. There are things worth being jailed for, she says—"a draft card," for example. It's the rhetoric of 20th-century activism. Benenson and Chernyak, however, are operating on different planes: not as part of a bottom-up, top-down struggle, but as a multi-dimensional network of players. Challenging copyright law isn't "about absolutes," Benenson tells Semorile. It's "about harm reduction": minimizing penalties and maximizing opportunities, for artists and audiences alike. More often than not, they have the same interests; they may even be the same people. And as the youth soccer league saying goes, when everyone plays, everyone wins.Monday, June 12, 2006
Saturday, June 10, 2006
see-through signs
An Amnesty International ad campaign that plays with photography as a copy of what's real how it can both be manipulated and bare witness. The real and the fake and the real again.
http://amnesty.ch/f/eminf/2006/celaexiste/index.html
http://amnesty.ch/f/eminf/2006/celaexiste/index.html
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Creative accounting: Creation as theft
It goes something like this:
"Good artists borrow. Great artists steal."
or
"Bad artists copy. Good artsists steal."
Variations on this quote have been attributed to Picasso, TS Eliot and Salvador Dali and that its exact mesage and authorship are a mystery, seems fitting. At the very the heart of this provacative statement is the idea that originality is a bit of a scam.
I thought I would start collecting variations on this theme of theft in creation as I come across them. I think its corollary is the struggle that creative people have with ideas about secrecy vrs. openness. (When you recognize theft as a part of your arsenal, perhaps it's natural to fear someone can turn your secret weapon against you.) It's a theme that seems precient in an era of great intellectual property grabs, and one I think Copy Culture will visit regularly.
"Good artists borrow. Great artists steal."
or
"Bad artists copy. Good artsists steal."
Variations on this quote have been attributed to Picasso, TS Eliot and Salvador Dali and that its exact mesage and authorship are a mystery, seems fitting. At the very the heart of this provacative statement is the idea that originality is a bit of a scam.
I thought I would start collecting variations on this theme of theft in creation as I come across them. I think its corollary is the struggle that creative people have with ideas about secrecy vrs. openness. (When you recognize theft as a part of your arsenal, perhaps it's natural to fear someone can turn your secret weapon against you.) It's a theme that seems precient in an era of great intellectual property grabs, and one I think Copy Culture will visit regularly.
If you keep your secrets from the market, the market will keep its secrets from you -- entrepreneurs too often worry about keeping their brilliant secrets locked away; we should all worry much more about springing a surprise on a disinterested market (anyone remember the Segway?). To quote Howard Aiken: "Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats."
- A SitePoint web designer on how he uses this idea of copying, stealing and borrowing to make something new.
- SOMETHING BORROWED Should a charge of plagiarism ruin your life?
- Blender Kitty, an illustrator and comic artist's take on the subject and art history
Whose Web 2.0?
Today the New York Times reports on the use of the term "Web 2.0".
Squabble Over Name Ruffles a Web Utopia
by Sarah Ivry
O'Reilly, an American publishing group who also run tech-related biz conferences, claimed that the use of the term Web 2.0 by a non-profit IT conference in Cork, Ireland, was an infringement of their trademark.
See the blog by one of IT@Cork's organizers, Tom Raftery, for the letters from O'Reilly and their perspective.
And the O'Reilly Radar Blog has their account of what happened.
Squabble Over Name Ruffles a Web Utopia
by Sarah Ivry
O'Reilly, an American publishing group who also run tech-related biz conferences, claimed that the use of the term Web 2.0 by a non-profit IT conference in Cork, Ireland, was an infringement of their trademark.
See the blog by one of IT@Cork's organizers, Tom Raftery, for the letters from O'Reilly and their perspective.
And the O'Reilly Radar Blog has their account of what happened.
Friday, May 26, 2006
second life for virtual game
Clive Thompson (Collision Detection) has a nice piece on wired about Tringo, a game within a game in Second Life, that is getting a real-world launch.
Read it here: http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70945-0.html?tw=rss.index
Read it here: http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70945-0.html?tw=rss.index
Fired for Blogging
Jessaisms was fired from her job at an aquarium in Philadelphia for her blog. The museum also threatened legal action if it wasn't dismantled. She did so. But, a cached copy of the blog before the action still exists so the copy outlives the original.
*************************
Blogebrity story
Interns? No Bloggers Need Apply from the New York Times (rather heavy-handed in terms of how young people "handle the transition to corporate life" but it's a trend story so this sort of overwrought analysis comes with the territory.)
*************************
Blogebrity story
Interns? No Bloggers Need Apply from the New York Times (rather heavy-handed in terms of how young people "handle the transition to corporate life" but it's a trend story so this sort of overwrought analysis comes with the territory.)
Thursday, May 25, 2006
recorded music and the abyss
From my friend Evan's Blog
Sunday, May 21, 2006
do you speak javanese??????
Current mood:anxious
Category: Musicif so, you might be able to help me recover one of the greatest recorded pieces of music I've ever heard.
I'm an obsessive collector of musical recordings. a consummate nerd, especially in terms of vinyl. And I am ever grateful that we possess the technology to record music. Imagine if it were otherwise: not only would music be less sophisticated since artists would no longer be capable of responding to a rich historical precedent of other musicians, but also (more disturbingly) any music could only exist in the single instance of its originary performance, never to be repeated again. As soon as the unrecorded music is heard it is simultaneously exiled into oblivion, destroyed and never capable of being experienced again, unless of course through imitation, which always makes it not quite the same. When performed music remains unrecorded it slips into the void before our ears can even take the time to fully imbibe the richness of what is offered, and that is an abomination.
Years ago I saw a friends' rock band perform at the BQE lounge. The music was an artsy electronic experiment that evoked aspects of both Robert Hood's minimalist abstraction and Brian Eno's ambient works. It was arresting and beautifully melancholy. I was enraptured, so was everyone attending. The haunting and doleful synth patches transformed the otherwise raucous patrons of the bar into quiet, introverted bodies, no longer intent on loud social interaction. I was impressed. After the performance I marched over to the band to congratulate them on their success, but also to determine when a recording might be available. Sadly, no. The recording equipment failed. Could the band at least reattempt an approximation of what was earlier achieved? No, it was a one time only experiment. What? You mean to say that I'll never hear this music again? Precisely so.
Music mimics the ontological character of our lives. It is temporal in both senses of the word, that is to say, 1 ) music happens through time, and 2) it is essentially ephemeral. Much like our lives, performed music exists never in a perfected instant (except in the form of sheet music), but as a flow that moves through time, and it exists as we do with a deadline; it's terminus is always audibly anticipated.
Recordings, however, change the rules. Recordings (as with any system of writing as Derrida would note) defer the oblivion attached to the transient sound. A record allows me to listen to the same piece of music again, and again, ad infinitum. The recording staves off the death. ...ah, now the depth of my neurosis is more clear. There is a distinct link between my archival obsessions and mortal anxiety, I will admit that. But you cannot deny the beauty of how recordings (audio, or visual; what is said of music is equally valid in terms of film) reassuringly suggest a quality of permanence in a world where absolutely everything else is doomed to disappear into an abyss that is unyielding.
This leads me to consider some of my greatest musical experiences of my life and whether or not I can attain recordings of these performances. Two experiences spring to mind. The first takes me back to Somerville, Massachusetts, Summer 1991. I was a long-haired hippie doing school courses in philosophy in Cambridge, but I was spending the the majority of my time taking mushrooms with other hippie friends who lived in the neighboring county of Somerville. (surprised?) We would regularly convene at one friend's house who was roommates with an old delta blues man named "Watermelon Slim." (no kidding, honest.) Slim stood over 6' 3", was white, sported an impressively well-groomed moustache, spoke with an impenetrably dense southern drawl...and he was arguably one of the greatest living pundits on the blues. Many of the fellow hippies at the party were Berkley Music School kids. They knew their shit, and they revered Watermelon Slim as God. I found out why one night after Slim decided to bust out the steel guitar and slide after putting back 2 mugs of mushroom tea. He played a rolling medley of classics (muddy waters, howlin' wolf, robert johnson, etc.) for something like four straight hours while the whole house of hippie kids (about 15 of us) sat transfixed, wordless, barely remembering to breathe. Afterwards I thought that I witnessed the best music I've heard. ever. Years later I realized how tragic it was that it was not recorded. Perhaps there are recordings of Slim now? doubtful. In 1991 he was an alcoholic in his 60's who had no success at all in the music industry. In all likliehood Slim and his music have left us forever.
The second greatest experience takes me back only four years to an Indonesian restaurant on East 4th Street in New York City. One night I had dinner with 2 old friends at this establishment. During the meal the owners of the restaurant played tapes of music from Southeast Asia. One tape stood out. It was a recording of 150 Javanese boys playing the gamelon. Holy Shit! It was stunning. Loopy, percussive, cyclical rhythms, densley layered and reminiscent of Steve Reich. Trance inducing and hypnotic. I was smitten. After the meal I requested to buy the tape. No such luck. Sadly, not for sale. bummer. Months later I went back with $80 in my pocket. Ready to shell out for a recording that I figured was worth preserving. Unfortunately the tape was missing....fuckkk!!!!!!!!
It would seem that I'm doomed to never acquire the tape; there is however a faint glimmer of hope. I have the name of the tape. Here it is: JARANAN GENDHING GENDHING DOLANAN OLEH PAK KATNO DENGAM PUTRA 2. I tried googling this info. no success. also my handwriting is a bit sloppy when I copied the "dengam" part, it might actually say, "densaw"...not quite sure.
This is a most inauspicious predicament. It would seem that the gamelon recordings have eluded my grasp and have (like so many other musical experiences) vanished into oblivion. If, however, you know Javanese, you might be able to help. Does the title of my tape mean anything to you? Please let me know. Seriously.
I have remote and unlikely fantasies of becoming an English school teacher in Jakarta, who, once fluent in the regional dialects, could become better acquainted with the Indonesian music recording industry. Then perhaps I could parlay my skills into those elite circles that would know the tape that I heard only once, but have been haunted by for years. Wouldn't that be a journey! All to save some music from the abyss, so that one day my ungrateful grandkids can hear it with all of my dusty, old house records from the early 90s. Ha!
Currently listening:
Dins
By Psychic Ills
Release date: By 07 February, 2006
Monday, May 15, 2006
Kevin Kelly on Google Books in New York Times
Scan This Book
by kevin kelly in the New York Times Magazine (registration required)
on google books project
by kevin kelly in the New York Times Magazine (registration required)
on google books project
Sunday, May 14, 2006
It only takes one person to tell the truth
the copies do the rest...
"It only takes one person to tell the truth" is what Marx said as he was being led away by police at a public press conference between the Australian Prime Minster and (mostly) Australian Press during his official visit to the US
SBS - The World News
Construction worker Jay Marx repeatedly shouted "John Howard, get out of Iraq. The Bush administration is a sinking ship".
Mr Howard was speaking to journalists outside Blair House, the official residence where he and his wife Janette are staying as guests of President Bush.
Although Marx was at least 20 metres away from Mr Howard , he was clearly distracted the prime minister.
Eventually, secret service agents moved a black van to block his view of Howard.
Marx told journalists he had recognised Mr Howard after seeing Australian flags outside the White House.
"I know that the majority of Australian people oppose the war, I know that John Howard has supported the Bush administration from the get-go, and it's pathetic," he said.
Marx said he happened across the Australian PM by chance.
He was at nearby Lafayette Park for a mothers' rally organised by CODEPINK, a
women's peace group.
"It only takes one person to tell the truth" is what Marx said as he was being led away by police at a public press conference between the Australian Prime Minster and (mostly) Australian Press during his official visit to the US
SBS - The World News
Construction worker Jay Marx repeatedly shouted "John Howard, get out of Iraq. The Bush administration is a sinking ship".
Mr Howard was speaking to journalists outside Blair House, the official residence where he and his wife Janette are staying as guests of President Bush.
Although Marx was at least 20 metres away from Mr Howard , he was clearly distracted the prime minister.
Eventually, secret service agents moved a black van to block his view of Howard.
Marx told journalists he had recognised Mr Howard after seeing Australian flags outside the White House.
"I know that the majority of Australian people oppose the war, I know that John Howard has supported the Bush administration from the get-go, and it's pathetic," he said.
Marx said he happened across the Australian PM by chance.
He was at nearby Lafayette Park for a mothers' rally organised by CODEPINK, a
women's peace group.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Neil Young's 'Living With War' Shows He Doesn't Like It - New York Times
Neil Young's 'Living With War' Shows He Doesn't Like It - New York Times
More evidence that the Internet is the new folk tradition.
More evidence that the Internet is the new folk tradition.
Social Design Notes: Citizen Designer: Perspectives on Design Responsibility
Social Design Notes: Citizen Designer: Perspectives on Design Responsibility
review of the book Citizen Designer with reference to many issues of appropriation and cooption.
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-1581152655-0
review of the book Citizen Designer with reference to many issues of appropriation and cooption.
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-1581152655-0
Kaavya Viswanathan, plagarism and young adult novel
Novel by Harvard Author Pulled From Stores
Apr 27 8:17 PM US/Eastern
By HILLEL ITALIE
AP National Writer
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/27/D8H8LUJ00.html
Novelist Says She Read Copied Books Several Times
By DINITIA SMITH
Published: April 27, 2006 New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/books/27author.html
First, Plot and Character. Then, Find an Author.
By MOTOKO RICH and DINITIA SMITH
Published: April 27, 2006 New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/books/27pack.html
New York Times collection of stories
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/v/kaavya_viswanathan/index.html?inline=nyt-per
Kaavya Syndrome by Jonathon April 27 2006 Slate
http://www.slate.com/id/2140685/?nav=tap3
Apr 27 8:17 PM US/Eastern
By HILLEL ITALIE
AP National Writer
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/27/D8H8LUJ00.html
Novelist Says She Read Copied Books Several Times
By DINITIA SMITH
Published: April 27, 2006 New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/books/27author.html
First, Plot and Character. Then, Find an Author.
By MOTOKO RICH and DINITIA SMITH
Published: April 27, 2006 New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/books/27pack.html
New York Times collection of stories
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/v/kaavya_viswanathan/index.html?inline=nyt-per
Kaavya Syndrome by Jonathon April 27 2006 Slate
http://www.slate.com/id/2140685/?nav=tap3
Friday, April 28, 2006
Thursday, April 27, 2006
LexisNexis Media Relations - August 22, 2005 News Release
I'm wondering if I can get in "meta-trouble" for quoting their release on this blog.
LexisNexis Media Relations - August 22, 2005 News Release
Press Releases — July-September, 2005
New LexisNexis CopyGuard Combats Growing Problem of Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Material
LexisNexis and iParadigms Empower Businesses with the Most Extensive Anti-Plagiarism Solution
Next Release
Previous Release
Email This Page
Print This Page
RSS News Feeds
Search Press Center
>
Contact Information
LexisNexis:
Jennifer Aleknavage
jennifer.aleknavage@
lexisnexis.com
Local: (301) 951-4565
Press Release Archive
By category:
* Legal
* Business
* Risk
* General
By date:
* Current
* January-March 2006
* October-December 2005
* July-September 2005
* April-June 2005
* January-March 2005
DAYTON, OH, August 22, 2005 - LexisNexis U.S, a leading provider of news, business and legal information services, today announced the launch of the revolutionary new LexisNexis® CopyGuard™ solution to help detect plagiarism and copyright infringement and protect intellectual property. The LexisNexis CopyGuard product was co-developed with iParadigms, a leader in developing new technologies for intellectual property theft detection and for vetting intellectual property originality.
This innovative solution (www.lexisnexis.com/copyguard) enables users to verify content originality quickly and easily. Within minutes users can search efficiently across billions of documents. There are more than 6.1 billion searchable documents that are continuously updated through the LexisNexis® service, including deep archives, and four to five years of archived Web pages from iParadigms, which together create a vast collection of content in one place.
Once a document is submitted to the service, the LexisNexis CopyGuard solution uses advanced pattern-matching technology to identify suspect passages. It then produces a customized originality report that provides underlined excerpts of any relevant text matches and a "similarity index," which provides the exact percentage of text originating from elsewhere. It’s an easy and simple way to perform due diligence to detect plagiarism.
"We have a vested interest in this growing problem because of our long-standing relationships with media companies that go back 25 years or more," said Elizabeth Rector, senior vice president of Corporate and Federal Markets for LexisNexis. "By teaming up with the leading provider of plagiarism detection solutions, we can help our customers protect themselves against this growing threat."
Dr. John Barrie, President and CEO of iParadigms, says this alliance with LexisNexis creates a cutting-edge product for the corporate market.
"By bringing together a new search interface, the unparalleled depth and breadth of the LexisNexis database, our constantly growing archived copy of the Internet, and our advanced pattern-matching technology designed for searching whole documents, we have created a cutting-edge product that will benefit the media and business community," said Dr. Barrie. "There is a real need in the corporate market for an advanced solution like this."
For more information about the LexisNexis CopyGuard plagiarism deterrent solution, contact your LexisNexis account representative or call (800) 227-4908.
For more information about iParadigms, LLC, contact Malik AboRashid, director of Business Development & Sales, at (510) 287-9720, ext. 237, or mar@iparadigms.com.
About LexisNexis
LexisNexis® (www.lexisnexis.com) is a leader in comprehensive and authoritative legal, news and business information and tailored applications. A member of Reed Elsevier Group plc [NYSE: ENL; NYSE: RUK] (www.reedelsevier.com), the company does business in 100 countries with 13,000 employees worldwide. In addition to its flagship Web-based Lexis® and Nexis® research services, the company includes some of the world’s most respected legal publishers such as Martindale-Hubbell, Matthew Bender, Butterworths, JurisClasseur, Abeledo-Perrot and Orac.
LexisNexis works closely with its customers to address job-specific and organization-wide information needs, driving productivity and confident decision-making. With breaking news, legislation and regulations, business intelligence, intellectual property and public opinion, LexisNexis provides access to the interpretive data and the facts and figures that impact peoples’ business decisions across the globe.
About iParadigms, LLC
iParadigms, LLC (www.iparadigms.com) is the leading provider of Web-based solutions to check documents for originality and for misappropriation. The company’s products include iThenticate, used in the commercial world by publishers, news agencies, corporations, law firms, and governmental organizations for protection from piracy and detection of intellectual property misuse, due diligence fact checking for media, data comparison and originality, advanced specialized indexing of the Internet, database information and other content searches from publishers to e-government to non-profit organizations. The company also developed Turnitin®, an Internet-based service used by millions of students and faculty in over 80 countries to vet academic work for originality, to enable Web-based student collaboration, and to provide cutting-edge tools for digital assessment of academic work. iParadigms is headquartered in the San Francisco Bay area.
LexisNexis Media Relations - August 22, 2005 News Release
Press Releases — July-September, 2005
New LexisNexis CopyGuard Combats Growing Problem of Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Material
LexisNexis and iParadigms Empower Businesses with the Most Extensive Anti-Plagiarism Solution
Next Release
Previous Release
Email This Page
Print This Page
RSS News Feeds
Search Press Center
>
Contact Information
LexisNexis:
Jennifer Aleknavage
jennifer.aleknavage@
lexisnexis.com
Local: (301) 951-4565
Press Release Archive
By category:
* Legal
* Business
* Risk
* General
By date:
* Current
* January-March 2006
* October-December 2005
* July-September 2005
* April-June 2005
* January-March 2005
DAYTON, OH, August 22, 2005 - LexisNexis U.S, a leading provider of news, business and legal information services, today announced the launch of the revolutionary new LexisNexis® CopyGuard™ solution to help detect plagiarism and copyright infringement and protect intellectual property. The LexisNexis CopyGuard product was co-developed with iParadigms, a leader in developing new technologies for intellectual property theft detection and for vetting intellectual property originality.
This innovative solution (www.lexisnexis.com/copyguard) enables users to verify content originality quickly and easily. Within minutes users can search efficiently across billions of documents. There are more than 6.1 billion searchable documents that are continuously updated through the LexisNexis® service, including deep archives, and four to five years of archived Web pages from iParadigms, which together create a vast collection of content in one place.
Once a document is submitted to the service, the LexisNexis CopyGuard solution uses advanced pattern-matching technology to identify suspect passages. It then produces a customized originality report that provides underlined excerpts of any relevant text matches and a "similarity index," which provides the exact percentage of text originating from elsewhere. It’s an easy and simple way to perform due diligence to detect plagiarism.
"We have a vested interest in this growing problem because of our long-standing relationships with media companies that go back 25 years or more," said Elizabeth Rector, senior vice president of Corporate and Federal Markets for LexisNexis. "By teaming up with the leading provider of plagiarism detection solutions, we can help our customers protect themselves against this growing threat."
Dr. John Barrie, President and CEO of iParadigms, says this alliance with LexisNexis creates a cutting-edge product for the corporate market.
"By bringing together a new search interface, the unparalleled depth and breadth of the LexisNexis database, our constantly growing archived copy of the Internet, and our advanced pattern-matching technology designed for searching whole documents, we have created a cutting-edge product that will benefit the media and business community," said Dr. Barrie. "There is a real need in the corporate market for an advanced solution like this."
For more information about the LexisNexis CopyGuard plagiarism deterrent solution, contact your LexisNexis account representative or call (800) 227-4908.
For more information about iParadigms, LLC, contact Malik AboRashid, director of Business Development & Sales, at (510) 287-9720, ext. 237, or mar@iparadigms.com.
About LexisNexis
LexisNexis® (www.lexisnexis.com) is a leader in comprehensive and authoritative legal, news and business information and tailored applications. A member of Reed Elsevier Group plc [NYSE: ENL; NYSE: RUK] (www.reedelsevier.com), the company does business in 100 countries with 13,000 employees worldwide. In addition to its flagship Web-based Lexis® and Nexis® research services, the company includes some of the world’s most respected legal publishers such as Martindale-Hubbell, Matthew Bender, Butterworths, JurisClasseur, Abeledo-Perrot and Orac.
LexisNexis works closely with its customers to address job-specific and organization-wide information needs, driving productivity and confident decision-making. With breaking news, legislation and regulations, business intelligence, intellectual property and public opinion, LexisNexis provides access to the interpretive data and the facts and figures that impact peoples’ business decisions across the globe.
About iParadigms, LLC
iParadigms, LLC (www.iparadigms.com) is the leading provider of Web-based solutions to check documents for originality and for misappropriation. The company’s products include iThenticate, used in the commercial world by publishers, news agencies, corporations, law firms, and governmental organizations for protection from piracy and detection of intellectual property misuse, due diligence fact checking for media, data comparison and originality, advanced specialized indexing of the Internet, database information and other content searches from publishers to e-government to non-profit organizations. The company also developed Turnitin®, an Internet-based service used by millions of students and faculty in over 80 countries to vet academic work for originality, to enable Web-based student collaboration, and to provide cutting-edge tools for digital assessment of academic work. iParadigms is headquartered in the San Francisco Bay area.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Tsubi does an about face on it's copyright attitude.
In 2002 the Australian fashion label Tsubi accused Sass & Bide of infringing on the copyright of one of their designs. The matter was settled out-of-court. Now, an American footwear brand Tsubo is pursuing a trademark infringment case against Tsubi. Is this about face of their attitude towards intellectual property or just a case of being sticklers when it suits them?
Cool run-ins: what a difference a vowel makes - Business - Business - smh.com.au
Designers gear up to sue copycats
By Rachel Wells
July 20 2002
Cool run-ins: what a difference a vowel makes - Business - Business - smh.com.au
Cool run-ins: what a difference a vowel makes
By Patty Huntington
April 18, 2006
FROM rats on the runway to models overboard, the maverick Sydney jeans label Tsubi made its name from a series of much talked about fashion show jokes.
Although dubbed Australia's hottest brand in this month's issue of the US fashion glossy W, the joke now seems to be on Tsubi's directors, Dan Single and George Gorrow.
The pair, busy plotting their latest Fashion Week stunt for April 28, now find themselves embroiled in a trademark dispute with a Californian footwear brand,
Tsubo, that could force them to change their name.
Tsubo's founders, Patrick McNulty and Nicholas O'Rorke, say the name Tsubi is too similar to their own brand name, established in 1998 and registered in Australia in March 2000.
Tsubi registered its company in November 2000 and its first trademark here in 2002.
After several years of informal requests for Tsubi to change the name, Tsubo had started legal proceedings against them in the Federal Court in New York, said a lawyer for Tsubo, Jack Douglas.
"Tsubi is too confusing, similar to Tsubo, too close - we have priority," said Douglas, adding that a court date had been set.
"Our goal here simply is to have what we should have as the rightful trademark owner of Tsubo, with some space around the edges of our mark. I feel quite confident that we, Tsubo, will win. Either they'll be forced to [change] as the result of a court proceeding or they'll do so voluntarily … At the end of the day they're going to have to change. It's just a matter of when they do it."
However, the trademark dispute, begun early last year, appeared to be news to Gorrow when the Herald spoke to him in New York on Sunday.
"I haven't heard that," he said.
"I don't even know these guys. I don't even know who they are. Have you ever seen one of their shoes? Maybe I've been drunk for the past 12 months."
Although the heart of the case is the Tsubi name, it is understood Tsubo is also unhappy with what it regards as two other uncomfortable similarities between the brands.
One of those is the typeface used in a version of the Tsubi logo, which Tsubo says is similar to its own.
Tsubo uses a circle-in-square logo. Tsubi has so far only registered one logo in Australia, a cross-in-square logo registered last year for use on sunglasses.
Tsubi made its name from a series of Fashion Week jokes. In 2001 it sent 169 rats down the runway. In 2003 it made its models dive from the runway into Sydney Harbour.
The dispute comes at an awkward time for Gorrow and Single, with at least one of their local suppliers accusing them of owing them money. The supplier told the Herald that Tsubi owed their company several hundred thousand dollars and that they had refused to supply further work until the account was settled. That debt was cleared just after Christmas, but the same supplier said Tsubi had run up new debts, and debts with numerous other companies.
In late October Single denied owing any money to suppliers.
Yesterday Gorrow referred the Herald to his Australian spokeswoman, Maria Farmer, but she was unavailable.
Designers gear up to sue copycats
By Rachel Wells
July 20 2002
A plagiarism war has erupted within the Australian fashion industry, the latest involving two top Sydney denim labels.
Sass & Bide designers, Heidi Middleton and Sarah-Jane Clarke, famous for dressing celebrity clothes horse Sarah Jessica Parker of Sex and the City fame, have agreed to discontinue their 'Rabbit Boy' jeans after claims of copyright infringement by fellow label, Tsubi.
The companies came to an agreement before Tsubi were forced to take legal action.
"We had a problem with one of their wide-legged styles. We spoke to them about that and they agreed to discontinue that particular style," Tsubi designer, George Gorrow, said.
The sand-blasted, wide-legged 'Rabbit Boy' jean was so similar to the Tsubi design, one Melbourne clothing retailer refused to stock them. "I couldn't believe it when I saw them," the retailer, who did not want to be named, said.
Sass & Bide's Middleton confirmed they had discontinued production of that particular jean. She said she had a list of "15 to 18" differences between the two styles which included differences in leg-width, waist band, stitching, belt loops, and cut - particularly across the hips.
But she said Sass & Bide were sympathetic to Tsubi's concerns.
"The denim we used was exactly the same as Tsubi's and on that front I can see why they had concerns. I totally understand. It was a fair call on their behalf and an innocent oversight on ours."
Sass & Bide will make available the same style of jean in a different fabric from next month.
In coming weeks, Middleton and Clarke will seek legal advice over plagiarism of their trademark low-slung jeans. "There are about three labels out there copying our jeans stitch for stitch.
"If Tsubi want to see real plagiarism they should take a look at some of these. I can't even tell which ones are ours," she said.
Plagiarism has been rife in the Australian fashion industry for years. Recently, though, designers are taking measures to stamp out the practice.
In the past six months, Melbourne law firm, Middletons Lawyers, has handled 12 cases of copyright infringement.
"Designers are fed up with companies ripping off their original ideas. They put so much work into producing an original design.
"To see someone selling a copy up the road for half price is just heartbreaking," Middletons solicitor, Tony Watson, said.
For years, designers were told there was nothing they could do to stop the practice. But in 1999, Melbourne designer, Bettina Liano, won a Federal Court injunction barring Satch Clothing from stocking a range of jeans and T-shirts which had breached the designer's copyright.
Represented by Middletons Lawyers Liano won subsequent settlements against Maestro stores, who were selling a version of her denim skirts, and Dotti.
"Bettina Liano was a real pioneer in the fight against plagiarism. She had the courage and determination to protect her intellectual property and the whole industry is benefiting as a result. Designers just won't put up with it anymore," Watson said.
Middletons are currently acting on behalf of clothing retailer, Review, against a competitor who they believe has copied several garments from their current collection. In recent months Ellin Ambe, Dangerfield, Gatherings Design and Supre have also won out of court settlements for breach of copyright.
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/19/1026898913815.html
Eric Wilson wrote about fashion knock-offs in the New York Times on March 30, 2006. (subscription required)
Tsubi does an about face on it's copyright attitude.
In 2002 the Australian fashion label Tsubi accused Sass & Bide of infringing on the copyright of one of their designs. The matter was settled out-of-court. Now, an American footwear brand Tsubo is pursuing a trademark infringment case against Tsubi. Is this about face of their attitude towards intellectual property or just a case of being sticklers when it suits them?
Cool run-ins: what a difference a vowel makes - Business - Business - smh.com.au
Designers gear up to sue copycats
By Rachel Wells
July 20 2002
Cool run-ins: what a difference a vowel makes - Business - Business - smh.com.au
Cool run-ins: what a difference a vowel makes
By Patty Huntington
April 18, 2006
FROM rats on the runway to models overboard, the maverick Sydney jeans label Tsubi made its name from a series of much talked about fashion show jokes.
Although dubbed Australia's hottest brand in this month's issue of the US fashion glossy W, the joke now seems to be on Tsubi's directors, Dan Single and George Gorrow.
The pair, busy plotting their latest Fashion Week stunt for April 28, now find themselves embroiled in a trademark dispute with a Californian footwear brand,
Tsubo, that could force them to change their name.
Tsubo's founders, Patrick McNulty and Nicholas O'Rorke, say the name Tsubi is too similar to their own brand name, established in 1998 and registered in Australia in March 2000.
Tsubi registered its company in November 2000 and its first trademark here in 2002.
After several years of informal requests for Tsubi to change the name, Tsubo had started legal proceedings against them in the Federal Court in New York, said a lawyer for Tsubo, Jack Douglas.
"Tsubi is too confusing, similar to Tsubo, too close - we have priority," said Douglas, adding that a court date had been set.
"Our goal here simply is to have what we should have as the rightful trademark owner of Tsubo, with some space around the edges of our mark. I feel quite confident that we, Tsubo, will win. Either they'll be forced to [change] as the result of a court proceeding or they'll do so voluntarily … At the end of the day they're going to have to change. It's just a matter of when they do it."
However, the trademark dispute, begun early last year, appeared to be news to Gorrow when the Herald spoke to him in New York on Sunday.
"I haven't heard that," he said.
"I don't even know these guys. I don't even know who they are. Have you ever seen one of their shoes? Maybe I've been drunk for the past 12 months."
Although the heart of the case is the Tsubi name, it is understood Tsubo is also unhappy with what it regards as two other uncomfortable similarities between the brands.
One of those is the typeface used in a version of the Tsubi logo, which Tsubo says is similar to its own.
Tsubo uses a circle-in-square logo. Tsubi has so far only registered one logo in Australia, a cross-in-square logo registered last year for use on sunglasses.
Tsubi made its name from a series of Fashion Week jokes. In 2001 it sent 169 rats down the runway. In 2003 it made its models dive from the runway into Sydney Harbour.
The dispute comes at an awkward time for Gorrow and Single, with at least one of their local suppliers accusing them of owing them money. The supplier told the Herald that Tsubi owed their company several hundred thousand dollars and that they had refused to supply further work until the account was settled. That debt was cleared just after Christmas, but the same supplier said Tsubi had run up new debts, and debts with numerous other companies.
In late October Single denied owing any money to suppliers.
Yesterday Gorrow referred the Herald to his Australian spokeswoman, Maria Farmer, but she was unavailable.
Designers gear up to sue copycats
By Rachel Wells
July 20 2002
A plagiarism war has erupted within the Australian fashion industry, the latest involving two top Sydney denim labels.
Sass & Bide designers, Heidi Middleton and Sarah-Jane Clarke, famous for dressing celebrity clothes horse Sarah Jessica Parker of Sex and the City fame, have agreed to discontinue their 'Rabbit Boy' jeans after claims of copyright infringement by fellow label, Tsubi.
The companies came to an agreement before Tsubi were forced to take legal action.
"We had a problem with one of their wide-legged styles. We spoke to them about that and they agreed to discontinue that particular style," Tsubi designer, George Gorrow, said.
The sand-blasted, wide-legged 'Rabbit Boy' jean was so similar to the Tsubi design, one Melbourne clothing retailer refused to stock them. "I couldn't believe it when I saw them," the retailer, who did not want to be named, said.
Sass & Bide's Middleton confirmed they had discontinued production of that particular jean. She said she had a list of "15 to 18" differences between the two styles which included differences in leg-width, waist band, stitching, belt loops, and cut - particularly across the hips.
But she said Sass & Bide were sympathetic to Tsubi's concerns.
"The denim we used was exactly the same as Tsubi's and on that front I can see why they had concerns. I totally understand. It was a fair call on their behalf and an innocent oversight on ours."
Sass & Bide will make available the same style of jean in a different fabric from next month.
In coming weeks, Middleton and Clarke will seek legal advice over plagiarism of their trademark low-slung jeans. "There are about three labels out there copying our jeans stitch for stitch.
"If Tsubi want to see real plagiarism they should take a look at some of these. I can't even tell which ones are ours," she said.
Plagiarism has been rife in the Australian fashion industry for years. Recently, though, designers are taking measures to stamp out the practice.
In the past six months, Melbourne law firm, Middletons Lawyers, has handled 12 cases of copyright infringement.
"Designers are fed up with companies ripping off their original ideas. They put so much work into producing an original design.
"To see someone selling a copy up the road for half price is just heartbreaking," Middletons solicitor, Tony Watson, said.
For years, designers were told there was nothing they could do to stop the practice. But in 1999, Melbourne designer, Bettina Liano, won a Federal Court injunction barring Satch Clothing from stocking a range of jeans and T-shirts which had breached the designer's copyright.
Represented by Middletons Lawyers Liano won subsequent settlements against Maestro stores, who were selling a version of her denim skirts, and Dotti.
"Bettina Liano was a real pioneer in the fight against plagiarism. She had the courage and determination to protect her intellectual property and the whole industry is benefiting as a result. Designers just won't put up with it anymore," Watson said.
Middletons are currently acting on behalf of clothing retailer, Review, against a competitor who they believe has copied several garments from their current collection. In recent months Ellin Ambe, Dangerfield, Gatherings Design and Supre have also won out of court settlements for breach of copyright.
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/19/1026898913815.html
Eric Wilson wrote about fashion knock-offs in the New York Times on March 30, 2006. (subscription required)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)