langelgjm writes: "In a closely-watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court today vindicated the first-sale doctrine, declaring that it "applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad." The case involved a Thai graduate student in the U.S. who sold cheap foreign versions of textbooks on eBay without the publisher’s permission. The 6-3 decision has important implications for goods sold online and in discount stores. Justice Stephen Breyer said in his opinion (PDF) that the publisher lost any ability to control what happens to its books after their first sale abroad."
langelgjm writes: The New York Times reports (registration may be required) that Apple and Amazon are attempting to patent methods of enabling the resale of digital items like e-books and MP3s. Establishing a large marketplace for people to buy and sell used digital items has the potential to benefit consumers enormously, but copyright holders aren't happy. Scott Turow, president of the Authors Guild, "acknowledged it would be good for consumers — 'until there were no more authors anymore.'" But would the resale of digital items really be much different than the resale of physical items? Or is the problem that copyright holders just don't like resale?
langelgjm writes: After repeated dismissals by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Congressman Darrell Issa has taken matters into his own hands by posting a copy of ACTA, online and asking for public comments. ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is a secretly negotiated multilateral trade treaty with the potential for profoundly affecting the Internet. "ACTA represents as great a threat to an open Internet as SOPA and PIPA and was drafted with even less transparency and input from digital citizens," Issa said. You can comment here.
langelgjm writes: While much of the web is focused on the SOPA and PIPA blackout, supporters of the public domain today quietly lost a protracted struggle that began back in 2001.The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, rejected the argument that Congress did not have the power to convey copyright upon works that were already in the public domain. The suit was originally filed to challenge provisions that the U.S. adopted when signing the TRIPs agreement. Justices Breyer and Alito dissented, arguing that conveyed copyright on already existing works defied the logic of copyright law. Justice Kagan recused herself. The text of the opinions is available here (PDF).
langelgjm writes: The Social Science Research Council, an independent, non-profit organization, today released a major report on music, film and software piracy in developing economies. The product of three years of work, the authors conclude that piracy is primarily driven by excessively high prices and that anti-piracy education and enforcement efforts have failed. Still, chief editor Joe Karaganis believes that businesses can survive in these high piracy environments.
langelgjm writes: ACTA negotiators met with a limited number of civil society representatives at an informal lunch yesterday, in Washington, D.C. Biggest news from the event? Explicit admission that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement isn't actually about counterfeiting. According to those present, Luc Devigne, a lead EU negotiator, "asked more than once how you could have an 'IP Enforcement' treaty and not include patents—and dismissed suggestions that ACTA was specifically an 'Anti-Counterfeiting' treaty rather than a broader enforcement treaty." For those unaware, yet another ACTA negotiating round is taking place this week in Washington. It was announced with little fanfare by the United States Trade Representative's office hardly a day before beginning. Even stranger, a South Korean negotiator indicated that some civil society groups in South Korea are pushing for "internet morality" provisions to combat slander. No word yet on whether a new text will be released after the round ends; now would be a good time to call up USTR and demand more transparency.
langelgjm writes: In the lead up to next week's Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations in Lucerne, a conference that drew over 90 academics and experts from six continents has released a statement issuing a harsh condemnation of both the substance and process of the agreement.
Held last week at American University's Washington College of Law, the attendees say "We find that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators." The "urgent communique" covers more than the usual ACTA topics of interest on Slashdot: in addition to the agreement's effect on the Internet, it also considers the effects on access to medicines, international trade, and developing countries.
Meanwhile, Public Knowledge has an action alert where you can send a note to the White House expressing your opposition to ACTA.
langelgjm writes: Michael Robertson, a "serial entrepreneur" of MP3.com fame, has made Slashdot news severaltimesbefore. A recent article in the New York Times (registration may be required) discusses MP3tunes, the successor to MP3.com. MP3tunes allows you to rip your entire CD collection and store it online, whence it can be streamed to computers and various internet-equipped devices, including the iPhone and Android, and even the Playstation and Wii. However, the record industry is in the midst of a lawsuit against Robertson and his service, claiming that he should be paying licensing fees. The industry points to its blessed competitor, Catch Media, as the proper alternative: "Mark Segall, its business development adviser, says the company will soon announce which music companies will use the technology but suggests that consumers will have to pay a "convenience fee" for streaming their music from the Web, comparable to charges at an A.T.M. Won't people balk at paying again to listen to R.E.M. songs they have owned since the 1980s? Catch Media hopes not."
langelgjm writes: In an unexpected turn of events, Wired is reporting that the Obama administration has expressed support for a treaty that would permit cross-border sharing of copyrighted works accessible to blind and visually-impaired people. A few days ago, we discussed the nearly unanimous opposition from U.S. industries to any treaty expands copyright limitations and exceptions. A Department of Commerce advisor spoke before the World Intellectual Property Organization today, saying that "We recognize that some in the international copyright community believe that any international consensus on substantive limitations and exceptions to copyright law would weaken international copyright law. The United States does not share that point of view."According to the EFF's Eddan Katz, the move represents a "an historic paradigm shift in international technology policy." At the same time, however, the U.S. representative cautioned that the administration was willing to strengthen international copyright laws in other regards.
langelgjm writes: According to Wired, "A broad swath of American enterprise ranging from major software makers to motion picture and music companies are joining forces to oppose a new international treaty that would make books more accessible to the blind." With the exception of Google, almost every major industry player has expressed disapproval of the treaty, which would allow cross-border sharing of digitized books accessible to the blind and visually impaired. Google's chief copyright counsel believes the industry-wide opposition is mainly due to “opposition to a larger agenda of limitations and exceptions... We believe this is an unproductive approach to solving what is a discrete, long-standing problem that affects a group that needs and deserves the protections of the international community.”