Wednesday, January 14, 2009

BioMed Central Blog : Head & Neck Oncology: a new open access publication

BioMed Central Blog : Head & Neck Oncology: a new open access publication 

Head & Neck Oncology: a new open access publication

BioMed Central has launched a new open access publication, Head & Neck Oncology. Led by Editors-in-Chief Adel El-Naggar, Colin Hopper, Waseem Jerjes and Tahwinder Upile, the journal encompasses all aspects of clinical practice, basic and translational research relating to tumours of the head and neck. The journal is the official publication of the Head & Neck Optical Diagnostics Society.
By providing researchers and clinicians in the field with practical updates at the edge of translational research, the journal aims to facilitate collaboration between specialists for the benefit of the patients. For further information please visit the journal ‘About’ page, or read the inaugural Editorial.
Head & Neck Oncology is providing financial assistance to support the journal's important contribution to the field. Authors who would like to request assistance with article-processing charges are encouraged to contact the Editors-in-Chief.
Register now to receive article alerts when new research is published, or visit the instructions for authors before submitting your own research to Head & Neck Oncology.

BioMed Central Blog : Head & Neck Oncology: a new open access publication

Supreme Court deals setback to cable TV firms on video recording - Los Angeles Times

Supreme Court deals setback to cable TV firms on video recording - Los Angeles Times 

Supreme Court deals setback to cable TV firms on video recording

Companies want to offer customers a service that doesn't require a set-top box. The court asks the Justice Department to determine whether it would violate the Copyright Act.

By David G. Savage
January 13, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court declined Monday to clear the way for cable TV companies to offer their customers a new, easier way to record broadcasts for later viewing -- and without needing a video recorder in their homes.
Instead, the court asked the Justice Department to weigh in on whether this new video recording service would violate the copyrights of the TV networks and Hollywood film studios.

Three years ago, the networks and studios went to court in New York, seeking to block Cablevision Systems Corp. from introducing its Remote Storage-Digital Video Recorder. They said the Copyright Act gave them "exclusive rights" to control and profit from their copyrighted works.
The court's move will delay for months a final decision. Lawyers for the incoming Obama administration will be asked to study the legal question and then advise the court on their conclusion.
The pending case could have a wide effect on the emerging era of video on demand. In 1984, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the use of home videocassette recorders when it rejected a copyright challenge from the TV and film industry.

Afterward, VCRs became standard equipment in most homes. Now the cable TV companies want to go a step further and record shows for their customers at their request. The copies would be stored in companies' central computers rather than in a digital record at home.
Cablevision's chief operating officer, Tom Rutledge, called it a "tremendous victory for consumers" last year when a U.S. appeals court rejected the TV networks' copyright challenge. "This is a real opportunity to transform television," he added.
Fearing that prospect, the networks and studios appealed to the Supreme Court in October. They said Cablevision was violating the law because it did not plan to pay a licensing fee to make copies of their TV shows.
The legal debate has turned on a simple question: Who is doing the copying? A federal judge ruled against Cablevision in 2006 and said it was copying television shows for consumers. Last year, the appeals court ruled for Cablevision and said consumers would be copying their favorite shows for themselves.
Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable Inc. said they planned to introduce a similar service if Cablevision prevailed in the legal battle.
The Supreme Court appeal was led by Cable News Network and joined by the all the major network and film studios. Other groups, including Major League Baseball, the National Football League and the Screen Actors Guild, separately urged the court to hear the case.
They said the case could be the most important ruling on copyright law since the 1984 decision in the case of Sony Corp.'s video recorder.
On Monday morning, the court issued a one-line order in Cable News Network vs. CSC Holdings, saying the solicitor general "is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States."
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they took no part in this decision, apparently because they own stocks in the affected companies.
If the solicitor general advises the court to take up the issue, the case would not be heard until the fall.
david.savage@latimes.com

Supreme Court deals setback to cable TV firms on video recording - Los Angeles Times

FAST Supports New Zealand's Three-Strikes Plan for File-Sharers

FAST Supports New Zealand's Three-Strikes Plan for File-Sharers

"seems like the slippery slope that youtube is employing -- just make a claim of infringement and the party is guilty, the same scare tactics which make 'fair use" ineffective because it makes users more cautious and self imposes penalties or rules above which may be needed" -- HSM

 

FAST Supports New Zealand's Three-Strikes Plan for File-Sharers

posted by soulxtc in file sharing // 1 day 2 hours 59 minutes ago

The UK's Federation Against Software Theft (FAST IiS) has given a "cautious welcome" to New Zealand's new copyright protection laws, which will terminate Internet access for repeat copyright infringers. FAST now appears to be promoting a similar system for use with UK broadband ISPs

According to James Craig, Legal Counsel at FAST IiS, the proposal offers a possible option for the UK to follow: “This is definitely something the UK can look at, albeit with tightly-defined definitions,” says James.

“At FAST IiS we favour a three strikes and you’re out policy," it says in a press release. "This allows a gradual build up of pressure on copyright infringers that ranges from notification of wrongdoing, possible reduction in bandwidth for a second offence, and termination of connection for persistent content thieves.”

Section 92 of New Zealand's Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act, enacted this past April and set to take effect at the end of February, requires ISPs to act on "guilt upon accusation," disconnecting those users merely alleged of engaging in copyright infringement.

Section 92A reads:

    “(1) An Internet service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the account with that Internet service provider of a repeat infringer.

    “(2) In subsection (1), repeat infringer means a person who repeatedly infringes the copyright in a work by using 1 or more of the Internet services of the Internet service provider to do a restricted act without the consent of the copyright owner.

Whats's of concern is that it doesn't require the creation of a process whereby individuals can challenge any copyright infringement accusations made against them. The ISP isn't going to go out of its way to determine a person's guilt and will instead not want to risk breaking the law or lawsuit by a copyright holder.

However FAST, unlike certain creative industry representatives’ in the UK, does at least acknowledge that the methods used to identify illegal file sharers is prone to error.

"Technology is not foolproof and care needs to be taken to ensure innocent parties who may have suffered hijacked wi-fi, or the unwitting owners of a shared computer are not unfairly blamed," it continues. “These issues need to be taken into consideration before anyone is sanctioned, as unfounded accusations do not benefit anyone in the consumer or copyright community.”

One problem is that some P2P file-sharing networks add spoof or fake IP addresses into their systems to confuse the identification of wrongdoers, which can be problematic for legitimate users utilizing the real IP address.

Another concerns the issue of false positives that prove the haphazard nature of IP address identification. If you recall, University of Washington researchers released a study a little over 7 months ago that illustrated how the current method employed by copyright holders to make copyright infringement claims against BitTorrent users can not conclusively determine if actual copyright infringement has taken place.

"By profiling copyright enforcement in the popular BitTorrent file sharing system, we were able to generate hundreds of real DMCA takedown notices for computers at the University of Washington that never downloaded nor shared any content whatsoever," reads part of the conclusions in "Challenges and Directions for Monitoring P2P File-Sharing Networks."

"Further, we were able to remotely generate complaints for nonsense devices including several printers and a (non-NAT) wireless access point. Our results demonstrate several simple techniques that a malicious user could use to frame arbitrary network endpoints."

So concerns that innocent users can be caught up in the dragnet with no legal recourse are justified.

“The issue of online copyright theft is of global concern. Other Governments are articulating their intentions and working to uphold the rights of legitimate businesses and consumers of digital content. Here in the UK a coherent strategy that works for all copyright holders who suffer digital theft would benefit the entire country, safeguard jobs and taxes and allow the UK to compete with our competitors in the international marketplace.”

“It is important to protect our UK creative industries which employ 1.9 million people and generates eight percent of our GDP. That’s a lot of people who depend on the law to safeguard their products and their jobs, ” James concluded.

That may be so, but are the majority of the people of the UK always going to be expected to limit their ability to communicate freely with one another so that a minority can have a job? What about the job creation possible if the govt prevents private business interests from filtering the Internet and forces them to finally evolve?

FAST Supports New Zealand's Three-Strikes Plan for File-Sharers

A Historical Look At Copyright And Music | Techdirt

 A Historical Look At Copyright And Music | Techdirt

A Historical Look At Copyright And Music

Jon sends in an interesting link from the New Statesman from last month, discussing some of the history of music and copyright, specifically as it concerned 19th century music. The article is something of a response to the ridiculous, unnecessary and dangerous plan in Europe to extend copyright on performance rights, supposedly to protect "session musicians," but which really just enriches the record labels, and would do very little for the session musicians (who made their deal with the public when they performed in the first place).
There are some notable points in the article, including the fact that since France was one of the first countries to have very strong intellectual property laws for music, many musicians tried to establish themselves in France, but the music produced under that system, in retrospect, isn't considered even remotely in the same class as some of the music produced elsewhere -- even though it was the French composers who got wealthy. In other words, the system of granting monopolies did not do much to encourage better music -- but did plenty to encourage a few mediocre composers to monopolize the system to get wealthy. That's not to say that the alternative business models were good for the musicians in question (the article notes the troubles many faced), but the purpose of copyright is not to make certain musicians rich, but to get them to create better content. And, these days, there are many mechanisms in place by which musicians can make money without relying on intellectual property protections.

A Historical Look At Copyright And Music | Techdirt

Photographer Patrick Cariou Sues Richard Prince for Copyright Infringement

 Photographer Patrick Cariou Sues Richard Prince for Copyright Infringement

Photographer Patrick Cariou Sues Richard Prince for Copyright Infringement

Jan 13, 2009

By Daryl Lang

“Takes of Brave Ulysses” by Richard Prince, from the Web site of the Gagosian Gallery. Photographer Patrick Cariou claims this collage illegally uses one of his images.

Photo Gallery

It was bound to happen eventually: A photographer has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against artist Richard Prince.
French photographer Patrick Cariou has filed a lawsuit over a series of Prince collage paintings that were displayed recently at the Gagosian Gallery in New York. Cariou claims Prince’s “Canal Zone” series illegally borrows photographs from his book Yes Rasta.
Throughout his career, Prince has used borrowed images in his artwork. He has occasionally drawn criticism from photographers whose images he has used without permission, but no photographer has ever sued him.
Cariou filed a suit in a U.S. federal court in December against Prince, the Gagosian Gallery, gallery owner Lawrence Gagosian and book publisher Rizzoli, which handled a book connected to the gallery show.
The suit accuses all parties of copyright infringement and seeks unspecified damages. It also asks to have the unsold paintings and books impounded or destroyed, and for the plaintiffs to notify owners of sold paintings that it is illegal to display the work.
Cariou and Rizzoli Publications declined to comment for this story. PDN made several efforts to contact Prince and the Gagosian Gallery and will update this story if they respond.
Cariou’s book on Rastafarian culture, Yes Rasta, was published by powerHouse Books in 2000 and includes about 100 black-and-white photographs. The book was registered with the Copyright Office in 2001, according to the lawsuit. The suit says Cariou spent ten years living with Rastafarians in the mountains of Jamaica.
The lawsuit says at least 20 of the 22 collages in the Prince exhibition used Cariou’s photos. Based on a few sample photographs from the Yes Rasta book available online and images of Prince’s work posted on the Gagosian Gallery Web site, PDN spotted two examples of a Cariou photo reproduced in a Prince painting. The Prince works also include images of naked women that aren't from Cariou's book.
The lawsuit cites an Interview magazine article in which Prince discusses creating art based on a book he picked up about Rastas: “It's a very defined type of culture that I didn't really know much about. But I loved the look, and I loved the dreads, so I just started fooling around with this book, drawing it like I did with the de Kooning paintings.”
Press materials from the Gagosian gallery also say Prince used images “scanned from originals,” or cut out and pasted onto canvas with paint.
Cariou says he learned of the infringement after the exhibit opened in New York and sent a cease-and-desist letter to the gallery on December 11, 2008. The gallery kept the show open until its scheduled closing date of December 20.
Should the case go to trial, it could produce another decision on the subject of fair use, an unsettled area of copyright law.
The Cariou case is similar to a 2003 lawsuit by photographer Andrea Blanch against artist Jeff Koons. Koons used a photograph of a woman’s legs as part of a painted collage, and Blanch sued Koons for copyright infringement. A federal court awarded a decision in favor Koons, saying his work is transformative and fair use. An appeals court affirmed the decision in 2006. Koons has also lost three infringement lawsuits related to his art.
Prince’s best known work is his "Cowboy" series: large, photographic prints of cropped Marlboro cigarette ads that can fetch millions of dollars at auction. Two photographers, Sam Abell and Jim Kranz, have accused Prince of using image they shot for Marlboro, but neither they nor the cigarette maker Philip Morris has sued Prince.
Source document
The case is Cariou v. Prince et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. View a PDF of the lawsuit on the PDNPulse blog.

Photographer Patrick Cariou Sues Richard Prince for Copyright Infringement

The music industry's digital reversal on copyright

The music industry's digital reversal on copyright

The music industry's digital reversal on copyright

Michael Geist

The Ottawa Citizen

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Canadians focused on hockey success and economic doom-and-gloom over the past month may have missed a series of events that suggest a dramatic shift for the recording industry. For much of the past decade, the industry has relied on three pillars to combat peer-to-peer file sharing -- lawsuits, locks, and legislation.

The lawsuits, which began in 2003, resulted in suits against more than 35,000 alleged file sharers in the United States. The locks, which refers to digital locks that seek to impose copy-controls on music files, was a requirement for online services such as iTunes before it was given the green light, while the lobbying for legislative reforms to support the use of copy-controls led Canada to introduce the failed Bill C-61.

In a matter of weeks, the foundation of each of these pillars has either crumbled or shown serious signs of cracking.

The changes began with the announcement in late December that the industry was abandoning the lawsuit strategy. While cases already filed will continue, the Recording Industry Association of America indicated that it plans to shift its attention to discussions with Internet service providers that it hopes will lead to the adoption of a controversial "three strikes and you're out" policy for repeated cases of unauthorized file sharing.

The decision to drop the lawsuit strategy was long overdue as it had accomplished little more than engender significant animosity toward the industry. In fact, the approach had recently come under legal fire with courts challenging the industry's contention that liability flowed merely from making files available on a shared hard drive (some courts have demanded evidence of actual downloads) and a Harvard law professor using one case to question the constitutionality of damage awards that can run into the millions of dollars for a handful of songs that sell for 99 cents each.

The Canadian situation was similarly unsuccessful as the courts rejected lawsuits against 29 alleged file sharers in 2004 on evidentiary and legal grounds. The failed cases were particularly damaging since they led to the perception that all file sharing is legal in Canada (it is not)

The case also helped to convince some of Canada's best-known artists to speak out against the practice.

The crumbling of the locks pillar came last week when Apple, the dominant online music seller, announced that it will soon offer millions of songs from all four major record labels without digital locks. Apple had long supported the removal of the locks, but faced resistance from some record labels.

The about face reflects the recognition that frustrating consumers with unnecessary restrictions is not a particularly good business model. Moreover, the interoperability problems (songs locked to a single device) and security threats (the Sony rootkit fiasco that led to class action consumer lawsuits) associated with the locks clearly made their use more trouble than they were worth.

With lawsuits and locks on the way out, cracks are now also showing in the legislative pillar. In addition to the privacy, security, and consumer concerns with such legislation, laws to protect digital locks seems increasingly unnecessary given the decision to abandon their use in the primary digital sales channel.

Nielsen Soundscan data released last week also undermine a key argument for such reforms. The industry has long claimed that the legislative changes are needed to support the development of a digital marketplace in Canada. The 2008 Canadian sales data reveal that laws are not the issue as Canada experienced a 58-per-cent increase in sales of digital tracks last year. That figure is more than double the U.S. growth of 27 per cent and, incredibly, marks the third consecutive year that Canada has outpaced the U.S. in digital music sales growth.

The data -- along with the crumbling of the lawsuits and locks strategy -- reinforce the view that it is innovation, not intervention from governments and courts, that will ultimately determine the digital winners and losers.

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E- commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2009

The music industry's digital reversal on copyright

TheStar.com | Opinion | Open Access would solve piracy issue

 TheStar.com | Opinion | Open Access would solve piracy issue

thestar.com LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Open Access would solve piracy issue

Jan 14, 2009 04:30 AM

Re:Textbook piracy thriving around

city's campuses, Jan. 10

During my engineering undergraduate years at U of T, I found the best textbooks were informal documents maintained by my own professors. We paid only in comments and corrections, which we knew would benefit our juniors in the same courses.

Using the numbers from your thorough article, the $150 provincial grant barely covers two years of 6 per cent price increases on a $1,000 set of books. The student saves nothing, and the grant is pure profit for publishers.

The same publishers receive hundreds of thousands of dollars annually from Canadian universities for subscriptions to academic journals – even when those journals contain the products of publicly funded science. These costs are passed on to students as tuition increases.

The Open Access movement recognizes that this impedes the spread of knowledge, and advocates for free academic materials. MIT's OpenCourseWare project is a laudable example. As in the arts, digital media are allowing creators and consumers to both gain through bypassing the large corporations that have, until now, fed at both ends of the trough.

I hope to see continued treatment of this important issue in the Star's pages in the future.

Paul Kishimoto, Toronto

Your reporter writes that students are now photocopying textbooks to save money due to rising costs of post-secondary education. But copying textbooks was rampant in several Ontario universities I attended in the 1980s.

Dr. Peter Rozanec, Toronto

University textbook prices always ticked me off. I often thought the real criminals were the schools and the publishers. The teacher would say that we needed the "new" edition and that the previous year's edition would not do. But the only difference was that a new index page was inserted with a different publishing year inside. It was a joke, especially when the year was done and you realized how little of the book was actually used for the class.

Many students buy old editions at used bookstores, but aren't the schools and publishers just double-dipping on the sales of the same product? Additionally, how many schools make textbooks available in the school libraries?

And to be fair, why are the books so expensive? I expect an autographed Harry Potter or a first edition of A Tale of Two Cities to be pricey, but Calculus?

I'm glad I don't have to be bullied like that anymore. We should be helping kids, not exploiting them.

David Syrie, Mississauga

As a co-author of a university science textbook, I sympathize completely with the student concerns about the cost of textbooks. They do indeed seem exorbitant. As an author, I am not in a position to justify the publisher's price. I can, however, comment on a few points.

Textbooks are generally a "small market" project. Textbooks are not published in anything close to the volumes of a popular novelist. Most textbooks are also illustrated, which requires the services of an independent art firm to translate author's sketches into final illustrations. Text illustrations also complicate the production process.

Few textbook publishers maintain in-house production teams but, again, rely on outside production and design firms that specialize in technical publications. No matter how you cut it, most textbooks require the input of a lot of people with specialized talents and that drives up the production expense. Those costs have to be recovered with a relatively small number of unit sales. Photocopy piracy serves only to drive down unit sales and drive up the price.

You can't beat the price with soft covers. I am told that there is very little difference in the production costs for hard covers vs. soft covers. And I am not aware of any texts that are "revised" on an annual basis – the costs would be prohibitive. Our own book is revised on a 4- to 5-year cycle and, yes, it is significantly updated each time to reflect new knowledge in the field.

Publishers are in the business of producing and selling a product. They know that in order to sell that product, it must be competitively priced. I know from personal experience that they try everything they can to keep that price down. I can also guarantee you that most textbook authors are first of all teachers and they don't do it for the money.

William G. Hopkins, Professor Emeritus, University of Western Ontario

 

TheStar.com | Opinion | Open Access would solve piracy issue