Friday, February 29, 2008

The Post

 

The RIAA one year later

As recording industry wages nationwide war on piracy, OU falls off the map

Published: Thursday, February 28, 2008
Last Modified: Thursday, February 28, 2008, 2:02:37am

David Hendricks / Campus Senior Writer / dh100006@ohiou.edu

As the recording industry’s nationwide legal battle against college music sharers enters its second year, Ohio University — once ground zero in that campaign — is no longer under fire.

Identified last February by the recording industry as the recipient of more music sharing complaints than any other university, OU shelled out more than $75,000 last summer for a device that scans data crisscrossing its network for copyrighted media.

Copyright complaints plummeted from 716 during Fall Quarter 2006 to 77 during Fall Quarter 2007. Threats of litigation from the Recording Industry Association of America, the music industry trade group that coordinated the crackdown, stopped altogether.

“There has been a very dramatic change at Ohio University,” said RIAA President Cary Sherman.That change began last February, when the The Associated Press published the top 25 recipients of the RIAA’s copyright complaints. OU topped the list with 1,287.

“This is not a list any school wanted to be on,” Sherman said, adding that widespread publication of the list put pressure on universities.

Before the end of that month, OU would top another RIAA list, this one more serious.

Six days after the AP article, the RIAA sent 400 letters to 13 universities; one in eight went to OU. In each letter, the RIAA alleged that a university Internet address distributed copyrighted music and asked each school to forward the letter to the person responsible.

Unlike copyright complaints sent under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which warn of potential legal liability for the university, these letters demanded unspecified settlements from individual network users within 20 days. The letters threatened lawsuits if the recipients did not respond or refused to settle.

OU, like most universities, forwarded the letters.

When the University of Wisconsin-Madison refused to forward 15 letters to its students in March, the RIAA responded by upping the number of letters to 66 across the University of Wisconsin system. Record companies filed lawsuits against the unnamed network users and forced the university to turn over student names and other information.

This month, the RIAA sent 401 more letters, none of which went to OU. In all, the RIAA has sent 5,404 letters to universities and commercial Internet service providers nationwide. More than 2,300 recipients have settled. The RIAA has filed lawsuits against 2,465 people who either did not respond, refused to settle or were not forwarded the letter. Of the 100 OU students threatened with lawsuits, 80 settled.

Lawsuit Machine

Thousands of DMCA notices are sent to universities and commercial Internet service providers each month. The notices, which warn ISPs that someone using their network is violating copyright law, are an important weapon in the RIAA’s war on piracy.

Several companies have sprung up to send DMCA notices on behalf of major movie studios and record labels for a fee.

One of those firms, California-based MediaSentry, works with the RIAA to send DMCA notices on behalf of major record labels and gathers evidence for use in copyright infringement lawsuits. Together, MediaSentry and Colorado-based law firm Holme Roberts & Owen form the backbone of the RIAA litigation campaign.

MediaSentry, HRO and smaller, regional law firms that handle cases in each state all referred Post inquiries to the RIAA, which has been tight-lipped about the campaign — refusing even to confirm its widely known association with MediaSentry. Court filings, though, have revealed the basics of that arrangement.

In a sworn statement filed this summer in federal district court, an RIAA vice president explained that MediaSentry combs file-sharing networks for music files copyrighted by RIAA members. When it finds a user sharing such files, MediaSentry downloads them and records the sharer’s Internet provider address.

Any resulting copyright infringement lawsuit hinges on the RIAA’s ability to link that IP address to an individual computer and its owner — something only an ISP, in this case the university, can do.

Those files are passed to the RIAA, which listens to each song to determine whether the file contains copyrighted music, according to court filings. Once satisfied, the RIAA creates a list of about 10 copyrighted songs marked “Exhibit A.”HRO sends Exhibit A, along with a form letter, to the college or university tied to the IP address. The RIAA asks that the college or university match the IP address to the student and forward the letter.

Each letter warns that unless the recipient settles copyright infringement allegations within 20 days, he or she will be sued in federal court. The letter encourages recipients to visit p2plawsuits.com, where they can settle online with a credit card.

Students who settle within 20 days usually pay at least $3,000, Sherman said, adding that the RIAA has not made an exact figure public. After she was sued, one OU student paid more than $10,000 to settle.

“The easier you make (copyright) infringement, the more people will do it,” Sherman said. “The whole program here is deterrence. The more people you can send a notice to … the more likely it is that the people they know will know someone that was sued.”

OU received 100 letters during the last academic year and chose to forward them to students. Of those, 80 settled, according to the RIAA.

One man gave up his truck’s title to pay his daughter’s settlement. Several students interviewed by The Post said they were not sure if they could afford to pay both the settlement and tuition.

Eight students who did not settle were sued in Ohio’s federal district courts after OU was forced to hand over their names during the summer in response to a subpoena. One student unsuccessfully challenged the subpoena; his name was turned over Nov. 30.

Five cases are ongoing. Another student settled and a seventh, who failed to respond to the lawsuit, had a $6,750 default judgment entered against her. Record companies have asked that their eighth case be dismissed. One lawsuit could cost OU its starting varsity baseball catcher.

“I am a college student who is trying to better myself and if I have to pay this I am going to be forced by my father to drop out of school,” wrote Chris Klimko, a junior criminology major and starting catcher for OU’s baseball team since his freshman year. “I do not have their music, and I do not want their music. If they were trying to get people to stop listening to their music, they succeeded.”

Action at OU

OU administrators scrambled to respond after the RIAA figures were released last February.

“Up until now, we filed judicial charges only against students deemed to have engaged persistently in illegal file-sharing over the computer network,” wrote Kent Smith, vice president for Student Affairs, in an e-mail to students. “However, in light of increased reports of the problem, all newly-reported, alleged first-time offenders will be referred to University Judiciaries in a manner consistent with our existing policy.”

Previously, students temporarily lost Internet access and received a warning if it was alleged they had shared media using peer-to-peer software.

Leadership changes in OU’s central information technology division resulted in an abrupt policy reversal.

Shawn Ostermann, then interim chief information officer, did not change the university’s stance on peer-to-peer software during Winter Quarter 2007, despite an increase in DMCA notices. He cited legitimate uses of the software and was concerned that banning a type of traffic from the campus network would damage academic freedom.

OU banned all peer-to-peer traffic the following quarter under its new CIO, Brice Bible. At the time, OU said it would issue exceptions for those with a legitimate need to use peer-to-peer software. That ban would draw widespread condemnation. OU began to look for a better option.

Audible’s Magic Box

Colleges and universities across the country are turning to special software to wipe out, limit or monitor peer-to-peer file-sharing on their networks. OU began testing one of these devices last year and spent more than $75,000 to purchase one.

CopySense, a special computer sold by California-based Audible Magic, uses patented software to create audio fingerprints for copyrighted media. It compares those fingerprints to audio passing over OU’s network and disconnects computers sharing files with matching fingerprints.

OU paid $59,950 for the CopySense device and an additional $15,585 for support, maintenance and a year of database updates, which keep the device loaded with fingerprints for newly released music.

After CopySense was installed, the number of DMCA notices OU received dropped dramatically.

Each notice lists the copyrighted file and how long it was available. None of the 77 files listed in DMCA notices sent to OU during Fall Quarter 2007 was available for more than two seconds. During the same time during the previous academic year, before OU purchased CopySense, some files were available for several weeks.

DMCA notices received during Fall Quarter 2007 were probably generated in the seconds before CopySense disconnected the offending computer from OU’s network, said Sean O’Malley, OU’s information technology communications manager. Record companies have not sued any OU student for copyright infringement that occurred during Fall Quarter.

The Post

Thursday, January 17, 2008

EPL and Open Access Articles

EPL and Open Access Articles, Europhysics Letters, January 2008. A "Publishers' Note" from the six-person EPL Management Committee. Excerpt:

In May 2007 the EPLA [Europhysics Letters Association] Board of Directors welcomed the CERN initiative for the creation of a Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3) and agreed to enter into negotiations to enable high energy physics papers to be published in EPL with selective open access.

At a subsequent meeting in August 2007, the Board decided to offer substantial initial discount while open access remained a small fraction of the content of EPL. A necessary precursor to negotiation with SCOAP3 is a general open access policy. The Directors agreed that this policy should offer a free-to-read option for all authors in all sections of EPL and so provide fair opportunities across the broad range of physics covered by EPL. The policy for the journal should allow individual authors, their institutions, funding agencies or sponsoring consortia to pay for published articles to be freely available to all, permanently....

EPL would remain a subscription journal for content that is not free to read and authors, institutions or funding agencies may choose to pay for their articles to be open access.

As an initial step in this open access venture, a single-article fee of € 1000 ($ 1330) can now be paid by individuals who choose to have their article published free to all. This pricing, which is substantially discounted, ensures that EPL remains competitive with other similar journals. EPL will continue to ensure this policy is sustainable although the journal must remain financially viable and the pricing scheme will be under continual review.

At this stage we welcome enquires concerning an institutional membership fee that would allow that institute to pay in advance for open access publications in EPL for authors from that institute....

Remember all articles are already free to read for 30 days from their online publication date....

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Maine law students enter battle on downloading, against record labels

 

Maine law students enter battle on downloading, against record labels

By TREVOR MAXWELL
Blethen Maine Newspapers  01/07/2008

Lisa Chmelecki and Hannah Ames, friends and third-year students at the University of Maine School of Law in Portland, had never studied copyright law before a few months ago, and were unfamiliar with a historic legal battle brewing on college campuses nationwide.

Now they're right in the middle of it.

Chmelecki and Ames, under the supervision of Professor Deirdre Smith, are defending two college students who have been sued for copyright infringement by the Recording Industry Association of America. The cases came to them through the law school's legal aid clinic, which provides representation to low-income residents.

Chmelecki and Ames filed briefs last month in federal court, and are waiting for a judge to rule on their motion to dismiss the cases against their clients.

They argue that the digital information used by the recording industry to bring the lawsuits falls short of a new legal standard, set by the U.S. Supreme Court in a decision in May.

"We're defending the process," said Ames, 25, a Harpswell native. "The RIAA needs to follow the rules, the same way everyone else needs to." Their involvement in the case has captured national attention from lawyers, bloggers and others who intensely follow technology law. The upcoming decision could set a precedent for other students facing RIAA lawsuits. It's all part of a larger debate about the future of information and the Internet.

"There are a lot of law students all across the country, who are just sitting there, being envious of what is happening in Maine," said Ray Beckerman, a New York City lawyer who has emerged as the chief opponent of the recording industry.

Beckerman said this is the first time a university's legal aid clinic has assisted any of the hundreds of college students taken to court for copyright infringement in the past 10 months.

The Recording Industry Association of America - the trade group for music giants like Sony, Warner Bros. and Capitol Records - launched a litigation campaign against college students last February. The industry claims it loses billions each year to illegal file-sharing, and much of the activity happens on campus.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said courts have consistently accepted the industry's practices and arguments. She said the industry has prevailed in almost every instance in which attorneys have moved to dismiss a case or quash a subpoena.

"I think that speaks in and of itself," Duckworth said. "We have followed the letter of the law."

The industry monitors the Internet and captures data from computers where copyrighted music files are available for others to download.

Lawyers for the industry then ask colleges to forward notification letters to the students whose accounts are red-flagged. At that point, the industry still does not have the names of the computer users.

Students can settle with a cash payment. If they don't, the industry files a "John Doe" lawsuit and gets a court order that forces colleges to release the name. Settlements generally range between $3,000 and $5,000, and hundreds of students have chosen that route.

The RIAA filed "John Doe" lawsuits against 26 students in Maine last March, and against another 27 in October. Many have settled, and others remain in various stages within the federal court system. None has gone to trial.

Two of the students called for help from the Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic, a project of the University of Maine School of Law.

The clinic allows third-year students to practice law, working for low-income clients who otherwise would not be able to afford representation. The students are supervised and must follow special rules within the state and federal courts.

Chmelecki and Ames were assigned to the copyright infringement cases. They were unique to the clinic, which mostly handles criminal and family matters such as divorce and child custody.

Although they did not have a background in copyright law, Chmelecki said she and Ames approached the cases with the same intensity as they would any other matter.

They worked late nights and weekends, while at the same time studying for final exams, and working as interns for the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office. They started by reviewing the basics of copyright law and waded into the complex nuances of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

"As a student, you just want to do the absolute best job that you can," said Chmelecki, 34, a former reporter for the Lewiston Sun Journal. She praised the legal aid clinic and its director, Professor Smith, for giving them the opportunity to practice the lessons they learn in the classroom.

Chmelecki, Ames and Smith also consulted with Bob Mittel, of the Portland firm MittelAsen LLC. Mittel has represented several of the Maine students over the past year, including eight of the unnamed defendants sued in October. Mittel said they discussed strategy, but credited Chmelecki and Ames for doing their own work and delivering a strong argument to U.S. District Judge John Woodcock.

"It's great," Mittel said. "What Deirdre Smith did here is just very special, getting those kids into a situation where they could start to lift off the ground, in a very nice context."

Chmelecki said that even when she and Ames were researching and drafting their briefs for the cases, they had no idea about the larger controversy surrounding the RIAA lawsuits, and the intense public interest. Journalists and bloggers from around the country have been calling the clinic's office to discuss the cases.

"I'm glad I didn't know," Chmelecki said. "Writing the briefs would have been a lot more difficult for me, under that kind of pressure."

Maine law students enter battle on downloading, against record labels

NOT-OD-08-033: Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research

NOT-OD-08-033: Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research 

Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research


Notice Number: NOT-OD-08-033

Key Dates
Release Date:   January 11, 2008
Effective Date:  April 7, 2008

Issued by
National Institutes of Health (NIH), (http://www.nih.gov/)

Department of Health and Human Services
Action
Notice; Revised Policy Statement
Summary

In accordance with Division G, Title II,  Section 218 of PL 110-161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 ), the NIH voluntary Public Access Policy (NOT-OD-05-022) is now mandatory. The law states:

The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.

Specifics

  1. The NIH Public Access Policy applies to all peer-reviewed articles that arise, in whole or in part, from direct costs 1 funded by NIH, or from NIH staff, that are accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008. 
  1. Institutions and investigators are responsible for ensuring that any publishing or copyright agreements concerning submitted articles fully comply with this Policy.
  1. PubMed Central (PMC) is the NIH digital archive of full-text, peer-reviewed journal articles.  Its content is publicly accessible and integrated with other databases (see: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/).
  1. The final, peer-reviewed manuscript includes all graphics and supplemental materials that are associated with the article. 
  1. Beginning May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC or NIH Manuscript Submission reference number when citing applicable articles that arise from their NIH funded research. This policy includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 due date and subsequent due dates.

Compliance

Compliance with this Policy is a statutory requirement and a term and condition of the grant award and cooperative agreement, in accordance with the NIH Grants Policy Statement For contracts, NIH includes this requirement in all R&D solicitations and awards under Section H, Special Contract Requirements, in accordance with the Uniform Contract Format.

Inquiries

Send questions concerning this Notice or other aspects of the NIH Public Access Policy to:

Office of Extramural Research
National Institutes of Health
1 Center Drive, Room 144
Bethesda, MD  20892-0152
Email:  PublicAccess@nih.gov
Website: http://publicaccess.nih.gov

1Costs that can be specifically identified with a particular project or activity. NIH Grants Policy Statement, Rev. 12/2003; http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part2.htm#_Toc54600040

NOT-OD-08-033: Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research

Is Copyright Protection only for those who can afford the legal fees? - Duke City Fix

 Is Copyright Protection only for those who can afford the legal fees? - Duke City Fix

"Now I want the recipe.... Similar to Duke in a way... what to do when your copyright is violated.???... I hope that she doesn't come after me as I reprinted the entire article.... "HSM

Is Copyright Protection only for those who can afford the legal fees?

 

Last month, I picked up a copy of New Mexico WOMAN magazine, and discovered my recipe for Cheeseburger Soup on page 32. They printed it without my permission, and credited it to their columnist, Beth Donahue.

I found it under this headline, "Recipes- New Mexico WOMAN’s staff and writers are spilling their secrets—their holiday secrets that is, and if you’re looking for a dish to impress your friends or family, maybe one of these recipes will make you the prized host."

In case you’ve never seen it before, New Mexico WOMAN one of those "free" magazines you can pick up in the racks outside of Wal-Mart.

Fortunately, I still had a copy of the email I sent to Donahue when she requested the recipe. It never occurred to me that she would try to claim it as her own creation.

The Cheeseburger Soup recipe printed in New Mexico WOMAN is virtually identical to my email.

To make matters worse, I planned to submit my Cheeseburger Soup in a series of recipe contests. Now I can’t do that because once a recipe is published, it’s ineligible as a contest entry.

Since recipes, like other forms of intellectual property, are protected by copyright, I write a letter to New Mexico WOMAN Publisher Jill Duval explaining what has happened. I ask her to contact me ASAP so we can resolve the situation (you can see the actual letter in my last blog entry).

I wait 10 days, and there’s no response from Duval. I start calling the New Mexico WOMAN business office leaving messages, and after a couple of days, she returns my call.

I’m a former advertising and publishing executive, so I have a good idea what’s going to happen. Since I can prove the recipe is my original creation, she probably will apologize about the error, offer to reprint it crediting me as the actual author, and suggest a token sum in the form of compensation.

Except that’s not what she offers to do.

She offers to do nothing. She’s dismissive about the whole thing since "it’s just a recipe".

Duval says she will not apologize in writing for printing my recipe, because they did nothing wrong since they believed it was Donahue’s recipe when it appeared in the December issue.

Duval maintains they will not print a correction naming me as the actual author, because New Mexico WOMAN magazine doesn’t reprint material they have already published.

Naturally, she also refuses to discuss compensating me for my loss.

Obviously, this is all about money. Duval doesn’t want to issue a correction because she’ll have to pay me for my creative work.

I think she believes there’s nothing I can do about it, unless I get an attorney. She also figures that no lawyer will want to take the case because "it’s just a recipe".

What do you think about Duval’s response? Are we all equal under the law, or is copyright protection only for those who can afford the legal fees?

Is Copyright Protection only for those who can afford the legal fees? - Duke City Fix

Techdirt: Do You Actually Understand What Copyright Is For?

 Techdirt: Do You Actually Understand What Copyright Is For?

"Draws together many of the recent posts explaining the history and background of copyright -- HSM"

 

Do You Actually Understand What Copyright Is For?

from the most-people-don't dept

One of the more amazing things I've discovered in discussing copyright, patents and trademarks with people is that very few people seem to know what each of those three sets of regulations are actually intended for. It certainly makes reasonable discussion and debate on any sort of reform difficult when a large percentage of people involved in the debate (or, tragically, writing the laws around those regulations) seem to believe the purpose of them is entirely different than it actually is. That's why we've tried to point to some historically interesting discussions on these regulations. Two recent blog posts pointed out something interesting related to all this. The first, comes (again) from copyright expert William Patry, who points to a seven minute video of ordinary people explaining why they think copyright exists. The video itself is by Karl Fogel, who also runs a site called Question Copyright. What the video pretty clearly demonstrates is that most people have no clue why copyright exists, and many assume (as we see in the comments around here) that it's there to "protect" the content creator or to prevent plagiarism. No one seems to note that its true purpose, as per the Constitution, is to promote progress (amusingly, many believe copyright is a much more recent creation).

Techdirt: Do You Actually Understand What Copyright Is For?

Librarian: Ohio State Professors Need Copyright Refresher - Chronicle.com

Librarian: Ohio State Professors Need Copyright Refresher - Chronicle.com 

Librarian: Ohio State Professors Need Copyright Refresher

Beware of faculty members who are clueless about whether they hold the copyrights to their research papers, Trisha Davis, a librarian at Ohio State University, told a group of librarians today at the midwinter conference of the American Library Association.

She made the remark while discussing the challenges Ohio State faced in building an institutional repository. The university has over 21,000 articles — including conference papers, teaching materials, photographs, and multimedia works — in the archive.

Faculty members will submit research papers to the repository often unaware that they have signed away the rights to their work to a journal publisher, Ms. Davis said. “They are stunned that they have not retained the copyrights,” she said. “They’re vehemently adamant” that they still have rights to the work.

Also, she added, faculty members sometimes add other scholars’ material to the repository, incorrectly assuming that this is allowed under fair use. — Andrea L. Foster

Librarian: Ohio State Professors Need Copyright Refresher - Chronicle.com