Do Libraries Need Permission To Lend Out Ebooks?

from the they-shouldn't dept

Reader OG points us to this NY Times article about how libraries are increasingly offering ebooks for download. This, of course, seems like a good idea, and fits in with the purpose of a library, but where the article gets either laughable or head-bangingly annoying is where it starts discussing how publishers have serious problems with this whole concept. Some publishers are refusing to allow libraries to lend out their ebooks...which makes me wonder why the publishers have any say in the matter. Thanks to the right of first sale, a library should be able to lend out an ebook if it's legally purchased it without having to get the publisher's permission.

Furthermore, the rest of the discussion is just silly. There are arguments about how many ebooks can be "checked out" at once or how the DRM works (which blocks the most popular ebook readers from being supported). There's also an issue of publishers charging libraries much higher prices for ebooks, and scoffing at a librarian who suggests that libraries should be allowed to offer as many copies as needed of an ebook to lend at the same time, and just pay the publishers a nominal fee.

It's hard to describe how insane this whole discussion sounds. Here you have a fantastic tool to support a library's main purpose in the world, and we're arguing over what sorts of artificial restrictions to set up to limit that tool from actually being useful? It's as if we discovered a way to make all the food the world ever needed, and we sit around talking about how to make sure that most people don't get fed. It would make me laugh if it weren't so disturbing that people seem to think this is a good thing.

52 Comments | Leave a Comment..

MLB Refuses To Give Permission To Guy To Describe Game To A Friend

from the expressed-written-permission dept

A couple years ago, law professor Wendy Seltzer used the NFL as an example of sports leagues performing copyfraud, by claiming copyright control beyond what is allowed by law. Specifically, she was talking about the warning mentioned at some point during every game. For the NFL it was: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited." In Seltzer's case, amazingly, the NFL sent a DMCA takedown of her posting that clip to YouTube -- giving her another "teachable moment" on copyright abuse.

And yet, sports leagues still continue the copyfraud. One of the fine folks over at Consumerist, Phil Villarreal, found the wording of Major League Baseball's warning quite questionable:

"Any rebroadcast, retransmission, or account of this game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is prohibited,"

Unlike the NFL one, at least it didn't say "descriptions," but "account" is pretty close. So, Villarreal contacted MLB to request "express written consent" to provide an "account" of the game he had watched to a friend. To its credit, MLB responded and asked him to call someone in its business development department... who (perhaps reasonably) thought it was a joke and did not provide the written consent (and stopped responding to calls and emails).

Now, obviously, this is a bit of a joke (and a funny one), but it does highlight a rather serious problem. Copyright holders are pretty regularly claiming significantly more rights than they actually hold over content, and many people simply assume that they can do this. This leads to them to think that they don't have basic rights concerning not just "fair use" but stuff that is obviously not covered by copyright, such as an "account of this game." There really should be sanctions against such copyfraud.

74 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Should XM Have To Get Permission From The Recording Industry To Innovate?

from the still-asking dept

In a rather disappointing move, satellite radio company XM has now settled with EMI concerning a lawsuit over its Inno device, that allowed users to record XM streams. This follows XM's similar settlements with the other major record labels last year. No terms are being announced, which is problematic. The whole problem with this lawsuit was the fact that the record labels seemed to believe that XM was unable to innovate without getting their permission and paying them. The Inno device was simply a device to record satellite radio streams -- which is perfectly legal. Time shifting and recording radio is well-established as being legal. But the recording industry used the case to try to squeeze extra royalty payments out of XM.

This is exactly the sort of "chilling effect" that people keep pointing out when it comes to copyright laws. These laws put the entertainment companies in a position where they get to dictate what kind of devices are legal and which are not. Increasing the uncertainty over whether or not a simple device like the Inno is legal, and forcing a two year legal battle to take place is no way to promote progress and innovation. It just makes many companies unwilling to go through that process just to offer the type of device that makes perfect sense and which customers want. It's doubly troublesome in that the RIAA specifically said that it would not step in to prevent these types of devices. Except that it did.

With that said, I was hoping that XM would stand up to the lawsuits and set a precedent, making it clear that the record labels cannot sue to block new technologies. However, with all of these settlements, that's not the case -- so the uncertainty and the chilling effects remain for all others. No settlement terms have been released, so it may even be that XM agreed to pay off the record labels to get them to settle, which would be even worse. It would just give the labels that much more incentive to keep suing every innovative new product that hits the market. This is extortion that slows down innovation and progress -- which is what we thought copyright was supposed to be promoting.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Grateful Dead Label Demands NPR Feature Story To Blog A Grateful Dead Song

from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept

If you haven't followed the "MP3 blogging" scene, it's grown quite big over the past few years, to the point that most folks (including the record labels) have effectively turned a blind eye to the copyright questions it raises (for once, this is a good thing). In many cases, record labels even treat some of the best music bloggers similar to the way they've always treated radio DJs -- sending them promo CDs and trying to get "air time." Most music bloggers don't ask for permission before blogging songs (some have policies saying they'll take down a song if any musician complains). However, over on an NPR blog, one of the bloggers has been putting together "mixes" of music on the blog, and being quite careful to ask for permission before any song is included. As BoingBoing points out, when the blogger, Carrie Brownstein, asked the Grateful Dead's label if she could use a Grateful Dead song, the response was a rather pompous demand that the band would require a piece done on the band on the radio show All Things Considered as well as a feature about the Grateful Dead on the NPR website. Just for using a song in a way that many would say was fair use (not to mention that it would be from a band that actively encouraged fans to tape and share its music broadly). If anything, it sounds like the record label overreaching in seeing an opportunity to get more press for a band that hardly needs any more. But, on the whole, it shows the sort of attitude that's becoming all too pervasive these days when people need to ask "permission" to help promote a song or a band.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NY Legislator Looks To Outlaw Behavioral Targeted Ads Without Opt-In

from the a-bit-late-for-that dept

A New York Assembly member is pushing to outlaw targeted advertising without opt-in approval. Given the scrutiny facing companies like Phorm in the UK, this isn't all that surprising. However, the complaints around Phorm are that it tracks all of your surfing activity and generates ads based on that aggregate info. The bill that is being discussed in New York would apparently apply to websites that do targeted advertising within the site. That seems both extreme and unnecessary. Even though the law would technically only apply to New York, since it would be difficult to figure out who's in NY and who's elsewhere, it would force many providers to get rid of targeted advertising. It seems a bit extreme to think that targeted advertising should be banned entirely, without an initial opt-in. By this point, most people probably expect basic targeting to take place, and when done right, such targeted ads should be more effective. The real problem comes in when such targeting presents a privacy violation, but the focus then should be on privacy laws, not specifically targeting a single activity such as targeted ads.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..