Depends on the field; Computer Science is a relatively newer field with a lot of practical applications, so I feel we get a solid amount of new material in our literature.
The vast majority of CS books are being published by people who work in the private sector, not by academics.
In fact, if you look at academic CS journals, half of them are still coding in Lisp or Scheme(!). Quite a few of the academic papers should also be described as theoretical mathematics, rather than computer science - at least as the lay person knows it. (Example: "Exact Matrix Completion via Convex Optimization" (PDF).)
This is not to say you're wrong, by any means, just that a lot of the practical work done in CS nowadays is not done by academics, nor funded with grants. So it's a bit different than the situation described in this article.
why no data on 2010, and why the HUGE spike from 1990 onwards
- The study was published two years ago, so it's likely that 2010 data was the most recently available.
- The data doesn't show how many titles, total, were published by decade. It shows how many titles which are being sold in 2010 were published, by decade.
- The data only shows new book titles sold by Amazon (in both figures) and used book titles sold by Abe Books (in the bottom figure). As far as I know, they only deal with physical books, since Abe Books doesn't do any other kind.
In other words, it showed that in 2010, Amazon was selling more titles that were initially published in 1910, than it was selling titles that were initially published in 2010.
The drop-off before the 1990's shows that the commercial shelf-life for a title under copyright is only about 10-20 years, while the commercial shelf-life for a title in the public domain is over a century.
It also shows how much is lost due to copyright protection. Consider that it's very likely that the number of titles being published increased over time, at least in the long term. The difference between the 1910 figures and the figures for each decade, represent the bare minimum of titles that have fallen out of print. But because they're still under copyright, no other publisher has a right to reprint them, meaning they're completely unavailable.
Publishers have no economic motivation to spend money on out-of-print books. And if the copyright holders decide not to spend the money archiving the originals, it means that there's a high likelihood that those titles are lost forever.
So, no, the data does not suggest that "copyright is the way to do it right." It suggests that lengthy copyright terms result in culture being lost. It suggests that copyright is the way to do it wrong.
Incidentally, if you read the study itself, Heald also analyzes data about songs and DVD's, which aren't covered in this story. It's worth a read.
The staggering amount of takedowns proves Google is more than aware.
They must be aware of specific infringements at specific web locations, and furthermore take no action to remove the content.
Google is made aware of those specific locations only because of those takedown notices. They would be liable if they received those takedown notices and failed to respond. But Google does respond.
So, no, they are not liable because of this.
Google receives ad revenue in various ways via pirate site listings.
No, they don't. For one thing, the ad revenue must be generated from the infringement itself. Merely having ads that show up on a search for "Breaking Bad download" does not mean that their ad revenue is generated from infringement. They make just as much ad revenue if the user clicks on a link to iTunes or Amazon or wherever.
Google complies with the individual takedowns but allows repeat infringer's links to continue to show up.
The DMCA only requires that service providers terminate the accounts on the service provider's system that are used by repeat infringers. This is explicit, black-letter law:
(i) Conditions for Eligibility.— (1) Accommodation of technology.— The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider— (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and (B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
The law says, explicitly, that the condition is that they terminate the accounts of repeat infringers, and only those that reside on "the service provider's system or network."
Neither the sites that show up in search engine results, nor the people who search using those search engines, have accounts on the search engine's system. The DMCA does not require that any search engine "terminate" anything else.
In fact, under your interpretation, no search engine would have DMCA protections. That's clearly not what Congress intended, nor what the law says.
Bye bye Google.
Keep dreaming. Even if - by some misreading of the law - search engines were not found to have safe harbors under the DMCA, then Google would still need to be found liable under some theory of contributory infringement. They're not.
Prove it. Show me the statute that says I'm wrong, or a judge that has agreed with you.
Maybe try asking a lawyer to explain the DMCA to you?
I know quite a few lawyers, thanks, and I've talked with them about copyright law quite a bit.
But I don't need to. All I need to do is look at the explicit wording of the statutes:
Other Defenses Not Affected. - The failure of a service provider’s conduct to qualify for limitation of liability under this section shall not bear adversely upon the consideration of a defense by the service provider that the service provider’s conduct is not infringing under this title or any other defense.
New Section 512 contains limitations on service providers' liability for five general categories of activity set forth in subsections (a) through (d) and subsection (f). As provided in subsection (k), new Section 512 is not intended to imply that a service provider is or is not liable as an infringer either for conduct that qualifies for a limitation of liability or for conduct that fails to so qualify. Rather, the limitations of liability apply if the provider is found to be liable under existing principles of law.
A service provider that qualifies for such protection is not liable for monetary relief and may be subject only to the narrow injunctive relief set forth in section 512(j). 17 U.S.C. § 512(a). If Perfect 10 demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits, Google must show a likelihood of succeeding in its claim that it qualifies for protection under title II of the DMCA.
[...] Perfect 10 argues that we are bound by the language and structure of title II of the DMCA in determining Google's liability for copyright infringement. We have noted that the DMCA does not change copyright law; rather, "Congress provided that [the DMCA's] limitations of liability apply if the provider is found to be liable under existing principles of law." Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1077 (emphasis and internal quotation omitted). As a result, "[c]laims against service providers for direct, contributory, or vicarious copyright infringement, therefore, are generally evaluated just as they would be in the non-online world." Id.; see also 17 U.S.C. § 512(l) ("The failure of a service provider's conduct to qualify for limitation of liability under this section shall not bear adversely upon the consideration of a defense by the service provider that the service provider's conduct is not infringing under this title or any other defense."). Therefore, we must consider Google's potential liability under the Copyright Act without reference to title II of the DMCA.
The Ninth Circuit has made clear that Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing RapidShare’s liability under the Copyright Act without reference to the DMCA, and that Defendants then have the burden of showing a likelihood that their DMCA defense will succeed.
- Perfect 10 v. Rapidshare
myVidster received “takedown” notices from Flava designed to activate the duty of an Internet service provider to ban repeat infringers from its website, and Flava contends that myVidster failed to comply with the notices. But this is irrelevant unless myVidster is contributing to infringement; a noninfringer doesn’t need a safe harbor.
- Flava Works v. myVidster
I'm sure I could dig up more if I wanted to.
Maybe you should have someone else explain the DMCA to you.
Though, technically, they don't need to comply. The law says that they automatically get immunity from all liability if they do; it does not say they are automatically liable if they do not.
Of course, since immunity from all legal liability is such a strong incentive, and there are no disincentives for compliance, everyone complies with the DMCA as if it were a legal requirement. The only times that companies fail to comply with takedown notices - legitimate or not - is when they're so obviously bogus, the companies feel they can securely risk liability by ignoring them.
That's why compliance is absolutely not an indicator of takedown legitimacy.
The fact that Google complied with them does not mean they're "legitimate." For instance, a 2006 paper by Jennifer Urban and Laura Quilter (PDF) claimed that over half of Google's search takedown notices were illegitimate - though Google complied with them.
Google does not have a valid repeat infringer policy. They are going to be sued out of existence.
If you're talking about Google search, then they don't need a repeat infringer policy under 17 USC 512(d). If you mean YouTube, then yes, they absolutely do have a valid repeat infringer policy.
I know you and your buddies like to pretend Google does nothing but launder pirate money, but that's simply a lie.
Re: Minion focused on exceptions rather than definition:
Says plainly that foreknowledge is KEY element
Oh, you're making stuff up again.
No, that section says absolutely nothing about foreknowledge. Let's put that emphasis where it really belongs:
"to produce or create, or conspire to produce or create, a video or audio recording, digital electronic file, or other visual depiction or representation of a violent crime, as defined in Section 16-1-60 [violent crimes], during its commission."
So, no, you don't need "foreknowledge," you just need to film a crime as it's being committed - whether you have any association with the criminal or not.
Seems you can still record police officers. Am I missing something?
That section applies only to police officers themselves. That is, the police can "produce or create, or conspire to produce or create, a video or audio recording, digital electronic file, or other visual depiction or representation of a violent crime," and the police can "publish, or otherwise make the video or audio recording, digital electronic file, or other visual depiction or representation available for public display."
The exemptions enumerate the actor who film, not the actors who are filmed. Otherwise, it would apply to filming "any bona fide news gathering activities," which is clearly not what the statute intends.
What's so alarming is that you don't need to be associated with the criminal in any way. The conspiracy charge applies to recording of the criminal act; not to the act itself. Unless you're one of the enumerated exceptions, you can't film any crime at all - whether you're filming cops behaving criminally, some random crime on the street, or even your own attackers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Congrats to the W3C
there is no inherent right of the fan to reprint the work of someone else
Yes, actually, there are several inherent rights to do so. You have an inherent right to free speech, even if you're repeating the speech of others. You have an inherent right to the results of your labor, even if those results are the same as the results of someone else's labor. You have an inherent right to private posession, even if you're creating copies of your private posessions to give (or even sell) to others.
What there is not, is an inherent right for me to take those rights away from you. I do have such rights under copyright law, but they are not inherent rights; they are solely a creation of the State.
Whether it is good or bad that the State remove those rights is an open question. But if we're talking about copyright, it's the only question possible.
Your numbers above about digital downloads are informative however, I would point out the decline in sales started in 1999, when P2P for music began.
The decline in sales didn't start until 2001, which (coincidentally) was when Napster was shut down. And they didn't reach the low levels that we had in 1982, the year the CD was introduced, until 2009.
I state again, if in the US, you can play music from the radio or tv in your store without a care.
No, you can't. You may have to pay licenses to rights holders to do so. Certain public performances of over-the-air radio and TV broadcasts are exempted, but by no means all of them. It depends upon what type of store you have, how many square feet your store is, how many speakers you have, the size of your TV, and other things like that. See 17 USC 110.
If you felt the mention of Kool-aid was offensive I will refrain.
Yeah, 'cause it isn't offensive to say your opponents are just like the suicidal cult followers of Jim Jones. Not at all.
Why bother editing a magazine and paying for health insurance for salaried writers when you can pay Jimmy Wales a few million and he'll keep is foolish drones creating more content for your ad machine?
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
1. The Wikimedia Foundation gets the vast majority of their funding from private donors, not corporations - "ad machines" or otherwise. (Source.)
2. Wikipedia does not have any advertising on their site, Google or otherwise.
3. Wales himself receives no salary from the Wikimedia Foundation.
4. Google does not use Wikipedia content for anything that I'm aware of. Google search returns links to Wikipedia pages, but a link in a search result is hardly "free content." If it is, then they're also getting this "free content" from people who edit magazines and pay for health insurance and salaried writers, so your point is moot.
Your post is completely ridiculous on every level.