This One from WI says A survey of 1,020 libraries by the University of Illinois in
January and February showed 85 libraries nationwide had been
visited by federal agents seeking information on patrons related to
terrorism. Specific information on which libraries were contacted was
unavailable because of gag provisions in the federal law that
broadened the federal government\'s investigation powers after the
Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Washington Post has a story as well.
Last summer, the library submitted a trademark registry request with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office for \"Book Mouse,\" a blue, large-eared rodent wearing red-rimmed glasses and a backpack. Book Mouse appears on bumper stickers and in coloring books, and even marches in local parades.
Library attorney Patric Parker said \"I don\'t think we cut into their movie profits this last year.\"
From the San Diego Union Tribute, with thanks to Metafilter:
The industry worries that the expanding used market is cannibalizing new-CD sales, as well as promoting piracy by allowing consumers to buy, record and sell back discs while retaining their own digitally pristine copies.
One proposed remedy being debated by record label executives is federal legislation requiring used-CD retailers to pay royalties on secondary sales of albums.
A cover story in last week\'s issue of the music trade publication Billboard quoted several executives who said they favor the establishment of an agency that would exert a flat royalty rate – say, 6 percent or so – on retailers\' sales of CDs sold over and over again.
Full article. Although a similar proposal by the music industry was rejected last year, this would still seem to merit attention given the downturn in book sales, and libraries\' reliance on the right of first sale and related laws to do business . . . I\'m sure the AAP will be next in line if the music moguls are successful this time around. Also worthwhile is Michael Fraase\'s Controlling Copyright Through Technology: When Elephants Dance (Thanks to wood s lot for this one.)
The recent Danish
lawsuit against deep
linking had one
blogger ask \"if link-blocking software is readily available and a website
doesn\'t employ it, does that imply a license to link?\" Lawmeme\'s
poster took \"exception\" with that, opining that \"the idea that there should
be a license assumes that the owner of the website has some right to control
linking,\" continuing his explanation by reminding me IANAL with, \"but that
for some undefined reason there would be a rebuttable presumption of an
implied license.\" It\'s a brief, lively defense of deep-linking and
points out the DMOZ
rank) as well as the ALA
deep linking resources (the latter, I\'m sure, to get a LISNews writeup;-).
New Justice Department guidelines to be unveiled today will give FBI agents latitude to monitor Internet sites, libraries and religious institutions without first having to offer evidence of potential criminal activity, officials said yesterday.
From the Wall Street Journal:
For more than 15 years, [Pamela] Samuelson . . . a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has been fighting what she sees as overzealous and innovation-stifling expansion of copyright laws in the high-tech arena . . .
Now she is taking on one of her biggest challenges so far -- attacking the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, an anti-piracy law backed by the entertainment industry. Ms. Samuelson thinks the law protects intellectual-property rights at the expense of technological research and innovation, as well as the broader public interest . . .
This site collects material related to the constitutional challenge of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended by 20 years both existing copyrights and future copyrights. It includes a Section on how you can help.
BusinessWeek has This Story that points out Hollywood has been on a remarkable legislative and legal winning streak in its campaign to win increased protections.
\"first sale\" and \"fair use\" are threatened by the development of digital media and they way Big Media\'s has been able to completely control it, and this has destroyed the delicate equilibrium that is copyright law.
James Nimmo sent over This One that says by an 8-1 vote The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal law that makes it a crime to put on the Internet sexually explicit material that can be viewed by minors was not unconstitutional just because it relied on community standards.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that reliance on community standards to identify material harmful to minors does not by itself render the law too broad under the First Amendment.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said community standards would not work in cyberspace. He said \"the community that wishes to live without certain material not only rids itself, but the entire Internet of the offending speech.\"