This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License.
‘Pirate’ sites Sci-Hub and LibGen have been ordered to pay millions of dollars in damages to Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers. A New York District Court granted Elsevier’s request for a default judgment of $15 million in damages. Sci-Hub’s founder says that she can’t pay the damages even if she wanted to, and for now, the “Pirate Bay for science” isn’t going anywhere.
All rights reserved. All lefts are reserved too. And while we’re reserving things, I’ll also take front row seats to all NBA Finals games. Unless you are observing the doctrine of fair use, please do not reproduce, distribute or transmit this work as it took a long time to make and I’d like to be paid for it, just as you would. If you are from the future and are in the possession of winning lottery numbers some exceptions can be made, so get in touch. Otherwise go in peace into my book with reciprocal author/reader respect. We need each other to do well. Cheers.
Dance of The Possible / Scott Berkun—1st ed.
From The Pirate’s Dilemma, December 8, 2008
I’ve never been a big fan of the Copyright Clearance Center. This isn’t helping…
I then asked CCC to clarify why an article from CCC was five times the cost of the very same article direct from the publisher. I received a quick response from CCC that said “Unfortunately, the prices that appear in our system are subject to change at the publishers’ discretion. CCC only processes the fees that the publisher provides us.”
I discovered that the publisher—who allegedly sets the price of the permission fee—also was usedIngenta document delivery, as an additional online permissions service. Just as the librarian said, Ingenta only charged $113 (which is still a big number for a five page article). I contacted the journal editor and asked about the difference and he responded immediately via email, “You are right that article is available for $113 from Ingenta. Just download from the Ingenta website.”
The difference in price can only be explained as a huge markup by CCC. Surely processing a 5-page article request cannot cost CCC an additional $400. Think about it. CCC is giving the rights holder $113 and taking the other $390.50. Deep pockets, right?
Read the full article @ District Dispatch.
I just received this from Pinterst. Ignoring the fact that I don’t recall ever pinning a blank 200×200 jpg (as why would I,) but even so, this is a bit ridiculous…
We’re getting in touch to let you know we received a copyright complaint and have removed one (or more) of your Pins. The complaint wasn’t directed against you or your Pin; it was directed against another user’s Pin of the same content from:
While many copyright owners are happy to have their content on Pinterest, we recognize that some do not want their content to appear on Pinterest, or did not receive attribution for the content. When a copyright owner sends us a complete notice per the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), it’s our policy to remove the Pin(s).
Again, this complaint was not directed at you, or anything you did: we just thought you’d like to know why we removed your Pin.
Happy Pinning and thanks again for using Pinterest.
The Pinterest Team
Pinterest DMCA #ID 802124167
Seems I’m not alone: https://wordpress.org/support/topic/copyright-problem
Stephanie Lenz was in her kitchen in rural Pennsylvania, filming her two young children having fun after dinner. As Prince’s song “Let’s Go Crazy” played, her toddler — clad in red pajamas — bounced up and down to the rhythm.
On Monday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Lenz may hold Universal Music Corp. liable for ordering YouTube to take down the video if she can show the company failed to first consider whether the footage amounted to “fair use.” An exception in the copyright law, the fair-use principle allows people to use others’ creative works in criticism, teaching and other limited circumstances.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that the music publishing company that has been collecting royalties for the song “Happy Birthday To You” does not hold a valid copyright to the popular tune that is sung worldwide.
The Associated Press has more.
And that last statement, that the Copyright Office feels these best practices are “often are arrived at absent consultation with authors and other copyright owners.” Hey Copyright Office – the orphan works don’t have any “authors and other copyright owners” – that’s the whole point. They are orphans. Why the heck would we consult with them? They don’t own the rights, and if they did, it wouldn’t be an orphan work!
Wait, what! I thought this had been settled years ago. Guess not…
The case is now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, where tomorrow morning EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry will argue that the purpose of the DMCA wasn’t just to give copyright holders an easy and quick way to issue takedowns of content without any consequence.