Copy Culture, Media Piracy, and Shadow Libraries

 Posted by on September 27, 2012
Sep 272012
 

September 27, 2012 | 11:30-1:30 | Room 401
American University Washington College of Law

Webcast


Panelists

Joe Karaganis
Columbia University
Bodó Balázs
Stanford

Overview

Joe Karaganis, a researcher at Columbia University’s American Assembly, and Bodó Balázs, a professor at Budapest University of Technology and Economics and Fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, will discuss their ongoing research on culture and media piracy in the U.S. and Europe.

Karaganis will discuss a recent comparative study, “Copy Culture in the US and Germany,” which maps digital media practices and attitudes toward copyright enforcement in the two countries.

Balázs will discuss his ongoing research on the complex system of rules and governance mechanisms in piratical P2P file-sharing “darknets,” including communal enforcement of intellectual property–like regimes within such communities.

Recent Developments in Fair Dealing in Canada

 Posted by on September 12, 2012
Sep 122012
 

Webcast


Panelists

Peter Jaszi
Washington College of Law
Ariel Katz
University of Toronto
Howard Knopf
Macera & Jarzyna, LLP
Martin Senftleben
University of Amsterdam

Overview

Recent copyright cases in the Supreme Court of Canada expanded fair dealing, Canada’s equivalent to U.S. fair use. These cases held, among other points, that users have rights that must be given a large and liberal interpretation”, that copyright law is about both “protection” and “access,” that “research” purposes are not strictly limited and there is no absolute requirement for transformative use in Canada. These cases stress that technological neutrality matters, paving the way for future innovation.

WCL hosted a discussion of these cases with Canadian attorneys Ariel Katz and Howard Knopf, and with comments by Prof. Martin Senftleben on how civil law judges might look at open-ended norms such as those in the Canadian cases. A summary of the event by fellow PIJIP Jimmy Koo is found below.


Description

Jimmy Koo
September 12, 2012

“Canadian Copyright: Calm, Cool, and Clever,” hosted by the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at the American University Washington College of Law, featured presentations by Professor Ariel Kats from the University of Toronto, Mr. Howard Knopf from Macera & Jarzyna, LLP, and Professor Martin Senftleben from the University of Amsterdam.

Professor Kats kicked off the event by discussing three recent developments involving copyright law in Canada. First, he discussed the unprecedented concentration of Canadian Supreme Court cases involving copyright issues in 2012. He summarized that these cases entrenched the notion of users’ rights, injected some overdue rationality to the collective administration of copyright in Canada, introduced “technology neutrality” as a fundamental principle, and declared that the traditional balance in copyright between owners’ and users’ rights should be preserved in the digital environment. Second, Professor Kats discussed the passing of Bill C-11 by the Canadian Parliament by highlighting some of its notable features such as the expansion of users’ rights (explicit recognition of education, parody, and satire in fair dealing); the exemption for user-generated-content, private copying, and temporary copies; educational exemptions; the implementation of a notice-and-notice system (unlike the notice-and takedown system in the U.S.); the cap on statutory damages for non-commercial uses ($5,000 for all infringements); and the DMCA-style anti-circumvention provision. Finally, Professor Kats discussed the changes at the grassroots level such as librarians, academics, faculty associations, and students organizations reclaiming fair dealing rights and well as revolting against Access Copyright and opt-opt systems. After discussing these three recent developments, Professor Kats analyzed in detail, the arguments involved in four of the five 2012 Canadian Supreme Court cases involving copyright issues. Namely, he discussed the two cases involving communication to the public by telecommunication (Rogers v. SOCAN; ESA v. SOCAN) and the two cases involving fair dealing (SOCAN v. Bell Canada; Alberta v. Access Copyright).

Mr. Knopf further discussed the current status in Canada on fair dealing issues. First, he analyzed some important aspects of Bill C-11 such as strong anti-circumvention measures with very limited and explicit exceptions, the explicit inclusion of “education, satire, or parody” in the fair dealing provisions, the notice-and-notice provision, as well the limitation on statutory damages. Then, he briefly discussed the six-factor test as discussed in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada which, is very similar to the test laid out under 17 U.S.C. § 107. Then, Mr. Knopf discussed the current status after the exit of the Association of Universities and Colleges Canada (AUCC) from the Copyright Board Post Secondary tariff hearing. The tariff mandates that if a university or a college makes a single copy of a single work, the institution owes money per full time equivalent student (FTE) in the university to the rights holder. He identified the remaining main players in the discussion as Access Copyright, Association of Canadian Community Colleges (ACCC), and Professor Kats. Furthermore, in light of Access Copyright’s position, asking $45 per FTE, he Mr. Knopf discussed the deal by the University of Toronto ($27.50 per FTE with MFN and expiration date of 2013), the deal by the ACCC ($10 per FTE after $1 million in fees), as well as the negotiated settlement that the AUCC walked out on ($26 per FTE and $1.7 million in legal costs). In explaining the reasons for signing these deals, Mr. Knopf referred to the retroactivity discounts and the fear factor that drove some institutions (19 universities and 19 colleges to date) to sign these licenses. However, he also noted that the resistance movement has been gaining momentum with main institutions like the University of British Columbia refusing to sign the deal.

Professor Senftleben discussed the legislative problems in the European Union involving copyright limitations and exceptions. Namely, he highlighted the difficulty of coordination and implementation of laws among twenty-seven member countries. He compared the distinctive features of Anglo-American laws (fair use, open factors, case-by-case approach by judges, and the advantage of flexibility as well as quick reaction to new developments) with the features of laws in continental Europe (statutory limitations, fixed requirements, closed catalogue of limitations decided by legislators, the advantage of legal certainty, and the disadvantage of slow reactions to new developments). As an example, he discussed the three-step-test included in Art. 5(5) of the EU Copyright Directive. He noted that the effect of Art. 5(5) amounts to broad exclusive rights counter-balanced with exhaustive enumeration of exceptions, plus the regulation of the enumeration by the three-step test. Therefore, he noted that under the Directive, copyright limitations and exceptions must be interpreted narrowly and strictly in light of the three-step test. Next, Professor Senftleben discussed the possible solutions involving a “fair balance between the rights and interests of right holders on one hand and of users of protected works on the other hand” as well as a “fair balance between the right to freedom of expression of users of a work or other protected subject matter and reproduction right conferred on authors” by citing two cases from the Court of Justice of the European Union – FA Premier League and Eva-Maria Painer. Next, he discussed the possible enabling function of the three-step test, illustrated by Art. 9(2) of the Berne Convention, Art. 13 of TRIPS, and the Agreed Statements on Art. 10 of WCT. Professor Senftleben concluded by highlighting the growing interest in fair use solutions in the European Union by noting the consultation rounds for fair use as an option in the UK, the consultation on new legislation in Ireland, and the interest in more flexible limitations among industry circles in Germany.

Webcast: PIJIP Discussion of Apple v. Samsung

 Posted by on September 6, 2012
Sep 062012
 

On August 27, 2012, American University Washington College of Law Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property held an event on the Apple-Samsung verdict and litigation.

Professor Jorge Contreras, who researches and teaches on patent licensing and is a frequent public commenter on the case, discussed Apple’s utility patent claims.  Professor Jonas Anderson, who teaches patent law and has litigated design patent cases, discussed Apple’s design patent claims.  Professor Christine Farley, a scholar and teacher of U.S. and international trademark law, discussed Apple’s trade dress claims.

BACKGROUND

On August 25 Apple won a stunning victory in its long-running patent battle with Samsung. A jury in San Jose, California decided for Apple on nearly all counts, finding Samsung liable for willfully infringing Apple’s patents covering the design of its iPhone and iPad products, as well as features like “tap to zoom” and other finger-sliding commands. Samsung was unsuccessful in asserting its own patents, mostly covering wireless telecommunications standards, against Apple. The jury assessed more than $1 billion in damages against Samsung, an amount that could be further increased by the judge. Even more critically, a hearing has been set for Sept. 20 to determine whether the court will issue an injunction preventing the sale of Samsung’s products in the US.

PRESS INQUIRIES

Jorge Contreras
contreras@wcl.american.edu
314-566-6695

 

Oct 292011
 
102511event

As part of International Week at WCL, and Open Access week worldwide, PIJIP hosted an event on October 25 to discuss current trends in open access. Learn more about Creative Commons and copyright, Open Access publishing initiatives, access to scholarly research, and how publications (including WCL’s own Intellectual Property Brief!) are making information available.

 Posted by on October 29, 2011  Tagged with:
Oct 072011
 
100511golanevent

Copyright’s relationship with the First Amendment is back before the U.S. Supreme Court, with oral arguments held on October 5th, 2011. The Washington D.C. Chapter of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A. and the American University Washington College of Law Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP) co-sponsored a post-argument event where you can hear lawyers for the Petitioners and the Respondents summarize their views of the case and the Justices’ questions.

Anthony Falzone of the Stanford Law School Center For Internet and Society, counsel of record for the Petitioners, argues that copyright restoration violated the First Amendment and the Copyright Clause. David Carson, General Counsel of the U.S. Copyright Office, reflects on what took place at the argument. Responsive comments are provided by Christopher Mohr of Meyer, Klipper & Mohr P.L.L.C. (who submitted an amici brief as counsel for the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, et al.), and WCL Professor Michael Carroll (who submitted two amicus briefs as counsel for Professor Peter Decherney and Heartland Angels).

Aug 292011
 
GC2011Keynote

The global intellectual property landscape has witnessed important changes in recent years. Most notably, the public interest dimension of intellectual property has emerged as a paramount concern. Though there seems to be a fairly broad agreement on the need for a more balanced intellectual property system which effectively promotes innovation, views diverge on how to best achieve it. The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest brought together scholars, policymakers, and policy advocates to discuss and to deliberate about the opportunities for constructing a positive policy and research agenda.

Peter Jaszi
American University

Intellectual Property Expansion and Public Interest Responses

Pamela Samuelson
Berkeley Law

Changing Technology & Public Interest Legal Reform.

Bernt Hugenholtz
University of Amsterdam

Framing the Public Interest Agenda in Copyright

Professor Carlos Correa, University of Buenos Aires

Carlos Correa
University of Buenos Aires

Perspectives from the South on IP and Innovation

Aug 262011
 
GC2011Grossman

The global intellectual property landscape has witnessed important changes in recent years. Most notably, the public interest dimension of intellectual property has emerged as a paramount concern. Though there seems to be a fairly broad agreement on the need for a more balanced intellectual property system which effectively promotes innovation, views diverge on how to best achieve it. The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest brought together scholars, policymakers, and policy advocates to discuss and to deliberate about the opportunities for constructing a positive policy and research agenda.