Morning Coffee – 15 September 2015

21193268820_7d60f30fb1_bHere are ten stories to read this morning.

  • Barnes and Noble results and the latest news from Perseus - The Shatzkin Files (The Shatzkin Files)
  • Big, Confusing Mess Of A Fair Use Decision Over DMCA Takedowns (Techdirt)
  • Copyright Office seeks your comments on its crazy, broken plan to deal with orphan works (Boing Boing)
  • Dear Self-Published Author: Do NOT Write Four Books a Year (The Passive Voice)
  • Google Books did not fail; it succeeded (TeleRead)
  • How to install Android 5.1 on a NOOK HD or NOOK HD+ (Liliputing)
  • Readers will finish long stories—especially if they come from a trusted source (Columbia Journalism Review)
  • What Is “Publishing” if Even a Library Can Do It? (The Scholarly Kitchen)
  • Where to stash books when your shelves are overflowing (The Washington Post)
  • “WikiGate” raises questions about Wikipedia’s commitment to open access (Ars Technica)

image by Gloss Girl

About Nate Hoffelder (11594 Articles)
Nate Hoffelder is the founder and editor of The Digital Reader:"I've been into reading ebooks since forever, but I only got my first ereader in July 2007. Everything quickly spiraled out of control from there. Before I started this blog in January 2010 I covered ebooks, ebook readers, and digital publishing for about 2 years as a part of MobileRead Forums. It's a great community, and being a member is a joy. But I thought I could make something out of how I covered the news for MobileRead, so I started this blog."

1 Comment on Morning Coffee – 15 September 2015

  1. There’s a lot of noise over that DMCA takedown ruling, but I’m unclear what the fuss is about. First off, it wasn’t a decision on the case itself, but rather on both parties wanting the court to declare that they were so clearly right that there was no point in a trial. The district court didn’t think it was clear-cut and that a trial was needed, and the circuit court simply agreed. All that really happened is that the disagreement has to go to trial.

    The crux of the matter was the wording of 17 USC 512(f)(1), which basically lays out penalties for companies (or persons) that go around issuing takedown notices willy-nilly. 512(f)(1) says that there will be penalties for “knowingly willingly misrepresenting … that material or activity is infringing”.

    Since there is legal precedent that “fair use” isn’t infringing, there would be a problem if the party requesting a takedown knowingly willingly misrepresented that the usage isn’t fair use. Now, in the US, “fair use” has been intentionally kept vague; it can only be decided by a judge on a case-by-case basis. So there’s no way the copyright holder can be determine for *sure* if a particular usage is fair use. The judges stand behind precedent that all that’s need is “a subjective good faith belief”.

    For some reason they dragged out a precedent that indicated that the subjective good faith belief could come from sources other than “human review”. Therefore “the implementation of computer algorithms appears to be a valid and good faith middle ground for processing a plethora of content while still meeting the DMCA’s requirements to somehow consider fair use.” I’m not sure how that was relevant to this case, since the judges go on to note that Universal didn’t claim to have used a program to screen the video in question.

    In the end, there was nothing new. Based on existing precedents, the appeals court agreed with the lower court that the case would have to go to trial in order to determine whether Universal had a subjective good faith belief that the video was infringing (which meant they believed it wasn’t fair use).

    And that trial won’t even determine if the video was fair use or not, just whether or not Universal truly believed it wasn’t. So there could be another trial beyond that.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*