<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>GeekPAC &#187; copyright reform</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/tag/copyright-reform/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog</link>
	<description>Fight for Your Information Rights</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:51:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Wired: Copyright Owners Must Consider &#8216;Fair Use&#8217; Before Sending Takedown Notice</title>
		<link>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2008/08/wired-copyright-owners-must-consider-fair-use-before-sending-takedown-notice/</link>
		<comments>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2008/08/wired-copyright-owners-must-consider-fair-use-before-sending-takedown-notice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:40:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Mark</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fair use]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/?p=644</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just saw this mentioned in Wired &#8211; a federal court judge in San Jose issued a ruling in the Lenz vs. Universal case, where Universal issued a DMCA takedown notice for content posted on Youtube, and the recipient of that &#8230; <a href="http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2008/08/wired-copyright-owners-must-consider-fair-use-before-sending-takedown-notice/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just saw this mentioned in Wired &#8211; a federal court judge in San Jose issued a ruling in the Lenz vs. Universal case, where Universal issued a DMCA takedown notice for content posted on Youtube, and the recipient of that notice is now suing Universal for damages:</p>
<blockquote><p>In the nation&#8217;s first such ruling, a federal judge on Wednesday said copyright owners must consider &#8216;fair use&#8217; of their works before sending takedown notices to online video-sharing sites.</p>
<p>The 10-page <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/lenz_v_universal/lenzorder082008.pdf">decision</a> (.pdf) came a month after Universal Music <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/universal-says.html">told</a> a San Jose, California federal judge that copyright owners need not consider the &#8220;fair use&#8221; doctrine before issuing takedown notices requiring online video-sharing sites to remove content.</p></blockquote>
<p>Other than pointing out that the term &#8220;consider&#8221; presents a considerable amount of wiggle room, this seems to be a positive step in the right direction. In fact, part of Universal&#8217;s argument was that it was impossible to determine whether content met any fair use standard. It will be interesting to see if this precedent stands.</p>
<p><a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/judge-copyright.html" target="_blank">Read the full Wired article</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2008/08/wired-copyright-owners-must-consider-fair-use-before-sending-takedown-notice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Public Knowledge: Supercopyright Turns On Its Creator</title>
		<link>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2008/04/public-knowledge-supercopyright-turns-on-its-creator/</link>
		<comments>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2008/04/public-knowledge-supercopyright-turns-on-its-creator/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:05:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harold Feld</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Extra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bytesfree.org/bfblog/index.php/2008/04/02/public-knowledge-supercopyright-turns-on-its-creator/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Outside of comic books, it is exceedingly rare to see a villain receive literal and poetic justice at the hands of its own creation.  So when I read that <a href="http://www.animationmagazine.net/article/8131">Time Warner must now share the copyright for Superman</a> with the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel, I couldn&#8217;t help but give a healthy chuckle.  The cause of action flows directly from a provision of the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998, which Time Warner (along with other studios) pushed through Congress with all their lobbying might.  Granted Time Warner never supported this provision, which was a sop to folks and their heirs who sold copyrights when they thought they were only giving away 23 years plus a 23 year renewal, but TW regarded that as an acceptable risk for the billions upon billions of dollars it gained from yet another windfall in copyright land.</p><p><a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1497">read more</a></p> <a href="http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2008/04/public-knowledge-supercopyright-turns-on-its-creator/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Outside of comic books, it is exceedingly rare to see a villain receive literal and poetic justice at the hands of its own creation.  So when I read that <a href="http://www.animationmagazine.net/article/8131">Time Warner must now share the copyright for Superman</a> with the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel, I couldn’t help but give a healthy chuckle.  The cause of action flows directly from a provision of the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998, which Time Warner (along with other studios) pushed through Congress with all their lobbying might.  Granted Time Warner never supported this provision, which was a sop to folks and their heirs who sold copyrights when they thought they were only giving away 23 years plus a 23 year renewal, but TW regarded that as an acceptable risk for the billions upon billions of dollars it gained from yet another windfall in copyright land.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1497">read more</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2008/04/public-knowledge-supercopyright-turns-on-its-creator/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
