La Grande Rousse récidive:

Thot nous offre un tout petit article, signé Manuel Rulier, sur les droits d’auteur au Canada. Petit, certes, mais truffé d’hyperliens vers une bonne poignée de ressources et de documentation sur les droits d’auteur. Un seul bémol, de « copyleft» et de licences de type « Creative Commons» (documentation en anglais) ou « art libre», nul mot. Par contre, j’y ai dégoté un glossaire du guide canadien des droits d’auteurs offert en français ou en anglais.

Tout savoir sur les droits d’auteur. (Je trouve le titre un tantinet ambitieux, mais bon…)

Et le document dont il est question, gracieuseté de Strategis.

[Les coups de langue de la grande rousse]

The Digital Signature Law Survey was updated on 12 February 2003.
The Digital Signature Law Survey is a project by Simone van der Hof. The Digital Law Survey presents an overview of existing and proposed legislation with respect to electronic authentication and more specifically digital signatures.

This survey is similar to the Crypto Law Survey, which is maintained by Bert-Jaap Koops. The Crypto Law Survey deals with restrictions on the use of cryptography for law enforcement purposes (e.g. import/export controls).

Jusqu’où va le droit d’auteur

Jusqu’où va le droit d’auteur ? Qui doit décider de sa portée ? Les auteurs eux-même n’ont-ils pas leur mot à dire et doivent-ils continuer, le cas échéant, à céder leurs droits à ceux qui les diffusent ? Lettre d’une consommatrice. À lire et à réfléchir. Lettre ouverte aux auteurs. Via uZine3.

von Lohmann on Copyright Law for P2P Developers & Investors

[via GrepLaw]

So Donna over at Copyfight now has RSS feeds. Well, someone is scraping them for her. This is really nice because this feed was high on my wishlist.

[via bricoleur]

You’ve seen the IDG story at ITWorld (ok maybe not) and at Maccentral (I’m sure Fleecy noticed). But no one bothered to link to the original document. Quite frankly, I didn’t bother to look it up myself (or repost the same story here) until Cla pointed it out to me (that’s the press release, here are the documents of the commission). As always, thanks.

Let it be noted that despite the title of the IDG article, this proposed directive aims to fight counterfeiting and piracy and it’s content it totally coherent with those goals. e.g. Criminal liability for intentional and serious infringement. It does seem to mostly target large scale counterfeiters; they do qualify it as containing « TRIPS plus » rules.

I don’t pretend to be able to understand the EU style of redaction for the directives, but as far as downloading is concerned, the FAQ states:

Q. Will this Directive mean that young people using file swapping software via their PCs will be held liable for IPR infringement?
A.The proposed Directive would not introduce tougher sanctions against individuals downloading the odd track for non-commercial purposes, though it would not stop Member State authorities from introducing and applying tougher laws.The scope of this proposal covers infringements carried out for commercial purposes or which cause significant harm to the rightholder.File swapping may be considered a copyright infringement depending on the national law in question.This proposal only covers illegal acts, where authorisation has not been given by the rightholder or where the appropriate remuneration has not been paid for the use of that piece of intellectual property.Exchanging illegal content over the internet is an illegal act, or an infringement of copyright if it relates to music files.[…]

I had missed that the comments from the first round of consultation on DMCA exceptions were posted mid-january. Not all of them are as well articulated as I would have expected.

[thanks Cla]

Beyond Napster: using antitrust law to advance and enhance online music distribution, Matthew Fagin, Frank Pasquale, & Kim Weatherall, Journal of Science & Technology Law, Boston University School of Law

A Warning to Technology and Consumer Electronic Companies Being Pressured by Copyright Holding Companies

Comment by my director: that’s exactly the kind of spirit I want to convey. I chose wisely.

[via Greplaw]

Sniter points out that the recent Search King decision involving Google’s Page Rank technology could be viewed as the acknowledgement by the court that Google’s discretion in the construction of the Page Rank represents the expressive nature of such code.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Google’s PageRanks are entitled to First Amendment protection.

Code is speech. It’s like a mantra. Chant early, chant often

LawMeme’s initial coverage and reaction to the decision.

The Economist on copyrights

Digital technologies are not only making it easier to copy all sorts of works, but also sharply reducing the costs of creating or distributing them, and so also reducing the required incentives. The flood of free content on the internet has shown that most creators do not need incentives that stretch across generations. To reward those who can attract a paying audience, and the firms that support them, much shorter copyrights would be enough. The 14-year term of the original 18th-century British and American copyright laws, renewable once, might be a good place to start.

Hey, why settle for less?

[Via Lessig]

Update: actually, the whole serie titled « Survey: the internet society » is quite interesting. It starts with « Digital Dilemmas« .

An interesting take on the evolution of culture and copyright

Good art is good PR: Artists used to be sponsored by the very rich, partly so that the patrons might be remembered by their association with a work of art valuable (and preserved) for its own sake. Today’s artists are sponsored by middlemen (broadcasters, content providers, music publishers, etc.) to create content for its own sake, which is then bundled with advertisements and sold or otherwise distributed to the public – but in a copyright-controlled fashion.

Coming soon to our universe: advertisers who sponsor art where « product placement » is an integral feature of the art itself. Check out www.bmwfilms.com as an example of cool content that wants to be free – and freely distributed. Will this kind of art outlast the product?

[via Bill Fitler’s HeisenBlog]