https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/22/book-publishers-wont-stop-until-libraries-are-dead/ [ ] Techdirt. [ ] * Sign In * Register * Preferences Techdirt [ ] * TechDirt * GreenHouse * Free Speech * Deals * Jobs * Support Techdirt [podcast-ti] Net Neutrality's Dead: Time To Focus On The Real Issue: Telecom Monopolization Daily Deal: Nix Mini Color Sensor V2 Book Publishers Won't Stop Until Libraries Are Dead [copy-right] Copyright from the defend-libraries dept Wed, Mar 22nd 2023 09:27am - Mike Masnick Earlier this week there was finally a hearing in the case brought by the big book publishers to kill off libraries. That, of course, is not how the publishers describe the lawsuit, but it's absolutely what the lawsuit is about. We'll get to some of the details in a moment, but we've joked in the past that if libraries were new today there's no way that book publishers would let them exist. In some ways they're a legacy holdover from before publishers had that much power. The attack on controlled digital lending (CDL) more or less proves this. As much as publishers like to claim they "love libraries," their actions here speak quite clearly that they would destroy them if they could. Controlled digital lending is no different from how a library lends out books today. In both cases, it gets a physical copy of the book (either through purchase or donation), and then proceeds to lend out that copy. With a physical library it's literally that physical copy. With CDL it's a scan of that book, but the scan is tied to the physical copy, so that if a digital copy is loaned out, no one else can take out another copy. Every part of that has been deemed legal. Copyright law already has first sale rights, written directly into the law and allow for the lending or reselling of copyright-covered works without a license or permission. Similarly libraries are given explicit rights to make copies, so long as those collections are made available to the public. On top of that, courts have determined, multiple times, that book scanning itself is fair use for libraries. So, literally each separate component of what is happening with Controlled Digital Lending has already been deemed to be legal and exactly what we expect libraries to do. To counter this, publishers (and their supporters, which unfortunately include some authors) argue that (1) this interferes with the market for licensed ebooks, and (2) that there is a real difference in lending out the digital scans: that they don't deteriorate the way that physical books do. There are simple answers to both of these. First, (1) is a preposterous argument because (yet again) you could say the exact same thing for regular, existing libraries. The question is not must copyright enable any market. It's whether or not copyright allows certain behaviors, and here it absolutely does. And that doesn't even get into the fact that the big publishers have turned licensed ebooks for libraries into an extortionate, nonsense scheme to effectively block libraries from lending ebooks at all. If anything, what's happened in the market for licensed ebooks to libraries actually helps to prove why we need controlled digital lending in the first place. As for (2) that argument is also garbage for a number of reasons, most notably that official ebooks are just generally way more useful than the scanned ebooks anyway. The formatting is better, they're designed to work better on ebook readers which provide additional features. In almost every case, scanned CDL books are a second-best choice compared to what else is available. In other words, it's most likely only used when other options aren't readily available. Update: After this post was written, but before it was published, one of the authors of this book published a post on Facebook saying that the copyright license text discussed below was a mistake and was removed in future copies. I'm leaving the overall text here to note the kind of attitude, but will note that they disclaim it (though their explanation does not make much sense, as I can't see why a "formatter" would add text, or why its "intention" made any sense either. I have removed the images of used copies for sale at the end of this article, however. Either way, here is the original text which is still representative of how some people view copyright: But, again, the legacy book publishing world is really admitting they hate libraries. Somewhat incredibly-timed, the same day as the hearing in this lawsuit, a tweet went viral highlighting a laughably wrong copyright statement from a "dark fantasy romance series" called "Zodiac Academy." The verbiage on the copyright page is so over the top that it made me wonder if it was parody: [210df0ca-a] It reads: This book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it wasn't purchased for your use only, then please return to your favorite book retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author. All rights reserved. That's not how any of this works. The very next line says "This is a work of fiction" which is supposed to apply to the book itself, but could accurately be used to describe the "license" claims above it. A license for written works is limited to what the author can claim under copyright law, and as noted above, none of what is claimed here is allowed under copyright law, meaning that this license itself is a form of copyfraud: it attempts to limits a users' own rights through deception regarding the actual limits of copyright law. This particular bit of nonsense has shown up on Reddit in the past as well, but went even more viral this time, and at a perfect time to highlight just how much the modern publishing industry absolutely would destroy libraries if given the opportunity. And that brings us to the hearing. You never quite know how a judge is going to rule, and from the descriptions of the arguments in court it sounds like Judge John Koeltl asked tough questions of both sides. He challenged the publishers to explain if they had any evidence that the Internet Archive's Open Library caused them any harm (as their own bottom lines grew massively after it was opened). However, he also questioned whether or not the Internet Archive really has the right to make copies. The answer to that question should be obviously yes, based on the law and the case law on this matter, but you never know how judges will rule. The publishers, for their part, tried to argue away their successful pandemic run by arguing... they should have made even more money: During this same time, however, the book publishing industry experienced so much demand that revenues rose by 12 percent, amounting to a $3 billion spike in sales by 2021, Publishers Weekly reported. Because publishers profited when the National Emergency Library was made available, Koeltl pushed back on McNamara, asking how to reconcile the surge in profits with allegations of harm caused. McNamara seemed to suggest that publishers would have been further enriched if not for IA providing unprecedented free, unlimited e-books access. She also told Koeltl that publishers suing--Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Wiley--are concerned that there are already some libraries avoiding paying e-book licensing fees by partnering with IA and making their own copies. If the court sanctioned IA's digitization practices and thousands of libraries started digitizing the books in their collections, the entire e-book licensing market would collapse, McNamara suggested. But, uh, the same argument could be easily made against existing libraries. And yet, we treasure them and they've done nothing to destroy the book market (and much to help it!). The lawyer for the publishers also trotted out this debunked nonsense: "Free is an insurmountable competitor," the publishers' complaint said. I mean, we've been hearing that stupid line for ages, and it's never been true. As I noted nearly two decades ago, saying you can't compete with free, is actually an admission that you can't compete at all. As noted above, there is a qualitative difference between scanned ebooks and licensed ones, but the publishers don't even seem to recognize this, which is incredible. There's also this nonsense from former Copyright Office boss, now publisher top lobbyist, Maria Pallante (who Ars bizarrely describes as "a chief executive" rather than the chief executive): A chief executive of the Association of American Publishers, Maria Pallante, told The Wall Street Journal that if IA's conduct "is normalized, there would be no point to the Copyright Act." That's utter nonsense. Again, apply that same reasoning to libraries. What the Internet Archive is doing here is not only blessed by the Copyright Act, it's no different than what libraries already do. Either way, now we wait. Whatever outcome in this case, it will surely be appealed, and that's where the real battle will happen. Hopefully Judge Koeltl starts things off on the right foot. Filed Under: controlled digital lending, copyright, ebooks, fair use, first sale doctrine, lending, libraries, licenses Companies: association of american publishers, internet archive 67 CommentsLeave a Comment If you liked this post, you may also be interested in... * Pokemon Anime Community Up In Arms As ShoPro Issues Copyright Strikes On YouTubers * Game Jam Winner Spotlight: To And Again * Italy Decides That Leonardo da Vinci's 500 Year Old Works Are Not In The Public Domain * 'Destiny 2' DLC Suddenly Results In Copyright Strikes For Streamers * Copyright Means You May Need Permission To Post Photos Of Your Own Home Online * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Rate this comment as insightful Rate this comment as funny You have rated this comment as insightful You have rated this comment as funny Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam You have flagged this comment The first word has already been claimed The last word has already been claimed Lightbulb icon Laughing icon Flag icon Lightbulb icon Laughing icon Comments on "Book Publishers Won't Stop Until Libraries Are Dead" Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment * Filter comments in by Time * Filter comments as Threaded * Filter only comments rated Insightful * Filter only comments rated funny LOL * Filter only comments that are Unread 67 Comments Collapse all replies [94a0d8ccb0]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 9:56 am Copyright protection is all but dead for those who'd truly need it. Like if you remove police protection from a neighborhood business just won't set up there. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [787daba18a]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 4:14 pm Re: Like if you remove police protection from a neighborhood business just won't set up there. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean people, other than those backed by huge companies, have given up on producing copyrightable works due to the lack of "protection"? It seems to me like regular people produce and distribute more art and hold more copyrights than at any other time in history. One popular site holds 400,000 works of Harry Potter fan fiction alone. None of those authors are in practice "protected" by copyright, as their work can't realistically be sold and could be taken down at the whim of a madwoman; nevertheless, they've "set up business", so to speak. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [e37a896cce]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 9:58 am the sign of a Serious Publisher 2-digit book number is isbn Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment has been deemed insightful by the community. [5986190509]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 10:01 am McNamara seemed to suggest that publishers would have been further enriched if not for IA providing unprecedented free, unlimited e-books access. Yes, but if your argument is "we could have made more money if not for people being able to live without sending us all their money" then be warned: I would argue to the courts (If I was asked): "All Americans could be greatly enriched if we executed publisher, seized their property, distributed some of it as scholarships, and made their actual book production devices and technologies even more publicly available" Of course I wouldn't expect anyone to do that (in fact I recommend they do not)... But my argument is the same logic the publisher are arguing... except that it benefits all Americans (sans the publishers, but they are the minority). Where as the publishers are arguing for harming the majority... for their own enrichment. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [user-default]PaulT (profile) says: March 23, 2023 at 6:58 am Re: Funny how that's the place his mind goes, rather than the more realistic "if free books weren't available, a lot of people wouldn't pick up reading as a hobby at all and they'd spend their money of music/movies/videogames instead". Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [6279ed63bd]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 10:01 am this is as true a statement as you could get! the only problem is that it isn't just publishers that are in a battle, but every section of the entertainments industry is as well! and why is there this situation? because courts, through 'encouragement' from these industries properly screwed the people for a 'handful of silver', ensuring that we had no power over money making/money distributing industries and the government did absolutely fuck all except do exactly as the courts did, starting with the Sony versus other O/S trial, and again screw the people in favor of those who enhanced the coffers!! Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] This comment has been deemed insightful by the community. [c49c6d77df]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 11:00 am Re: What the studios, labels, and publisher are really fighting for is to reestablish their almost total control over what gets published. The Internet archive is one of the centers for self published works, and allows authors and other creators to attract fans who send them money without the publishers seeing the larger cut of that money. To that extent, the legacy industry needs to make significant changes to compete with free, such as selling editorial services without requiring copyright assignment. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [user-default]sumgai (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 10:48 am Can't compete with free, eh? I almost would not like to be a fly on the wall every time the Board of Directors for Microsoft hears that one - the laughter would be incalculably loud, I'm sure. Further to the scenario above where an AC posited "if I were asked by the court".... I'd quietly arrange a display showing a graph comparing Microsoft's market share of desktop OS's versus the share held by all of the Linux variants. The graph would be comprehensive over time, like since 1991 or thereabouts. Then I'd ask a simple "Any questions about non-free being unable to compete with free?" p.s. Throwing in Chrome OS and/or Apple's offerings won't budge the needle - free is still lagging far behind non-free, no matter how you look at it. Witness this reference: https://www.statista.com/statistics/218089/ global-market-share-of-windows-7/ Collapse replies (7) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [e8193b1fed]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 11:07 am Re: That is slightly misleading,as Linux actually runs om more processors than windows due to it dominating the server farms and super computing space, along with being the OS on many routers, Internet cameras, etc. Linus has also beaten windows to Mars, sue to it being the OS for the first human built helicopter to fly above a planer other than Earth. Collapse replies (3) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [3] [user-default]BernardoVerda (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 12:05 pm Re: Re: Competing with free I'm not sure I'd agree that Microsoft "competed" with Linux, except by abusing its preexisting market dominance. But never mind... Red Hat Linux competed with 'free' very well indeed. Some server farms ran Debian Linux (free in both senses) or other $free versions of Linux. There were even competing versions of Red Hat, sold or given away without the Red Hat branding and trademarks, etc, either licensed and supported for less (eg. CentOS), or free as in "go ahead -- download and use it however you please" free (eg. Fedora). And yet Red Hat was the first "Linux company" to break a $billion in annual revenues (then two, then three...). The same corporations that would use Red Hat because it was cheaper and more reliable than Windows, would also choose to pay Red Hat rather than use $free Linux alternatives -- because Red Hat knew how to compete with free. Actually, Red Hat even found ways to obtain practical benefits for its own business by cooperating with the existence of free alternatives (esp. Fedora). IBM finally bought Red Hat for thirty-something $billion. Competing with free is not only possible, in can be a highly successful, winning strategy. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [4] [iclogo3_real_squ]Samuel Abram (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 1:59 pm Re: Re: Re: Competing with free is not only possible, in can be a highly successful, winning strategy. Just ask Epic Games about how they did it with Fortnite. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [5] [c9bc8d7295]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 5:22 pm Re: Re: Re:^2 On one hand, Fortnite at least allows poeple to buy stuff from past campaigns. On the other hand, it also uses the same sort of psychological manipulation most mobile games use. I'd rather take the Red Hat way of competing with free. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [youarewrong-av]Thad (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 11:15 am Re: I mean LBR Microsoft succeeded in the desktop market by pulling a bunch of shady, anticompetitive shit in the '80s and '90s. They didn't do so well "competing with free" when it came to the cell phone market. But of course you knew that; that's why you specified "desktop OS". Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [3] [9aa44f987f]Matt says: March 22, 2023 at 7:05 pm Re: Re: Microsoft won the most market share for the same reason VHS beat Beta: licensing. You had to pay to be an Apple developer but you could make software to run on Windows and MS-DOS for free. So there were more developers, thus more products, thus more users choosing it. Linux didn't exist as a serious offering at the time Microsoft won the desktop war. Yeah there was s shady stuff but it wasn't the most important. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [4] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 7:55 pm Re: Re: Re: "Microsoft won the most market share [S:for the same reason VHS beat Beta: licensing:S] because you didn't need Microsoft hardware to run Microsoft software." FIFY Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [14eba74309]Rekrul says: March 22, 2023 at 11:20 am and (2) that there is a real difference in lending out the digital scans: that they don't deteriorate the way that physical books do. The answer to this is obvious! All ebooks need to be scanned as a series of Jpegs, rather than using any kind of OCR. That way, after a set number of people have rented the book, they can recompress the scans with a lower quality setting to make them look worse. After having been recompressed enough times, the scans will be unreadable and the library will have to make new ones, literally making a new ebook. Problem solved! Collapse replies (4) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 3:41 pm Re: that's a fucking horrible idea Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [1910e84842]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 3:41 pm Re: Fading fonts This is an interesting idea. I once wondered about a font that fades or degrades over time, although it wasn't for a publisher's copyright. I was more curious in an academic exercise about aging electronic data/artifacts over time, like their corresponding real artifacts age and degrade over time. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [user-default]HotHead (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 8:33 pm Re: You're being satirical, but I'd still like to point out four sins of your suggestion should publishers coerce libraries into adopting it. 1. Deliberately degrading a file means deliberately using technology to regress the transmission of culture. This is definitely not the progress that the Progress Clause AKA Copyright Clause calls for. 2. Making digital files less accessible to people with working eyes and by-design inaccessible to blind people? Regression in accessibility is terrible too. 3. How do people archive physical books in the first place? By scanning them! People will mix up the "scans for archival" and the "scans for lending". We'll lose digital archives of books to a risk that didn't exist before. "Who cares about archival? Copyright matters more!" Nuh uh. The public is entitled to use a copyrighted work after its copyright term expires, and risking that half of the social contract in such a roundabout way is not acceptable. 4. The whole "disrespecting the law" thing: Similarly libraries are given explicit rights to make copies, so long as those collections are made available to the public. On top of that, courts have determined, multiple times, that book scanning itself is fair use for libraries. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [user-default]BernardoVerda (profile) says: March 23, 2023 at 12:17 pm Re: That's a pretty interesting Modest Proposal. Somewhere, Jonathan Swift is smiling. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment has been deemed insightful by the community. [0ecdcac07b]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 12:19 pm And yet no one's pointed out the utter ridiculousness of the concept of "renting" something that can be infinitely reproduced with ease. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment has been deemed insightful by the community. [8d8fae9653]Mattias Estefors says: March 22, 2023 at 12:23 pm As a librarian myself, stuff like this just makes me so angry given all the crap we already have to deal with to appease these ghouls. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment has been deemed insightful by the community. [90cbbbc797]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 12:39 pm "Intellectual property" is a concept that needs to be entirely discarded. Collapse replies (14) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [iclogo3_real_squ]Samuel Abram (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 1:57 pm Re: Cory Doctorow on "Intellectual Property" Cory Doctorow once wrote that "the words 'intellectual property' are winning the argument before it starts, because 'people who get their property stolen' are more sympathetic in the public eye than 'big businesses who get the contours of their monopolies infringed upon'" (I'm paraphrasing from memory, but that's exactly the gist of what he was saying). Collapse replies (5) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [3] [c6bcf0c50a]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 3:44 pm Re: Re: the words 'intellectual property' are winning the argument before it starts I've been saying the same about "pirate" and "piracy", but it seems to be a losing battle on Techdirt: Mike et al. seem quite committed to referring to people (possibly) infringing copyright as "pirates". (Certainly the big copyright cartels have done more to earn the title than any small-time file-sharer, though I wouldn't use it for them either.) Collapse replies (4) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [4] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 3:53 pm Re: Re: Re: "small-time filesharer" Hah. You're vastly underplaying the sheer volume of stuff most of these people share. We're talking terabytes of material on average. However, they are also not a reachable market. It's a waste of time trying to stop them, and always rebounds on anyone trying. A lot of them don't even use what they grab. It's a game to them. Exploitation of small creators by big commercial outfits is a much greater issue and one you should care about. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [5] [8d31da46f9]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 5:48 pm Re: Re: Re:^2 We're talking terabytes of material on average. Yeah, and...? "Terabytes" has been small-time for a good 15 years. One can now occasionally get 20 of them for $270 at Best Buy. Search for "PetaBox" to see what today's non-small-time storage looks like, or here's what Netflix's version looked like 10 years ago. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [6] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 6:15 pm Re: Re: Re:^3 your point? Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [4] [u5_100x0-1]Mike Masnick (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 11:51 pm Re: Re: Re: I've been saying the same about "pirate" and "piracy", but it seems to be a losing battle on Techdirt: Mike et al. seem quite committed to referring to people (possibly) infringing copyright as "pirates". For years I refused to use "piracy," "pirate," or "intellectual property," but there's a point at which the battle is lost and you have to admit that the world has chosen what those words mean. I do still avoid them if there are better words, but often there are not. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 3:49 pm Re: How to say "I don't create content" without actually saying "I don't create content". I would love it if people could try and wrap their minds about the idea that people who made content that other people consume have a right to control how that content is consumed ARE NOT THE SAME as the industries which have grown up to market and package that content. If you blog, and found that someone had collected all your blog entries into a book and was (a) claiming them as their own work and (b) making bank on it, on what basis would you stop that happening without the concept of "intellectual property" For "blog entries", substitute "fan fiction", "art", "code", "research" etc, and the same thing applies. You have the right to give your stuff away for free should you choose (and the majority of creators do for the sheer love of creating) but no one else has - because "intellectual property" rights allow you that control. The worst thing about science publishing right now is that the people who do the work have to give away those rights to publishers just to be published for academic purposes - and those publishers then abuse the privilege by charging exorbitant fees. If that was made illegal or unenforceable, the world and academia would be a much better place. Collapse replies (7) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [3] [2d016c3ddf]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 7:44 pm Re: Re: Fanfiction is a rather bad example there given the history... Collapse replies (3) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [4] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 7:54 pm Re: Re: Re: oh? Do tell. I hope you're not going to claim fanfiction is copyright theft. Not after mein host Mike Masnick was so adamant in the defence of transformative works. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [5] [8d94f7b054]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 9:28 pm Re: Re: Re:^2 Eh... More so the long history of either creators of the original work being hostile towards the idea of fanfiction, or fanfiction communities being worried about their fanfiction (if not the entire site it's on) being deleted in mass due to copyright or other factors. Be it copyright or other reasons... It can and has happened before. Personally from the fandom communities I've seen/been in, People strongly dislike the idea of for profit fanfiction. Partly due to ethical reasons, and more often than not due to the idea of it potentially swaying judgment against a fair use should the site it's on be sued. Effectively people get worried it would topple the metaphorical Jenga tower for everyone. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [6] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 9:53 pm Re: Re: Re:^3 "Effectively people get worried it would topple the metaphorical Jenga tower for everyone." All the more reason for important voices to get behind enforcing the rules on transformative works. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [3] [user-default]HotHead (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 9:03 pm Re: Re: I think you're making excessive assumptions about a single-line comment which is admittedly vague. My interpretation of "intellectual property" is something like "those who make a copyrightable work should have an assumed right to control who uses it and how people use it". If you blog, and found that someone had collected all your blog entries into a book and was (a) claiming them as their own work and (b) making bank on it, on what basis would you stop that happening without the concept of "intellectual property" By divorcing copyright from the concept of "intellectual property" and returning to treating copyright as a compromise between authors' financial needs and the general public's (including authors') need for continually-evolving cultural material. By treating copyright as a means to practical ends instead of making intellectual property and thus copyright the ends. At minimum, that means shortening the copyright term, allowing for more derivative works which don't substitute for the original works, and establishing meaningful penalties for false/abusive ("forget" to check fair use, etc.) copyright claims. "Intellectual property" frames the public domain as a loss rather than as a gain. The same applies to fair use. Without the concept of "intellectual property", justifying absurd terms such as life + 70 years would be much more difficult. The core of copyright enforcement - suing in courts and optionally delegating enforcement to third-parties such as publishers - can stay the same in a copyright system which rejects "intellectual property". A basic example of what the concept of intellectual property means: A book author should be allowed to prohibit others from making fanfiction that the original book author doesn't like. Getting rid of the "intellectual property" would enable the social possibility of passing a law to declare fanfiction with a minimum level of distinct expression not infringement. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [4] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 9:14 pm Re: Re: Re: 1. I'd prefer the person who made the comment, to interpret their own comment. 2. It hardly matters what you call the right of creators to derive income from and control the use of their own work. There will always be those who say they shouldn't do either because of reasons, but they forget just how broad a category 'creators' is, and how easily they could be in need of their rights being protected. "A book author should be allowed to prohibit others from making fanfiction that the original book author doesn't like" No. It's impossible anyway. The most I would agree with is the author should be able to limit the sale of fanfiction that directly harms the reputation or value of their own work. In practice, that would be almost impossible to prove. Under current US/Australian law, it should be enough that the fanfiction does not purport to be by the original author, doesn't simply reproduce that author's words in very slightly altered form, and is genuinely a new work, albeit using some version of the author's characters. Almost all fanfiction, and certainly every piece I've ever read or written, would easily pass that test. And most sensible authors find fanfiction either a tolerable nuisance they easily ignore, or something they actively tolerate and encourage. There was a reason that Anne Rice's death was met with less than sorrow in fannish communitie, even those devoted to her characters. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [5] [user-default]HotHead (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 11:55 pm Re: Re: Re:^2 It hardly matters what you call the right of creators to derive income from and control the use of their own work. There will always be those who say they shouldn't do either because of reasons, but they forget just how broad a category 'creators' is, and how easily they could be in need of their rights being protected. I disagree with "hardly matters" in the first sentence. The way I see it, "intellectual property" allows copyright maximalists to shift the Overton window away from consentless yet creative derivative works. More on that later. "A book author should be allowed to prohibit others from making fanfiction that the original book author doesn't like" No. It's impossible anyway. The most I would agree with is the author should be able to limit the sale of fanfiction that directly harms the reputation or value of their own work. In practice, that would be almost impossible to prove. Judging harm to "reputation" is tricky in principle, not just in practice. Suppose that a fandom around an original work gains a bad reputation because of certain fanfiction works which are extremely vulgar in subject matter (however you define vulgar). The fandom's reputation turns off people to the original work. People who know little about the original work decide to avoid it specifically because of the fandom's reputation. Should the authors of the fanfiction have to compensate the author of the original work for this kind of reputational harm? I don't think so. Fanfic authors choose what they make, but not how well-known/influential their fanfics are. But I digress. In my first reply I was posing an example of why the term "intellectual property" matters, and fanfiction came to my mind first. Someone could be the most honest person who never makes mistakes when driving and borrowing things. Suppose that they'll be able to save a dying patient I've never met in the next town over only if I temporarily lend my car, which I didn't plan on using during that window of time anyway. I can still refuse, because the car is my property. Now what happens when I think of a story I wrote as my "intellectual property"? Can I can stop someone from writing a fanfic I don't like? Maybe the fanfic has bad spelling. Maybe it has a poor story. Maybe it has subject matter most people dislike. Or maybe there's nothing wrong with the fanfic at all, and I simply don't want people to make derivative works. Should I be able to ban the fan from continuing to publish the fanfic? "Intellectual property" tells me "yes". My answer is "no". Maybe your understanding of "intellectual property" isn't as cynical as mine, so you would reach different answers. But after reading the rest of your comment I'm not sure what you mean by "control the use of" in "the right of creators to derive income from and control the use of their own work". Under current US/Australian law, it should be enough that the fanfiction does not purport to be by the original author, doesn't simply reproduce that author's words in very slightly altered form, and is genuinely a new work, albeit using some version of the author's characters. Almost all fanfiction, and certainly every piece I've ever read or written, would easily pass that test. I like your standard, but I'm not very optimistic that future case law will support it unless Congress explicitly adds more exceptions to copyright law or expands fair use (17 USC 107). The 2009 case of 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye looked to be going in the opposite direction until the plaintiff died, and the parody vs. satire standard established in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. disfavors derivative works which don't comment on the original works. And most sensible authors find fanfiction either a tolerable nuisance they easily ignore, or something they actively tolerate and encourage. Goodwill remains more or less alive and well, though whenever I read my favorite ongoing fanfics I remember that the authors of the original works "probably don't mind" or the fanfic writers will "probably get away with it". I wish fanfic writers didn't have to "probably get away with" their hobby. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word This comment has been deemed insightful by the community. [user-default]frankcox (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 2:57 pm Sheet music The Internet Archive library is a wonderful resource for finding sheet music, some of which is long forgotten anywhere else. I get a kick out of being able to download and play music that may not have been heard by anyone else in the past hundred years. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 3:58 pm Re: The extreme and ridiculous length of copyright over music literally contributed to a member of Men At Work committing suicide That case was an abominable abuse of copyright extension. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [12bf1b5766]M says: March 22, 2023 at 3:06 pm Please do more research If you had bothered to do the slightest research, you would know that the viral image was from an old copyright page that was accidentally added to the print books (without author approval) in an attempt to dissuade ebook piracy. That particular wording is commonly used in the self-publishing ebook world because authors oppose readers stripping DRM and sharing epub files (something that is fairly easy to do if you bother googling). The authors corrected and explained the mistake years ago, but yet are still being unfairly criticized today. The connection to legacy publishing is also irrelevant considering Zodiac Academy is a self-published series. https://www.facebook.com/100063768668342/posts/ pfbid02WRJwn8DqHxSRTu18LkSHd1dSkTG3QWD99xJ3xHSzM2Uja8htQfgTo5WMuuwL2PyQl /?mibextid=cr9u03 Please read the author's comments and add the context to your post. Collapse replies (3) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [iclogo3_real_squ]Samuel Abram (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 3:44 pm Re: transcription for Zuck-haters Since this is on Facebook, I'll transcribe what they have written: Hey everyone, we wanted to respond to concerns brought to our attention about a copyright statement in some of the older editions of our paperbacks. The 'Do Not Share' notice found in previous (and now unpublished) versions of Zodiac Academy was a general copyright statement added by our formatter without our knowledge and was intended as an anti-piracy statement. It was not checked or approved by us and is not an accurate statement or reflection of our principles, or our view on libraries. We are in full support of libraries and loaning books between friends, and it is truly upsetting to us that this piece of text has allowed such misinformation to spread when it was intended to refer to piracy. We take full accountability for not checking the copyright page of our books prior to publication, and have learned from this experience. Once we became aware that this had been included in some of our publications, all works containing it were immediately removed from sale and new wording was replaced that was written by Susanne and I, and is a statement regarding anti-piracy and is not in relation to anything else. We hope this mistake can be forgiven and that this message may be shared to anyone who has concerns about our stance on libraries and sharing books with friends and family etc Thank you for understanding [?] [Followed by an image that says "Sincerest apologies"] Mike, I think you made an honest mistake here. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [u5_100x0-1]Mike Masnick (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 4:18 pm Re: I have edited the post to reflect the content of the Facebook statement, but it was not a lack of research. This post was written BEFORE that Facebook post showed up, though published after it. I actually did a fair bit of research on it, and found 3 reddit posts, and 3 viral twitter threads (most of them from a year ago, but the one on Monday went more viral) all about it, with no statement that I saw from her until this Facebook post. I also don't understand why a "formatter" would add such a bizarre copyright license rather than the standard one that everyone uses. Or even how it is an "anti-piracy" statement, because that makes no sense. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [3] [iclogo3_real_squ]Samuel Abram (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 4:31 pm Re: Re: Recantation I recant what I have written about Mike making an honest mistake. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 3:39 pm "This book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only." Er, this is the notice I put on my ebooks. Never seen it on a physical book. That's insane, and contrary to everything I believe about book ownership. Ebooks are different because you are never transferring the original copy of the book when you 'give' it away or sell it to someone else. However, sensible authors like me license sales to libraries for one purchase, and unlimited lending*. Anything else is just a pain in the arse for libraries, and counterproductive. People who borrow from libraries, unlike most e-pirates, love books, love reading, and aren't just grabbing them because they're free. Whether they go on to buy books from the author or not is immaterial - at least to me. *I think Australia has some kind of fee they pay to authors per loan, but I've never had it or asked for it. I don't even know how it works. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [user-default]That One Guy (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 3:40 pm I try not to financially support people trying to stab me, crazy I know She also told Koeltl that publishers suing--Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Wiley, Well, there's four publishers I will be striving to never give so much as a cent to due to their hatred of the library system, nice of them to clear that up for everyone like this. Collapse replies (3) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [iclogo3_real_squ]Samuel Abram (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 3:45 pm Re: Wiley also attempted to get rid of first sale in Wiley v. Kirtsaeng, so I would say they're the absolute worst of the bunch. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 3:55 pm Re: Unfortunately, with the continuing consolidation of publishers into megacorps, that will become a very difficult exercise Especially if you need non-fiction. You can find plenty of readable fiction outside the big publishers, but getting stuff for study, research and reference limits your choices severely. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [42d0d3caa3]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 5:28 pm Re: HarperCollins is also a News Corp subsidiary. I am legit conflicted because they also help feed academic authors I happen to like, though for at least one of them (Bart Ehrman), they are moving away from the publishing bullshit... Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [a9b199e6df]Hendrick McCorstin says: March 22, 2023 at 4:30 pm Give book publishers credit One thing about copyright lawyers. They're very friendly with judges. My dad was a judge and paramount pictures lawyers bought my dad a new car, new stereo set, new shower. They know how to please judges which is my my dad would always rules that fair use will not buy you a new car or new shower. Goodbye internet archieve Non profit never bought my dad a car or refrigerator. Just saying Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [user-default]GHB (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 4:36 pm Another thing about the argument of books deteriorate unlike digital (2) that there is a real difference in lending out the digital scans: that they don't deteriorate the way that physical books do Digital books require software and hardware to be up to date in order to be readable. Because according to this: https://blog.archive.org/ 2022/11/15/digital-books-wear-out-faster-than-physical-books/ There's constantly new ebook reader software, and file formats the ebooks are stored, which may result ebook reader not be compatible with legacy file formats. The storage medium also needs upgrading as technology advances. Because of the rapid pace of technology changing, they can actually last shorter than physical books, before becoming unreadable with the most recent ebook reader software. Collapse replies (6) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 5:04 pm Re: "There's constantly new ebook reader software, and file formats the ebooks are stored" Not entirely correct. Even Amazon's Kindle format is just epub with a DRM wrapper. It's the wrapper on these things that changes, not the book itself. "they can actually last shorter than physical books" Um. I have ebooks which are a lot older than 15 years. If I'd been reading a paperback - or even a hardback - once a week for that long, it would be in pieces by now. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [user-default]That One Guy (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 5:23 pm Re: Not necessarily There's constantly new ebook reader software, and file formats the ebooks are stored, which may result ebook reader not be compatible with legacy file formats. So long as the file's not infected with DRM I can't imagine it would be that hard to whip up a bit of code to translate one format to another, I've format shifted a bunch of ebooks with my ebook management program of choice(Calibre) when it comes to ones I've bought where the available format didn't match what I needed/wanted. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [3] [user-default]HotHead (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 9:22 pm Re: Re: There's constantly new ebook reader software, and file formats the ebooks are stored, which may result ebook reader not be compatible with legacy file formats. So long as the file's not infected with DRM I can't imagine it would be that hard to whip up a bit of code to translate one format to another Maybe "constantly" isn't quite appropriate, but the formats and corresponding software have changed and will change again. Pointing out that DRM-free ebooks exist is important to do but dances around the following problems of DRM and DMCA 1201 (17 USC 1201): 1. Authors/publishers could choose to apply DRM to all of their ebooks. Authors/publishers could also initially offer real ebooks (by which I mean DRM-free ebooks) but later stop selling real ebooks while continuing to sell DRMed ebooks. 2. DRM requires certain software to read. The DRM on the books and perhaps also the reader software itself require server connections to detect potential bypassing. Furthermore, future DRM schemes will entail updates to the DRM and the reader software. The book publisher could disable previous versions of the reader software, disable the reader software entirely, or remove the ebooks at any time. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [2035c15be8]Rocky says: March 22, 2023 at 5:40 pm Re: Digital books require software and hardware to be up to date in order to be readable. Oh? I've never had any problems converting e-books I buy into a format I like. Just use Calibre. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [3] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 6:19 pm Re: Re: Last time I tried, Calibre wouldn't work with the latest Amazon DRM. Or perhaps, it could work with it, but the developer didn't feel like being sued. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [4] [4e5588d1d6]Rocky says: March 23, 2023 at 4:10 am Re: Re: Re: I usually try to avoid buying e-books from Amazon, if an author have a recommended store I usually use those instead because I know they'll get more of the money even though it usually inflates the price a bit. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [fc77dc7bbf]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 5:55 pm Alternately... We could also title this "Authors Won't Stop Using Book Publishers Until They Kill Libraries". Or maybe "Even If They Kill Libraries". Even the authors who bitch about publishers still use those same publishers. Who's more well-positioned than Cory Doctorow to bypass these behemoths, or has written more negative stories about them? But when they said they'd no longer publish anything under Creative Commons licenses, Cory apparently said "okay", 'cause the stories are now coming from the same publisher but under restrictive copyright. (They are, at least, the only "big five" publisher not part of the current Internet Archive lawsuit.) The fans, including heavy library users, don't seem inclined to stop supporting the publishers either. So why's anything gonna change? Collapse replies (4) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 6:18 pm Re: "Even the authors who bitch about publishers still use those same publishers. " Not all of them. And also, plenty of times an author starts with one publisher, which ends being bought by another company. And also, sometimes, authors who write for a living have to eat their principles. People talk about the freemium model or using Patreon, but they have no idea how big a difference there is between the income from those models, and book advances are. I mean, do you ever use Google to search for something? OR Amazon? Or Facebook? Or any of their subsidiary companies? Are you sure you haven't? I boycott Nestle. Have done since I was a teenager. But I've still bought their products unknowingly because of corporate buyouts etc. Collapse replies (3) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [3] [f16c8b0208]Anonymous Coward says: March 22, 2023 at 7:29 pm Re: Re: Well, with both models most authors need day jobs, a few make enough to live on, and the jackpot winners make a reasonable to large fortune. However, the connect with fans can mean an author receives extra support to cover an emergency situation. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [4] [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 22, 2023 at 7:53 pm Re: Re: Re: "an author receives extra support to cover an emergency situation." You mean, they can beg for help, instead of just earning money through rightful sales. Patreon etc works for some authors with the right kind of personalities. They don't work for the shy, the curmudgeonly, or the proud. Yet all those kinds of authors can and do write really good books that deserve to be sold honestly. I really dislike the Patreon model, and only partly because I couldn't get fans to donate a smack in the kisser, let alone a hundred bucks to save a dying cat. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [5] [d8c3375938]Anonymous Coward says: March 23, 2023 at 7:02 am Re: Re: Re:^2 You mean, they can beg for help, instead of just earning money through rightful sales. Did you miss the part about authors requiring day jobs, whether using a publisher or going through Patreon. I don't see publishers stepping up to help a author through a problem or togh spot, but fans will whee there are a means of direct support. They don't work for the shy, the curmudgeonly, or the proud. Neither does traditional publishing which now expects an author to promote their works through social media, and add to them the burden of book signings. Whatever means a creator uses to publish their works, they have to work at building and keeping a fanbase. Writing a book is only part of making money as an author, especially now that publishing it is so easy. Using social media/ the Internet to build a fan base is as important a skill as writing, and for those with interesting things to say, but needing to develop writing skills, can often find readers who will help them develop by offering constructive criticism and advice. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [jana_usericon-sc]Anathema Device (profile) says: March 23, 2023 at 12:20 am "Suppose that a fandom around an original work gains a bad reputation because of certain fanfiction works which are extremely vulgar in subject matter (however you define vulgar). The fandom's reputation turns off people to the original work." I literally can't imagine fanfic vulgar enough to do that (and I know from vulgar!) Mr Spock and Captain Kirk have been making hot, wild Vulcan/human love to each other for 60 years now in fanfic, and it's obviously had a dreadful effect on the franchise, which is now dead. Oh, wait "I wish fanfic writers didn't have to "probably get away with" their hobby." Ditto. I think the law might go in our favour if enough authors threw their weight behind it. I think fanfic has become mainstream enough that it's possible they will. But it's America, and so many of the courts have lost their collective minds, so who can say? Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [05ed86acb7]Anonymous Coward says: March 23, 2023 at 12:57 am If it interferes with profit and share prices then it must be crushed out of existence. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [031ef21253]William J. Jackson says: March 23, 2023 at 4:31 am UK library book repair binder limits I recall seeing in UK published books that a book could only be lent out as originally bound. You could not rebind/repair damaged books due to wear and tear. Is that interdiction still on the copyright page of UK books? Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word [017ca7ff81]Anonymous Coward says: March 23, 2023 at 5:28 am "Free is an insurmountable competitor" Which is why bottled water never makes any money. Collapse replies (2) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [2] [0737012b81]Anonymous Coward says: March 23, 2023 at 7:14 am Re: Drinkable water is scarce, and producing bottled water isn't free. Maybe you're referring to public streams and springs, but not everyone lives right next to them. Collapse replies (1) Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word Threaded [3] [4c44d1dd6e]Anonymous Coward says: March 23, 2023 at 2:47 pm Re: Re: Millions of people with access to perfectly good water buy bottled water. They aren't making money off people who can't get potable water. Reply View in chronology Make this comment the first word Make this comment the last word --------------------------------------------------------------------- [] says: Add Your Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here Name [ ] Email [ ] [ ]Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter URL [ ] Subject [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Comment * [ ] Comment Options: (*)Use markdown. ( )Use plain text. Make this the ( )First Word or ( )Last Word.(*)No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this? What's this? Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop >> [Post Comment][Preview] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] Net Neutrality's Dead: Time To Focus On The Real Issue: Telecom Monopolization Daily Deal: Nix Mini Color Sensor V2 Follow Techdirt Techdirt Daily Newsletter [ ] [Subscribe] Essential Reading The Techdirt Greenhouse Read the latest posts: * Winding Down Our Latest Greenhouse Panel: The Lessons Learned From SOPA/PIPA * From The Revolt Against SOPA To The EU's Upload Filters * Did We Miss Our Best Chance At Regulating The Internet? Read All >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Trending Posts * Book Publishers Won't Stop Until Libraries Are Dead * Fitbit Users Still Pissed At Google For Outages And Making Everything Subscription Based * Matt Taibbi Can't Comprehend That There Are Reasons To Study Propaganda Information Flows, So He Insists It Must Be Nefarious Techdirt Deals Techdirt Insider Discord The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel... Loading... Become an Insider! Recent Stories Thursday 15:37 Middle School Sued After Getting Stupid About 'Justice For Lil Pickle' T-Shirts Worn By Students (2) 13:45 The US Government Has Not Justified A TikTok Ban (11) 12:00 The Imbued Test, Or How To Know Whether Section 230 Applies (7) 10:50 Judge Says White House Can't Get Out Of Lawsuit Over Pressuring Social Media To Moderate (28) 10:47 Daily Deal: The Complete Video Production Super Bundle (0) 09:29 Canadian Court Upholds 'God Given Right' To Give Your Obnoxious Neighbor The Finger (19) 05:26 Big Four Networks Push FCC To Further Erode Media Consolidation Limits (20) Wednesday 20:06 Online Facial Recognition Service Caught Cruising Through Graveyards To Fill Its Database (13) 15:37 Marvel So Angry About Leaked 'Ant-Man' Dialogue That It Seeks To Unmask Google, Reddit Users (9) 13:38 Fitbit Users Still Pissed At Google For Outages And Making Everything Subscription Based (5) More arrow x Email This Story This feature is only available to registered users. You can register here or sign in to use it. Tools & Services * Twitter * Facebook * RSS * Podcast * Research & Reports Company * About Us * Advertising Policies * Privacy Contact * Help & Feedback * Media Kit * Sponsor / Advertise More * Copia Institute * Insider Shop * Support Techdirt Techdirt Brought to you by Floor64 Proudly powered by WordPress. Hosted by Pressable. [Got it] This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy