In the New York Times Article, Google Loses in French Copyright Case
Google lost the court case again French copyright law due to uses unauthorized extracts from books.  This is not the first time that Google has been in this situation.  Though Google Books is a great tool for a lot of people, they've caused a huge commotion in the literary world.  They're currently in a legal battle in the United States over the same issue. 

Google's legal woes are just the tip of the iceberg for copyright laws over works, especially in the new digital world of publishing.  Hopefully, there will be a resolution to this case sometime soon.

Digital Publishing allows al kinds of people from all walks of life and possessing all different talents to publish and get noticed (or not).  This article is about two men that are in the electronic publishing business in Canada marketing, of all things, theological literature.  The head of the publishing house, Bill Reimer says there is a steady demand for these kinds of books: "It's ongoing. For the most part, it happens in small quantities. Electronic publishing allows books to be indefinitely in print."This is an interesting idea because the fact that a book is forever in print doesn't make it more popular.  However, the fact that there is an eternal availability of such texts means that people are bound to stumble upon them.  This doesn't sound lucrative to me, but the two publishers seem to find it so. 

Borders is finally partnering with a company in order to enter the world of electronic books.  This article claims that both companies (Borders and Kobo) seem to making it up as they go along, which though it may or may not be true, is believable.The question I have is why the publishing industry seems to stumble into e-books in this way.  More and more companies are getting into the industry, but wouldn't a collaboration between companies that know what they're doing be a better idea?  It seems like the number of readers are multiplying, but the quality has stagnated.  I guess this is where Apple usually steps in.

Last week I got an invitation to a relatively new site called Fictionaut. The fact that you need an invitation to do anything on it alone got me excited enough to check it out. What it boils down to is a Facebook-type platform for burgeoning fiction writers.

This article discusses Harper Collins and the ebook market. While Harper Collins has jumped into the ebook market, they have been a bit hesitate about it, not wanting it to take away sales from their hardcover books. Well, Harper Collins, you can't have it all. Or can you?

Questions continue to plague the dying newspaper industry:  How will they survive as print declines?  Is the solution to charge for the expanding popularity of their online content?  

There's a new version of an ereader called Skiff and it's by the partnership of Sprint and the publishing house Hearst, the only difference between this ereader and that of Amazon and Sony's is that this one is geared especially toward magazines and newspapers by making use of layouts and graphics. Sprint was the original service provider of the Kindle, before it switched to AT&T, however, Sprint is taking a different approach with the Skiff by having a larger involvement with the product by offering it in their stores and website. However, this article claims that Hearst is the full owner of Skiff. Either way, the partners are looking for ways to better the product since they want the software to work on several devices including PC's, phones, ereaders and other products.

This article that I came across today talks about the recent activity of Facebook, one of the leading social networking sites, and its adjustments made to privacy settings and decisions made by users that can keep them safe - especially young adults. Facebook united with "five internet groups," to take aim on the safety of young users of the site.

I had also overheard a friend the other day reading the latest news of Facebook off their site written by founder Mark Zuckerberg, and it had also stated that settings have been changed so that a user doesn't have to join any type of network to be able to have an account on the site. Sounds a little counterproductive...

There's so much recent talk about the "safety of children," and "keeping them safe," yet it kind of sounds like an awesome stunt to me. I wouldn't doubt it all just being a way to attract attention. And if not, the progress sure is slow.

So far, we've been discussing the nefarious and confusing ways of U.S. DRM policy. Conclusion: it sucks. It goes above and beyond the restrictions of copyright, and tends towards criminalizing users (see the guy who uploaded the DRM-breaking LOLcat) rather than offering options and solutions on how to access digital media in a legal manner. As we become less interested in external, physical media materials - DVDs and audio discs - and more interested in compounding as much information as we can into a single source, DRM restrictions make less and less sense. If the user does not intend to sell the material, then what's the point of stopping them from putting it on their computer for personal, private use?

This TorrentFreak article not only highlights the most basic issues DRM creates for the user - contradictory restrictions - but also demonstrates how DRM works outside of the U.S. Conclusion: it sucks just as much.

According to Danish DRM policy, it is legal for a user to download media, like movies and television shows, for private use. At the same time, it is illegal for a user to remove the DRM restriction that inhibits the transfer of data from media file (DVD, CD) to computer. That makes it both legal and illegal, simultaneously, to download: you can, but you can't. In order to force the Ministry of Culture to reexamine this law, Henrik Anderson of Denmark has reported himself to an anti-piracy group, and to the police, for removing DRM restrictions in order to download media, and thus breaching copyright. He wants to be arrested.

Anderson's actions are brave, and could prove incredibly potent. His trial would force the Danish government to examine the problematic paradox DRM policy creates for the casual user, and could result in a complete reworking of the policy altogether. Moreover, his trial could mean a reexamination and re-writing of copyright policy across the globe, setting precedent for the scope of digital copyright law world-wide.

Either way, it's time for everyone to admit that DRM just doesn't work, and that a serious change is more than overdue. We can only hope that the Danish legal system is up to Anderson's challenge, and won't downplay the issue by slapping him with a fine and closing the books on DRM, once again.

On a lighter (and unrelated note), here's an excellent example of fair use.

After talking about copyright in our last weeks class before vacation, I came across this blog entry on CNN about a lawsuit made by Apple on another company called Psystar, that made PC's yet ran with Apple's OS X software after being legally purchased. Apple won eventually, having complete right to run only their software on their Macs.

The whole concept of 'owning their software' seems pretty legit to me, and seems to be a more credible case made than others I've seen with the legalities of copyright. Psystar is battling another case, as well, stated in the post. Hmph. I don't know. I understand wanting the copyright and all - but if it were decided to be run just like Windows does with its software, I wouldn't find it to be a problem either. It seems a little silly to me.