Textbook Publishers Sue Open Source Alternative

Textbook publishers Pearson, Cengage Learning, and MacMillan Higher Education are suing open source textbook startup Boundless for copyright infringement.  Boundless offers their texts as a free, open-source alternative to specific textbooks by collecting free information from across the web and organizing them into an approximation of the copyrighted textbooks.  The claims of the publishers focus less on direct quotation or paraphrasing (which Boundless doesn't do), but rather copying the format of the published texts too closely.  This is an interesting case to watch concerning copyright that you can read more about it in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

I can't say for sure that what Boundless is doing constitutes copyright infringement, but as a student I welcome any open source alternative to pricey educational materials.

Copyright Length: How Long is Too Long?

Argument:  While the exact length copyrights should apply is arguable, it should not extend past the life of the author.

In the Unites States the current length copyright applies is 70 years after the death of the author.  This length was established with the Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998, which extended copyright 20 years longer than the previous extension.

The following video discusses some of the history and issues surrounding copyright extension:

Why it shouldn't extend:

• Shouldn't benefit beyond author: Obviously, authors can no longer benefit from works after they are dead, so why should others benefit from a creators specific work?   There is a strong individualistic bent in America that would suggest that you should earn money off of your own work. That is part of the justification of the 50% estate tax.

• Main beneficiaries are often companies: Often the primary beneficiary of copyright after the death of creators is their company.  It's one thing if a creators children benefit, but does everybody that now works at the Walt Disney company really have a right to profit from and control a cartoon Walt Disney made in 1928?  

• It would encourage new works: When works go into public domain, others are able to use those works to create new works and derivatives.

• Follow Constitution: The U.S. Constitution authorized copyright " To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".  Some advocate extending copyright to "forever less a day" in order to technically circumvent the Constitutional requirement of a "limited time".  If you are circumventing constitutional requirements on technicallities, you are probably not following the spirit of the law, in this case the promotion of works.

Why it should extend:

• Economic benefit in foreign markets: The proponents of the most recent extension said one of the primary reasons for the expansion was to promote profitability of American works in foreign markets.

• Encourage creation of new works:  On a basic level, copyright still encourages the creation of new works by ensuring the rights of the creators.

• Preserves the value of works:  Some said that the extension preserved the value of works by ensuring that creators could controlling the distribution of works ( the supply) and keep the market from become oversaturated and the value of the work dropping.

• Copyright doesn't discourage creation:  Proponents of copyright extension point out that only certain expressions can be copyrighted, but not the ideas therein.  So potential creators can still draw inspiration from copyrighted works.

Discussion:

Essentially, those that make money off of specific works want to keep making money. As it turns out it's often corporations and companies that can spend a great deal of resources to lobby for the extension of copyright.  On the flip side, people that could potentially benefit from works becoming public domain either a.) don't know they could benefit and/or b) don't have the resources to lobby congress.  So it's a safe bet that copyright will keep being extended like it always has.

But there is a line somewhere.  People and corporations don't have the right to benefit of of specific works in perpetuity.  If they did, either the Constitution would have ensure that or and of the congresses since then would have.  I feel we have already crossed the line between encouraging the creation of new works by allowing the profitability of the author through control of their works and grarifying those who unjustly profit off of the work of others, to the detriment of society.

Reflection: Copyright

March 29th class

What I liked:  Our march 15th class very briefly touched on disruptive technology and copyright infringement.  I'm interested in issues surrounding copyrights so I used that as a basis for last weeks argument.  Needless to say, I was excited to see that copyright was the main focus for this weeks class.  As an information professional and a consumer of entertainment, I'm interested in how the digital age is affecting copyright and copyright infringement.  It's important for those of us in the information profession to understand the somewhat complex, sometimes ambiguous subjects of copyright and fair use, not only for ourselves, but for those that we serve.

What I agree with:  I agree that we need copyrights.  I've encountered some who argue that we don't need copyright protections, that they only serve corporate interests, and even go so far as to say copyright is evil.  That's certainly an extreme position, but it is an indicator of the growing dissatisfaction with current copyright laws.  Copyright originated as a way to promote the creation of new works by allowing creators to profit from creating.  I believe it still serves this purpose.

What I disagree with:  I don't necessarily think copyright law is perfect.  It should adjust to meet the needs of society.  That happens for the most part.  Copyright laws are created and amended on a somewhat regular basis.  One trend that I'm cautious of, however, is the extension of the life of copyrights.  The original length of copyright was 14 years in 1787, but it been extended several times throughout history to its current length of 70 years after the death of the author.  If the trend continues, it's not hard to believe that eventually copyright will be extended indefinitely.  I think there is a point in which extending the life of copyright no longer serves the purpose of encouraging the creation of new works.

What I'm still curious about: The future is a mystery to me.  We are at the beginning of the digital age, and no doubt there will be sweeping changes in the future.  Will we still need copyright in the future? Will it continue to be extended?  Can/will copyright be reformed or will we have some other mechanism to encourage creation?  I don't know.  It seems that so much of the future relies on the technologies that will be available.

Google's Project Glass

In an earlier post I mentioned that Google was developing augmented reality glasses that may release this year.  Well, today they have released a teaser trailer showing how the glasses might work and affect how an individual receives and shares information.  All in all it's pretty exciting stuff:

Edit: It didn't take long for internet parodies to start popping up, highlighting the potential downsides of the technology such as mis-sent information, advertisements, privacy, and not looking where you're going:

 

And here are what google glasses wearers will likely see when the inevitable advertisements begin.