he dominant project of cyberlaw is to parse the implications of the Internet's structural rules or "code." n302 Legal scholars seeking to explain the Internet's dynamism as a unified platform have emphasized a particular structural factor: the so-called "end-to-end" model. n303 An end-to-end network is one that pushes control out to the endpoints. n304 The network focuses on moving bits from one place to another, without considering what those bits contain. Any edge device, such as a computer or mobile phone, can add a new application, and those edge devices are solely responsible for factors such as reliability and security that ensure the success of that application. Because innovations do not require the consent or updating of the network core, those innovations can be deployed more quickly.n305 As edge devices become more powerful, which they do as computing power improves over time, their enhancements can immediately be joined to the network. So, new services such as Google, Skype, Hotmail, Facebook, and Amazon.com can catch on and grow rapidly, generating significantly more social and economic benefits than in a network like the PSTN, where central control nodes must approve new features. n306

The end-to-end model emphasizes only one side of the equation - the edges. The Internet gives extraordinary power to its endpoints, but it also embodies linkages between those endpoints, and between  [*400]  aggregations of systems that connect into a composite network. The fact that the edges of the network define the applications say nothing about how those edges are wired together. An endpoint can offer a brilliant innovation, but such innovation will be of no value if other endpoints cannot access it, or cannot access it easily. n307 Something more than the end-to-end principle must explain how the Internet holds together.

Traditionally, librarians have been viewed as gatekeepers (among other things). However, Librarians (for the most part) view themselves as catalysts helping patrons getting the material they want as quickly and as "painlessly" as possible. For most patrons the ideal librarian is one who can find whatever information they need quickly, easily, possibly be able to teach them how to do it themselves, and -- most importantly -- do all of this for free. Most librarians, I assert, want to be the patron's ideal librarian. So, why then are librarians gatekeepers -- shouldn't librarians be ignoring copyright all-together in order to be the ideal librarian? The answer is that most librarians don't feel as if copyright law is some moral code they must abide by; rather, most librarians are afraid their library is going to get sued. Is having one's library being sued a legitimate fear for librarians? I argue that it is not a legitimate fear. In addition, library's and librarians have come to a breaking point in regards to copyright. Library's can barely afford the high prices for copyrighted material and most librarians believe there needs to be a universal embrace of open access in order for libraries to continue providing the services they have historically provided. Librarians need to be rebellious against copyright in order to push publishers away from price-gouging and the strangle-hold they have over their content. If librarians adopt an end-to-end policy, learn to circumvent copyright law as legally as possible, and know how likely it is that their library will be sued, then librarians will finally be taking a truly proactive and rebellious stance against copyright.

The above article is a PR address from the Association of American Publishers regarding the infringement lawsuit brought up on Georgia State University by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and SAGE Publications. The document gives the reasons why these three publishers felt it necessary to bring up charges against GSU and why it is important that the copyright they hold over their published works is important (mainly because of the significant funds they spend publishing their works).

 

http://publishers.org/main/PressCenter/documents/GSUlawsuitcomplaint.pdf

 

The above link directs you to the legal complaint in its original form. Using the above legal cliam and the press release to help decipher and guide me through this legal document will help me to better understand why the publishers feel they have been wronged by Georgia State University. The infringements listed by Georgia State University have most assuredly been facilitated by the library/libraries of GSU or at least exacerbated by the library/libraries.

 

I will use the above article as a way of understanding what was it exactly that publishers feel are significant reasons to bring up suit against an entity. By examining the stated reasons for the lawsuit, I could further research as to what could be done to eliminate the possibility of being sued for supplying copyrighted works to students, faculty, and staff by the university library. The above articles will help me to define in my essay what is sufficient cause for a publisher to take up suit against a university / library.

 

Note: Lexis Nexis doesn't give persistent links (or else I am unable to find where they do) in order to retrieve this article simply search for "a lay perspective on the copyright wars" with only the legal box checkmarked and it will be the first result.

 

 

 

In this Lecture, Columbia University's University Librarian, James G. Neal, addresses the current environment of libraries in regards to copyright and open access. Neal's lecture mostly addresses the findings of the 108 Study Group which was formed to research copyright. Neal explains the current state of copyright, the findings of the 108 Study Group, and the framework necessary in order to facilitate a more open environment for publications and libraries. Neal's lecture defines the library as an all encompassing entity which disseminates information, a center for research, a publisher in its own right. Because of the library's role as a center for just about everything scholarly, the library has a vision of embracing legacy as well as current trends. The library is an information repository and a portal to information. Serving so many roles simultaneously makes the library at the forefront of the copyright war.

 

In my essay it will be important to state why it is the duty of the librarian to rebel against copyright in order to push for more open access. Neal helps define the library as the center of the copyright war, the very front of the action. By citing Neal and his 108 Study Group's findings, I will be able to convey the importance of the librarian to stand up against copyright in order to defend the very embodiment and idea of the library itself. Neal's article also gives information on the opninion of librarians and library organizations on the issue of copyright and open access. Using some of this information will help me to define how to faciliate a better enviornment for the sharing of intellectual materials.

 

U.S. Code Title 17 is the definitive legal resource for the U.S. Laws regardining copyright. This resource has relevant information on what constitutes copyright infringement and what actions are needed to remedy said infringements. 

I will use the above resource as a primary source. This source will help me to define exactly what copyright infringement is according to the law. The above material will help me to define what actions a librarian could take when addressing sensitive copyrighted materials. By knowing the extent of the law I could then determine what are suitable actions to take when coming in contact with something which is questionable -- and in turn what is definitively illegal -- in order to argue for what actions a librarian could take to "push the envelope" on copyright law.

This resource aims to address as many legal aspects of copyright infringement that the site's authors deem are most relevant to instruction and libraries. The site acts as a bibliography or index to various topics within coypright right law and links the user to a main source of information on each specific topic. In addition to linking to various topics on copyright law, it also links to legal information on copyright law and how it pertains to libraries and instruction. Under each section and sub-headings are abstracts explaining what is covered under each topic.

The following resource is an invaluable tool for addressing specific copyright concerns of libraries. After researching what each of the concerns are and making note of them, I will then be able to click through to find out more information on each specific topic. Though likely not a comprehensive source of copyright law which specifically affects libraries, it seems to be fairly wide ranging and well written. 

The following article compares copyright law in so much as it involves document delivery (or Interlibrary loan) in different countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The section of the law, deemed most relevant by the author, is listed and an examination of the law is undergone. The author tries to re-explain the word of the law in laymans terms and make it more approachable to the average reader.

I plan on using the following article to get a better understanding of how copyright law differs in western countries and how it affects libraries and their ability to provide free documents to patrons. Using the authors explanations will help me to get a better grasp of "legal-ese," so as to better understand U.S. Law when conducting my own research.

Heller, Steven. "Shepard Fairey Is Not a Crook." 10 Apr. 2009. <http://themoment.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/graphic-content-shepard-fairey-is-not-a-crook/?hpw>.

The author is Steven Heller, former art director at the New York Times and current co-chair of the MFA design department at the School of Visual Arts. The blog entry is a response to Mark Vallen's Obey Plagiarist Fairey essay which attacks Fairey for using Chinese and Russian propaganda imagery. He labeled the acts misappropriation. Heller's article begins by briefly laying out the Fairey vs. AP court case. This case is perhaps the most current high profile copyright lawsuit. Its decision will be extremely important for the mindset of artists. The decision will either encourage or discourage appropriation art. The uproar surrounding the Hope image is yet again an example how in copyright everything is but black and white.

The author argues Fairey is not a thief. Heller thinks the usage is protected under fair use. His work in general acts to criticize media's consumer outlook. As Heller writes about his Obey poster, "Fairey is essentially arguing that icons can be conflated and repurposed to achieve manipulative results. Fairey's appropriation refers to that which goes on in the mass media every day. At its most articulate, his work is a critique of image ownership." The article concludes by noting that Fairey has made rigid efforts to protect his own brand from the appropriation of other artists. For my research paper, this latter point is significant. It makes us question the degrees to which appropriation can take on. We must wonder is there ever an end to the cycle of appropriating a single image. As I begin to write about appropriation art, I will use Fairey as my jumping off point. The current case and Fairey's tactics to stop his art from being appropriated are emblematic of how copyright law exists among artist, media, and institutions today.

Thesis: Samples, remixes, and mash-ups have all been affected by the interpretation and application of copyright law....... I am doing a creative project where I will produce four songs--a mash-up, a remix, and two beats that contain samples. I am choosing to do two samples because they are of different natures. One beat has samples of substantial similarity, whereas the second has a sample that has modified enough to make the original work unrecognizable. I will then discuss the relationship and implication that copyright law holds with samples, remixes, and mash-ups while using the songs I created as bases for comparison and analysis. The legal copyright implications will be addressed and critiqued.

     Newton v. Diamond is a court case that, similar to Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films, revolves around de minimis sampling. The case involves the rap group, the Beastie Boys, and accomplished jazz flutist, James Newton. The Beastie Boys, in their song “Pass the Mic,” sampled a very small segment of Newton’s recording, “Choir.” The sample was a six-second, three-note snippet of Newton playing the flute. The Beastie Boys acquired a license for the actual sound recording from a record company, but they didn’t obtain one for the underlying musical composition from Newton. The court held that the three-note segment of the composition of “Choir” could not be copyrighted because it lacked requisite originality; further, it stated that if the segment had been copyrightable, the Beastie Boy’s use was de minimis.
     The analysis on de minimis, unlike in the Bridgeport case, was on the musical composition, not the sound recording. First, the three-note sequence wasn’t the heart of the work and was insubstantial as it appeared once within the four and one-half minute song. Even more important, though, is that the note sequence in question—C – D flat – C, over a held C note—doesn’t contain sufficient originality to be awarded copyright protection. There are only so many notes, chords, and chord progressions available to musicians. Therefore, some of these basic notes and progressions can’t be “owned” by anyone.
     With this type of court decision and interpretation of copyright and de minimis laws, the need for certain sample clearances becomes void. Along with the outcome of the Bridgeport case, if I sampled a one-note snippet of a song, I would still need licensing from whoever owns the master recordings. With the Newton v. Diamond case, however, I would now only need licensing from the record company, for instance, and wouldn’t need to seek approval from a composer or music publishing company. The composer doesn’t own the rights to certain notes, and therefore I can sample certain compositions.
     This is an important differentiation for me, or anyone who samples for that matter. It is definitely something to take into consideration for my songs that sample and any future song that I produce. It would allow me to sample small segments and only have to clear them with record companies, saving me time and money. This is an interesting wrinkle in copyright law that is certainly relevant and applicable.

        Grand Upright Music v. Warner Bros. Records was the court case that started it all when it comes to sampling, copyright infringement, and the necessity of acquiring clearance to sample a copyrighted work. The case was brought against one of Warner Bros. Records’ artists, a rapper named Biz Markie, by Grand Upright Music, which owns the copyrights to singer and songwriter Gilbert O’Sullivan. Grand Upright claimed that Biz Markie infringed upon O’Sullivan’s song, “Alone Again (Naturally),” by incorporating a partial piece of the copyrighted song into a rap recording. The court found this to be evident.
        Markie’s main argument was that he should be excused from liability for infringing copyright because others in the rap world are also engaging in the illegal activity. The judge was quick to point out that this mere statement could do nothing more than lead to that argument’s own refutation. The judge then pointed to the US copyright laws, as well as even the Seventh Commandment, “Though shalt not steal,” as his basis for siding with Grand Upright. Just because stealing might be rampant in the rap music business, there is no way to view this as excusable or justifiable. The court viewed that appropriating copyrighted work into a new one for the sole aim of economic achievement is a blatant disregard for the law and the rights of others.
       With this decision, the face and sound of rap music was forever changed. Until that point, sampling had been widespread in the hip-hop world; some artists had even been using ten to twenty samples a song. Now, all of these samples would have to be cleared—and at a cost. Many artists couldn’t afford to sample after this. At the same time, copyright holders could begin refusing to license their songs for one reason or another.
       In my project I have two songs with samples. Had I produced them in 1985, for instance, I wouldn’t have to clear the samples, and I would be able to reap every monetary benefit to their success. After this Grand Upright case, however, things are different. To try and release either of my songs, I would have to go through a costly clearance negotiation with record and publishing companies; and for all I know, even if I offered to pay, they might still not clear my samples.

         While it is fairly obvious to look towards the official US Copyright Law when doing researching for a copyright paper, two sections in Chapter 1 hold an important relevance to my project. Sections 106 and 114 both touch on factors that relate to the appropriation of copyrighted material for derivative works.
         Section 106 states the exclusive rights that accompany a copyrighted work. That is, the exclusive rights of an owner of that copyright. There are six main points; these can range from the right to authorize reproduction of the copyrighted work, to the right to authorize public performance or display. The second of these points, however, is the most appropriate for my project and research. It reads: the owner of copyright has the exclusive right and authorization “to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.” Samples, remixes, and mashups fall under this category of derivative work—they aren’t fully original and have been derived from copyrighted sources.
        Section 114 goes further in-depth on the scope of these exclusive rights when it comes to sound recordings specifically. Part two of this section connects back to the aforementioned second point of section 106. It states that the owner of a copyrighted sound recording has the exclusive right “to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality,” all of which take place in mashups, remixes, and samples.
        Both sections clearly include and declare that the owner of a copyrighted work, including any sound recording, holds the ability and right to authorize derivative works. Since most mashups, and a fair share of remixes and samples, aren’t cleared with copyright holders, they hold an interesting (and illegal) relationship with this law. On top of that, being some of the most fundamental aspects of the US Copyright Law, future court decisions that have affected music of this nature all rely on and relate back to these original points.