[IP] more on Google to Offer News Archive

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "RJR RJRiley.com" <RJR@RJRILEY.com>
Date: September 9, 2006 7:23:34 AM PDT
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: sally@sallyrichards.com
Subject: RE: [IP] more on Google to Offer News Archive

Dave, for IP if you wish.

Sally,  you said "Writers currently have to prove damages, and with  
no way
to audit microsales, how many times something has been accessed, for how
much $$ and if it is originally what brought a surfer to the site (if  
so,
what other purchases were made on that visit), damages cannot be  
physically
proven."

I am not an attorney, but I am an independent inventor and we face  
the same
problems.  I wish that patent holders had the same robust protections  
which
copyright owners have.  Below are my understanding of the legal issue, I
urge you to confirm this with an attorney.

1) There are already statutory damages for copyright violation. Up to
$150,000 for each occurrence.

2) The information you are seeking to determine the extent of damages  
should
be discoverable.

Try this link for some insight into the law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/ 
usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.
html

I was under the impression that freelance writers have trade  
associations.
You should be trying to get an association to put a case together and  
take
that case to a contingency litigator.

Inventors and authors face the same dilemma when dealing with smaller
takings of their property, and that is that litigation is not  
economical.
But when there is a deep pocked infringer in the supply chain it is
economical.

Google's use is commercial and they are profiting handsomely from  
such use,
Archive.org is not commercial and really serves a public interest.  I  
don't
think you should lump them together.

Archive.org is not content searchable.  What it does do is allow a  
user to
recover material which has been removed and to see the history of the  
sites
evolution.  The way that Archive.org is structured right now makes it
difficult to use it to acquire copyrighted material.  There is no profit
motive and it serves the public interest.

Ronald J Riley, Exec. Dir.           Ronald J Riley, President
InventorEd, Inc.                          Professional Inventors  
Alliance
www.InventorEd.org                    www.PIAUSA.org
RJR"at"InvEd.org                        RJR"at"PIAUSA.org
Change "at" to @                       Change "at" to @

RJR Direct # (202) 318-1595


-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 9:30 AM
To: ip@v2.listbox.com
Subject: [IP] more on Google to Offer News Archive



Begin forwarded message:

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Date: September 7, 2006 8:31:53 AM PDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@warpspeed.com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Google to Offer News Archive
Reply-To: dewayne@warpspeed.com

[Note:  This comment comes from reader Sally Richards.  DLH]

From: "sally" <sally@sallyrichards.com>
Date: September 6, 2006 11:27:01 PM PDT
To: dewayne@warpspeed.com
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Google to Offer News Archive

I hope Google and its partners in this venture remember the terms they
purchased the stories under. Many freelance pieces "published years  
ago,"
did not include Internet rights under standard contracts. any of those
stories were pre-commercial Internet. And many of those contracts  
have long
since disappeared with time.

Many of those contracts included First North American Rights. I have to
remind publishers many times over that they did not purchase all- 
inclusive
rights when I do vanity searches and find my articles on the Internet  
that
were purchased under First North American Rights. My guess is that a  
lot of
freelancers will have to go into the business of being their own  
police and
lawyer when this new business model for Google comes about.

You know, whenever Kinko's makes a print of a photograph, they ask  
you to
sign a release notifying you of copyright laws and stating that you
personally own the rights to the photographs they are reproducing.  
Perhaps
it's time to start holding Google responsible for its content.... And  
to put
a Can-spam law http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ 
canspam.htm into
place where there's a flat $11,000 fee in place when a company is  
found in
violation of the law (although, I'd like to see how many times that  
law has
been implemented).

Even if Google agrees to take the content off the site, you have  
sites like
the Wayback Machine http://www.archive.org/index.php that will keep that
content up forever. In the end, it's usually the people who create the
content who make the least, and the companies that don't give a damn  
about
rights (or say, "Who cares, sue me,") that end up profiting the most.

The only way that's going to end is if there is some kind of law  
protecting
content creators from companies that violate rights contracts. Writers
currently have to prove damages, and with no way to audit microsales,  
how
many times something has been accessed, for how much $$ and if it is
originally what brought a surfer to the site (if so, what other  
purchases
were made on that visit), damages cannot be physically proven.


Sal

Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as rjr@RJRiley.com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
people/





-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/