COPYRIGHT AND COPYLEFT
The Statute of Anne, 1710 (1/6)
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;
This is the first copyright act in the world, the British Statute of Anne, from 1710.
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine: as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
" If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."-- Thomas Jefferson
The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 NO PATENTS ON IDEAS
-- Thomas Jefferson
Copyrights and Copywrongs Why Thomas Jefferson would love Napster
Written in plain english, nice, easy-to-follow intro. on copyright in the digital age. "Intellectual property law can be traced back to Ireland in the fourth century, where renegade bishop St. Columba snuck into Old Man Finneans library and copied his psalter by hand, and then gave copies out for free to local churches. Finnean had an absolute fit, and dragged Columbas ass to court, which meant King Diarmits royal court. The King decreed To every cow its calf, to every book its copy, and fined St. Columba 40 head of cattle for making an unauthorized copy. Heres the deal, though: Finnean of Clonard didnt write the psalter in question, which is a book full of psalms, he just owned it. The issue decided by Diarmit was about allowing the wealthy and powerful to control the flow of knowledge, and allowing the commoditization of information."
Essentially, this is a battle over whether people who use emerging technologies will be users as we were in the PC and the Internet revolutions, or whether we will be consumers as the television era treated people. Will we actively use the technology to create media, as people did with the PC and the Internet? Or will we be passive consumers of content that is sold to us by others, as the television viewers are?
The Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act
Introduction: The New Legislation
On November 2nd, 2002, the "Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act" (the TEACH Act), part of the larger Justice Reauthorization legislation (H.R. 2215), was signed into law by President Bush. Long anticipated by educators and librarians, TEACH redefines the terms and conditions on which accredited, nonprofit educational institutions throughout the U.S. may use copyright protected materials in distance education-including on websites and by other digital means--without permission from the copyright owner and without payment of royalties.
New Copyright Law for Distance Education: The Meaning and Importance of the TEACH Act PDF
The New Legislation * Background of Copyright Law
Context of Distance Education * Benefits of the TEACH Act
Requirements of the TEACH Act * Duties of Institutional Policymakers
Duties of Information Technology Officials * Duties of Instructors
Role for Librarians * Conclusion
EDU's nd Distance Learning - conditions on which accredited, nonprofit educational institutions throughout the U.S. may use copyright protected materials in distance education-including on websites and by other digital means--without permission from the copyright owner and without payment of royalties.
Copyright is Dead - July 2000 - Excerpt from Mac Edition Soup Says
The legal principle behind copyright has been sold down by the river, by: the motion picture industry, the recording industry and the major publishers. Intellectual property law can be traced back to Ireland in the fourth century, where renegade bishop St. Columba snuck into Old Man Finnean's library and copied his psalter by hand, and then gave copies out for free to local churches. Finnean had an absolute fit, and dragged Columba's ass to court, which meant King Diarmit's royal court. The King decreed "To every cow its calf, to every book its copy", and fined St. Columba 40 head of cattle for making an unauthorized copy. Here's the deal, though: Finnean of Clonard didn't write the psalter in question, which is a book full of psalms, he just owned it. The issue decided by Diarmit was about allowing the wealthy and powerful to control the flow of knowledge, and allowing the commoditization of information.
Creative Commons will make available flexible, customizable intellectual-property licenses that artists, writers, programmers and others can obtain free of charge to legally define what constitutes acceptable uses of their work. The new forms of licenses will provide an alternative to traditional copyrights by establishing a useful middle ground between full copyright control and the unprotected public domain.
Read More http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/02/11/creatcom.DTL
Silent Theft - The Private Plunder of our Public Wealth
About Counter - Copyrights [CC]
As an alternative to the exclusivity of copyright, the counter-copyright invites others to use and build upon a creative work. By encouraging the widespread dissemination of such works, the counter-copyright campaign fosters a rich public domain.
Copyright, Congress, Due Diligence, And Coase by Frank Forman
Economist at the U.S. Department of Education author of "The Metaphysics of Liberty"
Source: New York Times (Circuits-D13) 6/18/98 Author: Michael Pollak
BANNED BOOKS ONLINE offers links to the texts of 30 different books and plays that have been -- or are currently -- banned in the United States. The site was created by John Mark Ockerbloom, who recently received a doctorate in computer science at Carnegie Mellon Univ.in Pittsburgh. The Banned Books site also is linked to a variety of other anti-censorship resources. Censorship endangers democracy, said Dr. Ockerbloom. "It really narrows the range of discussion in the interest of whoever's in power," he said. In regards to his own work, he said, "what I'm hoping the effect will be is a lot more kids will go out and read 'Huckleberry Finn.'"
Do Not use any literary interpretation of copyright law that you read on the web unless it is DATED AT LEAST in the last 12 months!
Find a long list of exclusions to exclusive use rights now included in the law.
Timeline History of Copyright
U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE
COPYRIGHT and WRONG WHAT EVERY TEACHER SHOULD KNOW
COPYRIGHT PERMISSION FORM LETTER
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Reprinted under the Fair Use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. Full copyright retained by the original publication. (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
House Panel Votes to Ease Copyright Restrictions
Chronice of Higher Education, 2.8.9 By ANDREA L. FOSTER
The enactment of a bill that would make it easier for educational institutions to use films and songs in online instruction was all but assured last month after a key House of Representatives committee approved the legislation.
The House Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the bill, the Technology Harmonization and Education Act, S 487, on a voice vote without debate. It is identical to a bill the Senate approved in June 2001.
The legislation would expand the exceptions under the Copyright Act of 1976 that allow colleges and schools to use copyrighted material for instruction without securing copyright holders' permission. The act allows distance-education providers to digitally transmit nondramatic literary and musical works. Under the bill, they would also be able to show students selected portions of movies, plays, and other dramatic works.The legislation applies only to accredited, nonprofit educational institutions. <snip>
Australian Copyright Update August 23,2002
in a landmark decision for defamation law, Australia's High Court ruled that a Melbourne businessman can sue New York publishing company Dow Jones & Co. in Australia over an articlepublished in the U.S. and distributed via the Internet. The article was published in Barron's, a Dow Jones business and financial weekly. Dow Jones also publishes The Wall Street Journal.