Here at Copycense, we have been investigating our editorial and business models in light of several changes in the way we provide information about copyright, content, media, and information policy to our audience, as well as several changes in the way copyright information is made available online. The purpose of this short piece is to apprise our audience of some of the changes we will implement throughout the rest of 2009.

Editorial Changes

Copycense has been in continuous publication since 2004, but we really began reconsidering our approach to analyzing and writing on copyright and information policy issues about a year ago. During the past year, three things have become clear to us. First, we have realized we do not want to fill Copycense with content that has only ephemeral value. Instead, we want the content here to have lasting value.

Second, we have realized there several outlets are much more capable of, and efficient at, publishing daily reports about copyright, intellectual property, and information policy matters.

Third, it has become clear to us that continuing to focus on the daily news events has hampered our ability to view and analyze such events in a global fashion. It also has made it more difficult for us to connect the dots between law, business, technology, creativity, and society, which is what we believe we do best.

In light of these observations, we announce today that Copycense is managing its coverage of news events about copyright and information policy exclusively through our Twitter account at http://twitter.com/copycense and our FriendFeed account at http://friendfeed.com/copycense. Together, the content on these accounts replaces the Copycense Clippings and Site Check features on this site.

Our Twitter feed has been up and running for about 45 days. We have found it works perfectly for managing daily news updates, but we withheld a formal announcement about its presence and purpose until now in order to work out a publication system with which we felt comfortable.

Our FriendFeed feed provides similar information to what we post on Twitter. At first glance, the accounts seem like they are providing duplicate information. There is, however, one important difference between the information on each site: the FriendFeed site lets us explain and contextualize our Twitter posts (or the stories we point to in our Twitter posts) where we feel context is necessary, or we just want to editorialize, while our Twitter site provides mostly pointers to news stories we feel are important, and witty quips about those stories.

One example of how we use FriendFeed is illustrated by our comments about federal injunctions within the context of civil copyright litigation. In a recent Tweet, we linked to a story about a federal judge’s temporary injunction that blocked the publication and continued distribution of an adaptation J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye. On our FriendFeed site, we expounded on federal judges’ willingness to routinely issue injunctive relief in copyright cases even though injunctive relief is supposed to be an extraordinary (and, by extension, relatively infrequently granted) remedy given the standard that is set forth under the Federal Rules.

We also like FriendFeed because it allows to connect to (and post from) other services like Facebook, where we soon will have a full presence.

How does our work on Twitter, FriendFeed, and Facebook affect what we do here here, the main Copycense site? Our work on these external social networking sites means that the work we post here from this point forward will be less frequent, but more expansive and technical. In essence, our social networking sites will provide daily coverage of copyright and information policy issues, while this site will publish some of the scholarly and empirical work our executive editor, K. Matthew Dames, has been conducting recently. This site also will provide a forum for some of the policy work we have been proposing, and connect more tightly with pre-publication papers we post on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN).

With these changes, we anticipate Copycense will serve our existing audience and new readers by continuing to be a reasonable and respected participant in the broader online debate about what copyright is — and what it should be — in a 21st century networked information economy. And it seems that having reasonable voices in the online debate is more important than ever in light of recent changes in the debate’s constituency.

Changes in the Copyright Debate

While we have been mulling these editorial changes, important changes have occurred in the online copyright debate. While copyright has become a citizen’s issue in the United States like never before, the broader debate about copyright has lost some of its most valuable and well-known online contributors. William Patry? Gone. (In truth, Patry occasionally drops tidbits on The Patry Copyright Blog (TPCB), and he graciously restored his archives for all after he had removed the entire blog last fall. But TPCB is effectively shuttered for business.) Patry left the blogosphere in part because he became concerned that journalists (and perhaps even citizens) of all stripes conflated his work on TPCB with official copyright policy positions from Google, for whom works as Senior Copyright Counsel.

Lawrence Lessig? See ya. He has left copyright to focus his attention on “corruption.”

Siva Vaidhyanathan? Adios. He is focusing his attention on Google, and whether Google will, in fact, avoid evil.

We note these three not because we always agreed with their writings, opinions or conclusions. But each of them did write, regularly, and did so in ways that helped remove the layers of mystery that long have shrouded copyright and information policy — layers we believe no longer can exist now that these issue affect John and Jane Doe as much as they do Multinational Conglomerate Inc. Certainly, there are other strong voices that continue to write well and evenly on information policy issues, but many of those other strong voices are lobbyists for rabidly pro-copyright owner organizations (or more specifically, corporate copyright portfolio owners) whose work and “educational” initiatives are presented to preserve business models instead of fostering copyright balance or equality.

Other strong voices call for copyright abolition, or propose licensing alternatives as a way of getting around U.S. copyright law’s current imbalance. In our view, copyright abolition simply is not an option we ever could support, and we never have supported the absence of a copyright system. Despite its flaws, we actually believe rather strongly in the U.S. copyright system; we just don’t believe in an overly strong U.S. copyright system, which is what we have now.

As for licensing initiatives like those proposed by Creative Commons, we believe they provide worthy alternative approaches, but ultimately do little to calibrate our copyright system back to its historical and Constitutionally-mandated balance. In short, if our copyright system was in balance, would we really need Creative Commons? We believe the ultimate goal should be to restore balance to our copyright system so that an initiative like Creative Commons ultimately is unnecessary.

Then there are a handful of strong voices who have “legitimate” platforms who simply do not know what they are talking about because they have failed to get their hands dirty with the theory, history, grist, and marrow of copyright. We count Mark Helprin as a member of this group. Members of this group are dangerous because they have platforms that our society considers legitimate, and because their opinions may carry weight because of their access to such platforms — even though their knowledge of copyright law, theory, and history is embarrassingly scant.

Copycense 3.0

While we are not nearly as prolific or “credentialed” as some of the others who write about copyright and information policy, we are still here. Therefore, we announce now (albeit with some trepidation) that Copycense will step in and try filling the gap left by Patry, Lessig, and others who used to contribute their work, scholarship, and thoughts to the broader online debate about balanced copyright.

We are, however, going to do things a bit differently. We will not try to do what Patry, Lessig, Vaidhyanathan did. Eaach of them are enormous scholars, and we are unsure we could match them. On the other hand, we do not think they could do what we are attempting to do from this point forward: to make copyright, information policy and related issues clear and understandable to the average citizen creator, be it a 7-year-old making a collage, or a 70-year-old creating needlepoint — all while maintaining high standards of academic and journalistic rigor.

In other words, to paraphrase Public Enemy’s Chuck D, we’ll be breaking things down so that those on the boulevard and in the bourgeoisie can understand copyright equally, with our social networking presences serving the citizenry, and Copycense.com serving the academy and political class. Audacious, we know, but we only live once, so why not do it to death while we’re here?

Education is one of the keys to successfully implementing our plans, therefore Copycense will introduce a number of educational initiatives that will help citizens understand copyright and and how it applies to their creative work, professional work, academic work, and daily lives. Copyright once was something that only concerned specialists, entertainment corporations, and lobbyists. Now — with the lower barriers of creative production and distribution wrought by computer power, software packages, and the World Wide Web — copyright arguably is as much a citizen’s issue as a corporate issue. Citizens now have as equal a claim as corporate owners to being copyright stakeholders, yet few citizens truly understand the doctrine, the issues, or what is at stake. We aim to change this situation.

We have been publishing in this space for more than 5 years, and we thank each of you for taking the time to read and consider our work. We look forward to exchanging useful dialogue and learning about copyright, information policy and related matters so that all may “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” and “secur[e] for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

Copycense on Twitter: http://twitter.com/copycense

Copycense on FriendFeed: http://friendfeed.com/copycense

Copycense on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Copycense/102610694832

Technorati Tags: Copycense, K. Matthew Dames, Lawrence Lessig, Mark Helprin, Siva Vaidhyanathan, William Patry

Some readers have informed us they appreciate Clippings’ incisive, retrospective commentary about the week in copyright and digital media, but have suggested that we break out some of our longer passages into distinct entries. Doing so, they have argued, will make certain longer entries easier to read, and will ensure that our readers can link to the longer entries without losing them within a broader Clippings publication.

We couldn’t agree more.

Therefore, beginning this week, we will make remix and republish select individual stories from each edition of Clippings, including all our Article of the Week and Quote of the Week entries. These new entries often will add extended commentary and analysis. The remixed versions will be published throughout the 7-day period between Clippings editions.

In the end, we believe this effort will make the content more readable and accessible. Thank you to all who suggested improvements.

In this week’s huge edition of Clippings, we look at registration reform; news media inaccuracy; a challenge to the DMCA “safe harbor”; ICANN seeking independence; and the wireless spectrum auction.

This is Copycense.

Articles of the Week

Public Knowledge. Don’t Trust the Media to Get Copyright Right: Scrabulous Coverage Scores Few Points. Jan. 22, 2008. Often, we have taken the press to task for its frequently errant and one-sided coverage of intellectual property issues. When IP was a backwater issue, poor (and sometimes inaccurate) coverage was a problem, but was not evident. Now IP often warrants front-page, above-the-fold coverage, and the mistakes not only are evident, they are harmful. A news organization’s primary professional objective is to get it right. Writing flowery prose like Selena Roberts is optional. Talking loud and saying little like Stephen A. is optional. Whining while cashing checks like Mr. Tony is optional.

Getting it right, on the other hand, is mandatory.

Marc Fisher got it wrong in a big way last month, likely because he relied on second-hand reporting and did not do the requisite amount of fact- and document checking. Now, as PK points out, several media outlets seem to have gotten the Scrabulous/Facebook story wrong, attributing to an alleged copyright infringement problem what really is an alleged trademark infringement problem. Not only is this unacceptable, it is grossly unprofessional. If the news media can’t get it right, above all else, it’s useless. Categories: Broadcasting & Journalism; Infringement; Trademarks.

Dan Heller’s Photography Business Blog. Proposal for Privatizing the Copyright Registration Process. Jan. 21, 2008. Citing other instances of government outsourcing — including U.S. Postal Service allowing Mail Boxes Etc. and other commercial mail receiving agencies to manage mail delivery and pickup — Heller suggests that the U.S. Copyright Office accredit private sector business to handle copyright registrations. (Although Heller does not mention this specific example, America already is quite familiar with registration outsourcing: domain name registrations are outsourced to hundreds of registrars that are accredited by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).)

We already have some businesses that purport to handle copyright registrations, but many of these firms seem suspect at best. A rigorous accreditation process (similar to the one ICANN uses), overseen by the U.S. Copyright Office, likely would weed out the fly-by-night firms. Further, the U.S. Copyright Office already has received poor marks for its online registration system, so there remains a legitimate question as to whether the agency can implement a solid solution. And online registration clearly is the way to go, since (a) USPS mail to federal government agencies still gets delayed because of anthrax screening; and (b) it’s 2007 and our federal government should have online services like this down pat by now.

Further, broadening the registration process may encourage more people to register their works. Currently, copyright is the only one of the Big Three forms of intellectual property where neither registration nor public review is required prior to the government granting monopoly status. This leads to several problems, not the least of which is a huge orphan works nightmare, and a suppressed, downstream licensing market that suffers because no one can find the correct copyright owner.

This is a marvelous idea in so many ways. Categories: Registration; U.S. Copyright Office.

Eric Bangeman. Debating Copyright Reform: Time for Compulsory Licenses? ArsTechnica. Jan. 21, 2008. Ars reports on a copyright panel convened at the Consumer Electronics Show entitled Washington, Intellectual Property and Your Living Room, which was moderated by Ars editor Kenneth Fisher. The panel seemed fairly balanced, which is unusual for these panels, and everyone allegedly agreed some sort of copyright reform was necessary. Surprisingly, though, compulsory licensing was discussed, and at least one panelist positioned compulsory licenses as a way of providing compensation in light of the fact that copyright owners no longer can control their works.

There are two basic arguments here. On one hand, a compulsory license would force media companies to license their works at an established, set rate. (For example, royalties for cover songs are paid according to a rate set in a compulsory license.) Additionally, it would eliminate the often licensing negotiations, many of which can be ridiculous and random. (The music industry, in particular, suffers this problem when it comes to digital sampling.) On the other hand, U.S. Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters is on record as opposing compulsory licenses because it hurts “creators.” As we mentioned last week, though, one must be careful with the label “creators”: are we talking about individuals, or multinational corporations that own and control the copyright monopoly? We’re unsure what Peters means when she refers to “creators.”

Nevertheless, this is the first time we recall hearing someone — anyone — talk seriously about compulsory licensing as an option worth investigating. Also, it is the one of the first times we can recall any person who deals with copyright for a living bluntly proclaim that control of protected works no longer is possible or realistic. Categories: Bundle of Rights; Licensing & Permissions; U.S. Copyright Office.

Quotes of the Week

“One way to look at plaintiff’s difficulties here is as further evidence of the disproportionate difficulties African-Americans have had in getting the benefits of IP protection.” — Rebecca Tushnet.

43(B)log. Strikeout: Baseball Player’s Claim Against Cards Fails. Jan. 5, 2008. Georgetown law professor Tushnet (no, the junior Tushnet) ends her analysis of a lawsuit against the Topps trading card company with this interesting comment. The lawsuit (which was based on right of publicity, trademark and related claims) was brought by the daughter of legendary Negro Leaguer James “Cool Papa” Bell, alleging that the trading card company did not have permission to print Bell’s likeness on a trading cards released earlier this decade. Tushnet’s summary says Bell granted to the Baseball Hall of Fame permission to use his name and likeness on various products. (Bell was inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1974.) Tushnet’s comment raises interesting issues about IP protection and race.

Stories are legion about the extent to which creative, technical, or scientific achievements by African-Americans have been appropriated without initial or residual compensation. And strains of complaint often make it into the lyrics of contemporary music. (Even Jay-Z once said in “H.O.V.A.” “I’m overcharging labels for what they did to the Cold Crush.”) We would be very interested in seeing any articles, reports, books, or scholarly work that addresses this phenomenon and estimates the lost value therefrom. Categories: Licensing & Permissions; Trademark.

Copycense: Incisive IP.

(Clippings continue on the next page.)

Technorati Tags: Copycense Clippings

(more…)

This week’s edition of Clippings is huge, with gadget news and copyright implications from the Consumer Electronics Show. This week we plumb why 24 hours is not enough time to watch an iTunes movie rental; more evidence that Canadians consider copyright a serious political issue; elevating copyright to human rights status; the Seinfelds being accused of infringement and defamation; and the chair of the House’s copyright committee leaving the building.

This is Copycense.

Article of the Week

The Patry Copyright Blog. Appeals to Human Rights: The Next Battlefield? Jan. 17, 2008. If there’s any single writer that can make copyright humorous, it is William Patry. When describing the push to equate copyright (a relatively minor issue in the broader scheme of world affairs) with human rights (an extraordinarily important issue), Patry comments with typical sarcasm: “I confess to being moved to tears by European human rights attorneys taking up the cause of very large U.S. broadcasting corporations: Donald Rumsfeld was so wrong.”

Seriously, though, the injection of copyright into international affairs has been steady and dangerous since the trend results only in more rights for multinational corporations. Talk about “authors” and “creators” has little to do with individuals who create original works fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Those words merely are code designed to make readers think Grandma needs more rights to protect her cross-stitch designs. In reality, “Grandma” is a global commercial behemoth with business presences on all continents that is hell bent on leveraging copyright and other intellectual property schemes to foster dollar-driven hegemony.

(Well, perhaps not the dollar these days. Substitute the Euro.)

In fact, one could argue reasonably that here in the U.S., the effort to move copyright past what Patry calls its “current Incredible Hulk level” is occurring at least as much on the international and local levels as it is in Congress. We have reported several of the entertainment and content industries’ lobbying efforts have resulted in a sort of “paracopyright” at the state level. (California’s passage of AB 307, which ties school funding to a copyright “education” program influenced by the RIAA, is one example.)

And, of course, we have chronicled at several junctures the Special 301 process under the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The Federal Register notice that effectively asks multinational corporations and their trade groups to tell the Trade Representative which countries have failed to draft (or enforce) copyright law at America’s “Incredible Hulk level” was published last week. It is due on Monday, February 11. The copyright choke hold is in full effect and running on all eight cylinders. Categories: Bundle of Rights; International; Politics & Government.

Quotes of the Week

“Clearly, content creators deserve to be sufficiently rewarded for their work to make their endeavour worthwhile. At the same time, consumers have the right to enjoy the full capabilities of the equipment they’ve purchased, free from restrictions on what they can record and the use they make of content once it has been legitimately obtained. A revised copyright law must strive to find a balance between the rights of creators and ‘fair use’ by consumers.” — Vancouver Sun editorial board.

Vancouver Sun. Reformed Copyright Laws Shouldn’t Suppress Creativity. Jan. 16, 2008. Since there is no byline on this story from a major Canadian newspaper, we presume this is an editorial. If so, the tone is remarkably (and refreshingly) strident for a mainstream news outlet. Categories: Broadcasting & Journalism; Bundle of Rights.

“Surveys reveal that both adults and children (aged 12-15) have very high levels of awareness and understanding of the basic principles of intellectual property. However, young people feel that copyright regimes are unfair and unjust and a big age gap is opening up. The implications for libraries and for the information industry of a collapse of respect for copyright is potentially very serious.” — University College London.

Information World Review. My Generation. Jan. 17, 2008. This passage on copyright is but a snippet of a report whose main focus is on information seeking behaviors. We find it interesting, however, and would like to see an independent American researcher conduct a rigorous, well designed social science study of high school and college children to gain their perspective on copyright. Categories: Libraries & Information Science; Web & Online.

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Clippings continue on the next page.

Technorati Tags: Copycense, Copycense Clippings, K. Matthew Dames

(more…)

Editor’s note: Copycense writers and editors compiled this version of Clippings during our annual holiday break. It was published in mid-January.

Article of the Week

projectb15ck. UCSC Network Woes. Jan. 9, 2008. According to an e-mail within the body of the post, the information technology department at University of California, Santa Cruz is using Cisco’s Clean Access appliance and software to “help speed up the network for legitimate uses and reduce the risk of ‘accidental’ copyright infringement.” In the e-mail, John Rocchio , a UCSC IT administrator, says Clean Access will be configured to block file sharing services such as Gnutella and Bittorrent. The poster notes UCSC is a public university, therefore it is spending public funds to block Internet access. The unnamed writer asks incisively what difference is there between UCSC’s action’s and Comcast’s reported filtering of P2P traffic. Categories: File Sharing, P2P & Downloads; Education; Music; Networks; Privacy & Security.

Quote of the Week

“2008 has to be the year we get real or the business as we know it goes away.” –Fred Goldring, entertainment attorney.

Elizabeth Montalbano. Digital Music Industry Challenged to Follow Fans’ Lead. PCWorld.com. Jan. 9, 2008. You’re kidding us, right?

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Clippings continue on the next page.

Technorati Tags: Copycense, Copycense Clippings, K. Matthew Dames

(more…)

Editor’s note: Copycense writers and editors compiled this version of Clippings during our annual holiday break. It was published in mid-January.

Article of the Week

The Patry Copyright Blog. What RIAA Has Said About Home Taping. Jan. 7, 2007. Yes, Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher got the “RIAA says ripping to CD is illegal” story so very wrong. Unfortunately, what the RIAA has said about its stance on home taping (or ripping to CD) is clear as mud. Patry sifts through the RIAA’s stance on these issues, and gives credence to the contention that fuzziness in this area does consumers no good, especially since the RIAA has shown it will sue even if a rightful owner does anything that does not involve a paid license. Categories: Bundle of Rights; Fair Use & Other Exceptions; Music.

Quote of the Week

“[A] good sign of a dying industry that investors might want to avoid is when it would rather litigate than innovate, signaling a potential destroyer of value. If it starts to pursue paying customers — which doesn’t seem that outlandish at this point — then I guess we’ll all know the extent of the desperation. Investor, beware.” — The Motley Fool.

Alyce Lomax. We’re All Thieves to the RIAA. The Motley Fool. Jan. 2, 2008. The Fool, along with several other news outlets, reported the erroneous information that the RIAA argued ripping to CD is copyright infringement, an error we caught and explained in our Dec. 11 edition of Clippings. The key portion of this post is an investment Web site’s advice to readers to divest themselves of stock holdings in the four multinationals that include record companies among their holdings. If investment industry officials no longer have faith in your business model, that’s fatal. Categories: Business & Commerce; Music.

CommuniK. Clippings

TorrentFreak. Oscars Veteran Resigns Over DVD Screener Piracy Threat. Jan. 5, 2008. The film award season always is a special time of year for those that think such things have life significance. It also means bucket loads of DVDs will criss-cross the country, as members of the Academy screen the films and are feted “for [their] consideration” of an Oscar nomination. Until recently, Oscar nominations or wins never factored into any sort of movie marketing. (We first recall a notable push to market a film’s quality based upon the number of Oscar winners when we saw trailers for the 2002 film Insomnia.) Now, every two-bit film that has a single nominee makes sure the audience knows that factoid. It’s as if the producers imply with this sort of marketing that “because we have this Academy Award winner and that Academy Award nominee, this film won’t be an utter and complete waste of $100 million (or more).”

But we digress.

Film distribution season also means that the films will get copied and, as always happens, find their way onto the Web. This is the first year we’ve heard about the Academy taking strong steps to halt the copying, and also the first time we’ve heard that an Academy member resigned in protest. We presume all the brouhaha is about protecting the nominated films’ lucrative downstream DVD market, but we’re sure screeners don’t like being made out to be criminals. Categories: DRM & Copy Restrictions; Film & Video.

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Clippings continue on the next page.

Technorati Tags: Copycense, Copycense Clippings, K. Matthew Dames

(more…)

The final Clippings edition of this year features a novel approach to copyright reform; the Canadian citizenry stopping cold the march of restrictive copyright; and using P2P for marketing purposes.

Thank you for continuing to follow Copycense. We will resume Clippings coverage early next year.

This is Copycense.

Article of the Week

Pamela Samuelson. Preliminary Thoughts on Copyright Reform. The UC-Berkeley law professor offers “preliminary thoughts about what a model copyright law might include and how one might go about getting rid of some of the clutter in the existing statute,” using the example provided by the American Law Institute’s model laws. Categories: Legislation & Regulation; Research.

Quotes of the Week

“It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of [] copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. … Virtually all of the sound recordings … are in the ‘.mp3′ format. … Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use. The .mp3 format is a ‘compressed format [that] allows for rapid transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol.’ Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011. Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by [plaintiff recording companies].” — Recording Industry Assn. of America brief in Atlantic v. Howell.

MacNN. RIAA Claims CD Rips Are Piracy in Lawsuit. Dec. 11, 2007. The MacNN headline is provocative, but not quite accurate. What the music industry lobby argues that ripping copyrighted music from CD (i.e. the “original format”) to another format (e.g. .mp3 files, for example) and posting to a shared folder on a peer-to-peer program (like Kazaa) means the music becomes de facto illegal, and therefore copyright infringement. While most coverage of this brief focuses on the alleged illegality of ripping music from compact disc to another format, to us the real story is about the recording industry’s attempts to extend into judge-made law the “making available” doctrine, which the industry argued strongly in the Jammie Thomas trial. Although the RIAA does, in fact, think that making personal copies of music is illegal, we’d like to think the likelihood of them trying to enforce that principle alone is far fetched. We’ve seen stranger things occur, however. Categories: Bundle of Rights; Cases & Litigation; File Sharing, P2P & Downloads; Music.

“We are willing to purchase media, and have thousands of music and movies; we are the entertainment industries best friend when it comes to spending money on entertainment. But as with all end of an era kind of things, everything we do is somehow proscribed, regulated, or locked. Those heady days of being 14 or 40 and copying something so it can come with us are over, and that is a shame.” — Techwag.

Techwag. The End of An Era Over Copyright. Dec. 12, 2007. We disagree that the days of copying something to come with you are over, but it is a shame that too many citizens feel proscribed from doing this very fundamental networked activity. Categories: Bundle of Rights.

Technorati Tags: Copycense, Copycense Clippings, K. Matthew Dames

(more…)

Plagiarism Today. The Copyright Office’s Online Registration System. Dec. 4, 2007. A comprehensive review of the U.S. Copyright Office’s Electronic Copyright Office registration system. A commenter hit the nail on the head when he points out the system should be better than a 3 out of 10 when it has been in development for so long.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Dec. 11, 2007, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense