Yahoo! News (via The Associated Press). MPAA Admits Mistake on Downloading Study. Jan. 23, 2008; Inside Higher Ed. Downloading by Students Overstated. Jan. 23, 2008; Association for Computing Machinery. MPAA’s Data Oops: How Will Congress React? Jan. 23, 2008; News Blog (News.com). Why Did Colleges Stay Mum on MPAA Stats? Jan. 25, 2008. We don’t think this is a mistake, actually. For several years, we have questioned as biased and invalid many of the “studies” the entertainment industry creates that purport to show a correlation between alleged infringement activity from a specific environment (i.e. file sharing networks) or population (i.e. college students). More investigation should be done into the numbers and methodology of these reports, especially since the entertainment industry parades them before Congress as evidence that it needs more restrictive intellectual property rights. If you think there is no connection between these sorts of studies and legislation like the PRO IP bill (H.R. 4279) or the HEA Reauthorization bill, think again.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 29, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Christina Hernandez. Colleges to Copyright Electronic Material. Newsday. Jan. 20, 2008. The Newsday editors’ headline reflects a misunderstanding of the issues, and (if he was quoted correctly) AAP representative Adler engages in a rhetorical stretch when he claims all three schools established their guidelines “in conjunction with” AAP. Nevertheless, the publishers’ saber rattling over electronic reserves continues: this is an extension of the Cornell-AAP “agreement” we wrote about in October 2006.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 22, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

The Wired Campus (The Chronicle of Higher Education). Librarian: Ohio State Professors Need Copyright Refresher. Jan. 14, 2008. This very brief post provides insight into the distinction between the creator of a copyrighted work and the owner of a copyrighted work. In today’s world, these parties rarely are the same.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 15, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Pogue’s Posts (The New York Times). The Generational Divide in Copyright Morality. Dec. 20, 2007. Times technology columnist does a straw poll with college students about the alleged illegality of various copyright scenarios and no one sees anything wrong. Teens’ and college students resistance to any copyright protection or rules is worthy of an extended study. And a real study with real data, not something an entertainment industry lobbying firm cooks up so they can trot the results out to Congress while begging for yet another extension of the already overbroad monopoly.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 8, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Trevor Maxwell. Maine Law Students Enter Battle on Downloading, Against Record Labels. Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel. Jan. 7, 2008. One could dismiss this as a typical “bringing to a knife to a gun fight” scenario. But after more than 15,000 Canadians organized and (at least temporarily) halted choke hold copyright legislation, we wondered if the copyright issue ever would gain such a level of citizen interest and outrage here in America. The actions of law students suggest a start. Categories: Cases & Litigation; Education; File Sharing, P2P & Downloads; Music.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 8, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

The Wired Campus (Chronicle of Higher Education). Bucking Music Piracy Accusations at the U. of Washington. Jan. 2, 2008. Another sign that universities increasingly are reversing their former stance on file sharing lawsuit subpoenas, which reflexively shuttled requested information to the RIAA’s local counsel. As the file sharing lawsuit campaign becomes less pro forma, we wonder when local counsel (which the RIAA uses to file these lawsuits) begins to balk at accepting the work because the litigation sucks up too many resources from their respective practices.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 8, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

The Copyright Clearance Center (“CCC”) is an organization about which many information professionals have formed opinions. The opinions vary from positive to negative; they may be formed based on direct involvement with the company or its representatives, or through hearsay. The organization plays a pivotal role in the symbiotic, yet often contentious, relationship between those people and entities that need information and those who wish to make it available. But CCC also has become – fairly or unfairly – a lightning rod in an environment that has elevated copyright law into the forefront of social, political, legal, and commercial discourse.

As CCC’s president and chief executive officer, Tracey Armstrong is responsible for managing the delicate balance between collecting licensing revenues for copyright owners and advocating for new ways to deliver information to end users. Armstrong, who has worked for the organization since 1989, became CCC’s CEO last summer, succeeding Joseph Alen. The organization she leads earned more than $175 million for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2007, and has enjoyed strong growth for several consecutive years. At the same time, she takes over the company in a time of unprecedented legal flux, and will be expected to maximize licensing revenue and company earnings in the midst of uncertainty.

During an hour-long interview that Copycense executive editor K. Matthew Dames conducted with Armstrong earlier this year, Armstrong indicated she welcomes the challenge.

The January 2008 edition of Online magazine will feature a substantial portion Dames’ interview with Armstrong, which is one of the first extensive interviews a CCC executive has given in several years. Both candid and engaging, Armstrong answers questions about CCC’s organization and structure; the business’ opportunities and challenges; and CCC’s role in the larger debate about access to information.

The full interview will be republished on Copycense in Spring 2008.

This Is Copycense™: Code + Content. A venture of Seso Group LLC.

Correction: Copyright Clearance Center Inc. is a New York not-for-profit corporation. As such, CCC does not earn profits, as a previous version of this post indicated.

Technorati Tags: Copycense, Copycense Conversations, Copyright Clearance Center, K. Matthew Dames