Pamela Samuelson has published an article exploring possible alternatives to the now failed Google Book Settlement. From the post:
This article explores a number of component parts of a legislative package that might accomplish many of the good things that the proposed settlement promised without the downsides that would have attended judicial approval of it.
The Open Book Alliance has a new post stating they are still concerned about the Google Book Settlement. From the post:
The aggregation of data on what people are reading is a significant break with the centuries-old American tradition of vigorous protections of reader privacy.
Mike Linksvayer has a new post on why it isn’t a good idea to using the CC0 license for public domain software. From the post:
We hadn’t set out with CC0 to improve on public domain dedications for software. However, since the release of CC0, we’ve been approached a number of times about using CC0 to dedicate software to the public domain. While we were happy to hear of this unanticipated demand, we wanted to tread very carefully so as to not create any unintended consequences for the free software ecosystem.
Note: Mike Linksvayer clarifies that it is actually acceptable to use CC0 for public domain software.
Robert Darnton has published a new post summarizing why the Google Book Settlement has failed so far. From the article:
The cumulative effect of these objections, elaborated in 500 memoranda filed with the court and endorsed in large part by Judge Chin’s decision, could give the impression that the settlement, even in its amended version, is so flawed that it deserves to be pronounced dead and buried. Yet it has many positive features.
Josh Hadro has a new post discussing the Google Book Settlement rejection from the perspectives of librarians. From the post:
What librarians can look forward to instead: a renewed commitment from library advocates to make more content accessible to scholars and to the general public, whether via an alternative settlement agreement or legislative recourse.
Jonathan Gray has a new post on promoting the public domain. From the post:
A few weeks back we ran a small workshop in Berlin for Public Domain Day 2011. It was attended by a mix of artists, scholars, legal experts, technologists, and passers by.
Greg DeKoenigsberg on the value of remixing. From the post:
It’s a funny thing about the public domain: anybody can take any work in the public domain, remix it to their heart’s content, and release it as their own, and they magically become copyright holders of that new work — even if it were orginally 99.9% someone else’s work. Absolutely legal.
The blog for the Internet Archive is announcing a new book reading software.
Melanie Chernoff has a new post that appears both at Opensource.com and Open Knowledge Forum. From the post:
I…would like to address my personal pet peeve about the dilution of the term open data.
Heather Ford has a new post responding to a recent post by David Wiley regarding Creative Commons. From Ford’s post:
I have absolutely no influence over national intellectual property policy, but let me point to an example of exactly how Creative Commons preserves – and in some cases actually helps support – the status quo of copyright.