DOCSLIB.ORG

Section 1201 Rulemaking: Fifth Triennial Proceeding to Determine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section 1201 Rulemaking: Fifth Triennial Proceeding to Determine u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t o f f i c e section 1201 rulemaking: Fifth Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention recommendation of the register of copyrights october 2012 Section 1201 Rulemaking: Fifth Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights Table of Contents I. Background ............................................................................................................................. 3 A. Section 1201(a)(1) ............................................................................................................................ 3 B. Responsibilities of the Register of Copyrights and Librarian of Congress ...................................... 5 C. Defining a class ................................................................................................................................ 9 II. History of 2012 proceeding .................................................................................................. 11 A. Commencement .............................................................................................................................. 11 B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking .................................................................................................... 11 C. Public hearings and written questions ............................................................................................ 12 D. Consultation with NTIA ................................................................................................................. 12 III. Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 13 A. Proposed Class 1: Literary works in the public domain – digital access ...................................... 13 B. Proposed Class 2: Literary works distributed electronically – assistive technologies .................................................................................................................................... 16 C. Proposed Class 3: Video game consoles – software interoperability (“jailbreaking”) .............................................................................................................................. 26 D. Proposed Class 4: Personal computing devices – software interoperability ............................................................................................................................... 52 E. Proposed Class 5: Wireless telephone handsets – software interoperability (“jailbreaking”) ..................................................................................................... 65 F. Proposed Class 6: Wireless telephone handsets – interoperability with alternative networks (“unlocking”) ................................................................................................ 81 G. Proposed Classes 7 and 8: Motion picture excerpts – commentary, criticism, and educational uses ..................................................................................................... 101 H. Proposed Class 9: Motion pictures and other audiovisual works – captioning and descriptive audio .................................................................................................. 143 I. Proposed Class 10: Motion pictures and other works on DVDs and other media – space shifting .................................................................................................................. 157 i Section 1201 Rulemaking: Fifth Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights* Introduction The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), enacted by Congress in 1998,1 governs many aspects of the digital marketplace for copyright owners by establishing “a wide range of rules . for electronic commerce” and “defin[ing] whether consumers and businesses may engage in certain conduct, or use certain devices, in the course of transacting electronic commerce.”2 Title I of the Act, which added a new Chapter 12 to Title 17 of the U.S. Code, prohibits circumvention of technological measures employed by or on behalf of copyright owners to protect their works (also known as “access controls”). Specifically, Section 1201(a)(1)(A) provides, in part, that “[n]o person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.”3 But Congress qualified the language of subparagraph (B) to ensure that the public can still engage in noninfringing uses of copyrighted works, such as fair use.4 Subparagraph (B) thus provides that the circumvention prohibition “shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title,” as determined in a rulemaking proceeding that takes place every three years.5 The Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who consults with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce, determines which classes of works are entitled to an exemption from the prohibition on circumvention.6 The resulting * Maria A. Pallante. 1 Pub. L. 105-304 (1998). 2 TOM BLILEY, REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE ON THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998, H.R. REP. NO. 105-551, pt. 2, at 22 (1998) [hereinafter Commerce Comm. Report]. 3 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A). 4 See Commerce Comm. Report at 25-26, 35. 5 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(B). 6 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C); see HOWARD COBLE, REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE ON THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT, H.R. REP. NO. 105-796, at 64 (1998) [hereinafter Conference Report]. 1 Section 1201 Rulemaking: Fifth Triennial Proceeding October 2012 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights regulations, which are issued by the Librarian of Congress,7 announce “any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.”8 The 2012 proceeding is the fifth triennial Section 12019 rulemaking. The previous rulemakings culminated in regulations that exempted certain classes of works from the prohibition against circumvention of access controls.10 Based on the Register’s recommendations, the Librarian must render a new determination on potential exemptions every three years. When making this determination, the Librarian must conduct a de novo review of each proposed exemption and cannot rest his decision on the records in prior rulemaking proceedings. Based on the record in this proceeding, the Register recommends that the Librarian adopt exemptions with respect to certain classes of works, as discussed and more specifically set forth below: • Literary works distributed electronically, to permit blind and other persons with print disabilities to use screen readers and other assistive technologies • Computer programs on wireless telephone handsets, to enable interoperability of software applications (“jailbreaking”) 7 Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 75 Fed. Reg. 43,825 (July 27, 2010) (codified at 37 C.F.R. 201.40) [hereinafter 2010 Final Rule]; Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 71 Fed. Reg. 68,472 (Nov. 27, 2006) (formerly codified at 37 C.F.R. 201.40) [hereinafter 2006 Final Rule]; Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 68 Fed. Reg. 62,011 (Oct. 31, 2003) (formerly codified at 37 C.F.R. 201.40) [hereinafter 2003 Final Rule]; Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 65 Fed. Reg. 64,555 (Oct. 27, 2000) (formerly codified at 37 C.F.R. 201.40) [hereinafter 2000 Final Rule]. 8 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(D). 9 All references to numerical Sections herein refer to Title 17 of the U.S. Code. 10 Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights in RM 2008-8, Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies (June 11, 2010) [hereinafter 2010 Recommendation], available at www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/initialed-registers- recommendation-june-11-2010.pdf; Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights in RM 2005-11, Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies (Nov. 16, 2006) [hereinafter 2006 Recommendation], available at www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/1201_recommendation.pdf; Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights in RM 2002-4, Rulemaking on exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies (Oct. 27, 2003) [hereinafter 2003 Recommendation], available at www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/registers-recommendation.pdf; 2000 Final Rule. 2 Section 1201 Rulemaking: Fifth Triennial Proceeding October 2012 Recommendation of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Music Modernization Act of 2018 and Its Burgeoning Impact Jeffrey G
    The Music Modernization Act of 2018 and its Burgeoning Impact Jeffrey G. Knowles, Partner, Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP Lisa M. Schreihart, Attorney Abstract The Music Modernization Act of 2018 (“MMA”), enacted October 11, 2018, is the most significant reform of music copyright law in decades. As the first major legislation since the Copyright Act of 1976 to affect music royalties, the MMA has made major strides in improving compensation and to level the playing field for all music creators, including songwriters, legacy artists, and music producers. The MMA modernizes the musical works licensing scheme for today’s digital music environment, provides federal copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings, and ensures that music producers can get a piece of the royalty pie. The MMA may also have some shortcomings that allow room for legislative growth in the modern music era. This paper describes the key parts of the MMA and eXamines the benefits and criticisms of the Act that have surfaced in the Act’s first year as law. An Overview of the Music Modernization Act The Music Modernization Act (MMA), proposed as H.R. 1551 by Representatives Orrin G. Hatch and Bob Goodlatte, combined the Music Modernization Act of 2018 (S. 2334), the Classics Protection and Access Act (S. 2393), and the Allocation for Music Producers Act (S. 2625). The MMA, an amended version of S. 2823, passed unanimously both in the House as H.R. 5447 on April 25, 2018 and in the Senate on September 18, 2018. The MMA was enacted October 11, 2018. The MMA is intended to: 1) increase compensation to songwriters and streamline licensing of their music; 2) enable artists who recorded music before 1972 to be paid royalties when their music is played on digital services; and 3) enable music producers (e.g., record producers, sound engineers, and other studio professionals) to receive royalties for their creative contributions to recorded music.
    [Show full text]
  • AP1 Companies Affiliates
    AP1 COMPANIES & AFFILIATES 100% RECORDS BIG MUSIC CONNOISSEUR 130701 LTD INTERNATIONAL COLLECTIONS 3 BEAT LABEL BLAIRHILL MEDIA LTD (FIRST NIGHT RECORDS) MANAGEMENT LTD BLIX STREET RECORDS COOKING VINYL LTD A&G PRODUCTIONS LTD (TOON COOL RECORDS) LTD BLUEPRINT RECORDING CR2 RECORDS ABSOLUTE MARKETING CORP CREATION RECORDS INTERNATIONAL LTD BOROUGH MUSIC LTD CREOLE RECORDS ABSOLUTE MARKETING BRAVOUR LTD CUMBANCHA LTD & DISTRIBUTION LTD BREAKBEAT KAOS CURB RECORDS LTD ACE RECORDS LTD BROWNSWOOD D RECORDS LTD (BEAT GOES PUBLIC, BIG RECORDINGS DE ANGELIS RECORDS BEAT, BLUE HORIZON, BUZZIN FLY RECORDS LTD BLUESVILLE, BOPLICITY, CARLTON VIDEO DEAGOSTINI CHISWICK, CONTEMPARY, DEATH IN VEGAS FANTASY, GALAXY, CEEDEE MAIL T/A GLOBESTYLE, JAZZLAND, ANGEL AIR RECS DECLAN COLGAN KENT, MILESTONE, NEW JAZZ, CENTURY MEDIA MUSIC ORIGINAL BLUES, BLUES (PONEGYRIC, DGM) CLASSICS, PABLO, PRESTIGE, CHAMPION RECORDS DEEPER SUBSTANCE (CHEEKY MUSIC, BADBOY, RIVERSIDE, SOUTHBOUND, RECORDS LTD SPECIALTY, STAX) MADHOUSE ) ADA GLOBAL LTD CHANDOS RECORDS DEFECTED RECORDS LTD ADVENTURE RECORDS LTD (2 FOR 1 BEAR ESSENTIALS, (ITH, FLUENTIAL) AIM LTD T/A INDEPENDENTS BRASS, CHACONNE, DELPHIAN RECORDS LTD DAY RECORDINGS COLLECT, FLYBACK, DELTA LEISURE GROPU PLC AIR MUSIC AND MEDIA HISTORIC, SACD) DEMON MUSIC GROUP AIR RECORDINGS LTD CHANNEL FOUR LTD ALBERT PRODUCTIONS TELEVISON (IMP RECORDS) ALL AROUND THE CHAPTER ONE DEUX-ELLES WORLD PRODUCTIONS RECORDS LTD DHARMA RECORDS LTD LTD CHEMIKAL- DISTINCTIVE RECORDS AMG LTD UNDERGROUND LTD (BETTER THE DEVIL) RECORDS DISKY COMMUNICATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • Section 1201 Rulemaking: Seventh Triennial Proceeding to Determine
    united states copyright office section 1201 rulemaking: Seventh Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention recommendation of the acting register of copyrights october 2018 Section 1201 Rulemaking: Seventh Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention Recommendation of the Acting Register of Copyrights TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 II. LEGAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 9 A. Section 1201(a)(1) ............................................................................................................. 9 B. Relationship to Other Provisions of Section 1201 and Other Laws ........................ 11 C. Rulemaking Standards ................................................................................................. 12 D. Streamlined Renewal Process ...................................................................................... 17 III. HISTORY OF SEVENTH TRIENNIAL PROCEEDING ................................................ 20 IV. RENEWAL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 22 V. DISCUSSION OF NEW PROPOSED CLASSES ............................................................. 31 A. Proposed Class 1: Audiovisual Works—Criticism and Comment ......................... 31 B. Proposed Class 2: Audiovisual
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Rights Management and the Process of Fair Use Timothy K
    University of Cincinnati College of Law University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications Faculty Articles and Other Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2006 Digital Rights Management and the Process of Fair Use Timothy K. Armstrong University of Cincinnati College of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Recommended Citation Armstrong, Timothy K., "Digital Rights Management and the Process of Fair Use" (2006). Faculty Articles and Other Publications. Paper 146. http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/fac_pubs/146 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles and Other Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Harvard Journal ofLaw & Technology Volume 20, Number 1 Fall 2006 DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT AND THE PROCESS OF FAIR USE Timothy K. Armstrong* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: LEGAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTIONS FOR FAIR USE OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS ........................................ 50 II. COPYRIGHT LAW AND/OR DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT .......... 56 A. Traditional Copyright: The Normative Baseline ........................ 56 B. Contemporary Copyright: DRM as a "Speedbump" to Slow Mass Infringement ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT by Michaeljones
    COPYRIGHT ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT By MichaelJones On January 15, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act ("CTEA"), which extended the term of copyright protection by twenty years.2 The decision has been ap- plauded by copyright protectionists who regard the extension as an effec- tive incentive to creators. In their view, it is a perfectly rational piece of legislation that reflects Congress's judgment as to the proper copyright term, balances the interests of copyright holders and users, and brings the3 United States into line with the European Union's copyright regime. However, the CTEA has been deplored by champions of a robust public domain, who see the extension as a giveaway to powerful conglomerates, which runs contrary to the public interest.4 Such activists see the CTEA as, in the words of Justice Stevens, a "gratuitous transfer of wealth" that will impoverish the public domain. 5 Consequently, Eldred, for those in agree- ment with Justice Stevens, is nothing less than the "Dred Scott case for 6 culture." The Court in Eldred rejected the petitioners' claims that (1) the CTEA did not pass constitutional muster under the Copyright Clause's "limited © 2004 Berkeley Technology Law Journal & Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. 1. Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 108, 203, 301-304 (2002). The Act's four provisions consider term extensions, transfer rights, a new in- fringement exception, and the division of fees, respectively; this Note deals only with the first provision, that of term extensions.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Law Revision
    COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW JULY 1961 Printed for the use of the House-- Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 676682 WASHINGTON : 1961 For sale by the Superlntendent of Documents, U.S. Qo7cmment Prlntlug O5ce Wn~bington25, D.O. - Prlco 45 cent8 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL THE LIBRAR~AWOF CORORESB, Washington, l).C. July 7, 1961. Hon. SAMRAYE~N, Igpealcw of the House of Representatices, Washington. D.C. SIB: As authorized by Congress, the Copyright Office of the =brary of Con- gress has in the past few years made a number of studies preparatory to a general revision of the copyright law, title 17 of the United States Code. That program bas now been completed. Thirty-four studies and a subject index have been published in a series of 12 committee prints issued by the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The studies have been widely circulated and interested persons were inrited to submit their comments and views. On the basis of the studies and the comments and views received. the Copy- right Ofece has prepared a report on the important issues to be considered and tentative recommendations for their solution in a general revision of the law. I am pleased to submit the report of the Register of Copyrights on general re vision of the copyright law to you find to the Vice President for consideration by the Congress. Very truly yours, L. QUINCYMUMFOBD, Librarian of Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Register of Copyrights in the Registration Process: a Critical Appraisal of Certain Exclusionary Regulations *
    [Vol.116 COMMENT THE ROLE OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS IN THE REGISTRATION PROCESS: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF CERTAIN EXCLUSIONARY REGULATIONS * Under the Copyright Act,' the only action required in order to obtain a valid statutory copyright in a published work is publication with the prescribed notice.' In order to perfect the rights accruing under his copyright, however, the claimant must also "promptly" de- posit two copies of the best edition of the copyrighted work, together with a claim of copyright, in the Copyright Office. 3 Fulfillment of this requirement of registration and deposit is a condition precedent to any action for copyright infringement, but the copyright itself ordi- narily remains valid pending fulfillment.4 Thus, although most claimants register their works as a matter of course, registration may be deferred, without loss of any rights, until the eve of suit. Unfortunately for some copyright claimants, however, the re- quirement of registration cannot be satisfied by the claimant's acts alone: recent cases also require that the Register of Copyrights actually issue a certificate of registration before infringement proceedings can be brought.5 To the extent that the Register has any discretion to * This Comment has been entered in the 1968 Nathan Burkan Memorial Compe- tition. ' 17 U.S.C. §§ 1-215 (1964). 2 Washingtonian Publishing Co. v. Pearson, 306 U.S. 30 (1939) ; United States v. Backer, 134 F.2d 533 (2d Cir. 1943). 17 U.S.C. § 10 (1964), provides: Any person entitled thereto by this title may secure copyright for his work by publication thereof with the notice of copyright required by this title; and such notice shall be affixed to each copy thereof published or offered for sale in the United States by authority of the copyright proprietor, except in the case of books seeking ad interim protection under section 22 of this title.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ELDRED ET AL. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 01–618. Argued October 9, 2002—Decided January 15, 2003 The Copyright and Patent Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8, provides as to copyrights: “Congress shall have Power . [t]o promote the Progress of Science . by securing [to Authors] for limited Times . the exclusive Right to their . Writings.” In the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Congress enlarged the duration of copy- rights by 20 years: Under the 1976 Copyright Act (1976 Act), copy- right protection generally lasted from a work’s creation until 50 years after the author’s death; under the CTEA, most copyrights now run from creation until 70 years after the author’s death, 17 U. S. C. §302(a). As in the case of prior copyright extensions, principally in 1831, 1909, and 1976, Congress provided for application of the en- larged terms to existing and future copyrights alike. Petitioners, whose products or services build on copyrighted works that have gone into the public domain, brought this suit seeking a de- termination that the CTEA fails constitutional review under both the Copyright Clause’s “limited Times” prescription and the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to the President: MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz
    Report to the President MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz Review Panel Harold Abelson Peter A. Diamond Andrew Grosso Douglas W. Pfeiffer (support) July 26, 2013 © Copyright 2013, Massachusetts Institute of Technology This worK is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. PRESIDENT REIF’S CHARGE TO HAL ABELSON | iii L. Rafael Reif, President 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Building 3-208 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 U.S.A. Phone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
    [Show full text]
  • RSC Policy Brief: Three Myths About Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix It
    RSC Policy Brief: Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it: November 16, 2012 RSC Staff Contact: Derek S. Khanna, [email protected], (202) 226-0718 This paper will analyze current US Copyright Law by examining three myths on copyright law and possible reforms to copyright law that will lead to more economic development for the private sector and to a copyright law that is more firmly based upon constitutional principles. 1. The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content: It’s a common misperception that the Constitution enables our current legal regime of copyright protection – in fact, it does not. The Constitution’s clause on Copyright and patents states: “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;” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) Thus, according to the Constitution, the overriding purpose of the copyright system is to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.” In today’s terminology we may say that the purpose is to lead to maximum productivity and innovation. This is a major distinction, because most legislative discussions on this topic, particularly during the extension of the copyright term, are not premised upon what is in the public good or what will promote the most productivity and innovation, but rather what the content creators “deserve” or are “entitled to” by virtue of their creation. This lexicon is appropriate in the realm of taxation and sometimes in the realm of trade protection, but it is inappropriate in the realm of patents and copyrights.
    [Show full text]
  • Creative Commons Niki
    Creative Commons Creative Commons History Lawrence Lessig Hal Abelson Copyright Copyleft How to get a license The 4 Elements of a CC License Freedom of Information Brands/Companies That Have Used CC Criticism of Creative Commons Creative Commons History: Creative Commons was founded in 2011 as “a nonprofit organization” (page 1) which aimed to “promote an expansion of copyright law to allow greater access, use, and repurposing of creative works.” (page 1) In 2005, the organisation expanded their licensing to include scientific works which they called Science Commons[1] (page 1). Creative Commons was originally focused on U.S copyright, but since then has “expanded its licenses to be compatible with copyright laws in more than 50 countries.” (page 1) What they offer are “licenses that can be applied by copyright owners to their work to allow or prohibit certain uses.” (page 1) Dowling, John D.H. “Creative Commons.” Encyclopaedia of Social Movement Media(2011): 1-3. SAGE Knowledge, 01 Dec. 2010. Web. Lawrence Lessig Creative Commons has three original founders, one being “Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford intellectual property scholar”[1], who is also the “founder of its Centre for Internet and Society” [2]. His motivations behind creating and chairing Creative Commons is based around his belief that “recent developments in intellectual property law are moving us as a society away from freedom (especially the freedom to spread ideas that our new technologies can allow) toward greater control.” [1] Furthermore, he champions the belief that creators should assert their right not only to protect their works, but allowed them to be shared with less restrictions[1].
    [Show full text]
  • JULIA D. GREER (State Bar No
    Case 3:16-cv-00951-RS Document 39 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 4 1 JEFFREY G. KNOWLES (State Bar No. 129754) JULIA D. GREER (State Bar No. 200479) 2 SCOTT C. HALL (State Bar No. 232492) COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP 3 One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, California 94104-5500 4 Telephone: 415.391.4800 Facsimile: 415.989.1663 5 Email: [email protected], [email protected], 6 [email protected] 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ARISTA MUSIC, ARISTA RECORDS, LLC, 8 LAFACE RECORDS LLC, SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, SONY MUSIC 9 ENTERTAINMENT US LATIN LLC, AND ZOMBA RECORDING, LLC 10 LLP [Additional Counsel Listed On Signature Pages] 11 ASS B 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT & 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION UFFY D 14 15 ARISTA MUSIC, ARISTA RECORDS, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00951 RS ATCH ATCH LAFACE RECORDS LLC, SONY MUSIC P 16 ENTERTAINMENT, SONY MUSIC JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ENTERTAINMENT US LATIN LLC, AND ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATED 17 ZOMBA RECORDING LLC, OPPOSITION BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS ARISTA MUSIC, ARISTA RECORDS, 415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663 18 Plaintiffs, LLC, LAFACE RECORDS LLC, SONY OBLENTZ C MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, SONY 19 v. MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT US LATIN LLC, AND ZOMBA RECORDING LLC IN 20 RADIONOMY, INC., RADIONOMY SA, RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' RADIONOMY GROUP, B.V., and MOTIONS TO DISMISS 21 ALEXANDRE SABOUNDJIAN, an individual, Judge: Hon. Honorable Richard Seeborg 22 Dept.: Courtroom 3, 17th Floor One MontgomeryOne Street,3000, Suite Francisco, San California 94104-5500 Defendants. 23 Trial Date: None Set
    [Show full text]