You could say "this is a service to watch" but that would be missing the point. Yesterday the 'Unglue.It' service launched as a way to crowdsource the funding of a fee to authors to release their own works under a Creative Commons license. [caption id="p3

Nice business discussion: "To make my model, I started with bookings for the perpetual company and hard coded $5M in the first year on a reasonable ramp.  Then I made a set of reasonable assumptions (for a hot startup) that drove the rest of the model:  100% license bookings growth, a 20% maintenance rate, a 90% maintenance renewal rate, a 50% rate of professional services organization (PSO) services bookings relative to license, and a bookings-to-revenue conversion rate of 85% for PSO in the subsequent quarter"

via https://twitter.com/#!/GaviaLib/status/201697590692167682 "There was a trial a year ago, and then long silence from the court. Now we know why it was taking so long: the opinion is 350 pages. That number is a little misleading, in that over two thirds of the opinion are dedicated to a highly methodical copyright ownership, infringement, and fair use analysis of seventy-four separate claims of infringement, using standard templates and highly repetitive language. Having now dug through the details, I’d like to offer a few observations.""Other claims dropped out before the fair use stage because they were uploaded to the e-reserves system but never downloaded by students. The court dismisses these from the lawsuit as de minimis, explaining that these uses by the University, while technical implicating the copyright owners’ exclusive rights, don’t affect the incentives for authors to create. This puts more teeth in the de minimis doctrine in copyright: it goes beyond the view that de minimis means “not substantially similar.” It also strengthens the argument that “internal use” copies never used to reach an to an audience that reads them for their content don’t infringe. Think, for example, of the HathiTrust’s archive of scans from Google Books.""When the court did reach fair use, it held across the board that two of the four factors favored Georgia State. The purpose of the use, while not transformative, was nonetheless for highly favored educational purposes by a nonprofit institution. And the nature of the works was consistently informational.

On the third factor, the amount copied, the court repudiated the Classroom Guidlines, calling them “not compatible with the language and intent of § 107.” It noted that the numerical limits in the Guidelines are so stringent that not one of the excerpts at issue in the case would fit within them. It was particularly uninterested in the Guidelines’ position that copying not “be repeated with respect to the same item by the same teacher from term to term,” which the court described as “an impractical, unnecessary limitation.”""Instead, the court fashioned its own quantitative test. For books of nine or fewer chapters, the court set a threshold of 10% of the total page count; for books of ten chapters or more, the threshold was a single complete chapter. (The chapter-based rule creates an odd incentive for publishers to create books with a surfeit of tiny chapters.) Copying of any amount under this threshold, the court held, would be treated as “decidedly small.” In practical terms, this ended up being a one-sided bright-line rule: copying of less than 10% or one chapter always ended in a fair use win for Georgia State.""no digital license meant an instant win for Georgia State. The court repeatedly emphasized that students would not have bought the assigned books as a substitute for the excerpts posted on the e-reserve system.""Only in seven instances did Georgia State use more than 10% or one chapter of a book that was available for digital licensing. When this happened, the court took a more detailed look at the specifics of the book’s licensing market and the portion copied. Generally, this turned on whether the book made significant revenues via licensing: if so, the use was unfair. (In one instance, the court did a “heart of the work” analysis under factor three to find no fair use because the professor had assigned chapters that “essentially sum up the ideas in the book.”)""Thus, the operational bottom line for universities is that it’s likely to be fair use to assign less than 10% of a book, to assign larger portions of a book that is not available for digital licensing, or to assign larger portions of a book that is available for digital licensing but doesn’t make significant revenues through licensing. This third prong is almost never going to be something that professors or librarians can evaluate, so in practice, I expect to see fair-use e-reserves codes that treat under 10% as presumptively okay, and amounts over 10% but less than some ill-defined maximum as presumptively okay if it has been confirmed that a license to make digital copies of excerpts from the book is not available.""The most interesting issue open in the case is the scope of any possible injunction. Given that Georgia State won on sixty-nine out of seventy-four litigated claims, while the publishers won on only five, I expect that the any injunction will need to be rather narrow. But given how amenable the court’s proposed limits are to bright-line treatment, it is likely that the publishers will push to write them in to the injunction.""The big winner is CCC. It gains leverage against universities for coursepack and e-reserve copying with a bright-line rule, and it gains leverage against publishers who will be under much more pressure to participate in its full panoply of licenses."

In response to a letter received by a charity, warning of dire penalties for 'reproducing copyright content without permission', since doing so 'is theft'. It gets better, since in correspondence they were then informed that “a licence is required to link directly to an online article even without uploading any of the content directly onto your own website”. Looking forward to seeing how this one plays out...

Service de licences musicales (à des fins d'illustration) lancé par Corbis qui vient s'ajouter à celui des films ou vidéos. Le site est doté d'un catalogue d'un million de titres issus des 4 majors.

but I find the argument that the best way to ensure the artistic integrity of the Beatles' œuvre is to make it so only very rich people can use it specious.

Ed Bott untangles this puzzler. Short answer: because of software patents in the US. See also <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/05/04/q-amp-a-dvd-playback-and-windows-media-center-in-windows-8.aspx">Microsoft's FAQ on the costs involved</a>.

Google, on the other hand, knew Sun wanted licensing fees for Java use in Android, but Schwartz and Google executives failed to reach a satisfactory agreement on what that partnership would look like (or cost). Still, in the end, Schwartz and Sun were content enough to let Android be — which, on its own, makes Oracle’s suit seem predatory or trollish to the untrained eye.

How RC Conception handles licensing an print requests

Janet Hill