Friday, October 14, 2011
panGloss: Digital IP job at Strathclyde
panGloss: Digital IP job at Strathclyde: Following fast on the news about the PhD and Postdoc, here is stage 3 of the world domination plan.. Strathclyde is appointing 4-6 new jobs...
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Copyright Symposium 2011
Bram has had an exciting and thought provoking day at the Copyright Symposium in Sydney, a treat for anyone who has a 'thing' about copyright!
First, we had an overview from Francis Gurry, Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation, on the key issues being thought about and dealt with in WIPO. He presented an optimistic view on the improving dialogue between content providers and technology developers, signalling a possibility of some progress on future copyright solutions in the digital environment. It is a slowly, slowly approach to copyright reform generally, hopefully building confidence that reform CAN be achieved. Dr Gurry expressed the view that we need a digital roadmap to set out the elements of how we may get to an effective digital marketplace.
William Patry, copyright guru and Senior Copyright Counsel at Google, followed up with an entertaining and engaging presentation. The 'take away' from his presentation was that it was likely we would see a one stop shop for the whole world, selling digital content (I wonder what shop that may be??) and that global copyright reform needs to respond to consumer expectations (and yes he conceded creators should be paid for their creations). He argued that law may not be the answer to all of a problems, but rather should be viewed, as appropriate, as a tool to solve them.
We then had a response from Brett Cottle, Chief Executive of APRA and staunch defender of copyright, who reinstated the law as leader of change, rather than merely a follower. Brett disputed whether responding to the demand for instant gratification was a good thing. Importantly, he suggested that some merit may be found in the commercial/ non-commercial distinction in terms of formulating exceptions for the digital environment (of this, more tomorrow).
Francis Gurry's view on this was that whilst consumer expectations were important, they should be tempered somewhat with realistic allowances for payment of creators.
All in all a great session, which I think has set the scene for the next two days.
Kim Weatherall and Michael Williams followed this up with a session on the question of whether copyright needs radical reform or whether its foundations are sound (yes just that small and easy to solve q). Kim was characteristically interesting, well informed and had great slides.
We then had sessions on Authorship (is there a crisis?), doing business online (which ended on a depressing note, but we all agreed we value Australian content) and Traditional Knowledge. Bram notes that a highlight was the recognition that interactive games are the real growth sector (oh hoorah!)
Interesting and valuable things are happening here on the copyright front, stay tuned!
First, we had an overview from Francis Gurry, Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation, on the key issues being thought about and dealt with in WIPO. He presented an optimistic view on the improving dialogue between content providers and technology developers, signalling a possibility of some progress on future copyright solutions in the digital environment. It is a slowly, slowly approach to copyright reform generally, hopefully building confidence that reform CAN be achieved. Dr Gurry expressed the view that we need a digital roadmap to set out the elements of how we may get to an effective digital marketplace.
William Patry, copyright guru and Senior Copyright Counsel at Google, followed up with an entertaining and engaging presentation. The 'take away' from his presentation was that it was likely we would see a one stop shop for the whole world, selling digital content (I wonder what shop that may be??) and that global copyright reform needs to respond to consumer expectations (and yes he conceded creators should be paid for their creations). He argued that law may not be the answer to all of a problems, but rather should be viewed, as appropriate, as a tool to solve them.
We then had a response from Brett Cottle, Chief Executive of APRA and staunch defender of copyright, who reinstated the law as leader of change, rather than merely a follower. Brett disputed whether responding to the demand for instant gratification was a good thing. Importantly, he suggested that some merit may be found in the commercial/ non-commercial distinction in terms of formulating exceptions for the digital environment (of this, more tomorrow).
Francis Gurry's view on this was that whilst consumer expectations were important, they should be tempered somewhat with realistic allowances for payment of creators.
All in all a great session, which I think has set the scene for the next two days.
Kim Weatherall and Michael Williams followed this up with a session on the question of whether copyright needs radical reform or whether its foundations are sound (yes just that small and easy to solve q). Kim was characteristically interesting, well informed and had great slides.
We then had sessions on Authorship (is there a crisis?), doing business online (which ended on a depressing note, but we all agreed we value Australian content) and Traditional Knowledge. Bram notes that a highlight was the recognition that interactive games are the real growth sector (oh hoorah!)
Interesting and valuable things are happening here on the copyright front, stay tuned!
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
New post on GIs
Monday, July 4, 2011
US Supreme Court on videogame violence
The decision in Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association was handed down on 27 June 2011. Bram offers a very brief overview of the judgment which presents a variety of approaches to the legitimacy of the California Statute restricting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.
The majority held that the California Act which prohibited the sale or rental of 'violent video games' to minors and required such games to be labelled '18' was invalid as it violated the First Amendment.
The Act identifies a violent video game as one where: 'the range of options available to a player includ[e] killing, maiming, dimembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.' The game will be subject to legal restriction under the Act if it meets the following three additional requirements:
“(i) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find [the game] appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors.
“(ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors.
“(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.” §1746(d)(1)(A).
The opinion of the Court was deliverd by Scalia J. He confirmed that video games qualify for First Amendment protection. 'Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas- and even social messages- through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.' Because the Act constituted a restriction on the content of protected speech, the Act would be invalid unless California could demonstrate that it was justified by a compelling government interest and was narrowly drawn to serve that interest. The Court held that it failed on both counts. Scalia J noted the fact that it applied only to violent video games, when there is much other violent content, including tehe Saturday morning cartoons which were not covered by the impugned Act, and that the industry had already implemented a voluntary rating system which would assist parents in identifying unsuitable games.
Alito J wrote a concurring judgment on the narrower basis that the statute was too broadly drawn. He did not consider that it was necessary to reach a broader decision that the statute violated the First Amendment. Alito J disagreed with the majority judgment on a number of grounds, notably the assertion that violent video games were no different from violence portrayed in other media. Alito J makes a number of criticisms of the majority judgment, notably; 'the Court is far too quick to dismiss the possibility that the experience of playing video games (and the effects on minors of playing violent video games) may be very different.
This theme is also picked up in the dissenting judgments of Thomas and Breyer JJ. Thomas J undertakes a review of attitudes to childhood and child raising at the time the Founding Fathers were drafting the Constitution. He concludes that the concept of 'freedom of speech' as understood at that time could not possibly have included a right to speak to children without going through their parents. Therefore he concludes that the California statute is not unconstitutional as it does no more than restrict sales and rentals direct to minors. Parents and guardians can provide such games to their children if they wished.
Breyer J's decision focusses on the potential harm to children from violent video games. He attaches a long list of studies to his judgment which indicate that such games may cause psychological harm. Thus he concludes that the California statute is justified as it imposes only a modest restriction on speech at most.
The entire judgment is worth a close read.
The majority held that the California Act which prohibited the sale or rental of 'violent video games' to minors and required such games to be labelled '18' was invalid as it violated the First Amendment.
The Act identifies a violent video game as one where: 'the range of options available to a player includ[e] killing, maiming, dimembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.' The game will be subject to legal restriction under the Act if it meets the following three additional requirements:
“(i) A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find [the game] appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors.
“(ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors.
“(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.” §1746(d)(1)(A).
The opinion of the Court was deliverd by Scalia J. He confirmed that video games qualify for First Amendment protection. 'Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas- and even social messages- through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.' Because the Act constituted a restriction on the content of protected speech, the Act would be invalid unless California could demonstrate that it was justified by a compelling government interest and was narrowly drawn to serve that interest. The Court held that it failed on both counts. Scalia J noted the fact that it applied only to violent video games, when there is much other violent content, including tehe Saturday morning cartoons which were not covered by the impugned Act, and that the industry had already implemented a voluntary rating system which would assist parents in identifying unsuitable games.
Alito J wrote a concurring judgment on the narrower basis that the statute was too broadly drawn. He did not consider that it was necessary to reach a broader decision that the statute violated the First Amendment. Alito J disagreed with the majority judgment on a number of grounds, notably the assertion that violent video games were no different from violence portrayed in other media. Alito J makes a number of criticisms of the majority judgment, notably; 'the Court is far too quick to dismiss the possibility that the experience of playing video games (and the effects on minors of playing violent video games) may be very different.
This theme is also picked up in the dissenting judgments of Thomas and Breyer JJ. Thomas J undertakes a review of attitudes to childhood and child raising at the time the Founding Fathers were drafting the Constitution. He concludes that the concept of 'freedom of speech' as understood at that time could not possibly have included a right to speak to children without going through their parents. Therefore he concludes that the California statute is not unconstitutional as it does no more than restrict sales and rentals direct to minors. Parents and guardians can provide such games to their children if they wished.
Breyer J's decision focusses on the potential harm to children from violent video games. He attaches a long list of studies to his judgment which indicate that such games may cause psychological harm. Thus he concludes that the California statute is justified as it imposes only a modest restriction on speech at most.
The entire judgment is worth a close read.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Facebook Contempt of Court derails UK drug case
Head on over to Fortnightly Review to read up on this recent UK case, where a juror contacted a defendant on Facebook.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
ALRC Review of Classification
Here they are! The Terms of Reference for the ALRC Classification review. Submissions close 15 July 2011, so Bram suggests you read the Issues Paper and make a submission asap! You can also subscribe at the Review website to receive the update newsletter.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Update on Kookaburra case at Fortnightly Review
Here is a link to the latest edition of Fortnightly Review which updates the decision of the Full Federal Court in the EMI v Larrikin case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)