Drapetomaniac

There's been a lot of discussion about the Orphans Works Act of 2008. I posted the full text in a prior message, but the Copyright Office also has a resource page on the topic of orphan works including a prior study and report on the issue.

I haven't quite made up my mind on the issue, but I'm hesitant about anything that makes managing your copyright more difficult. A lot of artists want to share, but a whole lot are also afraid of being exploited. Even getting folks to understand that items licensed under Creative Commons are still copyrighted and protected by law can be a challenge.

I also need to go back and read the report from 2006.

Public Knowledge appears to have a handle on some of the myths and hype.

I have to admit, my fears are more cultural than substantive - the reaction of the artists, which does have blowback in fostering the commons.

We don't have moral rights in the United States, but that does appear to be one glaring problem. Legally, since we don't have it, it might not be defensable, but it's still a concern. And, of course, Puerto Rico does have moral rights in their laws, but our federal laws still trump them - but that's always a long discussion.

This month the Austin Creative Commons group will discuss the Open Library project with one of the participating developers.

David Strauss, is the co-founder of Four Kitchen Studios and That Other Paper. ThatOtherPaper.com is a local paper which produces all of its content under Creative Commons licensing. David will be discussing his involvement in the Open Library project, which explains itself as "One web page for every book ever published. It's a lofty, but achievable, goal." www.openlibrary.org

Anyone with questions about Creative Commons can attend and we'll try to answer any questions or discuss aspects of CC licensing.

As time permits, we will also have a discussion on a recent "orphan works" law introduced to Congress. I will also have some copies of Cory Doctorow's "Print Crime", a Creative Commons work of fiction, and a few DVDs of recent large musical and sound works recently released to the public.

We will meet at Cafe Caffeine on Wednesday, May 21st starting at 7:30.

Creative Commons is a an easy licensing method used by artists, musicians and writers worldwide to allow others to use their work according to a set of guidelines you select, including control over any profits. It increases the creativity and profile of those who share in the licenses.

The CC Salon is a monthly event focused on building a community of artists and developers around Creative Commons licenses, standards, and technology. Come each month to meet others who license using Creative Commons technology or work with technology implement it. We try to have presenters, but also openly discuss other CC issues.

We are also looking for artists or presenters who might want to show their work or offer some insight to the commons.
If you're interested in presenting or want more information, e-mail:
rich@commonquill.org

Group Discussion List:
http://groups.google.com/group/ccaustin
Event Page
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Austin_Salon

Venue:
www.cafecaffeine.com

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5889

To provide a limitation on judicial remedies in copyright infringement cases involving orphan works.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 24, 2008

Mr. BERMAN (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. CONYERS, and Mr. COBLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide a limitation on judicial remedies in copyright infringement cases involving orphan works.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Orphan Works Act of 2008'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON REMEDIES IN CASES INVOLVING ORPHAN WORKS.

(a) Limitation on Remedies- Chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 514. Limitation on remedies in cases involving orphan works

`(a) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions shall apply:

`(1) MATERIALS AND STANDARDS- The term `materials and standards' includes--

`(A) the records of the Copyright Office that are relevant to identifying and locating copyright owners;

`(B) sources of copyright ownership information reasonably available to users, including private databases;

`(C) industry practices and guidelines of associations and organizations;

`(D) technology tools and expert assistance, including resources for which a charge or subscription fee is imposed, to the extent that the use of such resources is reasonable for, and relevant to, the scope of the intended use; and

`(E) electronic databases, including databases that are available to the public through the Internet, that allow for searches of copyrighted works and for the copyright owners of works, including through text, sound, and image recognition tools.

`(2) NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR INFRINGEMENT- The term `notice of the claim for infringement' means, with respect to a claim for copyright infringement, a written notice that includes at a minimum the following:

`(A) The name of the owner of the infringed copyright.

`(B) The title of the infringed work, any alternative titles of the infringed work known to the owner of the infringed copyright, or if the work has no title, a description in detail sufficient to identify it.

`(C) An address and telephone number at which the owner of the infringed copyright may be contacted.

`(D) Information from which a reasonable person could conclude that the owner of the infringed copyright's claims of ownership and infringement are valid.

`(3) OWNER OF THE INFRINGED COPYRIGHT- The `owner of the infringed copyright' is the legal owner of the exclusive right under section 106 that is applicable to the infringement in question, or any party with the authority to grant or license that right.

`(4) REASONABLE COMPENSATION- The term `reasonable compensation' means, with respect to a claim for infringement, the amount on which a willing buyer and willing seller in the positions of the infringer and the owner of the infringed copyright would have agreed with respect to the infringing use of the work immediately before the infringement began.

`(b) Conditions for Eligibility-

`(1) CONDITIONS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding sections 502 through 505, and subject to subparagraph (B), in a civil action brought under this title for infringement of copyright in a work, the remedies for infringement shall be limited in accordance with subsection (c) if the infringer--

`(i) proves by a preponderance of the evidence that before the infringement began, the infringer, a person acting on behalf of the infringer, or any person jointly and severally liable with the infringer for the infringement--

`(I) performed and documented a qualifying search, in good faith, for the owner of the infringed copyright; and

`(II) was unable to locate the owner of the infringed copyright;

`(ii) before using the work, filed with the Register of Copyrights a Notice of Use under paragraph (3);

`(iii) provided attribution, in a manner that is reasonable under the circumstances, to the owner of the infringed copyright, if such owner was known with a reasonable degree of certainty, based on information obtained in performing the qualifying search;

`(iv) included with the use of the infringing work a symbol or other notice of the use of the infringing work, in a manner prescribed by the Register of Copyrights;

`(v) asserts in the initial pleading to the civil action the right to claim such limitations;

`(vi) consents to the jurisdiction of United States district court, or such court holds that the infringer is within the jurisdiction of the court; and

`(vii) at the time of making the initial discovery disclosures required under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states with particularity the basis for the right to claim the limitations, including a detailed description and documentation of the search undertaken in accordance with paragraph (2)(A).

`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) does not apply if, after receiving notice of the claim for infringement and having an opportunity to conduct an expeditious good faith investigation of the claim, the infringer--

`(i) fails to negotiate reasonable compensation in good faith with the owner of the infringed copyright; or

`(ii) fails to render payment of reasonable compensation in a reasonably timely manner.

`(2) REQUIREMENTS FOR SEARCHES-

`(A) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFYING SEARCHES-

`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I), a search is qualifying if the infringer undertakes a diligent effort to locate the owner of the infringed copyright.

`(ii) DETERMINATION OF DILIGENT EFFORT- In determining whether a search is diligent under this subparagraph, a court shall consider whether--

`(I) the actions taken in performing that search are reasonable and appropriate under the facts relevant to that search, including whether the infringer took actions based on facts uncovered by the search itself;

`(II) the infringer employed the applicable best practices maintained by the Register of Copyrights under subparagraph (B); and

`(III) the infringer performed the search before using the work and at a time that was reasonably proximate to the commencement of the infringement.

`(iii) LACK OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION- The fact that a particular copy or phonorecord lacks identifying information pertaining to the owner of the infringed copyright is not sufficient to meet the conditions under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I).

`(B) INFORMATION TO GUIDE SEARCHES; BEST PRACTICES-

`(i) STATEMENTS OF BEST PRACTICES- The Register of Copyrights shall maintain and make available to the public, including through the Internet, current statements of best practices for conducting and documenting a search under this subsection.

`(ii) CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANT MATERIALS AND STANDARDS- In maintaining the statements of best practices required under clause (i), the Register of Copyrights shall, from time to time, consider materials and standards that may be relevant to the requirements for a qualifying search under subparagraph (A).

`(3) NOTICE OF USE ARCHIVE- The Register of Copyrights shall create and maintain an archive to retain the Notice of Use filings under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(III). Such filings shall include--

`(A) the type of work being used, as listed in section 102(a) of this title;

`(B) a description of the work;

`(C) a summary of the search conducted under paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I);

`(D) the owner, author, recognized title, and other available identifying element of the work, to the extent the infringer knows such information with a reasonable degree of certainty;

`(E) a certification that the infringer performed a qualifying search in good faith under this subsection to locate the owner of the infringed copyright; and

`(F) the name of the infringer and how the work will be used.

Notices of Use filings retained under the control of the Copyright Office shall be furnished only under the conditions specified by regulations of the Copyright Office.

`(4) PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY- If an infringer fails to comply with any requirement under this subsection, the infringer is subject to all the remedies provided in section 502 through 505, subject to section 412.

`(c) Limitations on Remedies- The limitations on remedies in a civil action for infringement of a copyright to which this section applies are the following:

`(1) MONETARY RELIEF-

`(A) GENERAL RULE- Subject to subparagraph (B), an award for monetary relief (including actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorney's fees) may not be made other than an order requiring the infringer to pay reasonable compensation to the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright for the use of the infringed work.

`(B) FURTHER LIMITATIONS- An order requiring the infringer to pay reasonable compensation for the use of the infringed work may not be made under subparagraph (A) if the infringer is a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives, or a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (f) of section 118) and the infringer proves by a preponderance of the evidence that--

`(i) the infringement was performed without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage,

`(ii) the infringement was primarily educational, religious, or charitable in nature, and

`(iii) after receiving notice of the claim for infringement, and after conducting an expeditious good faith investigation of the claim, the infringer promptly ceased the infringement,

except that if the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright proves, and the court finds, that the infringer has earned proceeds directly attributable to the infringement, the portion of such proceeds so attributable may be awarded to such owner.

`(C) EFFECT OF REGISTRATION ON REASONABLE COMPENSATION- If a work is registered, the court may, in determining reasonable compensation under this paragraph, take into account the value, if any, added to the work by reason of such registration.

`(2) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF-

`(A) GENERAL RULE- Subject to subparagraph (B), the court may impose injunctive relief to prevent or restrain any infringement alleged in the civil action.

`(B) EXCEPTION- In a case in which the infringer has prepared or commenced preparation of a work that recasts, transforms, adapts, or integrates the infringed work with a significant amount of the infringer's original expression, any injunctive relief ordered by the court--

`(i) may not restrain the infringer's continued preparation or use of that new work;

`(ii) shall require that the infringer pay reasonable compensation to the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright for the use of the infringed work; and

`(iii) shall require that the infringer provide attribution, in a manner that is reasonable under the circumstances, to the owner of the infringed copyright, if requested by such owner.

`(C) LIMITATIONS- The limitations on injunctive relief under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not be available to an infringer if the infringer asserts in the civil action that neither the infringer or any representative of the infringer acting in an official capacity is subject to suit in the courts of the United States for an award of damages to the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright under section 106, unless the court finds that the infringer--

`(i) has complied with the requirements of subsection (b); and

`(ii) has made an enforceable promise to pay reasonable compensation to the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright.

`(D) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in subparagraph (C) shall be construed to authorize or require, and no action taken under such subparagraph shall be deemed to constitute, either an award of damages by the court against the infringer or an authorization to sue a State.

`(E) RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES NOT WAIVED- No action taken by an infringer under subparagraph (C) shall be deemed to waive any right or privilege that, as a matter of law, protects the infringer from being subject to suit in the courts of the United States for an award of damages to the legal or beneficial owner of the exclusive right under the infringed copyright under section 106.

`(d) Exclusion for Fixations in or on Useful Articles- The limitations on monetary and injunctive relief under this section shall not be available to an infringer for infringements resulting from fixation of a work in or on a useful article that is offered for sale or other distribution to the public.

`(e) Preservation of Other Rights, Limitations, and Defenses- This section does not affect any right, limitation, or defense to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title. If another provision of this title provides for a statutory license that would permit the infringement contemplated by the infringer if the owner of the infringed copyright cannot be located, that provision applies instead of this section.

`(f) Copyright for Derivative Works and Compilations- Notwithstanding section 103(a), an infringer who qualifies for the limitation on remedies afforded by this section with respect to the use of a copyrighted work shall not be denied copyright protection in a compilation or derivative work on the basis that such compilation or derivative work employs preexisting material that has been used unlawfully under this section.'.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`514. Limitation on remedies in cases involving orphan works.'.

SEC. 3. DATABASE OF PICTORIAL, GRAPHIC, AND SCULPTURAL WORKS.

(a) Establishment of Database-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Register of Copyrights shall undertake a certification process for the establishment of an electronic database to facilitate the search for pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works that are subject to copyright protection under title 17, United States Code.

(2) PROCESS AND STANDARDS FOR CERTIFICATION- The process and standards for certification of the electronic database required under paragraph (1) shall be established by the Register of Copyrights, except that certification may not be granted if the electronic database does not contain--

(A) the name of all authors of the work, and contact information for any author if the information is readily available;

(B) the name of the copyright owner if different from the author, and contact information of the copyright owner;

(C) the title of the copyrighted work, if such work has a title;

(D) with respect to a copyrighted work that includes a visual image, a visual image of the work, or, if such a visual image is not available, a description sufficient to identify the work;

(E) one or more mechanisms that allow for the search and identification of a work by both text and image; and

(F) security measures that reasonably protect against unauthorized access to, or copying of, the information and content of the electronic database.

(b) Public Availability- The Register of Copyrights--

(1) shall make available to the public through the Internet a list of all electronic databases that are certified in accordance with this section; and

(2) may include any database so certified in a statement of best practices established under section 514(b)(5)(B) of title 17, United States Code.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General- With respect to works other than pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, the amendments made by section 2 shall apply to infringements that commence on or after January 1, 2009.

(b) Pictorial, Graphic, and Sculptural Works- With respect to pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, the amendments made by section 2 shall--

(1) take effect on the earlier of--

(A) the date on which the Copyright Office certifies under section 3 at least 2 separate and independent searchable, comprehensive, electronic databases, that allow for searches of copyrighted works that are pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, and are available to the public through the Internet; or

(B) January 1, 2013; and

(2) apply to infringing uses that commence on or after that effective date.

(c) Publication in Federal Register- The Register of Copyrights shall publish the effective date described in subsection (b)(1) in the Federal Register, together with a notice that the amendments made by section 2 take effect on that date with respect to pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.

(d) Definition- In this section, the term `pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of title 17, United States Code.

SEC. 5. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

Not later than December 12, 2014, the Register of Copyrights shall report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on the implementation and effects of the amendments made by section 2, including any recommendations for legislative changes that the Register considers appropriate.

SEC. 6. STUDY ON REMEDIES FOR SMALL COPYRIGHT CLAIMS.

(a) In General- The Register of Copyrights shall conduct a study with respect to remedies for copyright infringement claims by an individual copyright owner or a related group of copyright owners seeking small amounts of monetary relief, including consideration of alternative means of resolving disputes currently heard in the United States district courts. The study shall cover the infringement claims to which section 514 of title 17, United States Code, apply, and other infringement claims under such title 17.

(b) Procedures- The Register of Copyrights shall publish notice of the study required under subsection (a), providing a period during which interested persons may submit comments on the study, and an opportunity for interested persons to participate in public roundtables on the study. The Register shall hold any such public roundtables at such times as the Register considers appropriate.

(c) Report to Congress- Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Register of Copyrights shall prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the study conducted under this section, including such administrative, regulatory, or legislative recommendations that the Register considers appropriate.

SEC. 7. STUDY ON COPYRIGHT DEPOSITS.

(a) In General- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study examining the function of the deposit requirement in the copyright registration system under section 408 of title 17, United States Code, including--

(1) the historical purpose of the deposit requirement;

(2) the degree to which deposits are made available to the public currently;

(3) the feasibility of making deposits, particularly visual arts deposits, electronically searchable by the public for the purpose of locating copyright owners; and

(4) the impact any change in the deposit requirement would have on the collection of the Library of Congress.

(b) Report- Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report on the study conducted under this section, including such administrative, regulatory, or legislative recommendations that the Register considers appropriate.

END

The first session I attended this morning at the Texas Media Summit was on "Collaboration and Inclusion"

"How do we leverage our community media resources to expand and enhance our presence in the Texas media landscape?"

The question took on several forms and the session was unfortunately short. Some of the ideas included without mentioning it specifically, a Black focused publication talking with a Latino publication to join together on issues and ideas. They serve different audiences, but there is topic and issue crossover that seldom occurs. Being Black Puerto Rican, I held back the urge to tell them I was one cross-over point..

The other idea, which I think compasses the first one is how to find someone to exchange ideas with. There wasn't an explicit list for people to sign up with, but will be a directory afterwards. Many people knew each other or the publications, but there was no open collaboration from day to day. in non-profits, there has been talk over fighting over pieces of the grant pies and so there is a hesitation to join together for various ventures/ After all, if you join together, not everyone will get the grant afterwards.

Community media still has to pay for electricity and paper, but this fight over the pie really did seem to be missing. Unfortunately, so did a solid view of how to collaborate and move forward.

One immediate impression of the community media, which should seem obvious, is that people easily speak up and assert themselves. Hopefuly there is an assertion after the sumit to continue the dialogue and meetings.

While the press wonders whether or not Obama can capture Latino votes, they have ignored that his iconic "Yes, we can" speech is a remix of the Cesar Chávez ¡Sí se puede! This is public rhetoric being remixed from one generation to another. One wonders what would have happened if the United Farm Workers trademarked the phrase. In reality, the UFW has prevented others from trademarking it while maintaining it as their own intellectual property, but at the same time has not appeared to hinder many civil rights movements from using it.

A more political BTW - I also don't like the idea of a whole generation growing up under only Bush and Clinton leadership. They are not royalty. I used to support McCain in his first run, until his straight talk racial problems and his blatant lies about the war before he even gets into office to claim executive privilege.

And back to remixes-

There was a Bollywood remix of Obama that was amusing, but Will I Am of Black Eyed Peas is more on message. This is an unsolicited video he created after watching Obama's speech.

This is an old article about Microsoft Works 9.0, but it shows a good reason to support open formats.(something Microsoft would liek to undermine). It is a lesser version than Microsoft Office , a package essential meant as a low end version with less functionality.

Microsoft Windows also has a "lower end version" for scenarios like " Developing Nations" for instance. They also hobble those versions with restrictions like not letting more than 3 programs run at the same time and restricting it to lower end chips and hardware. I guess a poor person in Brazil doesn't need more than 3 programs like the ones in the US.

But, to the point, Works "uses different file formats than the .doc or .xls used by Word and Excel." In other words, you type a document and Microsoft restricts your information and styling to a Works format. Outside of Microsoft using you to repeatedly capitalize your own work and ideas, you can use open formats like ODF in Google Docs, Open Office and other programs for free and use a different program at any time - taking your information with you. Open Source means Freedom - Open Documents means Freedom of Information, often your own information. Google capitalizes you again and again, but you arent at risk of losing functionality and access to your own information.

This week and article entitled, Don't miss lessons Radiohead, Trent Reznor offer seemed to propose that since Trent Reznor is a bad business man, record labels are both moral and necessary.

"Reznor said he didn't get involved with Williams to profit, but acknowledged that he spent too much making the album and said he hasn't yet recouped his money." This only says he spent too much money. How many times does a Hollywood movie do that? Or any entrepreneur? Even while pointing out EMI only has 5 profitable acts, this point is used to prove that somehow having huge coffers is necessary to produce music. The whole article reads like a damnation of of independent musicians and entrepreneurship in general. All of the arguments used here could be used against any small business in any arena.

• Corporations have the money to absorb risk, you don't
• People with MBAs work at Corporations and you don't have one

The whole article seemed desperate to make a point. There are a lot of successful independent and small labels and musicians. They fail and succeed just like any business, corporation or cartel. The inclusion of Radiohead in the article was just bizarre, especially since the article points out the album they release as " pay what you want" became number 1 last week due to physical copies also sold (which also seems to dent the idea downloads inherently lop of record company profits).

Also on the horizon of Open Content and business - Lee Lessig released his fourth book under Creative Commons. Future of Ideas is now Free. And, as Lessig points out, this was partially a business choice as the book was release right after 9-11, which had much more attention than any book release announcement.

I believe JK Rowling has succeeded in creating a new mythology for the human race. And with the capability of today's technology, it grew fast and became world wide. In fact, she is the first writer to become a billionaire simply through her writing. That's billion with a B.

As a writer, I believe in a creative person's right to profit and enjoy the story of her success. I also understand the desire to keep your creations close to you. But - as someone who loves human creativity and likes to see it prosper, her draconian reach disturbs me.

The Disturbing Realm of J.K. Rowling
• Recently suing someone who has run one of her most detailed fan sites, The Harry Potter Lexicon, for the past several years, who now has decided to write an encyclopedia of Harry Potter based on his observations. It's worth noting that there are several critical books with Harry Potter themes for and against it (think religious issues). It's also worth noting that The Harry Potter Lexicon has been reference by J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers over the past several years, sometimes for profit.
• Other Corporations Joining in - Someone photographed, page by page, the last book in the Harry Potter series and posted it on The Internet. This was illegal and of course it upset her. Ironically, since there was no financial gain and it would be hard to show it damaged her ability to profit from her millions upon millions to be earned from the work (who is going to download the book and not buy it?), prosecution would be hard.
  
  This didn't stop Canon from volunteering to track down one of their customers. They had already inspected the downloaded book (which means they downloaded it) and identified, "From what we know, the device is one of the original Rebel cameras, probably a 350D, and given that they've been out for three years, it's likely the owner would have had it cleaned or repaired in that time."
  
  To be fair, they noted Rowling's people hadn't contacted them. This just means Canon took the initiative to download the illegal copy, analyze it, then determining the likelihood they would be able to track their customer and report them to Miss Rowling.
• The New York Times and the Baltimore Sun printed reviews of the last Harry Potter book before it was released. To which Rowling replied, "I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children. I am incredibly grateful to all those newspapers, booksellers and others who have chosen not to attempt to spoil Harry's last adventure for fans."
  
  I would like to point out that I started reading The New York Times reviews when I was 14 and haven't stopped. If my daughter, who is younger, is reading the Times for critical literature review - Good! Her melodramatic retort acts as if millions of children sit down with tea and the Times every morning to read critical reviews. The few children who do - congratulations to their parents, but make sure they play too.
  
  A second point for Miss Rowling - it was reviewed like any other book. It would have been special treatment not to review the book before people bought it. Imagine buying a book before reviews were available and then finding out it was jibberish. The fact is, she had a pre-order bestseller.
• The general obsession of secrecy. News flash - people who don't want spoilers don't read them. There are plenty of sequels that provide previews, etc. Harry Potter was maintained like classified secrets. While fans certainly wanted surprises, they do so in any series of books. Surprise and suspense is also a powerful marketing tool. When Blair Witch Project was released, there were many long lines. The hope is that people walk by and ask what you're going to see and then they realize it must be good with such long lines. Well, when I asked someone what they were in line for, he sardonic youth replied, "We got free passes for this movie, but they make you come half an our early and stand in line to get in." This is what Rowling's marketing team has been doing by restricting access to any information. Sure it's fun to have such suspense as a fan. To some extent I want it. But I don't need multi-national lawyers and security firms protecting me from it. And if it were there, it sure would be nice to have access to some bit of information. As it stands, she marketed through momentum and a bit of hyper-reality.

I'd like to thank Miss Rowling for producing Harry Potter and stoking the imaginations of our children. I'd like to now ask her to calm down and consider letting fans and other creative people treat her work like any other, more than likely increasing her revenue even more.

Otherwise, a spell for Harry Potter to practice: Copryightus nonobsessus, ego nonflatus!

I have mentioned this video a few times in the past couple of weeks. It came out a while ago and was produced by Media Education Foundation. Disney is a megacorporation that profited from our open fairy tales from the past and has since worked hard to keep their altered and original tales from entering in to the commons. So, MEF used nothing but Disney clips to educate folks on "fair use."

Pakistan is the third largest low-cost IT-enabled and offshore business processes outsourcing services provider in Asia after India and China. The country's Open Source Resource Center (OSRC), a project of Pakistan's Ministry of Information Technology, has developed and released a FOSS resource kit entitled "OSS Training Toolkit," originally put together in order to facilitate OSRC's own training workshops in Pakistan. The toolkit contains step-by-step manuals in six modules covering various Free and Open Source Software applications. All the content is available in printed manual form and as OpenDocument (.odt), Portable Document Format (.pdf), and Microsoft Word (.doc) files for download. The toolkit covers databases, application servers, desktop applications, office productivity suites, enterprise resource planning (ERP), and customer relationship management (CRM) software, as well as open source desktop applications for both Linux and Microsoft Windows. Along with the manuals, the toolkit provides a set of CDs that includes two Linux distributions, Ubuntu Linux Desktop and Fedora Server, as well as the other applications. The toolkit's curriculum has been planned and laid out in such a manner that anyone from a basic to novice user can learn and benefit from it. It has been released under open source licenses through the OSRC Web site so that individuals and organizations interested in migrating from proprietary to open source networks can freely download, distribute, use, and modify the toolkit and its related CDs. ---------------- This article is shared by Fouad Riaz Bajwa under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/.