Australia Considers Adding Fair Use Provisions to Copyright Laws
August 21, 2018
Australia’s existing copyright laws are too strict to allow for AI innovation, according to two of the most prominent companies in the field. Computerworld reports, “New Copyright Rules Needed for AI Era Argue Google, Microsoft.” The news comes as that nation prepares to reform those laws, which currently lack the sort of “fair use” provisions found in other countries. In March, the government issued a discussion paper asking for input on incorporating such provisions. Reporter Rohan Pearce tells us:
“The ‘extent to which AI will be able to be developed in Australia is in doubt’ because of the nation’s copyright regime, according to Google’s response to the discussion paper. AI depends ‘not only on having large sets of data and information to analyse, but also on making copies of those data sets as part of the process of training the algorithms,’ Google argued. ‘In many cases these data sets include material protected by copyright. This can pose significant barriers to the development of AI in countries like Australia which have only inflexible and prescriptive exceptions in their copyright laws.’ …
We noted:
“Microsoft in its submission argued that Australia should introduce an exception explicitly permitting text and data mining (TDM) of copyright works. The tech company said that it would support either an express exception for text and data mining or a broader fair use provision. ‘There is very little connection between copyright and TDM, just as copyright has never controlled how people read books and do research,’ Microsoft argued. ‘With TDM, it may be necessary to make copies of information to train the artificial intelligence and allow it to analyze this material to look for patterns, relationships, and insights. These copies are not read by humans, nor are they consumed or redistributed for their creative expression, so they don’t substitute for the original articles or subscriptions.’
That is an interesting point. Pearce notes that an overhaul is being proposed as a way to boost Australia’s digital economy, currently projected to be worth $139 billion by 2020. Both the country’s Productivity Commission and the Australian Law Reform Commission support the introduction of fair use provisions.
Cynthia Murrell, August 21, 2018
Google Becomes an Adviser to New Zealand about Copyright
August 16, 2018
We learned about a controversial meeting in New Zealand from an article at Stuff provocatively titled, “Google and Rights Holders Battle Over Copyright Reform.” Writer Tom Pullar-Strecker reports that in late June, Google lobbyist Kent Walker met with New Zealand Commerce Minister Kris Faafoi to discuss reform of that nation’s copyright laws. Apparently, Google was not sure search engines like theirs quite comply with existing law—so he offered suggestions on modifying the law. To be fair, that was an action already under consideration, but Google had to add its perspective to the mix. Naturally, Walker’s arguments must go beyond the well-being of his company, so the “more liberal” approach is being billed as key to New Zealand’s tech industry, particularly in AI. Others are not so certain; we learned:
Paula Browning, chief executive of interest group Copyright Licensing NZ, said one of the benefits of the existing law and the certainty it provided was “we don’t go to court every five minutes. The idea we would slip that on its head and be burdening the court in order to make law doesn’t sit very well with me,” she said. Browning also rejected the suggestion that copyright laws were holding back innovation. “There is an awful lot of business happening in New Zealand involving tech startups that suggest the law is not broken. We have got 28,000 tech companies under the Act we have got, so it doesn’t seem to be stopping us doing fabulous things.” There were only impediments to machine learning if people wanted to use other people’s information, she said. “If you are looking at companies that are doing AI, they are using data that is theirs. “If you want to have a ‘data grab of other people stuff’ to use for your business then, okay, maybe there are things in the way of you doing that.”
The official has a point. The article goes on to note Walker brought up Content ID (used by Google-owned YouTube), suggesting such a measure could be worked into the new law. (We’re told the EU is also considering the technology.) Notes on the meeting were taken and shared by New Zealand’s Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE). Browning expressed concern about upcoming decisions made “behind closed doors,” but believes the MBIE is working to ensure all stakeholders, large and small, have a say in that country’s copyright reform process. Meanwhile, we’re told, Walker is now senior VP of global affairs at Google; quell surprise.
Cynthia Murrell, August 16, 2018
Creative Commons Eludes Copyright With Free Image Search
April 7, 2017
One scandal that plagues the Internet is improper usage and citation of digital images. Photographs, art, memes, and GIFs are stolen on a daily basis and original owners are often denied compensation or credit. Most of the time, usage is completely innocent; other times it is blatant theft. If you need images for your Web site or project, but do not want to be sent a cease and desist letter or slammed with a lawsuit check out the Creative Commons, a community where users post photos, art, videos, and more free of copyright control as long as you give credit to the original purveyor. Forbes wrote that, “Creative Commons’ New Search Engine Makes It Easy To Find Free-To-Use Images.”
The brand new Creative Commons search engine is something the Internet has waited for:
The Creative Commons search engine gives you access to over nine million images drawn from 500px, Flickr, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the New York Public Library and the Rijksmuseum. You can search through all or any combination of these collections. You can also constrain your search to titles, creators, tags or any combination of the three. Finally, you can limit your search to images that you can modify, adapt or build upon as you see fit, or that are free to use for commercial purposes.
Creative Commons is a wonderful organization and copyright tool that allows people to share their work with others while receiving proper credit. It is also a boon for others who need photos and video to augment their own work. My only question is: why did it take so long for the Creative Commons to make this search engine?
Whitney Grace, April 7, 2017
Google Battling Pirates More and More Each Year
February 10, 2017
So far, this has been a booming year for DMCA takedown requests, we learn from TorrentFreak’s article, “Google Wipes Record Breaking Half Billion Pirate Links in 2016.” The number of wiped links has been growing rapidly over the last several years, but is that good or bad news for copyright holders? That depends on whom you ask. Writer Ernesto reveals the results of TorrentFreak’s most recent analysis:
Data analyzed by TorrentFreak reveals that Google recently received its 500 millionth takedown request of 2016. The counter currently [in mid-July] displays more than 523,000,000, which is yet another record. For comparison, last year it took almost the entire year to reach the same milestone. If the numbers continue to go up at the same rate throughout the year, Google will process a billion allegedly infringing links during the whole of 2016, a staggering number.
According to Google roughly 98% of the reported URLs are indeed removed. This means that half a billion links were stripped from search results this year alone. However, according to copyright holders, this is still not enough. Entertainment industry groups such as the RIAA, BPI and MPAA have pointed out repeatedly that many files simply reappear under new URLs.
Indeed; copyright holders continue to call for Google to take stronger measures. For its part, the company insists increased link removals is evidence that its process is working quite well. They issued out an update of their report, “How Google Fights Piracy.” The two sides remain deeply divided, and will likely be at odds for some time. Ernesto tells us some copyright holders are calling for the government to step in. That could be interesting.
Cynthia Murrell, February 10, 2017
Torrent Anonymously with AlphaReign
December 12, 2016
Peer-to-peer file sharing gets a boost with AlphaReign, a new torrent sharing site that enables registered users to share files anonymously using Distributed Hash Table.
TorrentFreak in an article titled Alphareign: DHT Search Engine Takes Public Torrents Private says:
AlphaReign.se is a new site that allows users to find torrents gathered from BitTorrent’s ‘trackerless’ Distributed Hash Table, or DHT for short. While we have seen DHT search engines before, this one requires an account to gain access.
The biggest issue with most torrent sites is The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which prohibits the sites (if possible) and the search engines from displaying search results on the search engine result page. As content or torrent indexes on AlphaReign are accessible only to registered users, seeders and leechers are free to share files without risking themselves.
Though most files shared through torrents are copyrighted materials like movies, music, software and books, torrents are also used by people who want to share large files without being spied upon.
AlphaReign also manages to address a persistent issue faced by torrent sites:
AlphaReign with new software allows users to search the DHT network on their own devices, with help from peers. Such a system would remain online, even if the website itself goes down.
In the past, popular torrent search engines like YTS, KickAssTorrents, The Pirate Bay, Torrentz among many others have been shut down owing to pressure from law enforcement agencies. However, if AlphaReign manages to do what it claims to, torrent users are going to be the delighted.
Vishal Ingole, December 12, 2016
At Last an Academic Search, but How Much Does It Cost?
December 9, 2016
I love Google. You love Google. Everyone loves Google so much that it has become a verb in practically every language. Google does present many problems, however, especially in the inclusion of paid ads in search results and Google searches are not academically credible. Researchers love the ease of use with Google, but there a search engine does not exist that returns results that answer a simple question based on a few keywords, NLP, and citations (those are extremely important).
It is possible that a search engine designed for academia could exist, especially if it can be subject specific and allows full-text access to all results. The biggest problem and barrier in the way of a complete academic search engine is that scholarly research is protected by copyright and most research is behind pay walls belonging to academic publishers, like Elsevier.
Elsevier is a notorious academic publisher because it provides great publication and it is also expensive to subscribe to it digitally. The Mendeley Blog shares that Elsevier has answered the academic search engine cry: “Introducing Elsevier DataSearch.” The Elsevier DataSearch promises to search through reputable information repositories and help researchers accelerate their work.
DataSearch is still in the infant stage and there is an open call for beta testers:
DataSearch offers a new and innovative approach. Most search engines don’t actively involve their users in making them better; we invite you, the user, to join our User Panel and advise how we can improve the results. We are looking for users in a variety of fields, no technical expertise is required (though welcomed). In order to join us, visit https://datasearch.elsevier.com and click on the button marked ‘Join Our User Panel’.”
This is the right step forward for any academic publisher! There is one thing I am worried about and that is: how much is the DataSearch engine going to cost users? I respect copyright and the need to make a profit, but I wish there was one all-encompassing academic database that was free or had a low-cost subscription plan.
Whitney Grace, December 9, 2016
Online Searching Proves Shakespeare Ripped Off Words and Phrases
September 16, 2016
Original phrases? Bah. Neologisms? Poppycock. William Shakespeare, like Mozart, ripped off other people. Imagine that. Listening to people, noting interesting turns of phrases, and learning new words from those around him. Where was the DCMA and copyright when we really needed them?
I read “The Game Is Up: Shakespeare’s Language Not As Original As Dictionaries Think.” My first reaction was, “Do dictionaries think?” I thought dictionaries were compilations of the work of individuals who chased down the meanings of words. Who am I but a lonely recluse in rural Kentucky? I know that real journalists know much more about dictionaries than I. So think they do.
But the guts of the story is that a person working at a university ran online queries across the digitized text of early British texts. Guess what? When running a query for the phrase “It’s Greek to me”,
the academic points out that searching for it in the digital resource Early English Books Online throws up its usage in Robert Greene’s The Scottish History of James the Fourth, printed in 1598 but possibly written in 1590.
Who said Shakespeare was a wordsmithing genius? The answer, gentle reader, are those folks who compile dictionaries.
But that’s not the only rip off performed by the guy who wrote plays loved by students the world over. He stole “wild goose chase.”
The article pointed out that the Bard seems to have saddled up his imagination and actually created the phrase “to make an ass of oneself.”
The repercussions from this discovery are significant. The lively and flexible editors of the Oxford English Dictionary will hop to making the necessary changes. I will have to replace my copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary in due course. What if I learn that “wild goose chase” is not a coinage of a fellow suspected of being a closet Catholic.
Online is good for something. “Lord, what fools these mortals be.” No wonder creating a link is a violation of the law. If a recusant does not own up to the source, punishment is needed. Bad Sharkespeare.
Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2016
Revenue Takes a Backseat to Patent Filings at IBM
September 9, 2016
The post on Slashdot titled IBM Has Been Awarded an Average of 24 Patents Per Day So Far in 2016 compares the patent development emphasis of major companies, with IBM coming out on top with 3,617 patent awards so far in 2016, according to a Quartz report. Patents are the bi-product of IBM’s focus on scientific research, as the report finds,
The company is in the middle of a painful reinvention, that sees the company shifting further away from hardware sales into cloud computing, analytics, and AI services. It’s also plugging away on a myriad of fundamental scientific research projects — many of which could revolutionize the world if they can come to fruition — which is where many of its patent applications originate. IBM accounted for about 1% of all US patents awarded in 2015.
Samsung claimed a close second (with just over 3,000 patents), and on the next rung down sits Google (with roughly 1,500 patents for the same period), Intel, Qualcomm, Microsoft, and Apple. Keep in mind though, that IBM and Samsung have been awarded more than twice as many patents as Google and the others, making it an unstoppable patent machine. You may well ask, what about revenue? They will get back to you on that score later.
Chelsea Kerwin, September 9, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
There is a Louisville, Kentucky Hidden Web/Dark Web meet up on September 27, 2016.
Information is at this link: https://www.meetup.com/Louisville-Hidden-Dark-Web-Meetup/events/233599645/
Oracle v Google Copyright Trial in Progress
July 22, 2016
The battle between Google and Oracle over Android’s use of Java has gone to federal court, and the trial is expected to conclude in June. CBS San Francisco Bay Area reports, “Former Google CEO Testifies in Oracle-Google Copyright Trial.” The brief write-up reveals the very simple defense of Eric Schmidt, who was Google’s CEO while Android was being developed (and is now CEO of Google’s young parent company, Alphabet): “We believed our approach was appropriate and permitted,” he stated.
Java was developed back in the ‘90s by Sun Microsystems, which was bought by Oracle in 2010. Google freely admits using Java in the development of Android, but they assert it counts as fair use—the legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material if it is sufficiently transformed or repurposed. Oracle disagrees, though Schmidt maintains Sun Microsystems saw it his way back in the day. The article tells us:
“Schmidt told the jury that when Google was developing Android nine years ago, he didn’t believe the company needed a license from Sun for the APIs. “We believed our approach was appropriate and permitted,” he said.
“Under questioning from Google attorney Robert Van Nest, Schmidt said that in 2007, Sun’s chief executive officer Jonathan Schwartz knew Google was building Android with Java, never expressed disapproval and never said Google needed a license from Sun.
“In cross-examination by Oracle attorney Peter Bicks, Schmidt acknowledged that he had said in 2007 that Google was under pressure to compete with the Apple Inc.’s newly released iPhone.”
Yes it was, the kind of pressure that can erode objectivity. Did Google go beyond fair use in this case? The federal court will soon decide.
Cynthia Murrell, July 22, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
There is a Louisville, Kentucky Hidden Web/Dark
Web meet up on July 26, 2016.
Information is at this link: http://bit.ly/29tVKpx.
Disney and Search
November 10, 2014
I won’t bore you with the Disney InfoSeek adventure. Sigh. If you want to know how Disney is approaching Web search, read “Disney Fights Piracy With New Search Patent.” The system and method is intended to filter out content not licensed by means known to Disney. The write up’s headline suggests that a system and method in the form of a patent will “fight piracy.” Interesting notion, but I think the idea is that Disney has built or will build a system that shows only “official” content.
The notion of building a specialist Web site is an interesting idea. The reality may be that traffic will be very hard to come by. The most recent evidence is Axil Springer’s capitulation to the Google. Axil Springer owns a chunk of Qwanta. Again a good idea, but it does not deliver traffic.
If you build a search engine, who will use it? Answer: Not too many people if the data available to me are correct.
Stephen E Arnold, November 210, 2014
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
