Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Apple Ruled Liable for E-book Price Fixing

A federal judge has found that Apple colluded with the big five publishers to illegally set prices for ebooks.  The court stated that Apple “played a central role in facilitating and executing” a scheme with the big five publishers to keep ebook prices high in the face of fierce competition from Amazon.

Federal Judge Denise L. Cote stated that the trial on damages will follow.

The impact of decision on the ebook buying public will be minimal.  The big five publishers all earlier settled anti-trust claims brought by the United States Department of Justice.  All five are now operating under a consent decree that prohibits those publishers from withholding their ebooks from discount sellers.

The antitrust claim came about when Apple and the big five publishers tried to made a dent in Amazon's domination of the ebook market.  They withheld their most popular titles from Amazon unless the books were sold at a minimum price, thereby trying to thwart Amazon's pricing structure.



photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/cloudsoup/3624716229/">david__jones</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">cc</a>

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Great Online Fair Use Resource for Writers

Can I use a photo from the internet for a presentation?  Can I quote a poem?  Can I use
someone writing as an example when I'm teaching a writing class?  How about paraphrasing someone's blog post?  

These are just some of the troubling questions for writers dealing with the issues of copyright and fair use.  Fortunately, there is now a handy, FREE, online resource.  Although designed specifically for journalists, the principles set out in the publication are equally applicable to writers of all stripes.

Set of Principles in Fair Use for Journalism is a project of American University's School of Communications.  It is a very well-crafted summary of fair use and how it applies to many of the most common situations and issues faced by writers.

To view the publication, CLICK HERE. 
It is not a legal treatise.  It is not a substitute for legal advice for troubling situaitons.  But it is a very worthwhile resource, and one which every writer should review and keep handy.

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Law for Writers - the Broadcast Version

Law for Writers will hit the airwaves - or at least the internet airwaves - Monday night at 9 p.m. (June 17). 

I will be the guest on Johnny Stir Show, hosted by Jon Easter.   (Say his name fast, and you'll understand where the show's name came from).

We will discuss a broad range of topics related to writing and the law as it impacts writers.  Check it out. 

The show is streamed live at 9 p.m. (EDT) on www.indianatalks.com. 

Encore broadcasts occur throughout the week, then the show will be available for listening on the station's archives or download on Itunes.

My show, Stephen Terrell: Just Us, streams live on Tuesday nights at 9 p.m. (EDT) on www.indianatalks.com.   This week's guest will be southern Indiana lawyer Derrick Wilson.  We will discuss the long, strange and fascinating history of wine, alcohol and Indiana law, including: 
  • The heck with California and New York, Indiana was the first state to have a winery
  • Indiana was the first with a Sunday blue laws prohibiting Sunday sales of liquor (still in effect)
  • Why Indiana regulates sale of beer and soft drinks by temperature (the only state to do so)
  • The 1920s coalition between the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana.
Tune in!

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Sentenced: 7 Years for Copyright Violation

Violating a copyright is no small matter.

A Baltimore man found that out recently when he was sentenced to 87 months - more than 7 years - in federal prison for violating copyright laws.

Naveed Sheikh, 29, was not your ordinary copyright infringer.  He didn't copy a page or two from a book, or burn an occasional unauthorized CD.  Rather, over a 5 year period, he copied more than 1,000 of the most popular software packages and sold them on the Internet for something in the range of $4 million. As part of his sentence, Sheikh was also ordered to pay back the $4 million.

Sheikh's problems didn't stop with copyright violations.  He did not report any of the income on his taxes.

Sheikh is not alone to blame for his actions.  Okay, maybe he is.  But others facilitated his actions.  You see, Sheikh didn't market his product as genuine originals of Microsoft Office, Microsoft XP, Adobe Acrobat, or PhotoShop.  He marketed his products as "cracked" copies -- that is, knock offs.

For writers, the lesson is not so much a warning about violating the copyright of others, as it is the huge market that is out there for people who don't care about copyright if they can get a better price. So who is reading knock offs of your books without you receiving a royalty?


photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/eyyad/3830243742/">EyadHainey</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/">cc</a>

Monday, June 3, 2013

Apple, Department of Justice Head to Court Over E-Book Pricing

It has all the twists of a John Grisham legal thriller (or my legal thriller for that
matter).  But the ending has yet to be written.

This week Apple and the U.S. Government square off in court over the pricing of E-books.  And waiting in the wings is Amazon, who appears to be the target of Apple's defense.

Last year the Department of Justice ("DOJ") sued the big five publishers and Apple to court, claiming a price-fixing collusion in violation of Anti-Trust laws.  The claim is that Apple and the publishers set minimum prices for their best-selling ebooks. The purpose was to counter Amazon's below-cost pricing of bestsellers and to help cut into Amazon's share of the ebook market, which at one time exceeded 90 percent.

All five publishers settled with the DOJ.  The result is that their best-sellers are now often being offered by Amazon at below cost prices.

But Apple refused to settle, dug in its heels, and is going to Court.   Apple's courtroom target may not be the DOJ.  The proverbial elephant in the courtroom is Amazon.  Although Amazon is not a party, Apple has already let it be known that its strategy will include internal Amazon email that are none-too-flattering to Amazon's view of its customers and its marketing strategy.

Stay tuned.  As Betty Davis once said, "It's going to be a bumpy ride."

For the Washington Post article on the lawsuit, CLICK HERE.


photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/blakespot/4639499514/">blakespot</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">cc</a>

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

DANGER WILL ROBINSON! AP Secret Phone Subpoenas Attack on Writers Everywhere

It is not often that one sees something that truly is a threat to our freedoms. But when

we see it, all of us have an obligation to stand up, speak out, and demand that those responsible be held accountable.

A news story broke yesterday that is as much a threat to freedom in this country as anything that has happened in my lifetime.  Last year the Department of Justice secretly obtained the phone records of three offices of Associated Press in Washington, D.C., New York City and Hartford, Connecticut, for the months of April and May, 2012.  This meant the phone records of more than 100 reporters

But the DOJ went even further. It obtained the personal cell phone records of 5 reporters and an editor for AP in Washington. 

And it went even further.  Among the phone records obtained were those of the Media Room in the Capital Building, which are used by nearly every reporter on Capital Hill.

The intent?  It seems clear that the intent was not a criminal investigation.  The clear purpose was intimidation.  It was sending a message to every potential source in Washington, D.C -- any potential source anyplace - that the government is watching.  If you are talking to a reporter, WE will know.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been such an assault on the rights of the media.  In fact, I'm not sure Nixon even went this far.

This overbroad, overreaching intrusion by the government, by the supposed Department of Justice, into the workings of one of oldest, largest and most respected news gathering organizations in the world, is an affront to every value embodied by the First Amendment.

Crumbling First Amendment rights?*
The DOJ did not even follow its own rules about subpoenaing the media.  Because of the potential for intrusion on the First Amendment, the DOJ has very specific guidelines about subpoenaing the media.  This includes attempting to obtain information from other sources, limiting the scope of any subpoena as much as possible, and providing prompt notice to the media entity being subpoenaed. 

None of that was done here.

These phone records include every phone call.  They include calls with every source the AP deals with.  There is speculation that this subpoena was prompted by the AP's scoop on the US thwarting an Al Queda plot to blow up an airliner.  But there were no such restriction on the subpoena.  The records obtained by the DOJ included every phone call with every source;  every whistle-blower reporting misconduct in the government; every person trying to air information the government is trying to hide; every confidential source protected from disclosure by state laws; even every phone call the reporters had with their spouses and kids.

What are these guys thinking?  What values do they hold?  Do they understand anything about the Constitution?  Do they understand that it is their job to "protect and defend" the Constitution, not to bring it down?

Every writer needs to stand up against this.  Whether you are a journalist, a blogger, write non-fiction or even fiction, you need to stand up against this intrusion into the First Amendment.

We all need to stand up against Big Brother deciding it doesn't like what you write, and therefore start snooping into where you get your information.

I am sickened.

*photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberandy/40386773/">CyberAndy</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/">cc</a>

Monday, May 6, 2013

Harper Lee Sues Agent for Stealing Copyright for "To Kill A Mockingbird"

Harper Lee, the nearly-reclusive author of To Kill A Mockingbird, has sued a literary agent over the handling of the copyright to her classic of American literature.

Miss Lee filed suit in Federal District Court in New York asserting that Samuel Pinkus, the son-in-law of Lee's longtime agent, Eugene Winick, failed to properly protect the copyright after her long-time agent became ill.  The lawsuit claims that Pinkus took advantage of Miss Lee's poor eyesight and hearing and had her assign the copyright to a company controlled by Pinkus.

One can only hope that Miss Lee finds her own real-life Atticus Finch to protect her interest in her only published novel.

For more details, CLICK HERE




photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/scatterkeir/1457561483/">scatterkeir</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/">cc</a>