Once upon a time, copyrights lasted for 14 years from the creation of an artistic or literary work.  The purpose was to balance the societal interests between an author (encouraging the arts by giving a limited monopoly) and the public domain (increasing the works freely available to all). With the growth of large content owning publishers, studios, and record labels, the 14-year exclusive right has morphed into a lifetime right, plus 70 years.  What was once meant to encourage artistic works has now become an annuity for people who were never involved in the creative process.

Enter Google’s Nexus One phone and the estate of Philip K. Dick.

“We feel this is a clear infringement of our intellectual-property rights,” said Isa Dick Hackett, a daughter of Mr. Dick and the chief executive of Electric Shepherd Productions, an arm of the Dick estate devoted to adapting the late author’s works. “Our legal team is dealing head-on with this.”

Which “intellectual-property rights” are we talking about here?  Can you guess?

Mr. Dick’s 1968 novel, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?,” which served as the basis for the 1982 cult film “Blade Runner,” follows a bounty hunter chasing androids known as Nexus-6 models.

Get it?  “Android” and “Nexus.” Used together! It must be a copyright violation.

Here’s hoping to get a copy of the letter sent to the Google legal department so that we can dissect the baseless claims one by one.  In the meantime, Mr. Dick’s heirs will certainly see an uptick in their royalties as this story circulates.

Once this matter resolves itself, we can move on to the important issues about Blade Runner.  Such as whether the film is better with the voice over, the unicorn scene, or both.

PARIS – A Paris court today found Google guilty of violating copyright by digitizing books and putting extracts online, following a legal challenge by major French publishers. The court ruled against Google’s French unit after the La Martiniere group argued that publishers and authors were losing out in the latest stage of the digital revolution.

Google was ordered to pay 300,000 euros ($431,700) in damages and interest and to stop reproducing any copyrighted material by French publishers.  Read more…

Following the enactment of the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 and her nomination in September, Victoria Espinel becomes the United States’ first IP Enforcement Coordinator, or “IPEC” for short.

Large content owners gushed with enthusiasm, making the case that “Intellectual property industries are an essential economic engine to the U.S. economy, and it is critical that the new IP Enforcement Coordinator now be given adequate resources to carry out her new responsibilities.” -MPAA Chairman and CEO Dan Glickman.

“It’s critical she be given the necessary resources to get the job done. Millions of Americans create, market and distribute content for a living. If we don’t address the piracy threat with vigor, cohesiveness and immediacy, we can’t create new jobs. In fact, we’ll lose even more.” -The Walt Disney Company President and CEO Robert A. Iger.

Consumer-oriented Public Knowledge also congratulated Ms. Espinel, stating that “she is well qualified for the position, having served as the assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual Property and Innovation, and we believe she will be fair in her approach to intellectual property enforcement issues. We look forward to working with her.”–Public Knowledge President Gigi B. Sohn.

Now the interesting question becomes will Congress a) give her the resources and support she needs to do her job and b) what exactly will her job be?

Mininova, one of the biggest torrent file-sharing websites in the world, has removed links to all copyrighted content that it does not have official agreements for.

The most surprising thing about this story, is that it is news.  However, Thursday’s move is a win for the entertainment industry as users of the site are now cut off from a major source of television shows, music, movies and other copyrighted content. The victory is likely to be short-lived, though, as peer-to-peer file sharers move on to other torrent sites and new technology.

Mininova, which was founded in 2005 in the Netherlands by five students, made the concession as the result of a court case brought forward by BREIN, a Dutch anti-piracy group. In June, a judge ruled that Mininova was not directly responsible for copyright infringement but ordered the website to remove links to such torrents within three months or face a fine of up to 5 million euros.

In the U.S., we call that “contributory infringement” and it’s the theory that essentially ended Napster. (Napster lives on as a Best Buy company that has copied the business model of Rhapsody.com.)

The question now becomes:  what mode will folks use to rip off content? Will it be the more distributed peer-to-peer torrent network?  Or will the entertainment industry take the initiative to innovate, using a model that permits more content to be accessible by folks who want it?  Like the innovative collaboration between Netflix and Tivo:

What is the “Public Domain?”

Under U.S. Copyright law, a work that is “created” (fixed in tangible form for the first time), is automatically protected from the moment of its creation for a term lasting for the author’s life, plus an additional 70 years. For works made for hire, a copyright lasts for 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.  Once this time runs, the work is no longer copyrighted and becomes part of the public domain.  No one controls it anymore.

What can you do with a work in the public domain?  Pretty much anything you like.

Introducing the 50-page Creationist’s Introduction to Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (read the Living Waters’ introduction here), a project of Conservapedia to remove “liberal Bias” from the Bible, and for nostalgia’s sake, one of the earliest attempts to edit religious text-the 19th Century Woman’s Bible.

While folks may have a knee jerk “thats-not-right” response to editing controversial works, it underscores the fact that any work in the public domain-from the Bible to On The Origin of Species-is free for anyone to make use of, however they see fit.

Francis Gurry, director-general of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), on Thursday said music copyright protection was “under the most severe stress in making the transition from the physical world to the digital world” and the problem will likely spread to films as web connections speed up.  However, the heavy punishment of illegal file sharers on the web will be counter-productive in the global fight against Internet piracy and copyright infringement.

“So, we need to reflect on the fundamentally important question of how we are to finance culture in the future — the future evolution of the copyright system, is of course central to this debate.”

Among other things, Mr. Gurry is in India to discuss making copyright-protected material available to the visually impaired and wrote an op-ed for The Hindu noting that a recent study estimated that the Indian entertainment industry loses some 820,000 jobs and around $4 billion each year to piracy.

Public Knowledge is ALL fired up by the proposal of the Motion Picture Association of America’s request to the FCC for permission to engage in “selectable output control” (SOC).

If the FCC agrees, the MPAA and the movie studios it represents would be able to “turn off” any output plug they choose, like those on the back of consumer electronics devices of an entertainment system, during special video-on-demand movies on cable television.

Public Knowledge opposes SOC and along with Consumer Federation of America, Digital Freedom Campaign, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and U.S. PIRG, has filed comments urging the FCC to deny the MPAA’s request.

“It’s a natural impulse to want to support the little guy, the David who faces down a powerful Goliath. That’s why it’s easy to get behind this guy’s claims that a copycat business is suing him to force him to abandon his own copyrights. Wtf!, you might say when you read something like that. Is that even possible? It is, and the story is more nuanced when you look at both sides, which makes it a good example of why it’s sometimes hard to be a “good consumer” when deciding where to spend your money.”  Read the full story at The Consumerist.

At least five state attorneys general have filed briefs raising concerns about Google Inc.’s proposed legal settlement with authors and publishers, adding to a wave of criticism lodged against the high-profile deal as it nears a public hearing.

Microsoft Corp. and Amazon.com Inc., among others, have criticized the settlement, as has the head of the U.S. Copyright Office.

A Google representative declined to comment.  Read the full article.

All I want to know is this:  Will I be able to get these books on my Kindle?