Are You Exempt? (And Has The Media Read What It's Reporting On?)

Ernest Miller has a comprehensive run-down of links related to yesterday's DMCA Rulemaking. [Via Donna Wentworth]

For those of you following the Lexmark v. Static Control case (in which I and my firm have submitted an amicus brief), the Rulemaking (PDF; p. 25) denied Static Control's proposed exemption ("The Register concludes that an existing exemption in section 1201(f) addresses the concerns of remanufacturers, making an exemption under section 1201(a)(1)(D) unnecessary"), and the Register's Recommendation (PDF; pp. 182-83) notes the dispute between the parties about whether Static Control's conduct constitutes reverse engineering, resolved in Lexmark's favor by the trial court, but does not weigh in on the outcome of that dispute. Media statements that the Rulemaking puts "a stunning end" to the case between Lexmark and Static Control, or constitutes a favorable ruling at all for Static Control—which lost its bid for an exemption—thus fail to reflect a thorough or accurate analysis of the Rulemaking and the pending Sixth Circuit appeal. (See internetnews.com, "Copyright Office Rules For Toner Remanufacturer," and similar takes included here.)

"Pushers Of Dopamine Over IP"

The presentation last week by Yossi Vardi and Jim Moore to the Digital Democracy class at Harvard Law School, "The Edge Against the Hub," is worth revisiting again and again. John Palfrey took good notes: "The struggle is over the openness of the technology: on the legal fronts, the struggles are over ownership of intellectual property, spectrum, VoIP; on the technical fronts, on standards, architecture, APIs, morality of free v. paid, etc." The audio is fantastic freeway company—especially if you, like me, enjoy picking out John's laughter from the audience. (Rick, definitely include this in your article research.)

Today's New Blawg

The Texas Law Blog is keeping an eye on law and politics in the Lone Star State and beyond: "The Texas Law Blog monitors the United States Supreme Court, 5th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the various Courts of Appeals, the Texas Legislature, major Texas newspapers and legal websites."

Titan Watch

Last Friday, Jon Udell was wondering about Google's plans on the full text book search front. ("Clash of the titans: Amazon vs. Google") Yesterday, Publishers Weekly ran "The Amazoning of Google? Search Firm Looks for Book Content" [via TVC Alert]:

[ ] Amazon's desire to enhance its search tool could up the stakes for everyone. By awakening the sleeping copy in books, Amazon might finally be drawing the publishing industry into the same arena of other print media, which long gave up trying to shield itself from the Web, in turn creating a wealth of book content online—and plenty of disagreement among publishers and authors.

Resistance Is Futile?

C.E. Petit has a lengthy post today on Amazon's Search Inside the Book, and why it has angered him and some of his clients. Bottom line, according to C.E.: "[T]his should have been done on an opt-in basis, not an opt-out basis." (From what I can tell, C.E. is jumping the gun thinking Amazon may have pulled the service; all the searches I ran over the weekend continue to include the Search Inside results.)

Also examining Search Inside, Jon Udell describes how the service adds value for the book owner—"Now the physical book I bought from Amazon is more valuable to me. Its printed index has been augmented by a vastly more capable online index."—while recognizing it's not hard to see how the technology could foster abuse. Jon's musings about whether and how such local search services will federate are quite fascinating too.