Corante

AUTHORS

Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )

About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development, and technological innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying and the law, and more.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

COPYFIGHTERS
a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Benlog
beSpacific
bIPlog
Blogaritaville
Blogbook IP
BoingBoing
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
CoCo
Commons-blog
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyfutures
Copyright Readings
Copyrighteous
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Detritus
Julian Dibbell
DigitalConsumer
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
DTM:<|
Electrolite
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
GrepLaw
James Grimmelmann
GrokLaw
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
ICANNWatch.org
Illegal-art.org
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
IPTAblog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
LawMeme.org
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
miniLinks
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Napsterization
Nerdlaw
NQB
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Slapnose
Slashdot.org
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Teleread
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
Weblogg-ed
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

LINKABLE + THINKABLE
AKMA
Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
bk
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crawlspace
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Dispositive
Ben Edelman
EEJD
Ernie the Attorney
FedLawyerGuy
Foreword
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IPnewsblog
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Kuro5hin.org
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
Misbehaving
MIT Tech Review
NewsGrist
OtherMag
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
PHOSITA
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

ORGANIZATIONS
ARL
Berkman @ Harvard
CDT
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
CPSR
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
DigitalConsumer.org
DFC
EFF
EPIC
FIPR
FCC
FEPP
FSF
Global Internet Proj.
ICANN
IETF
ILPF
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
PFF
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office
W3C


In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Copyfight

« Judiciary Committee To Discuss Induce Act Thursday | Main | What You See Is Where You Are »

July 20, 2004

Audible - Do Not Distribute, Alter or Edit Audio of 9/11 Hearings

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

Audible, the audio e-books site, is making the 9-11 Commission hearings available for download, free. Go Audible. I'd link to the specific page, but you can't.

In order to download the files you have to register with Audible. Okay. Understandable, sell your personal information for Audible's bandwidth. You also have to download Audible's proprietary file organizer. Again, understandable. These requirements are not particularly admirable, but Audible is a business. Even more strange, however, is that in order to download these public domain hearings, you have to agree to Audible's terms and conditions (which I can't provide a direct link to either):

When you "clickout" or otherwise "purchase" (referred to herein, collectively as "Purchase") Audible Content from the Audible Service, Audible grants you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to download or stream such Audible Content to your computer and/or your Device(s) solely for your personal non-commercial use. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute or use the Audible Content in any other manner. You shall not sell, transfer, lease, modify, distribute or publicly perform the Audible Content in any manner and you shall not exploit it commercially. Do not (A) decompile, disassemble, or reverse engineer the Audible Content or attempt to do so; or (B) modify the Audible Content or create any derivative works therefrom. [emphasis in original]
Gosh how I love the way some companies claim dominion over the public domain.

Bonus: The White House provides the President's weekly radio address in Real format so that you can't download it (White House Radio).

via MacSlash

Comments (9) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: IP Abuse


COMMENTS

1. Elizabeth Townsend on July 20, 2004 2:41 PM writes...

So what kind of legal standing doese this create? Does access and formatting allow those legal qualifications under contract law, even though it is public domain? Does one ignore it, in the sense that quoting directly from the document sans audible would be ok? This is similar to lexis and westlaw, both of what put restrictions on public domain government documents.

Permalink to Comment

2. Terry Steichen on July 21, 2004 10:42 AM writes...

As distasteful as this conclusioin is to me, I suspect that if a person obtains public domain recordings via a (presumably) enforceable terms of use, they are bound by those terms of use, no matter what their intrinsic rights to the underlying content might be.

I notice a lot of news sites seek in a similar way to apply restrictive terms of service to content that probably enjoys no copyright protection (such as headlines).

Love to hear some arguments that terms of service don't trump intrinsic rights. Any takers?

Permalink to Comment

3. Jon Lech Johansen on July 21, 2004 5:38 PM writes...

If you download the hearings from the iTunes Music Store instead you'll get DRM'ed MPEG4 AAC files which can be decrypted with DeDRMS.
http://nanocrew.net/software/

Permalink to Comment

4. Elizabeth Townsend on July 21, 2004 8:56 PM writes...

Interesting. My mom sent me an excerpt from Salon today on a site that has an online
storehouse of D.C. documents on the public record.

outragedmoderates.org

I think an argument can be made a public document with mulitple access points is a public document, and can be used in any way one wants, regardless of what some may want. This is a thought for the afternoon.

Permalink to Comment

5. Eli on July 21, 2004 11:40 PM writes...

Happily, some (though not all) of the 9/11 commission hearings are archived online by radio station KPFA, with streaming and download (in MP3 format) for some of the files.

http://www.kpfa.org/911hearings/

Permalink to Comment

6. Terry Steichen on July 22, 2004 7:36 PM writes...

Elizabeth Townsend (above) says: "I think an argument can be made a public document with mulitple access points is a public document, and can be used in any way one wants, regardless of what some may want."

My point - which her response doesn't appear to address - is, if you obtain a public document in a manner that, arguably, commits you to certain terms of use, are you not bound by those terms of use, even if other sources of the same document are available that do not impose such terms?

In other words, would it be prudent advise people to be *very* careful as to precisely how they get public information?

Permalink to Comment

7. Rolo Timassie on July 22, 2004 8:48 PM writes...

You guys want Audible to write a whole new set of terms and conditions just for this one file? Do you know how much that costs?

Permalink to Comment

8. Elizabeth Townsend on July 23, 2004 4:32 PM writes...

I guess the question becomes why shoudl the public be very careful how we get public domain documents? That seems crazy and not really legal in some way, unless one is specifically talking about acess restraints. But once something is in the public domain, the public is free to do with it what they want.

As to the second comment by Rolo Timassie, it would if Audible would include in their terms and conditions that public domain works do not fall under the restraints, even if they appear on their site, that it is a public service they are providing. That wouldn't take much time and expense, but would cover the problem nicely,don't you think?

Permalink to Comment

9. Terry Steichen on July 29, 2004 11:41 AM writes...

Elizabeth Townsend said: "I guess the question becomes why shoudl the public be very careful how we get public domain documents? That seems crazy and not really legal in some way, unless one is specifically talking about acess restraints. But once something is in the public domain, the public is free to do with it what they want."

Again, it seems to me that if a person enters into an arguably binding contract (as a condition for access to a document or whatever), they are bound by those conditions even if they later find another way to get the same document (because, for example, it's really in the public domain).

Sure, it seems dumb (and might be dumb). But the existance of other (completely free) methods to obtain the document don't remove the obligations incurred. So, as always, caveat emptor.

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Apple I Reaches CAFC
Macmillan Pretends It Can Plug Analog Hole
Pomplamoose is Still Making It
Why Make the Secondary Market?
Lexi Alexander vs the Copyright Cartel
Digital Homicide Studio v Fair Use
The Art of Asking for "The Art of Asking"
Two Copyright-in-Gaming