How to combat internet piracy, the daily theft of copyrighted music, films and other digital goods? Our congressional leaders think they’ve figured it out, and their solution is called the Protect IP Act. The only problem is that the pending legislation creates more problems than it solves. Kirby Ferguson, creator of the Everything is a Remix video series, explains. And The New York Times offers its own objections….

Demystifying the Protect IP Act is a post from: Open Culture

Anyone know what law these dancers were violating, since the arresting officer apparently doesn’t know (or won’t say)?

Update: This article/post gives you the backstory. It explains that the dancers were “there protesting a … court decision [handed down] earlier this month that upheld a ban on dancing within the memorial.” The members of the “civil danceobedience“ were charged with demonstrating without a permit, and then released a short time after. That’s the answer to the question, in short…

via BoingBoing

Don’t Dance at the Jefferson Memorial: A Quick PSA is a post from: Open Culture

The Bill of Rights: Birthday Webcast Today is a post from: Open Culture

Singh decided to fight back. Two years later, the British Chiropractic Association has received a great deal more public scrutiny than it bargained for, while Singh and his predicament have become the cause célèbre of a rapidly growing movement to reform England’s notorious libel law. London’s status as “Libel Capital of the World “ has begun to teeter.

The chain of events began April 19, 2008, on the “Comment and Debate” page of The Guardian: “This is Chiropractic Awareness Week,” wrote Singh. “So let’s be aware.  How about some awareness that may prevent harm and help you make truly informed choices?”  From there Singh went on to report that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, had claimed that “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae.” Even now, Singh wrote, modern chiropractors still hold some “quite wacky ideas.”  The lawsuit revolves around a particular passage, quoted last week in a court document:

“The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence.  This organization is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.”

When the BCA objected, The Guardian offered to make space available for a rebuttal — if there was “a jot of evidence,” the BCA could present it.  Instead, the organization declined the offer and sued the writer.

At the time, Singh was promoting his new book, Trick or Treatment: Alternative Medicine on Trial, which he co-wrote with Edzard Ernst.  Several of his earlier books were international bestsellers, including Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe, and Fermat’s Last Theorem, which was published in America as Fermat’s Enigma: The Epic Quest to Solve the World’s Greatest Mathematical Problem.  The commercial success of Singh’s books enabled him to absorb the enormous expense of fighting a case in the British libel courts.

Singh was dealt a serious setback in a preliminary hearing last May, when a judge ruled that the writer’s phrase “happily promotes bogus treatments” amounted to a factual claim that the BCA was intentionally dishonest – an interpretation of meaning which Singh flatly denied.  Singh appealed the decision, and last Thursday, in a ruling that may prove to be a watershed, not only in Singh’s case but in the larger struggle for libel reform, the England and Wales Court of Appeal reversed the lower court judge’s decision and cleared the way for Singh to use a “fair comment” clause in his defense.

In the written decision, Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge commented on the societal impact of the BCA’s action.  “It is now nearly two years since the publication of the offending article,” Lord Judge wrote. “It seems unlikely that anyone would dare repeat the opinions expressed by Dr. Singh for fear of a writ.  Accordingly this litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic.”

In the days following last week’s landmark decision, we talked with Singh by email.

OPEN CULTURE: Congratulations on your victory in the Court of Appeal.  How do you feel?

SIMON SINGH: I am delighted that the Court of Appeal has backed my interpretation of my own article, namely that the British Chiropractic Association is reckless, but not dishonest.  I will still have to defend my article at trial, but I will be defending something I meant to write, as opposed to an extreme accusation that never existed in the first place.  Although this is a big step forward for me, there is still a long way to go on libel reform in the UK.  English libel laws are the worst in the free world, and they need radical reform so that other scientists and journalists do not find themselves in my position next year.

OPEN CULTURE: What happens next?

SIMON SINGH: I think the British Chiropractic Association is in a difficult position, but it has three choices.  First, it could take the case to trial, which is fine by me because I would relish the opportunity to discuss my article in a courtroom.  Second, it could appeal last week’s decision and go to the Supreme Court, but again this is fine by me because I would relish the opportunity to discuss my article in such an elevated forum.  Third, it could abandon the case, but the BCA would have to pay my costs before being allowed to walk away.

OPEN CULTURE: Those costs have been considerable, haven’t they?

SIMON SINGH: I estimate that in my case both parties have run up bills of over £300,000, of which £200,000 has been spent establishing the meaning.

OPEN CULTURE: The Appeal Court ruling quotes Milton on the imprisonment of Galileo, and warns that under current law the court is invited to become “an Orwellian ministry of truth.”  Do you think the tide is turning in favor of libel reform?

SIMON SINGH: I think the Appeal Court judges were sending a clear message that they are unhappy with libel law, which should encourage politicians to act radically on libel reform.  All the main parties seem keen to reform our libel laws, but this is not yet in the manifestos of the two main parties.  I think the pressure from campaigners, the public and the legal profession will ultimately encourage the next government to reform libel, but we have to maintain the pressure.

OPEN CULTURE: What makes English libel law so onerous?

SIMON SINGH: There is so much wrong with English libel law that it is hard to know where to start.  It is horrendously expensive, which forces writers to back down even if they are right, because they cannot afford to defend their writing.  It has been estimated that an English libel trial can easily cost over £1 million, and this is over 100 times more than the cost of an average libel case in mainland Europe.  Second, there is the problem that large corporations can sue lone scientists, journalists and bloggers, which again forces them to back down because they are up against such powerful and rich organizations.  Third, the burden of proof is uneven, because writers are assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.  Fourth, there is no so-called robust public interest defense, namely something that would protect writers commenting on important issues.  The law should encourage such debate, not silence it.  Finally, there is a problem of libel tourism, whereby overseas companies sue overseas writers in London because they know that English libel law is hostile to journalists.

OPEN CULTURE: Why should this concern someone living away from the British Isles?

SIMON SINGH: The issue of libel tourism means that everyone in the world should be scared of the English libel law.  If you write anywhere in the world about a billionaire, then the London court can probably claim jurisdiction because the material can probably be read in England over the internet and billionaires typically have business interests in England so they can claim to have a reputation in England.  There are many cases of libel tourism, such as Saudi billionaires suing an American journalist, a U.S. company suing a Danish researcher, an Israeli technology company threatening to sue a paper written by a Swedish professor, a Tunisian man suing a German newspaper, an Icelandic bank suing a Danish newspaper, and so on – all these cases ended up in London, the libel capital of the world.

OPEN CULTURE: Libel law affects all forms of journalism and free expression, but the British scientific community has been especially outspoken on this issue.  Richard Dawkins for example gave a high-profile speech on the problem.  Why are scientists, in particular, so up in arms?

SIMON SINGH: I think scientists are at the forefront of the campaign for libel reform because science can only progress through open discussion and robust debate and criticism.  I think the public accepts that libel is important for protecting the reputation of individuals, but they now realize that there must be a problem when libel blocks scientific discussion.  In addition to my case, in the last year we have seen the science journalist Ben Goldacre, the cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst, the Swedish linguist Professor Lacerda and the Danish medical researcher Henrik Thomsen all being sued for libel in London.  The libel laws block our right to discuss scientific ideas, but they also block the public’s right to hear these ideas.

OPEN CULTURE: With everything that has happened, have you been able to carry on with your work as a writer?  Are you writing a new book?

SIMON SINGH: As well as the legal costs, I have also lost out because my income has been seriously damaged by my inability to write.  I should be writing a new book now, but I cannot even submit a book proposal because I don’t know if I would ever be able to deliver it.  Right now I am spending the majority of my time on my own legal case, and devoting any spare time to the campaign for libel reform.

OPEN CULTURE: Are you working with any organizations to bring about reform?

SIMON SINGH: I am working closely with three charities (Sense About Science, English PEN and Index on Censorship), who have formed the Libel Reform Coalition.  We have a petition for libel reform and we welcome signatories from around the world, because English libel law affects writers all over the globe.  I hope that readers will add their names to the petition at www.libelreform.org/sign — I have spent over a million minutes of my life defending my article and my right to free speech, so I hope readers will take one minute to show their support.

This article was contributed by Mike Springer, a journalist in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Libel Reform: A Conversation with Simon Singh is a post from: Open Culture

Flumotion and the Open Video Alliance will be streaming a live event on Thursday, February 25^th featuring Lawrence Lessig, the foundational voice of the free culture movement. The 45-minute speech will be delivered live from Harvard Law School via Flumotion’s Streaming Platform, and will explore the relationship between copyright, fair use, politics and online video. The speech takes place at 6:00 PM local time (23:00 GMT) and [can be watched live here.]

Get more details from Flumotion here.

PS On a related note, TEDxNYED will stream talks live on March 6th.  Speakers will include Lawrence Lessig, Henry Jenkins, Jeff Jarvis, Michael Wesch and others. Looks like a great event. Get more details here.

Lawrence Lessig Speech Streamed Live Today is a post from: Open Culture

Offered as a free e-book for one day only, February 1: Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates. “[Adrian Johns] traces the tensions between authorized and unauthorized producers and distributors of books, music, and other intellectual property in British and American culture from the 17th century to the present. . . . The shifting theoretical arguments about copyright and authorial property are presented in a cogent and accessible manner. Johns’s research stands as an important reminder that today’s intellectual property crises are not unprecedented, and offers a survey of potential approaches to a solution.”

For more free eBooks, please visit our collection of Free eBooks.

PIRACY: A Free eBook (Today Only) is a post from: Open Culture

Public confidence in the U.S. House and Senate is at an all-time low, and, after last week’s Supreme Court decision, it’s bound to sink even lower. On January 19th (the day before the decision), Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig returned to Stanford and highlighted the degree to which “institutional corruption” — in the form of lobbyists and corporate influence — pervades Congress, dictates legislation, and brings large sums of money to campaigns and, yes, even representatives’ personal bank accounts. (Roughly 50% of U.S. Senators become lobbyists, working for industries they once assisted politically, and earn substantial incomes.) The talk, accompanied by a rapid fire PowerPoint presentation, runs a solid hour and details various instances in which lobbyists have shaped unfathomably bad legislation. Happily, the talk also ends with Lessig outlining possible solutions. Policy changes can offer some answers. But, a lot of it comes down to this: getting the passive privileged to rein in a corrupted elite.

Note: To see Lessig’s immediate response to the SCOTUS decision, look here.

Lessig on Political Corruption in America is a post from: Open Culture

UPDATE/NOTE FROM READER: “This has already been done for the US Supreme Court, and very well, at oyez.org.  Oyez is easy to use, has lots of additional content, including summaries and audio of oral arguments, and is ad-free and Creative Commons licensed for its original content.  Plus, you can search by court term, Justice, and the name of the legal counsel.” An alternative source to look at…

Google Puts Supreme Court Opinions Online is a post from: Open Culture

Last year, Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Stanford, gave what was supposed to be his last talk on the modern copyright regime that once benefited creativity but now stifles it and brings big bucks to corporations. But, at EDUCAUSE last week, he came back as the keynote speaker and returned to these still-burning issues once again. Lessig has posted his artfully presented talk online, and you can now watch it above.

PS Once you start the video, it will take a little while for you to see anything.

Lawrence Lessig Speaks Once Again About Copyright and Creativity is a post from: Open Culture

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlM6mpBptvU

Crime writer Dominick Dunne passed yesterday today at 83, his death overshadowed by that of Ted Kennedy. Above, we feature Dunne remembering his rather unpleasant relationship with Frank Sinatra. It’s a perverse story, though told in a somewhat humorous way.

Initially, I considered featuring another video, but it’s entirely too sad, especially for any parents among us. Back in 1982, Dunne’s daughter, an actress, was strangled to death by her boyfriend. And, in this clip, Dunne reflects on his relationship with his daughter. A heartbreaking bit.

As a side note, Dunne kept a diary during the trial of his daughter’s murderer. The account was eventually published in Vanity Fair, and you can find it here, along with many other major pieces that Dunne wrote for VF. Amazingly, the murderer was convicted and served less than 4 years. Meanwhile, millions who have peddled small amounts of drugs are doing considerably more time across the US.

Dominick Dunne Looks at the Dark Side is a post from: Open Culture