Thursday, June 20, 2002

Summary of the Determination of the Librarian of Congress on Rates and Terms for Webcasting and Ephemeral Recordings. CARP Summary of Webcasting Rates Today the Library of Congress published their determination of rates for Webcasting and Ephemeral Recording. The official post is at http://www.copyright.gov/carp/webcasting_rates_final.html However I suspect the site will be loaded, so here is the complete summary in full. Summary of the Determination of the Librarian of Congress on Rates and Terms for Webcasting and Ephemeral Recordings The Librarian of Congress has accepted the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights and rejected the rates and terms recommended by a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) for the statutory license for eligible nonsubscription services to perform sound recordings publicly by means of digital audio transmissions ("webcasting") under 17 U.S.C. §114 and the statutory license to make ephemeral recordings of sound recordings for use of sound recordings under 17 U.S.C. §112. In place of the rates recommended by the CARP (see CARP recommendations), the Librarian has adopted the following rates: Type of DMCA – Compliant Service Performance Fee (per performance) (Section 114) Ephemeral License Fee (Section 112) Proposed by CARP Adopted by Librarian Proposed by CARP Adopted by Librarian Simultaneous Internet retransmission of over-the-air AM or FM radio broadcasts (“Radio retransmission”) (whether transmitted by a broadcaster or a webcaster). 0.07¢ 9% of Performance Fees Due 8.8% of Performance Fees Due All other Internet transmissions (“Internet-only” transmissions) (whether transmitted by a broadcaster or a webcaster) 0.14¢ 0.07¢ Non-CPB, Non-Commercial Broadcaster     Simultaneous Internet retransmissions of over-the-air AM or FM broadcasts. 0.02¢ 0.02¢   Archived programming subsequently transmitted over the Internet, substituted programming and up to 2 side channels 0.05¢   Transmissions on any other side channels. 0.14¢ 0.07¢ Business Establishment Service [17 U.S.C. § 114(d)(1)(C)(iv)] Statutorily Exempt 10% of Gross Proceeds Minimum Fee for Business Establishment Service   $500 $10,000 Combined Minimum Fee for all other Services (Performance and Ephemeral) $500 for each licensee The most significant difference between the CARP’s determination and the Librarian’s decision is that the Librarian has abandoned the CARP’s two-tiered rate structure of 0.14¢ per performance for “internet-only” transmissions and 0.07¢ for each retransmission of a performance in an AM/FM radio broadcast, and has decided that the rate of 0.07¢ will apply to both types of transmission. Some of the rates for noncommercial broadcasters have also been decreased, and the fee webcasters and broadcasters must pay for the making of ephemeral recordings has been reduced from 9% of the performance fees to 8.8%. The minimum payment for business establishment services was increased to $10,000. Background In 1998, Congress amended Section 114 of the Copyright Act to provide that eligible nonsubscription services may publicly perform copyrighted sound recordings by means of digital audio transmissions if they comply with the terms of a new statutory license. Transmissions eligible for the statutory license must be noninteractive and the primary purpose of the service must be to provide audio or other entertainment programming to the public. A number of additional requirements are set forth in Section 114. Services that have taken advantage of this statutory license have included webcasters and broadcasters who use the Internet to retransmit the over-the-air broadcasts of AM or FM radio stations or who transmit their own original programming which includes copyrighted sound recordings of musical works. Section 112 of the Copyright Act provides that a service transmitting performances of sound recordings under the Section 114 statutory license may make “ephemeral copies” of the phonorecords on which the sound recordings appear in order to facilitate their transmission. Server copies that are used by webcasters in the transmission of performances of sound recordings fall within this license. In addition to webcasters and other services operating under the Section 114 statutory license, services that transmit performances to business establishments for use on the business establishments’ premises -- and whose transmissions are exempt from liability -- may take advantage of the Section 112 statutory license to make ephemeral recordings that facilitate their transmissions of sound recordings. Sections 112 and 114 require that rates for the statutory licenses for webcasting and for ephemeral recordings must be the rates that most clearly represent the rates that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller. If the services using the statutory license and the copyright owners (usually record companies) of the sound recordings cannot agree on the royalty rates for the license, the rates and some of the terms of the license are to be established by the Librarian of Congress, who is required to convene a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) composed of three independent arbitrators. The arbitrators conduct hearings, reviewing testimony and evidence from copyright owners and services using the statutory license, and deliver a report to the Librarian with their recommended rates and terms. The Register of Copyrights reviews that report and recommends to the Librarian whether to adopt the rates and terms set forth in the CARP’s report, or to reject those rates and terms and adopt new rates and terms based on a full examination of the record created in the CARP proceeding. A CARP to determine the rates and terms for these two statutory licenses commenced on July 30, 2000. The primary task of the CARP, and ultimately of the Librarian, was to determine what were the marketplace rates for the transmission of performances of sound recordings on the Internet during the relevant time period, from October 28, 1998 through December 31, 2002, and what were the marketplace rates for making ephemeral recordings of sound recordings for the same period. The CARP Report On February 20, 2002, the CARP delivered its report. It concluded that the best evidence of the marketplace rate for webcasting, including both retransmissions of radio broadcast signals and transmissions of original programming produced for Internet transmission, could be found in an agreement reached by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), representing record companies that own the copyrights in the vast majority of sound recordings subject to the statutory license, and Yahoo!, Inc., a major webcaster and Internet retransmitter of broadcast radio signals. Based on the rates established in that agreement, the CARP concluded that a service transmitting original Internet programming (“Internet-only” services) should pay a royalty of 0.14¢ for each performance that it transmits, and that a service retransmitting a radio broadcast should pay a royalty of 0.07¢ for each performance that it retransmits. For purposes of paying the royalty, each transmission to each individual recipient is counted as one performance. Noncommercial broadcasters who are not affiliated with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which negotiated a separate royalty rate in a private agreement) would pay a royalty of 0.02¢ for each simultaneous Internet retransmission of an over-the-air AM or FM broadcast, 0.05¢ for other Internet retransmissions, including up to two side channels of programming consistent with the station’s public broadcasting mission, and 0.14¢ for transmissions on any other side channels. The CARP also concluded that for each service operating under the Section 114 performance license, the Section 112 ephemeral license royalty should be 9% of the Section 114 performance royalty fees paid by that service. For a service transmitting performances of sound recordings to business establishments (for which no performance royalty is required), the ephemeral license royalty would be 10% of the service’s gross proceeds from the use of musical programs which are attributable to copyrighted recordings. The CARP also concluded that all services should be subject to a minimum fee of $500. The Register’s Recommendation and the Librarian’s Decision On the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, the Librarian rejected the CARP’s determination because significant portions of it were arbitrary or contrary to law. Where the Librarian could not accept the CARP’s recommendations, he has adopted rates and terms that are justified based on the evidence presented in the CARP proceeding and the requirements of the law. Otherwise, he has adopted the CARP’s reasoning and recommendations. The Librarian is required to accept the CARP’s determination unless he concludes that the determination is arbitrary or contrary to the applicable provisions of the copyright law. When aspects of the CARP’s determination are found to be arbitrary or contrary to law, the Librarian may substitute his own judgment for that of the CARP, but he will still give deference to those aspects of the CARP’s determination which were not arbitrary or contrary to law. Applying those principles, the Librarian accepted the CARP’s conclusion that the RIAA/Yahoo! agreement represented the best evidence of what rates would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller for a license to engage in webcasting of radio retransmissions and Internet-only transmissions. The Librarian also accepted much of the CARP’s analysis of how the RIAA/Yahoo! agreement demonstrated the marketplace rate for webcasting rates. The RIAA/Yahoo! agreement provided for a lump sum payment of xxx* for the first xxx transmissions, and the CARP calculated a “blended” per performance rate [of xxx¢ per performance] by dividing the amount of the lump sum payment by the number of performances for which it was made. For transmissions after the first [xxx] transmissions, the RIAA/Yahoo! agreement provided for two per-performance rates: a relatively high rate for Internet-only performances and a relatively low rate for radio retransmissions. The CARP concluded that the Internet-only rates in the agreement were artificially high and the rates for radio retransmissions were artifically low, a result of RIAA’s strategy to agree to a lower rate for radio retransmissions in order to obtain the higher rate for Internet-only transmissions. The CARP found that RIAA wanted the high Internet-only transmission rate in order to establish a precedent to present to the CARP in support of the rate for Internet-only transmissions that it had been seeking in negotiations with other parties and that it was seeking in the CARP proceeding. The CARP also concluded that Yahoo! was indifferent as to the disparity between the agreed-upon Internet-only and radio retransmission rates, because it was only concerned about the overall effective rate that it would pay. It concluded that in negotiating the agreement, Yahoo! perceived the high Internet-only and low radio retransmission rates “as tantamount to a blended rate of [xxx¢].” The Librarian accepted these findings. However, the Librarian concluded that the CARP misinterpreted some aspects of the RIAA/Yahoo! agreement. One of the most significant errors by the CARP was its conclusion that the parties must have agreed that radio retransmissions have a tremendous positive promotional impact on sales of phonorecords – an impact that it did not find Internet-only transmissions have – and that this promotional impact explained the decision of RIAA and Yahoo! to set a higher rate for Internet-only transmissions. In fact, both the broadcasters (who benefitted from the CARP’s conclusion regarding promotional value) and RIAA agree that there was no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that RIAA and Yahoo! considered and made adjustments for promotional value for radio retransmissions. The Librarian agreed with the Register of Copyrights that the CARP’s conclusion about promotional value was arbitrary and was not supported by the evidence in the record, which provided no basis for concluding that radio retransmissions provide a promotional value that Internet-only transmissions do not provide. The CARP recommended different rates for Internet-only transmissions and radio retransmissions, justifying the disparity in rates based on the alleged promotional value it found in radio retransmissions but not in Internet-only transmissions. Because this premise was arbitrary, the Librarian rejected the two-tiered royalty structure recommended by the CARP. In light of the CARP’s conclusion that Yahoo! cared only about obtaining the lowest overall effective rate for all of its transmissions, and in light of his rejection of the CARP’s rationale for setting a rate for Internet-only transmissions that was twice as high as the rate for radio retransmissions, the Librarian concluded that the evidence relating to the Yahoo! agreement leads to the conclusion that there is no basis for making any distinction between the marketplace rate for Internet-only transmissions and the marketplace rate for radio retransmissions. The Register of Copyrights calculated that the effective (or blended) royalty rate that RIAA and Yahoo! had agreed upon for all transmissions was 0.074¢ for each performance transmitted by Yahoo! to each individual recipient (i.e., Yahoo! effectively incurred an obligation to pay 0.074¢ for each recipient of each transmission of a performance of a sound recording). This rate was arrived at by calculating the average of (1) the blended rate [of xxx¢] for the first [xxx] transmissions, and (2) the blended rate [of xxx¢] that the CARP found Yahoo! had perceived it was paying for all subsequent transmissions. Thus, the final unitary rate of 0.074¢ captured the actual value of the performances made in the initial period and the projected value of the transmissions for the remainder of the license period, falling within the range of agreed values for those transmissions. The Librarian accepted 0.07¢ per performance, the effective or blended rate rounded to the nearest hundredth, as the rate for Internet-only transmissions and accepted it in principle as the rate for radio retransmissions. However, the law contains an exemption for all radio retransmissions that occur within a 150-mile radius of the originating radio station’s broadcast transmitter. Section 114 (d)(1)(B)(I) of the Copyright Act provides that any retransmission of a nonsubscription broadcast transmission is exempt from the sound recording copyright owner’s digital performance right, provided that “the radio station’s broadcast transmission is not willfully or repeatedly retransmitted more than a radius of 150 miles from the site of the radio broadcast transmitter.” Because the applicability of this provision to radio retransmissions made over the Internet might necessitate a further adjustment to the unitary rate, it was imperative that a determination be made regarding the applicability of the exemption to radio retransmissions. If a radio retransmission over the internet is exempt as long as the recipient is no further than 150 miles from the radio broadcast transmitter, then the 0.07¢ per performance royalty would have to be reduced to 0.02 ¢ per performance for radio retransmissions, in order to take into account the evidence in the record that approximately 70% of radio retransmissions are made to recipients within the 150-mile radius. Consequently, the Register issued an Order on June 5, 2002, asking the parties to brief the legal question. After carefully considering the statutory language in section 114(d)(1)(B)(I), its relationship to the section 112 of the Copyright Act, and the parties’ submissions, the Register concluded that the exemption does not apply to radio retransmissions over the Internet, and the Librarian accepted the Register’s conclusion. Section 112(e) provides a statutory license for the making of ephemeral recordings only to Licensees operating under the section 114 license or to Business Service Establishments entitled to transmit to the public a performance of a sound recording under an express statutory exemption. Had Congress meant the exemption for radio retransmissions made within a 150-mile radius of the radio station’s broadcast transmitter to extend to radio retransmissions over the Internet, it undoubtedly would have extended the section 112(e) license to cover a Service making these transmissions, since it is impractical to make those transmissions without making ephemeral recordings. Congress did not do so. Consequently, the better reading of the section 114(d)(1)(B)(I) is that the exemption does not apply to radio retransmissions made over the Internet. Having found no basis to make an adjustment to the unitary rate for radio retransmissions, the Register recommended no change to the unitary rate for radio retransmissions, and the Librarian accepted that recommendation. Webcasters and broadcasters asked that the Librarian reject the CARP’s approach and provide them with an option to pay a rate based on a percentage of their revenues, rather than a per-performance rate. However, the Panel concluded that a percentage of revenue approach was less desirable for a number of reasons. Those reasons included the CARP’s conclusion that a per-performance rate is directly tied to the right being licensed (i.e., the right of public performance). The CARP also observed that due to varying business models among webcasters, some of which offer features unrelated to music, identifying the relevant revenue base against which a percentage should be applied consistently would be complex and difficult. Finally, the CARP noted that because many webcasters are currently generating very little revenue, a percentage of revenue rate would require copyright owners to allow extensive use of their property with little or no compensation. The Librarian found these conclusions reasonable and saw no reason to abandon the CARP’s per performance approach. The Librarian also accepted the CARP’s conclusion that business-to-business webcasters should pay the same rate as business-to-consumer webcasters, the CARP’s decision not to set a separate, higher rate for listener-influenced webcasting services, and the CARP’s conclusion that the rate for archived radio programming, side channels and substituted programming should be the same as the rate for Internet-only programming. Noncommercial broadcast stations not affiliated with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting asked the CARP to set a reduced statutory rate applicable to their transmissions. The CARP agreed that there should be reduced rates for transmissions made by non-CPB, noncommercial stations to reflect their unique funding structure, noting that noncommercial stations depend upon funding from the government, business and viewers whereas commercial broadcasters generate a revenue stream through advertising. The CARP was persuaded in part by precedent from prior CARP proceedings involving the statutory license for use of certain works in connection with noncommercial broadcasting (Section 118 of the Copyright Act) which had already established that a noncommercial station should pay a lower rate than a commercial broadcast station for similar use of a copyrighted work. Noting that RIAA had proposed a two-thirds discount from the commercial broadcaster rate for non-CPB, noncommercial broadcasters based on prior CARP precedent under Section 118, the CARP set the rate at one-third the commercial broadcaster rate. However, non-CPB, noncommercial broadcasters did not get unfettered discretion to make all transmissions at the reduced rate. In order to avoid the possibility of a noncommercial broadcaster gaining a competitive advantage over commercial broadcasters and webcasters who initiate Internet-only programs and do so at a higher cost, the CARP limited the non-CPB, noncommercial broadcasters’ ability to make unlimited transmissions over the Internet at the reduced rate. The Librarian accepted the Panel’s approach to adjusting the rates for the non-CPB, noncommercial rates and made the necessary adjustments to reflect the new base rate for transmissions of sound recordings over the Internet. RIAA sought a surcharge for performances of music that last more than 5 minutes, and webcasters sought an exemption from royalties for performances that last less than 30 seconds. The CARP rejected these requests, and the Librarian accepted those rulings. Because not all webcasters have kept detailed records of the performances they have transmitted up to now, the CARP concluded that for all transmissions up to 30 days after the effective date of the rates and terms announced by the Librarian, services would be permitted to estimate the number of their performances at 15 per hour (or 1 per hour in the case of radio retransmissions of news, business, talk or sports stations, and 12 performances per hour in the case of other radio retransmissions). The Librarian found this reasonable, but concluded that the estimation methodology should be available to services using the statutory license for the remainder of the current rate period (i.e., through December 31, 2002). The CARP’s 30-day cutoff for estimation was arbitrary in light of the fact that rules for services’ reporting on use of sound recordings have not yet been established, and many services are not currently equipped to track or accurately account for each performance. In the long run, services will be expected to provide more detailed information. Section 112 Rates a. Webcasters. The CARP also recommended rates for the Section 112 license for “ephemeral” recordings used to facilitate the transmission of performances of sound recordings. The CARP was required to set a rate based on the willing buyer/willing seller standard, and therefore examined agreements between RIAA and several webcasters to determine what rates were actually negotiated in the marketplace. The Librarian found that the CARP’s approach was fundamentally sound, but that the CARP erred in relying, in part, on 25 agreements that it had found unreliable as bases for determining the rate for transmissions of performances. Setting aside those agreements, the RIAA/Yahoo! agreement remained as the sole evidence of a marketplace rate for ephemeral copies. The CARP calculated that the royalty paid by Yahoo! resulted in an effective rate of 8.8% of the performance royalties paid by Yahoo! It then adjusted the 8.8% royalty upward to 9% to take into account somewhat higher royalties paid pursuant to some of the other agreements. Because the CARP’s reliance on those other agreements was arbitrary, the Librarian reduced the ephemeral royalty to 8.8% of the performance fees due from a service. Webcasters argued that ephemeral recordings have no economic value, relying on a 2001 report by the Copyright Office that was critical of the Section 112 statutory license and concluded that there was no rationale for the imposition of a royalty obligation under a statutory license to make copies that have no independent economic value and are made solely to enable another use that is permitted under a separate license. But the Register could not recommend that the Librarian follow this approach, observing that the Librarian’s obligation in this proceeding is to apply the law as it is, rather than disregard the law in favor of the Register’s policy preference. For each of the licenses discussed thus far, the Librarian accepted the CARP’s proposed minimum fee of $500, which covers both the Section 112 and Section 114 licenses. b. Business Establishment Services. The CARP set a different rate for business establishment services, which enjoy an exemption for their transmissions of performances of sound recordings for use on the premises of businesses, but are subject to the Section 112 statutory license for making ephemeral recordings used to facilitate those transmissions. The Librarian found that the CARP’s rate of 10% of gross proceeds, based upon the CARP’s review of actual agreements in the marketplace, was not arbitrary, and in fact was at the low end of the range of rates set forth in agreements between major record labels and business establishment services. However, the Librarian concluded that the minimum fee of $500 set by the CARP was arbitrarily low. The Librarian adopted a minimum fee of $10,000, noting that the business establishment services participating in the CARP proceeding had proposed that their royalty for ephemeral recordings be a flat fee of $10,000. The Librarian also modified the CARP’s definition of gross proceeds due to practical difficulties with the definition recommended by the CARP. Effective Date The Librarian established September 1, 2002 as the effective date of the rates. That does not mean that no royalties are due for webcasters’ activities prior to September 1. Webcasters and others using the statutory licenses will have to pay royalties for all of their activities under the licenses since October 28, 1998. However, the September 1 effective date determines when the royalty payments will have to be made. Full payment of royalties for all pre-September 1 licensed activities must be made by October 20, 2002 (because the law provides that payments of arrears shall be made by the 20th day of the month following the month in which the royalty rate is set). Payment for the month of September shall be due on or before November 14, 2002, and payments for subsequent months will be due the 45th day after the end of each month for which royalties are owed. Note: Certain of the information in this summary has previously been designated by parties to the CARP proceeding as confidential. That information appears in the summary as "xxx". It is hoped that the parties will soon agree that this information can be made public. [Mary Wehmeier's Blog Du Jour] 6:06:18 PM    comment []

How Companies Go Public. Peek behind the financing curtain. [The Motley Fool] 1:39:06 PM    comment []

Dirk's post about EMusic.com got me interested in their business. These guys are actually clearing rights with owners and making downloadable music in mp3 format available. Sure, you won't find madonna, but there's plenty of good stuff here. They even have an 80's section. Woe is me! And it's legal! What's even slicker is their affiliate program. Download, Play, Burn MP3s!! it's like seeing a micro economy evolve before my very eyes. [Adam Curry: Adam Curry's Weblog] 1:38:28 PM    comment []

Brain expression response linked to personality. Extraverts viewing happy faces show much stronger activation of a key brain region involved in emotion than introverts [New Scientist] 1:37:52 PM    comment []

First picture of secretive carnivore. A relative of the mongoose, the animal was previously known only from a skin collected in 1932 [New Scientist] 1:37:34 PM    comment []

US and Russia launch hunt for lost radioactive material. Experts are poised to fan out across former Soviet countries to find material that could be used to make dirty bombs [New Scientist] 1:37:04 PM    comment []

Climate change linked to disease epidemics. Global warming is triggering disease epidemics in wildlife, a US team reports - but their conclusions are controversial [New Scientist] 1:36:50 PM    comment []

Cross-references For Blog Posts!. Wow - check out Matt Mower's blog Curiouser and Curiouser. He's hacked Radio to add a keywords field for posts. On his blog, the keywords appear at the end of each item and they link to related posts in an outline format that uses Marc Barrot's activeRenderer tool! I L-O-V-E this! They're traditional library "see also" references! So Matt, how do I add this to my site? I guess I should get serious about a thesaurus, too. [The Shifted Librarian] 1:35:46 PM    comment []

RIM Says It's Good to Sue. RIM Wednesday officially filed a complaint in a U.S. district court against rival upstart Good, alleging that the Sunnyvale, Calif. firm is using similar technology for its own software and services. [allNetDevices Wireless News] 1:22:22 PM    comment []

Announcing: "The RadioPoint Tool turns the outliner into a presentation authoring program." [Dave Winer: Radio UserLand] 9:11:27 AM    comment []

About American Invisible, Inc. This site is about writing and self publishing. It began as my attempt to write and promote a novel American Invisible, Inc., a tale about three people who live and work in New York City. Right now I'm managing to publish a section every day. To find out more, take a look at the About This Site link. Once the text version of the book is finished I'm aiming to produce an MP3 audiobook. I link to sites run by other authors because we all need all the help we can get. If you write full-length fiction or short stories on the web and you'd like a link or a review, let me know at americaninvisible@yahoo.com. [American Invisible, Inc.] 9:10:12 AM    comment []

"Living robot" Escapes Lab, Makes It To...Parking Lot [Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters] 9:00:41 AM    comment []

Clearing Jumbos for Takeoff. Here's something I expect to see end up in court. 'Passengers of Size' Pay Double on Southwest Jon Herskovitz DALLAS (Reuters) - Passengers who are too large to squeeze between the arm rests of Southwest Airlines Co. seats will be charged double for flying the low-cost carrier, the company said on Wednesday. The Dallas-based airline, which does not have first or business class sections with larger seats, said the policy has been in effect for some time but will be more strictly enforced beginning next week. Starting next Wednesday, its "people of size" policy will require passengers who need seat-belt extensions or cannot lower the arm rests on their seats to purchase two seats if they are flying on a plane near or at capacity. Not sure how I feel about this. I read somewhere [Antipixel] 9:00:16 AM    comment []

An Eco-disaster Waiting to Happen. Australia has introduced more non-native pests to its ecosystems than, I imagine, any other country. Now it's about to happen again – big time: Organic croppers cry ruin as all land is rated GM Stephanie Peatling, smh.com.au NSW has quietly ruled out setting aside land to be kept free of genetically engineered crops, prompting complaints by organic and canola farmers that this could destroy their businesses. [Antipixel] 8:59:55 AM    comment []

Why The Copyright Debate Over Digital Files Is So Important. Larry Lessig on Copy-protecting Aristotle: " 'I have bought a number of eBooks, including Aristotle’s Politics. Aristotle’s Politics, of course, was never copyrighted, but the Adobe eBook reader forbids me from printing any pages of the book because the permissions have been set to disable any printing. If I try to interfere with those permissions .. if I write a bit of code to disable the limitations that forbid me from printing Aristotle’s Politics from my Adobe eBook .. that would be circumventing an access technology, which under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a crime.' - Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig, as quoted in the Reason (found via Pocket PC eBooks Watch)." [TeleRead] Combined with the ridiculous case of the license for the ebook Alice in Wonderland that makes it a crime for parents to read the text out loud to their children, and you can see why librarians are worried about being able to circulate digital files in the future. Here's an example of the dilemna in which we find ourselves right now. I heard back from Salon that libraries can indeed purchase John Dean's ebook Unmasking Deep Throat and circulate it to their patrons as long as they take reasonable steps to prevent it from being copied. I was thrilled by this news, but now I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how a library would circulate it without paying $5000 for the Adobe Content Server. How is a library supposed to check the title in and out, get it to the person, get it back, and make sure the person doesn't keep a copy. I haven't been able to think of a way yet because Rocketbooks and Franklin eBookmans don't handle PDF files. There's no way to load it onto a patron's PDA, and we certainly wouldn't email it to or burn it on a CD for someone. Does anybody have a solution to this problem? [The Shifted Librarian] 8:58:05 AM    comment []

Mobile Phones Overtake Landlines in Japan. "No turning back for Japan: The number of mobile phone subscriptions has eclipsed fixed-line phones, including lines used for integrated services digital network (ISDN), for the first time in Japan, the government said." [Wired News] I could have sworn that I read somewhere this had already happened, but I guess it's official either way now. No wonder kids there are known as the "thumb generation." [The Shifted Librarian] 8:57:48 AM    comment []

Trivia Post #2. New on the Cable Dial: Interactive Games "Susquehanna's 16,500 digital subscribers in York, Pa., are now able to tune to channel 998 on their cable boxes and play any one of six trivia games provided by Buzztime Entertainment, an interactive game provider that has until recently focused on restaurants and bars. Viewers in York can compete against their neighbors in real time for prizes. Buzztime, a unit of NTN Communications, is seeking to add other cable operators to its trivia train, allowing viewers to race nationwide to their buzzers (which, in this case, are simply buttons on their remote controls). Playing the games is free with a digital cable subscription, but Buzztime hopes to offer other content for which it would charge." [New York Times, via Chris Van Buskirk's ITV Weblog] This would give a whole new meaning to game night at our house! This is a smart move on the part of Susquehanna and Buzztime, because they obviously realize the built-in audience of librarians they're wrapping up. [The Shifted Librarian] 8:57:19 AM    comment []

Trivia Post #1. "GameGoat is the internet's best wireless trivia game. Play trivia from any email address -- including 2-way pagers, internet-enabled cell phones, PDAs or ANY device that can send and receive email. Earn points while playing and see how you stack up against other GameGoat players!! GameGoat trivia is now available through AOL Instant Messenger!" (Thanks, Mark!) Short bet: Kate will have added GameGoat to Trillian by noon on Thursday.  ;-) Ethical dilemna: is it fair to have one chat window open for GameGoat and another one open for Google? [The Shifted Librarian] 8:56:50 AM    comment []

Free Literary Map. "Free Literary Map Literary Landmark Locator. Sure, all those public restroom databases are great, but wouldn't a map like this be cool on your PDA? Maybe add library locations?" [Library Techlog] Especially if you had a GPS-enabled PDA.... [The Shifted Librarian] 8:55:55 AM    comment []

New Term For Me: Random Area Networks (RANs). Collaborative Communications for Bluetooth PDAs "Inventop (www.proximitymail.com), a Bluetooth solutions developer, last week announced the availability of ProximityMail 1.0, a collaborative communications application for Bluetooth PDAs that is designed to enhance the way localized communities of people network, communicate, and collaborate. It is built on a technology platform called BluePing Network, which turns groups of Bluetooth PDAs into a spontaneous "random area network" without any additional infrastructure -and extends the effective range of Bluetooth. Users can create and subscribe to groups, broadcast, or send private messages and initiate contacts with other people in the same geographical proximity. Unlike other point-to-point networking or messaging products, such as SMS, IM, or email, ProximityMail allows users to communicate anonymously to groups of users, without knowing a specific user's PDA ID, phone number, or email address.... 'Proximity Mail demonstrates how an application can be used to create a small local community of Bluetooth wireless technology users without compromising user privacy. Socket continues to work with Inventop to advocate the use of Proximity Mail which can speed the adoption of Bluetooth technology.' Business travelers, business development managers and sales professionals could use ProximityMail at networking events like conferences and trade shows. Trade show organizers and exhibitors could potentially use ProximityMail to carry out their proximity promotional campaigns. At wireless "hot spots", such as your local mall or airport, ProximityMail can provide a link to coupons and other promotional information." [allNetDevices Wireless News] [The Shifted Librarian] 8:54:04 AM    comment []

You can always count of fark to point out an amazing fact. I had no idea just how loaded Donald Rumsfeld is. No wonder the guy's always smiling. [Adam Curry: Adam Curry's Weblog] 8:51:14 AM    comment []

Text messaging via television. Text2TV will let users send and receive cellphone text messages via their TV set - but will anyone want to? [New Scientist] 8:50:04 AM    comment []

Nano-stamps make smaller, cheaper chips. Imprinting features on silicon using microscopic stamp could mean more complex, cheaper microprocessors [New Scientist] 8:49:48 AM    comment []

Teachers Wanna Hold a Handheld. Educators look to handhelds, not laptops or desktop PCs, as the way to achieve a one-to-one ratio of students to computers. Katie Dean reports from San Antonio, Texas. [Wired News] 8:49:31 AM    comment []

Phil Ackley:  "Question of the day: Why did my neighbors place a jetski ontop of a picnic table on top of their garage?" [jenett.radio] 8:48:56 AM    comment []

Using the Java 1.4 logging API. O'Reilly has an article on using the Java 1.4 logging API. It doesn't answer the burning question, though, which is how the API compares to Log4j, which is pretty nice in its own right. It's unfortunate that the API described in the article isn't a drop-in replacement for Log4j, because from the looks off things, the two are very similar. The nicest feature of Log4j is that you can throw a config file for Log4j into your classpath and it will be picked up automatically. In each environment I use, I have a customized Log4j properties file ... that makes it easy to keep heavy duty logging enabled on my desktop machine, slightly lesser logging in development, and only logging of errors turned on in production. [rc3.org] 8:47:03 AM    comment []

I Got the iBook ... And I am in Awe... Of How Good it Is. I Got the iBook ... And I am in Awe... Of How Good it Is The iBook I mentioned a day or so ago arrived and I gave it to my partner and walked her through it.  By about 2 minutes in I was impressed, by the 5th minute I was fascinated and by the 7th minute I was in awe.  Everything from the OOBE (out of the box experience) right down to the littlest details like the screen savers was just plain, well, perfect.  And for all the people that have commented negatively about the eye candy (the animations when things launch) --- loved it!  I honestly don't think I have ever been so impressed by a computer.  Maybe when I saw the Mac for the first time perhaps.  It was just that good.  I'm still just grinning from it. You should note that I am a die hard Windows PC guy.  I've made commercial software for Windows boxes, and even for DOS boxes (yup) ever since 1987.  And this is the first time that I have ever even considered Apple a viable alternative.  Heck, it's not just viable -- it's a good alternative.  Take a look at Apple's new switch campaign and take it seriously: http://www.apple.com/switch Oh and my partner?  Did she like it?  How'd she feel?  I've never seen someone so enthralled by a computer.  She's just in love.  Oh and Kudos to Stephen Pierce of www.pcconnection.com for getting it to me on time and without any pain at all.  Apple iBook.  Strongly Recommended.  Two Thumbs Up and Snap.  Add Superlatives Here. It's Just a Wonderful Machine. P.S.  I just saw an Apple Switch to the Mac about 10 minutes after writing this.  Nicely done! [The FuzzyBlog!] 8:38:49 AM    comment []

WiFi. It'll Change How You Compute. WiFi.  It'll Change How You Compute I'm blogging this right now after a long day.  And I'm on the 2nd floor of my house connected by a WiFi link.  And I'm sitting up in bed with full Internet access.  This is just plain cool.  Here's some of the places that I've used my WiFi link from: Bed -- blogging Attic -- surfing Basement doing IM to Norway while folding laundry Kitchen -- reading www.slashdot.com while cooking Kitchen -- doing IM with Norway, California and Watertown, MA while I did the dishes Upstairs Bathroom -- No, not that! -- I was regrouting the tub while also doing an IM discussion with someone explaining my comment about how bookmarks just plain don't work Kitchen Table -- reading blogs while eating dinner or breakfast or lunch (yes, I do live alone) Front porch -- in a rocking chair while watching the sun rise So here's my contention -- Wifi is fundamentally changing how I compute.  I'm still plugged into the "collective" but I am also able to get other things done at the same time.  I'm no longer desk bound and that feels wonderful.  And, while some people will say that this is being just unbelievably geeky, I'm not so sure.  Is this really all that different from talking to someone on the phone while you do dishes?  Or work around the house?  Or is it that I'm now able to interact with some of my favorite people in a way that I really like?  And that helps with the thinking process (a lot of these essays are a result of an IM interaction).  This honestly doesn't feel geeky at all -- if anything it feels very human. Here's the other dimension that's being changed by WiFi: I read more.  Let's be honest here -- reading in a desk chair basically isn't a lot of fun.  It's not all that comfortable and when I really want to read is NOT when I'm doing email or trying to code or write documents.  I want to read when I am comfortably sitting on the couch or at the kitchen table while eating dinner or even sitting up in bed.  I can honestly see this actually cutting into the number of magazines I read regularly.  And, what do I read?  Mostly blogs to be honest.  And slashdot and I'm now starting to read Kuro5hin. WiFi.  You won't expect it to but it really can change how you compute.  At least for me, it makes the computing experience much more human by liberating me from the confines of my desk.  That's wonderful. [The FuzzyBlog!] 8:33:34 AM    comment []

If You Ever Buy Groceries With Your ATM Card, You Want to Read This. Check Your Bank Statement: Using that ATM Card May Cost You $1.50 PER PURCHASE! If You Ever Buy Groceries With Your ATM Card, You Want to Read This!!! NOTE: For international readers, this is U.S. centric (as far as I know). The Wall Street Journal yesterday ran an article about how when you use debit cards i.e. an ATM Card at the Grocery Store, you may be getting, well, royally screwed.  Apparently banks get less transaction fees when your ATM card is used as a debit card than as a credit card.  The difference here is that a debit card doesn't require a signature and, since the $$$ come out of your account in real time, there isn't even a chance of them making interest on the transaction.  They are arguing that the fees are justified because since there isn't a signature there is a greater chance of fraud.  Horse puckey I say.  Horse puckey.  That's what the PIN is for. So, rather than being the normal slacker, uninformed consumer that I am, I looked at my online bank statement.  Here's what I wrote someone in an email about this: It's not EVERY time you use the debit card that it costs $1.50 per transaction but it is at least some of the time.  This seems to be true at least for Super Stop and Shop part of the time.  06/14/02 Debit Card Purchase: Sssc Swampscot MA -103.47 06/14/02 ATM Network Fee -1.50 (that was my groceries). Here's the list of fees from 5/23 to 6/19: 06/19/02 ATM Network Fee -1.50 06/03/02 ATM Network Fee -1.50 06/10/02 ATM Network Fee -1.50 05/28/02 ATM Network Fee -1.50 06/14/02 ATM Network Fee -1.50 06/03/02 ATM Network Fee -1.50 06/10/02 ATM Network Fee -1.50 05/23/02 ATM Network Fee -1.50 05/31/02 ATM Network Fee -1.50 That's 9+.5*9 or 13.50 in BANK FEES!  JUST FOR USING MY ATM CARD! Talk about unbelievable, unrelenting, just plain unacceptable greed.  For years banks have been trying to get us all to use ATM cards for purchases.  And now this.  No wonder! Class action consumer lawsuit anyone? Fighing Back! I set up an email account, atmfees@blog.at to capture feedback.  If anyone wants to send emails of fees they've been charged that would be very cool.  I'll publish it in a week or two.  DO NOT send any sensitive financial info of course.  And I have mis-stated any facts, etc or someone has links to this piece (the WSJ has no permalinks for non subscribers) then email scott@fuzzygroup.com and I'll get them posted. The Stop and Shop complaint list is 800 767 7772 if this happens to be where you were screwed on fees (they're big in the north east at least). The Pennies Option I'm strongly tempted to start paying for groceries in pennies, dimes and quarters as a protest action.  A long time ago when The Interface Group (the producers of Comdex) treated me very, very poorly, I paid a $2,000 plus bill in about 18+ boxes of loose change shipped UPS to them.  And I didn't tell them who much was in each the box...  I never had a problem again.  After all... Legal Tender is Legal Tender.  This is very frustrating even for you but oh so satisfying.  A National Pay in Change Day anyone? Change My Bank As an FYI, my bank is Fleet out of Boston.  I suspect that I will NOT be a Fleet customer much longer.  Does anyone's bank not do this?  Any recommendations? Want to Forward this to Someone Else? If you want to send this to someone else, use this url: http://www.fuzzygroup.com/go/?atmfees (Hey -- a lot of people who aren't bloggers don't get the permalink icon so why not make it easy for them?) [The FuzzyBlog!] 8:32:56 AM    comment []

ImageCaster - a new image broadcasting tool. ImageCaster v1.0. - ImageCaster, just released by Econ Technologies, allows users to take virtually any image, from video cameras or other sources, and broadcast it on the WWW. Included in the long list of features is an extensive AppleScript dictionary which provides a great amount of flexibility and allows users to design truly custom solutions. Scripts can not only control the process but can also be invoked during the broadcast process. [AppleScript Info] [Mac Net Journal] 8:31:46 AM    comment []

Coursey favors OS X over Linux..hands down. ZDNet columnist David Coursey is repeating his experiment of living with a new operating system and writing about the experience in his new series on Linux, but he when push comes to shove, he still likes OS X more for its Unix capabilities than a Linux desktop: "If I were rating operating systems, Mac OS X would win on ease of use, but Windows XP would win overall usability (based solely on greater application support). Compared to either of these, and because OS X offers the same Unix benefits as Linux, I'd find desktop Linux hard to recommend except in very special circumstances." Read the entire article here: Why I've learned to like Linux (but not to love it) [Mac Net Journal] 8:31:32 AM    comment []

HP putting 4,000 contractors in limbo. In an effort to cut costs, Hewlett-Packard plans to furlough 4,000 contract workers this summer in its information technology department and may let many workers go entirely. [CNET News.com] 8:30:15 AM    comment []

VC watch: This week's funding wins. InFlow receives $35 million...KnowledgeNet raises $17.5 million...Captura catches $15 million. [CNET News.com] 8:29:55 AM    comment []

Wells Fargo to process PayPal payments. The banking giant will handle credit card transactions for the online payment company under a deal the two are expected to announce on Thursday. [CNET News.com] 8:29:18 AM    comment []

Sun rises to Web services challenge. roundup Sun Microsystems has Microsoft in its sights, with an offering of free software and the possibility of a seat in a key Web services organization. [CNET News.com] 8:28:55 AM    comment []

Netflix cranks up DVD distribution. With 10 new distribution centers opening throughout the country, the online DVD-rental company believes it has the capacity to handle up to 1 million orders each day. [CNET News.com] 8:28:33 AM    comment []

Isn't it about time the Macintosh was simply discontinued put down like an old dog?. Dvorak writes in his most recent column in PC Magazine "Why, exactly, does Apple maintain this line of machines instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The Mac has become the AS/400 of desktop computing, except for the fact that it's prettier." This article has been noted far and wide, and at its root makes a valid (if hardly original) observation that we should be thinking not just about incremental improvements to OSs, but looking towards a revolutionary computer interface and OS. This point is practically lost in the embarassing attention grabbing style of the article. While Dvorak is right to look towards Apple to make that leap (given the revolutionary nature of Macintosh as a product in '84), he unfortunately undermines the whole point and in the end damages the great work in OS X with a few attention grabbing soundbites. This is shameful journalism. [ericfreeman.com] 8:28:11 AM    comment []

Essential Blogging. Essential Blogging, our O'Reilly book on blogging, should be on your local bookstore shelves sometime in August! It's been a ball to write and hopefully as much fun -- not to mention useful -- to read. I'm so thrilled to have been part of the project alongside the likes of Ben and Mena Trott, Shelley Powers, Scott Johnson, Cory Doctorow, and of course, our inimitable editor, Nat Torkington. Anyone can run a blog (an [raelity bytes] 8:27:24 AM    comment []

How Google Searches Itself. Fast Company googles Google's brainstorming techniques, specifically their use of their own Intranet as a goldmine of ideas on how to make Google smarter. "We never say, 'This group should innovate, and the rest should just do their jobs,' " says Jonathan Rosenberg, vice president of product management. "Everyone spends a fraction of their day on R&D." aaron> [raelity bytes] 8:26:54 AM    comment []