March 28, 2024

Revolution in Resale of Digital Books and Music

The retailer’s button might say “buy now,” but you are in effect only renting an e-book — or an iTunes song — and your rights are severely limited. That has been the bedrock distinction between physical and electronic works since digital goods became widely available a decade ago.

That distinction is now under attack, both in the courts and the marketplace, and it could shake up the already beleaguered book and music industries. Amazon and Apple, the two biggest forces in electronic goods, are once again at the center of the turmoil.

In late January, Amazon received a patent to set up an exchange for all sorts of digital material. The retailer would presumably earn a commission on each transaction, and consumers would surely see lower prices.

But a shudder went through publishers and media companies. Those who produce content might see their work devalued, just as they did when Amazon began selling secondhand books 13 years ago. The price on the Internet for many used books these days is a penny.

On Thursday, the United States Patent and Trademark Office published Apple’s application for its own patent for a digital marketplace. Apple’s application outlines a system for allowing users to sell or give e-books, music, movies and software to each other by transferring files rather than reproducing them. Such a system would permit only one user to have a copy at any one time.

Meanwhile, a New York court is poised to rule on whether a start-up that created a way for people to buy and sell iTunes songs is breaking copyright law. A victory for the company would mean that consumers would not need either Apple’s or Amazon’s exchange to resell their digital items. Electronic bazaars would spring up instantly.

“The technology to allow the resale of digital goods is now in place, and it will cause a dramatic upheaval,” said Bill Rosenblatt, president of GiantSteps, a technology consulting firm. “In the short term, it’s great for consumers. Over the long term, however, it could seriously reduce creators’ incentive to create.”

Scott Turow, the best-selling novelist and president of the Authors Guild, sees immediate peril in the prospect of a secondhand digital thrift shop. “The resale of e-books would send the price of new books crashing,” he said. “Who would want to be the sucker who buys the book at full price when a week later everyone else can buy it for a penny?”

He acknowledged it would be good for consumers — “until there were no more authors anymore.”

Libraries, though, welcome the possibility of loosened restrictions on digital material.

“The vast majority of e-books are not available in your public library,” said Brandon Butler, director of public policy initiatives for the Association of Research Libraries. “That’s pathetic.”

He said that 60 percent of what the association’s 125 members buy was electronic, which meant sharp restrictions on use. Libraries cannot buy from Apple’s iTunes, he said. And so, for example, Pixar’s Oscar-winning soundtrack for the movie “Up” is not available in any public collection. An Apple spokesman confirmed this.

“If these things can’t be owned, who is going to make sure they exist going forward?” Mr. Butler asked. “Without substantial changes, we can’t do what libraries have always done, which is lend and preserve.”

For over a century, the ability of consumers, secondhand bookstores and libraries to do whatever they wanted with a physical book has been enshrined in law. The crucial 1908 case involved a publisher that issued a novel with a warning that no one was allowed to sell it for less than $1. When Macy’s offered the book for 89 cents, the publisher sued.

That led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling limiting the copyright owner’s control to the first sale. After that, it was a free market.

Sales of digital material are considered licenses, which give consumers little or no ability to lend the item. The worry is that without such constraints digital goods could be infinitely reproduced while still in the possession of the original owner.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/technology/revolution-in-the-resale-of-digital-books-and-music.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

House Nearing Completion of Patent Office Overhaul

WASHINGTON — A legislative overhaul of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moved toward completion in the House on Tuesday when members of the two important committees agreed to keep the office subject to annual appropriations but to end for the first time the diversion of patent fees to other uses.

The agreement between leaders of the House Judiciary and Appropriations committees clears the way for the bill, H.R. 1249, to be brought to the House floor as soon as Wednesday, when other amendments also will be considered.

The bill generally updates the process for challenging patents and would change the patent system to one that awards a patent to the first inventor to file a specific claim.

Currently, the first person to invent something has patent priority, whether or not he is the first to file an application.

The financing agreement received conditional support from the sponsor of a similar Senate bill that passed by a wide margin in March.

The White House added its cautionary backing to the agreement, although it noted that the final bill might need “additional direction” to ensure adequate financing for the patent office.

“After six years of working towards patent reform, we are near the finish line,” Lamar S. Smith, a Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday.

Members of the appropriations committee were reluctant to support a proposal that would make the patent office self-funding, leaving it outside the annual appropriations process.

The compromise calls for any collections of fees in excess of the annually appropriated budget for the patent office to be deposited in a reserve fund solely for the patent office.

The specific language, however, says that the House will have to separately authorize the use of any part of the reserve fund.

The Office of Management and Budget said that the provision “does not by itself ensure” access to the reserve fund.

“The administration looks forward to working with Congress to provide additional direction” to provide “timely access to all of the fees collected,” the O.M.B. statement said.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and who was the primary sponsor of a similar patent bill, said that the compromise language on a reserve fund “would be a concrete step in the right direction,” if it is “coupled with a commitment by the House Appropriations Committee to provide the Patent and Trademark Office with access to the excess fees it collects each year.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=7b367c565946dcf8f7da3e2c8bc8d87e