Authors Guild Asks Supreme Court to Hold Internet Providers Accountable for Copyright Theft - Authors Guild News

This is an important case.

Panzer found this post at the Authors Guild site. 

  

It's a post about the Authors Guild filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court. In the brief the Guild explains why a lower court's decision that internet service providers are accountable for what their users do should be upheld. There's a link at the end to download a copy of the brief.

 

Panzer says, "Makes sense to this little kitty. If you know there's a crime and you don't stop the criminal, you're a criminal too."

 

Note:This is a long post. You'll need to decide what to bring to snack on.

 

To read the post tootle over to Copyright Theft 

Court Shakes Up Tax Landscape for Online Sales - Publishers Weekly (Pw)

Panzer was sweeping out the Panzermobile today when he noticed something under his pilot seat. Pulling it out our fastidious kitty boy discovered it was a wadded up post. Flattening it out he found it was from the Publishers Weekly site. Reading it over he saw it was about the United States Supreme Court decision about online sales taxes.

According to the post by Ed Nawota, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a new online sales tax decision. The new decision overturns a 1992 decision and allows states to collect sales taxes on all online purchases to the residents of their state. This does mean the states who don't already have online tax collection laws will have to pass them. However, some states have already put the tax collection laws into effect and have been collecting them. Included in the post are several links to other sites for more information.

Cleaning is a lot of work.

Panzer says, "Hmm ... Oh no! This will raise the price on everything Mom buys online for this little kitty."

Note: This is a long length post. Bring a cup of tea and two muffins for today's reading selection. If you plan to follow the links in the post for more information, bring another cup of tea and three more muffins.

To read the Publishers Weekly post tootle over to United States Supreme Court


 

Supreme Court Rejects Apple's Appeal - PW (Publishers' Weekly)

Panzer was out tootling around in the Catosphere today, when the Panzermobile was buffeted by a huge gust of wind. Going in the direction the wind had come from, took our brave kitty boy to the Publishers' Weekly site. It took no digging at all to find a post about the results of Apple's petition to United States Supreme Court.

Panzer discovered the buffeting wind that hit the Panzermobile had actually been a collective sigh of relief. Our kitty boy told you back in January that Apple had appealed their conviction of ebook price-fixing to the U.S. Supreme Court. According to a post by Andrew Albanese, the Supreme Court rejected Apple's appeal, finally bringing the case to a close. This means Apple will now be responsible for paying $400 million in refunds to ebook buyers.

Okay. Clean up your mess now.

The case has stretched on since beginning in 2011, when Apple was first accused of ebook price-fixing. Since being found guilty of price-fixing in 2013, Apple has used every means their attorneys could come up with to avoid the court financial settlement. Now, in addition to the refund to ebook buyers Apple also will pay $50 million in legal costs to their attorneys.

Panzer says, "Hmm ... If you humans would have listen to this little kitty and paid the money to the ebook buyers three years ago, you could have saved most of those attorney fees."

Note: This is a long post with links to other posts included in it. You'll need a thermos of tea and six muffins for your reading. If you want to read Panzer's post from January too, add two more muffins.

To read the post about the Supreme Court decision, tootle over to Apple appeal

To read Panzer's post about Apple's appeal, tootle over to Apple Supreme Court appeal

 

Apple Fires Back at DoJ - Publishers' Weekly

Let me out of here.

Panzer was tootling around in the Catosphere when he noticed a pungent smell coming through the ventilation system. Following the odor took our fearless kitty pilot to the Publishers' Weekly site. Since a cat's nose can smell things seven times stronger than a human's nose, our kitty boy put on a gas mask before he left the Panzermobile. But even wearing the mask without any digging at all he discovered a post about the ongoing saga of Apple's price-fixing conviction.
 
According to the post by Andrew Albanese, Apple's attorneys have filed more paperwork (called a brief) with the Supreme Court again rebutting their original conviction of ebook price-fixing. After reviewing Apple's and the DoJ's briefs and the amicus briefs from seven of Apple's supporters, the Supreme Court will decide if they will accept Apple's appeal for consideration. If the Supreme Court does not agree to review the case, Apple's court fight should be over. However, if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the Court could rule in favor of Apple (basically "not guilty of price-fixing"), in favor of the DoJ (basically "guilty of price-fixing") or send the case back to the lower courts to re-do (basically "a do-over").

Panzer says, "Note on the legal stuff: Look ... I'm a cat, not an attorney ... So all that human legal mumbo jumbo is just to best of what my kitty brain understands. Don't go into court and quote me ... Unless it's a cat court of course."

Note: One cup of tea for today's reading.

To read the post, tootle over to Apple

In Amicus Brief, Authors Guild, ABA, B&N Back Apple - PW (Publishers' Weekly)

Panzer got up from his afternoon nap today to take a trip to the Publishers' Weekly site. After a little digging around there our big bad kitty boy found a new post about Apple's price-fixing case.

You humans are too confusing for me.

Last week Panzer told you about the Supreme Court's agreement to an extension in Apple's petition to the Court to consider overturning their price-fixing conviction. According to today's Publishers' Weekly post by Andrew Richard Albanese, the Authors' Guild, American Booksellers Association, and B and N have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Apple's petition. The groups are asking the Supreme Court to overturn the finding of the lower court because they say it will stifle future competition if the Court doesn't. The group also brings Amazon into their brief as the dominant player in the ebook market and the reason Apple had to work with publishers to establish book prices. The post includes a link to the amicus brief the group gave to the Supreme Court.

Panzer says, "Whew. More attorney fees for everybody. I need an attorney just to explain to me what Apple and their friends and their attorneys are doing."

Note: This is a two thermos and a dozen muffins read if you follow the links here and in the posts.

To read the Publishers' Weekly post about the amicus brief, tootle over to amicus brief
To read Panzer's post about Apple's petition to the Supreme Court, tootle over to DOJ gets extension

DOJ Gets Extension in Apple Case - PW (Publishers' Weekly)

Mom, that turkey was so good.

Now that Thanksgiving is behind us and Panzer has had a whole day to catch up on his naps, our kitty boy is ready to search for news for his friends. After waddling his way into the Panzermobile, Panzer discovered liftoff took longer than usual for some reason, but he finally made it into the Catosphere.

During a stop at the Publishers' Weekly site, our kitty pilot discovered a post about the next step in the Apple price-fixing case. Apple was found guilty of ebook price-fixing in 2013 by Judge Denise Cote ... and ... yes, the case is still in the news

According to the post at the Publishers' Weekly site by Andrew Albanese, before the Supreme Court decides if they will take Apple's case under review, the Department of Justice will be allowed to respond to the appeal. Since the response isn't due until January 2016 and the Supreme Court will have to review all the information, it will be a while before they decide if they'll review the case. So ... Panzer will still have a job reporting the Apple price-fixing news in 2016.

Panzer says, "Hmm ... Let me see. The verdict for this case was decided in 2013. It will be 2016 before the Supreme Court decides if they'll take the case. I wonder how much the attorney fees are by now?"

Note: One cup of tea should be enough for the original post, but there are links in the post to earlier ones so you may need a second cup.

To read the post, tootle over to Apple Appeal Case

Sherlock Holmes Now In The Public Domain

I can't believe it.

Panzer was out taking a nice little trip in the Catosphere today. My adventurous kitty was looking for a new docking spot for the Panzermobile.  He found one at the Los Angeles Times site

Panzer couldn't believe what he read there. According to a post by Michael Schaus, Sherlock Holmes is now in the public domain. That means anybody can write anything (or do a movies or tv show or video) using Holmes as a character.

But wait. How did that happen?

Mr. Schaus reports that the Supreme Court refused to review a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Sherlock Holmes wasn't protected under copyright. That's all it took.

Panzer says, "As soon as I read the 1927 version of The Complete Sherlock Holmes by Sir Author Conan Doyle, I knew I was a puzzle solver and a mystery writer. What's going to happen to Mr. Holmes now?"

To read the whole post, tootle over to Sherlock Holmes