The position of the anti-SOPA activists is antithetical to the principle of protection — for authors, that is — mandated in the Constitution of the United States. Our nation’s founders recognized that furthering the rights of creators is in the national interest, to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” by “securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Over the centuries, copyright protection has been codified in an expanding body of federal law in an attempt to implement the protection outlined in the Constitution.

The SOPA debate is emblematic of the growing tension between the copyright creator — the authors, composers, lyricists and artists who have contributed so much to the socio-economic fabric of American life — and the “interests” of the public in having free access to the works of others. However, the creator/public dichotomy is a false paradigm. What is truly at stake are the competing interests of the creators and the corporations who have acquired and are exploiting their works.

It is the rare creator who has the luxury to create simply for the sake of creating. As history has shown (every Renaissance artist worth his canvas had a patron), in order for creators to enjoy the benefits of their creations, it is necessary for them to cross over into the world of commerce, and to seek the patronage of publishers, record labels, and film and television producers. Sadly, the relationship between creator and corporate sponsor is seldom equal, as evidenced by the scores of documents executed by authors, songwriters and other creators, granting the rights in their works to corporate entities in perpetuity, often in exchange for modest compensation.

Congress attempted to include in the Copyright Act a series of provisions to give the creator (or the heirs of a deceased creator) the opportunity to terminate even perpetual grants of copyright, and “recapture” rights to their works in the U.S. These provisions, known as the “termination provisions,” were first introduced as part of the Copyright Act of 1976, and later modified as part of the Sonny Bono Copyright Act of 1998.

The intent of Congress in enacting the termination provisions was clear: To give creators, or their heirs, the opportunity to escape inequitable deals, or simply to revise the terms of their deals in order to share proportionately in the success of their creations. And, indeed, the opportunity to recapture rights is a potentially valuable asset for creators and their statutory successors. Yet, outside the music industry, the termination right is significantly underutilized, while even songwriters and recording artists are often thwarted in their attempts to recapture rights in a process made unduly complicated in response to pressure from corporate lobbyists.

Like the termination provisions, the real value of SOPA and other copyright enforcement legislation is its role in safeguarding the interests of the intended beneficiaries of copyright protection. Whether or not SOPA is the most effective means of curbing piracy in the online arena is a matter that should be thoroughly examined. However, the SOPA debate should not be commandeered as a vehicle for furthering the position of those who seek to write authors out of the copyright law and the Constitution.

Lisa A. Alter is a partner in the firm of Alter & Kendrick, LLP, in New York City. Her practice is focused primarily in the area of copyright law, with a particular emphasis on domestic and international music copyright issues. Ms. Alter has lectured frequently at law schools and professional meetings on copyright matters, and has represented clients on legislative matters impacting their copyright interests. She is the author of “Protecting Your Musical Copyrights,” which has recently been released in its second edition.

Several Republican senators, including Orrin Hatch of Utah, John Cornyn of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida, said Wednesday they couldn’t support the legislation in its current form.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

But this one has a twist or two. The media company is Grooveshark, an increasingly popular music service that’s also being sued by all of the major music labels.

And Grooveshark doesn’t want information about alleged lawbreakers. Instead, it wants details about an anonymous user who posted comments on Digital Music News, an industry news site.

Paul Resnikoff, the site’s owner, publisher and primary writer, writes about the subpoenas (and posts them in their entirety) here. And Ben Sisario of the New York Times has a good summary of the story. So I’ll try to do my version very quickly:

• Universal Music Group, the world’s biggest label, is suing Grooveshark over copyright violations, and has cited an Oct. 2011 story that Resnikoff published, along with comments made by one more readers, in its case.
• The story concerned claims by musician Robert Fripp and his team, who argued that though they didn’t want Fripp’s music on Grooveshark, the company wouldn’t take his songs off its site.
• The comments in question came from someone who said they were a Grooveshark employee, and that they had specific instructions to upload music from the big labels to the site, without permission from the labels or artists. “And,” the commenter adds, “to confirm the fears of [Fripp], there is no way in hell you can get your stuff down.”
• Grooveshark is demanding that Resnikoff hand over “any and all correspondence or other communications” between himself and Universal Music over the story. They also want “any and all documents concerning the identity of the First Anonymous Commenter, including, without limitation, that person’s name, address, telephone number and e-mail address, and the IP Address and ISP associated with that person.”

Resnikoff says he won’t comply with the subpoenas. He tells me that even if he wanted to hand over information about his anonymous commenters, he couldn’t. He says that as a matter of policy his site routinely “flushes” any information about anonymous commenters within two days of their posts.

And Resnikoff says that even though the comments in this case contained explosive allegations about Grooveshark, he never tried to verify the commenter’s identity: “What the world sees is what we have.”

In his post, Resnikoff suggests he’ll be protected by whistleblower laws when he fights Grooveshark’s demands. But he tells me that his legal team isn’t sure what laws they’ll cite yet. “We’re just incredibly committed to protecting any informants or sources of information,” he says.

This fight has plenty of interesting gray areas. For instance: What kind of legal responsibility does a news site have for claims that its commenters make? But I’ll let media law experts weigh in on that. For me, the notion that a Web publisher that isn’t directly involved in a legal suit can be forced to cough up names and addresses of contributors makes me shiver.

That scenario also strikes me as similar to some of the worst-case scenarios that SOPA/PIPA opponents have been making in recent weeks — this is a Web site faced with big legal problems over the actions of a single user, right? So I’ll be interested to see if they jump on Grooveshark over this one.

But Grooveshark doesn’t seem to think anyone will get riled up about this. This afternoon, I received an unsolicited email from Edelman, its PR firm. The email contained a copy of the subpoena, and a statement Edelman wants attributed to Grooveshark: “Grooveshark reaffirms its confidence that it will prevail in this litigation and that this filing represents the next step in reaching that end.”

(Image courtesy of Shutterstock/photobank.ch)

Unless there’s a really big shift in sentiment among members of Congress on both sides of the ideological aisle, some version of the Stop Online Piracy Act is going to be passed by Congress sometime in 2012.

That means the legislation is going to wind up on President Barack Obama’s desk, requiring his signature, which would make it law; or his veto, which would effectively kill it. That makes it pretty much the first significant bit of technology policy he will face in the new year.

What’s not entirely clear is which way Obama is likely to decide. So far, the administration hasn’t sent any signals, one way or the other, on either SOPA or its companion bill in the Senate, the Protect IP Act (PIPA).

But there are some key clues.

SOPA and PIPA are proposed laws that would, among other things, give media companies significant new tools to police pirated online content that appears on Web sites hosted outside of U.S. borders. It would also require U.S. companies that link or do business with them in the normal course of operations — sites such as Google, Yahoo and eBay’s PayPal — to cease doing so.

For instance, Google might be forced by the courts or U.S. law enforcement agencies to stop providing search links to BitTorrent sites that host pirated copies of major motion pictures and television shows. It could go even further than that, by stopping U.S.-based Internet-service companies from allowing users to access any overseas site carrying pirated content.

Critics of the legislation charge that the two bills have gone overboard to protect content. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has said it would “criminalize intermediaries.” Other companies, including Yahoo and Facebook, have claimed it could stifle innovation.

The problem the White House will face is that both bills appear to have a broad base of support in Congress. And proponents, such as the House Judiciary Chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, are pushing the bill as a means of protecting American jobs by ensuring that profits from U.S.-produced intellectual property flows to the companies that created it.

But there are a few tea leaves indicating where the president might come down on this issue. For one thing, the administration has been pretty clear from the beginning that it supports an open Internet; not vetoing the bill now would be a major policy shift.

And, during 2011, the power of the Internet as a force for social change has been demonstrated throughout the Middle East: Dictatorships in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya are gone, and others are under threat by movements that have been largely organized and coordinated on Facebook and Twitter.

Just last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking at a conference on Internet freedom in The Hague, made an interesting comment that perhaps captures the nuance of the Obama administration’s position.

As the Hill noted, while sympathetic to the problem countries and companies face in combating the theft of intellectual property, Clinton said that governments can do so “without compromising the global network, its dynamism or our principles.”

The SOPA bill, in particular, would also criminalize contributing to or distributing technology that is meant to circumvent actions that block access to such content. That would put the government at odds with a project it has funded, the Onion Router (a.k.a. TOR), created by U.S. Naval Researchers and a nonprofit organization.

Under SOPA, the problem might be that people in more repressive countries, like China, can use TOR to anonymize traffic and thus bypass technical measures that prevent the free flow of information. The language in the bill is vague enough that TOR could be made illegal.

Then there’s also Obama’s promise to support a free and open Internet generally, which has been a major bedrock of his technology and Internet policy agenda. Early last month, Obama promised to veto a Congressional resolution that would overturn net neutrality rules that the Federal Communications Commission put in place earlier this year, and which was to take effect on Nov. 20. (The Senate saved him the trouble by voting against the resolution.)

Therefore, Obama’s stance on the issue perhaps hints at an aversion to any significant changes in the status quo of the Internet, which suggests he would likely veto any version of SOPA or PIPA that reaches his desk.

The Singapore-based media group, which publishes 18 newspapers here, seeks unspecified damages from Yahoo Southeast Asia Pte. Ltd. for the alleged copyright infringements, as well as a legal injunction to prevent further infringements, according to a writ filed last week to the city-state’s High Court.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Consider how often we enter into legal agreements these days — and for nothing more than our entertainments. Once upon a time if you wanted a book you walked into a bookstore, paid your money and walked out with the book. Copyright law put some limits on what you could do with it, but you didn’t have to sign any special agreement. Now, according to the Amazon.com Conditions of Use, “If you visit or shop at Amazon.com, you accept these conditions.” The conditions follow and follow and follow — more than 2,000 words’ worth. It’s even worse if you choose to do your book reading on an e-reader. Amazon advises that if you’re not willing to sign an agreement running north of 2,500 words, “then you may not use the Kindle, any Reading Application, any Digital Content, or the Service.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Viacom and Google, who have been tangling over copyright violations at YouTube since 2007, will be at it again today at a federal courthouse in New York. The two sides will start oral arguments for Viacom’s appeal of the case, which Google won decisively in a 2010 ruling.

In the past, both sides have tried digging up evidence to discredit each others’ arguments, and while both came up with plenty of embarrassing stuff, they couldn’t find a smoking gun.

So now we’re back to the basic question of the case: How much protection does the Digital Millennium Copyright Act offer YouTube, or any other site that lets users upload and distribute content they don’t own?

That question has come up to the courts in at least three different suits in recent years: Viacom versus Google, Universal Music Group versus Veoh, and EMI versus MP3Tunes. And in all three cases, federal judges have offered up the same response: The DMCA gives Web sites enormous latitude. As long as the site serves a legitimate function, it can’t be held responsible if users upload stuff they don’t own. If copyright owners find something that shouldn’t be there, and they ask the site to take the offending piece down, the site has to comply. But that’s about it.

So far, that’s very encouraging news for all manner of digerati. And in theory, it’s quite threatening to media companies and other people who create, finance and distribute intellectual property for a living.

But things might not be quite so dire for the media guys. While you can read the recent court rulings as an invitation for a free-for-all, it looks a little different in the real world.

YouTube, for instance, has spent a lot of time and money creating systems to filter content on its site, which hoovers up more than 24 hours of stuff every minute. And it works hand in hand with most big media companies to help them keep stuff they don’t want off the site — and to help them distribute other stuff they do want there.

Included in that list of companies playing very nicely with YouTube — Viacom’s sister company, CBS. And once this suit finally gets settled — which could still take years — my hunch is Viacom will want to work closely with the world’s biggest video site, too.

[Image credit: Sweetheart/Shutterstock]

According to reports, the companies’ CEOs, Larrys Ellison and Page, are still at an impasse over how to settle Oracle’s patent-infringement lawsuit against Google over the use of Java in its Android operating system.

The latest sticking point: A recommendation from Oracle’s damages expert arguing the company is owed more than $2 billion for copyright infringement and $201.8 million more for patent infringement.

That’s significantly less than the $6.1 billion Oracle claimed Google owes it in court papers, but it’s still far too heady a figure for the search giant.

Reuters reports that in a Tuesday letter to the judge presiding over the case, Google attorney Robert Van Nest urged the court to reject that recommendation, slagging it as deficient. According to Van Nest, its failure to explain just how the figure was calculated and the forecast for how much revenue Oracle might have earned by partnering with Google on Android are grounds enough for ignoring it.

Meanwhile, talks between the dueling Larrys drag on, with an October trial date looming if they fail to reach a settlement.

In March, Denny Chin, now a U.S. Circuit Judge in Manhattan, rejected a revised $125 million deal to resolve separate lawsuits over scanning books for online distribution by Google via its Google Books site. In his decision, the judge found the pact would give Google the ability to “exploit” books without the permission of copyright owners.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

But there are two problems with the image:
* Though the caption on the photo’s TwitPic page says it shows you what “the ground zero site looked like this evening,” that’s not true. De Guzman took the photo of the memorial a year ago.

* De Guzman doesn’t want people looking at the TwitPic image at all. Even though his name appears via watermark credit on the top right of the photo, he didn’t give “@DesignedMind,” the Twitter user who took a screengrab of the image, permission to place it there. If you’re going to look at the photo, de Guzman asks, please take a look at his SmugMug or Flickr pages.

Hold on. This is the Internet. Where ideas and images and information want to be free, right? If you don’t want someone to see something you’ve made, you don’t put it online, right?

Nope, says de Guzman, via an IM chat: “There are clear ways to share content on the sites I put my photos on: Flickr and SmugMug. I’d be ok if they had used what was offered to them.”

But since they didn’t? Last night, on Twitter, de Guzman was referring to people who reposted his work as “thieves.”

I’m quite sympathetic to de Guzman’s argument, because the digital content I make for a living is supposed to be consumed in specific places, too. But it frequently isn’t — it gets quoted without attribution, or lifted wholesale without links, etc. — and usually I just accept that as a downside that comes with the many upsides the Web provides for information makers.

And in many ways, images seem even more susceptible to misappropriation than any other media, simply because most people don’t ever bother to consider that someone, somewhere, created the image they’re now passing along.*

Add in the concept of “fair use,” which is both crucial and muddy for old and new media alike (de Guzman gave me the okay to use his image in this post last night), and you can see how tough it is for image makers to control their own work.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try hard to do the right thing. Particularly when it’s easy to do so. The New York Post, whose Twitter account linked to the TwitPic image last night and made the thing go viral, has now put up a new tweet linking to de Guzman’s Flickr account. Both the Post and this Web site are owned by News Corp.

* I’ve been just as bad about this as anyone, though I’m trying to improve. For instance: Turns out the monkey avatar I’ve been using on my Twitter profile for several years comes from graphic designer Andy Rainford. Andy reached out to me — very politely — this summer, and since then I’ve been crediting him on Twitter, and now again here.

Charges brought by federal prosecutors against SAP’s former TomorrowNow Inc. unit mirror allegations in a long-running civil case between Oracle and SAP, which are bitter rivals in the software market.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The arena for news readers on tablets and smartphones is competitive, with high-profile efforts such as Flipboard, Livestand from Yahoo, AOL’s Editions and start-ups such as Pulse and Zite.

The reason for CNN’s acquisition interest — as well as look-sees from several other publishers — is not a surprise: As readers turn more toward using these mobile devices to consume content, big media companies are trying to acquire the technology to serve up their fare to them.

It is a dicey arena, though, where content aggregation meets (and crashes into) content lifting. Vancouver-based Zite, for example, was sent a cease-and-desist letter in March, by a panoply of media companies (not CNN!) alleging various copyright violations.

That happened right after it was launched, with $4 million in funding from angel investors and Canadian grants and an innovative personalized article-picking algorithm.

As Liz Gannes wrote then:

[Then] Zite CEO Ali Davar describes the iPad as a way to “emancipate the technology” his team originated at research at the University of British Columbia.

It had previously been put to work in a browser plug-in called Worio. And, as you might have guessed, browser plug-ins are a tough business.

The free Zite app imports a user’s Twitter tweets, follows and Google Reader subscriptions, offers lists of pre-made categories, and then solicits feedback and refines over time a list of topics and sources the user is interested in. It features articles based on their popularity, number of shares from a user’s network and topic relevance. (Davar said he thinks a person’s Facebook network data is too heterogeneous to reliably recommend articles, so it’s not included as an option.)

Last week, a Canadian site called Techvibes first wrote about the possibility of the sale of Zite to CNN, which is based in Atlanta and owned by Time Warner.

In a press release, CNN said Zite would remain a standalone unit, as a wholly-owned subsidiary of CNN, and that CEO Mark Johnson will continue to run Zite’s operations, but now in San Francisco. CNN also said that Davar will remain an executive director and Mike Klass will continue as CTO.

In a statement, Johnson said: “Zite is thrilled about combining forces with CNN to create a world-class news discovery platform. In CNN, we have found a partner who shares our vision and passion. Being part of the CNN family gives us the capital to grow Zite’s business and continue to innovate in the space.”

What does that mean for the rest of us? In a nutshell: It’s yet another victory for Web sites and services that let users upload and access music, movies and other files under the protection of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

And it gives Google and Amazon additional cover for the cloud locker services they launched earlier this year, without approval from the big music labels.

In practical terms, though, I’m not sure that the decision does anything beyond maintaining the status quo. Had it gone the other way, it’s possible that it would have threatened lots of popular Web sites and services. But since it doesn’t: Carry on!

The most important news is that a third federal court has ruled on behalf of Web services whose users might use it to upload and/or access files that violate copyright rules.

In this case, it’s MP3Tunes fending off EMI Music. But it’s the same basic story as the Veoh/Universal Music and YouTube/Viacom cases: A judge has ruled that the DMCA doesn’t require Web services to figure out which files that users upload have the right to be there.

Assuming all of those rulings stand up (Viacom is appealing the YouTube decision, and this one will likely go back into the court system, too), this will give Web sites enormous flexibility. The rulings don’t give users unlimited access to stuff they don’t own, though, and they do require sites to pull down files if copyright owners complain.

In this case, Judge William Pauley ruled that MP3Tunes, which operates a “locker” music service similar to the ones Google and Amazon launched earlier this year, was liable for some copyright infringement, because it didn’t remove specific songs EMI had flagged. And he said MP3Tunes founder Michael Robertson was also liable, because he knowingly uploaded songs he didn’t own.

That means Robertson and his company could still end up paying significant penalties, even though they won most of their case.

Pauley’s ruling also briefly blessed the construction of the locker service itself. In short, he said that users have a right to upload their own songs to the cloud and play them back, even if the service they used to do it doesn’t have an arrangement with the music labels.

That’s good news for Google and Amazon, because they don’t have deals with labels for their services. But it didn’t seems like they were going to need them, anyway.

Though music executives huffed and puffed after the lockers launched, they haven’t taken legal action against the companies. They also haven’t pursued mSpot, a small start-up that offers something similar.

I’ve seen some reports that suggest that Pauley’s ruling gives Google and Amazon the ability to do a “scan and match” service, where users don’t have to laboriously upload their songs to a locker — instead, the service would simply look at what’s on their hard drive, and give them access to a copy stored on the site.

That’s what Apple’s new iTunes Match service does (among other things). And Apple hammered out a deal with the labels to make that happen.

But as far as I can tell, the only additional leeway that Pauley gives to Google and Amazon is the ability to save storage space on their own servers, by using “deduplication” technology — a “standard data compression algorithm that eliminates redundant digital data.”

That’s not nothing — it’s always nice to save storage space — but it won’t fundamentally change what they’re offering to consumers, who will still have to spend a long time moving their stuff into the cloud.

Big picture: If the idea of storing all of your music on a remote server — so that you can listen to it whenever you want, wherever you want — is appealing, this ruling is good news. It’s also good news if you like watching videos on YouTube, listening to songs on Tumblr, or using lots and lots of other Web sites that depend on stuff users upload. But since you can do all of that already, you’re not going to notice a change.

For those of you just joining us, some background: In November 2004, Perfect 10 asked a federal district court judge to bar Google from indexing pictures and links to the company’s photos. Perfect 10 objected to Google search results displaying thumbnails of its photos, along with the links to third-party sites providing larger versions. The pictures were copyrighted, it claimed, and many of the sites included in Google’s search results were using them without permission.

“In some cases, as many as 96% of Google search results on Perfect 10 model names go not to Perfect10.com, but to infringing Google AdSense partners of which Google has received notice,” Perfect 10 founder Norm Zada argued at the time. “That’s not legitimate search. Google’s extraordinary gain in market cap from nothing a few years ago to close to $80 billion is more due to their massive misappropriation of intellectual property than anything else. Google is currently displaying over 3,000 Perfect 10 copyrighted images and linking them to Web sites containing numerous other Perfect 10 copyrighted images and in many cases ads for which Google earns revenue. Google is no longer a legitimate search engine. It is a commercial advertising operation determined to increase ad revenue regardless of what rights it tramples on in the process. If all an infringer needs to avoid liability is to provide some sort of a ‘search function,’ that will be the end of intellectual property in this country.”

Some corollary, right? How ironic is it that Zada’s father, Lotfi Zadeh, is known as the father of fuzzy logic?

Anyway … after years of litigation, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appears to have slapped down Perfect 10 once and for all, ruling that it failed to show that it suffered irreparable harm at Google’s hands. If the site, as it claimed, suffered over $50 million in losses from 1996 to 2007, it has no one to blame but itself.

“While being forced into bankruptcy qualifies as a form of irreparable harm, Perfect 10 has not established that the requested injunction would forestall that fate,” Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the court. “Perfect 10 has not shown a sufficient causal connection between irreparable harm to Perfect 10’s business and Google’s operation of its search engine.”

[Image credit: Leo Reynolds]

The new so-called Copyright Alert System was created by a coalition of major film studios, record labels and Internet-service providers, who agreed to guidelines for identifying and notifying Web users who violate copyrights.

Among the ISPs that have pledged to implement the new policy are Comcast Corp., AT&T Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., Cablevision Systems Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

What more is there to say, except this viral video of actor Samuel L. Jackson reading a viral “children’s” book is hysterical.

Written by Adam Mansbach, the book has developed a cult following. It’s more for parents than for their children, of course, in the style of “Everyone Poops.”

While some might be offended by it, I have definitely felt this way too many times over the years trying to put my kids to bed.

[UPDATE: Audible requested I remove the original video clip I had embedded here, as it violated its copyright. I did, of course, immediately and then replaced it with their own below. But fair warning: Audible's is shorter and 87 percent less funny.]

After vowing to respond aggressively to Apple’s legal assault, Samsung reportedly shot back Thursday with multiple suits of its own, alleging the Cupertino, Calif.-based company infringes on Samsung technology.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, Samsung has filed suits against Apple in Japan, Korea and Germany. The move follows a suit by Apple last week accusing that Samsung’s phones and tablets infringe on Apple patents and trademarks.

Representatives of Apple and Samsung were not immediately available for comment.

The battle between Samsung and Apple is the latest in a series of disputes dividing the cellphone industry. Apple is also engaged in lawsuits with Nokia and HTC, while Microsoft and Motorola have ongoing disputes, as do Google and Oracle, among others.

Last Friday, Apple sued Samsung in U.S. federal court, alleging trademark and patent infringement as well as other claims. In the suit, Apple is seeking an injunction against Samsung as well as unspecified monetary damages. Apple’s lawsuit alleges everything from Samsung’s hardware and packaging to the icons on its screens are a duplication of Apple’s technology.

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” an Apple representative told Mobilized on Monday. “This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

Samsung, meanwhile, said earlier this week that it would react aggressively to Apple’s action.

“Samsung’s development of core technologies and strengthening our intellectual property portfolio are keys to our continued success,” the company said in a statement to Mobilized. “Samsung will respond actively to this legal action taken against us through appropriate legal measures to protect our intellectual property.

The issue is complicated by the fact that Samsung is not only a rival in the phone and tablet markets, but also a key supplier to Apple. According to The Wall Street Journal, Apple was Samsung’s second biggest customer last year, after Sony. And given Apple’s phenomenal growth of late, it’s reasonable to think Apple may have displaced Sony to become Samsung’s single biggest customer.

Late last month, BoomTown posted about a huge venture funding effort by the high-profile and even more highly designed social media reading app for the Apple iPad, Flipboard.

Today, its co-founder and CEO Mike McCue confirmed the $50 million round at an eye-popping $200 million valuation, in a wide-ranging interview at the start-up’s Palo Alto, Calif., HQ.

“We’re obviously thrilled, because we think it confirms our focus that people want a beautifully designed way to interact with content and to share it,” he said. “And there is a lot more to come–on a scale of one to 10, we’re just at a two or three.”

The bulk of the new second round of funding–Flipboard had previously raised $10.5 million–came from New York-based Insight Venture Partners.

Insight’s Jerry Murdock said in an interview that he was excited about the idea of “social endorsement” that Flipboard was pioneering.

“We back great entrepreneurs and Flipboard is that and also in an obviously unique position to solve a problem of media consumption in the digital age,” he said. “The sky is the limit. Or more precisely it is the best environment to consume curated real-time content for Twitter and Facebook, because of the user experience and social endorsement integration with the content.”

Insight is also an investor in Twitter.

Also stepping up in the new Flipboard round is Comcast’s venture arm, as well as previous investors, including Kleiner Perkins, Index Ventures and a spate of well known angels, such as Twitter co-founder and product guru Jack Dorsey, Facebook co-founder and Asana dude Dustin Moskovitz, the ubiquitous Ron Conway, actor Ashton Kutcher and the investment company of former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin.

“From a Comcast perspective, we’re intrigued with Mike and what he’s doing with content aggregation,” said Amy Banse, Comcast Interactive Capital’s new head. “We think we can learn from him and he from us.”

Co-founded by longtime entrepreneur McCue (Netscape, Tellme) and former Apple iPhone engineer Evan Doll in January, Flipboard launched to much attention in July.

The elegant Flipboard–which McCue recently told me in an onstage interview at the South by Southwest conference in Austin had zero revenues thus far–has changed the game on the consumption of social media.

Its innovative social magazine concept is attempting to make the social networking universe more accessible, consumable and, perhaps most importantly, visually arresting via its rich app.

Essentially, Flipboard pulls information from media RSS feeds and sites such as Twitter and Facebook data streams and then reassembles it in an easy-to-navigate, personalized format in a mobile tablet touchscreen environment.

In its current offering, there are pull-quotes, photos, videos, status updates and even the first paragraphs of linked-out content. There is also the ability to comment and share, as if one were on a social networking or microblogging site.

McCue said the new giant pile of cash will be used to increase its 32-person staff to about 50, international expansion, small acquisitions and more product development on more platforms.

The next in the arena will be the iPhone version of Flipboard, said McCue, followed by one for the Google Android mobile operating system eventually.

Left unsaid, of course, was the need for funding to fight the likelihood of increased competition in the hot space for delivering both professional and social content to consumers on a wide range of devices.

Rivals are varied, such as Silicon Valley’s most adorable news reader start-up Pulse and also Zite, a news reader which was recently sued for copyright infringement by a group of major publishers.

There are bigger potential players, such as Google, which is trying to find various ways to move into the social space.

In fact, said several sources, Google and others have made acquisition approaches to Flipboard, which has instead opted for raising more funding and staying independent for now.

McCue declined to talk about that, but did note that he is not surprised by publisher interest, especially of the worried and wary kind, in the arena.

“Anyone not respectful of others’ content is going to get in that kind of trouble,” he said, noting Flipboard has struck deals with 17 big publishers so far, including this morning’s announcement about a partnership with Oprah Winfrey’s and Discovery’s OWN cable network. “There is not one half to this equation.”

Right now, the Flipboard app is free and the business plan is advertising and some possible subscription scenarios.

McCue said advertising will be the key to Flipboard’s business plan in the future, although it’s not clear if the company will ever sell advertising itself.

Rather, it will partner with publishers seeking better distribution in the explosive tablet and smartphone market, where Flipboard has been gaining traction quickly.

But until that is sorted out, there is now $50 million more in the Flipboard kitty to figure it all out.

“With this funding, we can grow at the right pace and have a lot of flexibility to get the product right,” said McCue. “And, that’s the most important thing.”

A panoply of big media giants sent a cease-and-desist letter today to Zite, the Apple iPad news reader app.

The Washington Post, AP, Gannett, Getty Images, Time, Dow Jones and many other media organizations were part of the action, which you can read all about below.

Zite bills itself as a “personalized iPad magazine that gets smarter as you use it.”

Not smart enough, it seems, to avoid copyright complaints from the content creators the app sucks in.

“The Zite application is plainly unlawful,” said the letter to Zite CEO Ali Davar, noting all kinds of copyright violations.

In a phone interview with BoomTown this afternoon, Davar said Zite would comply with the letter by shifting the content from its “reading” mode to a Web one, which points to publisher sites.

“It’s a bummer that they did this, but we expected it,” he said.

In a comment he posted below, Davar also wrote:

“Zite’s goal is to work with publishers, not to be antagonistic. The few publishers that have contacted us regarding the reading mode view we have complied with their requests and simply switched over to web view. We’re talking to publishers right now to find a win-win for them monetarily and to at the same time preserve the great user experience.”

For now, it’s lose-lose, and the letter is a dramatic shot across the bow of all the many news readers now hitting the market in the wake of the popularity of the Apple iPad tablet.

The social media-focused Flipboard and the news-oriented Pulse are two others, both of which have claimed they are working with publishers.

But Pulse wrangled with the New York Times over misuse of its RSS feeds and copyright issues, which has since been settled.

Zite showed up earlier this month, a product of a machine-learning technology start-up called Worio, which is based in Vancouver, Canada.

The aggregator of personalized content, which has $4 million in angel funding, gets its cues from a user’s interests.

Zite’s technology originated at research at the University of British Columbia several years ago.

In an interview with NetworkEffect’s Liz Gannes a few weeks ago, Davar seemed sanguine about publishers.

Wrote Gannes:

The free Zite app imports a user’s Twitter tweets, follows and Google Reader subscriptions, offers lists of pre-made categories, and then solicits feedback and refines over time a list of topics and sources the user is interested in. It features articles based on their popularity, number of shares from a user’s network and topic relevance. (Davar said he thinks a person’s Facebook network data is too heterogeneous to reliably recommend articles, so it’s not included as an option.)

Flipboard itself is likely to add more personalization features; the company bought real-time social discovery technology from Ellerdale and has yet to implement much of it.

Vancouver-based Zite is well-funded, with $4 million from angels and Canadian grants, but it doesn’t have business relationships with publishers. The app lays out pictures and articles, stripping out everything else, including ads. Davar said he doubted this would be a problem. “It would be shortsighted for publishers to think of Zite as us versus them,” he said.

Short-sighted maybe, but legally lethal definitely, as you can see by this cease-and-desist letter, as well as a video from Zite on how its app works:

Letter to Zite _03 30 11_ –

Zite: Personalized Magazine for iPad from zite.com on Vimeo.

(Full disclosure: New Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

In a 48-page decision, Denny Chin, a judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, denied the 2008 settlement between Google, authors and publishers “without prejudice,” meaning they could submit a revised pact that would better protect copyright owners. The judge also suggested a potential solution.

“While the digitization of books and the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many,” Google’s current pact would “simply go too far” because Google could make books available online without copyright owners’ permission, Judge Chin wrote.

The deal would “give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission,” he said.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

So says SAP in a new motion seeking to sharply reduce that award, which it says is in conflict with copyright law and founded on sheer speculation.

“The jury’s $1.3 billion ‘hypothetical license’ fee award was an unreasonable amount that went far beyond what was needed to make Oracle whole,” SAP argued in its motion. “The enormous fee did not–indeed, could not–represent Oracle’s actual damages because Oracle never lost a license fee from Defendants or anyone else. The Copyright Act does not permit such awards that are un-tethered to a plaintiff’s actual harm, and the hypothetical license claim should not have gone to the jury.”

And so SAP is asking the court to drop the award to no more than $408.7 million or order a new trial.

Oracle, of course, believes the verdict should stand and opposes SAP’s motion. But if its rival should be granted a new trial, Oracle wants to seek an additional half a billion dollars in damages that it feels it lost when the court unfairly excluded its up-sell and cross-sell projections.

“In the event the Court were to order a new trial, however, Oracle respectfully submits that this Court would be required to review all errors at trial, including those errors that prejudiced Oracle and resulted in a reduction of the damages to which it was entitled,” the company argues. “While Oracle believes the jury’s verdict fairly reflects the evidence properly admitted, it also notes that the verdict fell toward the bottom of the range of reasonable license amounts Oracle presented, and that the Court’s rulings on certain issues shifted that range significantly downward. … [It] cut half a billion dollars from the damages opinion that Oracle’s damages expert would have offered and that fact witnesses would have supported with additional testimony and documentary evidence.”

In other words, SAP’s motion is bogus, it doesn’t deserve a new trial, and if it’s granted one Oracle wants the chance at a $1.8 billion award. Oracle’s motion in full below.

1046_Conditional New Trial Motion –

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle to SAP: You Owe Us Another $212 Million
• Oracle-SAP Verdict: SAP Owes Oracle $1.3 Billion
• Oracle-SAP: Closing Statements Followed by Closing Insults
• Oracle-SAP Case Closes With $1.67 Billion Difference of Opinion
• LOLCatz: Safra on The Stand Again in Oracle-SAP Trial
• Plattner and White No-Shows at Oracle-SAP Trial
• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

Seoul-based Enswers plans to extend Soompi into a video portal, based on relationships it already has to provide video search and copyright detection technology to Korean content providers.

The plan could be particularly interesting given Soompi’s audience is international by design, while online video licensing is traditionally not. A large part of Soompi’s audience is in the U.S., but the company has active members in more than 50 countries.

Soompi founder Susan Kang will remain with the site as chief evangelist, while CEO Joyce Kim will move on. Other terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Soompi has 1.4 million uniques and 22 million page views per month. It started as Kang’s personal Web site in 1998. With Kim at the helm, the company took seed funding in February 2010 from Softbank Ventures Korea.

Kim said she is likely to found another Web start-up. She hails from a family of tech entrepreneurs, including Jared Kim (her younger brother) of WeGame and Jason Calacanis (her brother-in-law) of Mahalo.

Enswers, which was founded in 2007, noted that this is the first time a Korea-based company has bought a Silicon Valley start-up to expand into the U.S. market.

SAP apparently has other plans. Having won in December a small victory over the amount of interest it will have to pay, today SAP said it plans to argue that it shouldn’t have to pay quite as much to Oracle.

In a statement, it called the judge’s order a “procedural matter,” and said it plans to make post-trial motions challenging the amount the jury awarded. If not successful, it may appeal, the company said. Its full statement is below.

“Today the Court entered judgment in the Oracle v. SAP/TomorrowNow litigation, which is a procedural matter that occurs after a jury verdict. As stated before, we have accepted liability for the actions of TomorrowNow and have been willing to fairly compensate Oracle, but we believe that the amount awarded by the jury is disproportionate and wrong. Once the judgment is entered, SAP is permitted to challenge the jury’s award by way of “post-trial motions,” which are made to the trial judge. SAP will file these motions in the coming weeks asking the Court to reduce the amount of damages awarded or to order a new trial. We look forward to the Court’s resolution of the issues we will raise in our post-trial motions. Depending on the outcome of the post-trial motion process, SAP may also consider an appeal.”

Oracle, on the other hand, was happy to take another victory lap. “We are very pleased that the court’s final judgment for $1.3 billion, plus the court-awarded interest and the $120 million SAP paid during trial to settle additional charges, confirms the jury’s verdict against SAP for its massive intentional copyright infringement,” Oracle said in an emailed statement.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle to SAP: You Owe Us Another $212 Million
• Oracle-SAP Verdict: SAP Owes Oracle $1.3 Billion
• Oracle-SAP: Closing Statements Followed by Closing Insults
• Oracle-SAP Case Closes With $1.67 Billion Difference of Opinion
• LOLCatz: Safra on The Stand Again in Oracle-SAP Trial
• Plattner and White No-Shows at Oracle-SAP Trial
• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO