The ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will leave the rights in the hands of Penguin Group Inc. and the heirs of Steinbeck's widow, Elaine Steinbeck. John Steinbeck died in 1968; his wife in 2003. The appeals court in Manhattan said a lower court judge misapplied copyright law in awarding the rights in 2006 to the son, Thomas Steinbeck, and granddaughter Blake Smyle, who already receive a portion of the proceeds of sales.

On e-mail lists and in interviews, university CIO's and other information-technology professionals say their mission is getting derailed and staff time is being overloaded by copyright takedown notices, "prelitigation settlement letters," RIAA-issued subpoenas, lobbying efforts, and panicked students accused of piracy.

Now, feeling burdened and betrayed, some of those universities are quietly fighting back, resisting requests for information and trying to quash subpoenas. Those that do so, though, find that their past compliance — and the continued compliance of their peer institutions — is being held against them.

"We feel like we've been led down the garden path, and our interest in working in partnership and leading our mission as educators is now being used against us," said Tracy Mitrano, director of IT policy at Cornell University.

*****

In court documents and interviews, the RIAA has argued that past compliance with the subpoenas means that they were not an "undue burden" before, so they should not be one now. Both Morehead State's and Marshall's motions to quash the subpoenas were denied. The judges in both cases said there was no "undue burden" because investigations were not actually necessary to abide by Ferpa regulations. In the Morehead State ruling, the judge pointedly noted that "Morehead has responded, without objection, to virtually identical requests in other, similar litigation."

To my dear media, friends, and fans,

You may have heard some news that two guys who wrote for some band from the 1970s I have never in my life heard of called the "Rubinoos" are trying to sue me. They have a song called "I Want To Be Your Boyfriend" that has no musical similarities to the song "Girlfriend" that Luke Gottwald and I wrote together. They claim that a small part of the lyrics are the same and are saying that I took these from them. I had never heard this song in my life and their claim is based on 5 words! All songs share similar lyrics and emotions. As humans we speak one language.

Off the top of my head, two other songs that I can immediately think of with this type of lyric are "Hey, hey, you, you get off of my cloud" by the Rolling Stones and "Hey little girl I want to be your boyfriend" by the Ramones. Simply put, I have been falsely accused of ripping their song off. Luke and I have done nothing wrong and there is no merit to their claim.

And slap in the face #2

I was going to be the bigger person and not reply when I read Chantal Kreviazuk's article in Performing Songwriter magazine. Now that all the media have caught on to her little interview, I need to speak. Chantal's comments are damaging to my reputation and a clear defamation of my character and I am considering taking legal action. Chantal has accused me of taking a song idea from her because I happen to have a song on my new record with the same title.

For the record, I wrote a song with Evan Taubenfeld which coincidentally has the same title as a song Chantal had sent me a few years ago. Our songs have no similarities and opposite meanings, i.e. different lyrics, different melody, different genres. In Chantal's own words "the only similarity is in the title." I originally wrote this with Evan for his record and I ended up with it. Funny enough when I decided to put "Contagious" on my album we had to change the words from "she" to "he" in order for it to work on my record. There are hundreds of songs out there with the title "Contagious," 75+ on iTunes alone.

Chantal has also made false accusations about my writing skills. I am so over this topic. This letter is not about this. I am not going to sit here and defend my writing skills. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. I know who I am and what I have done and accomplished and no one can take that away from me.

My decision to discontinue working with Chantal after co-writing together on my second record was simply based on the fact that we had no hits together. That is why her name is not on this record, despite her numerous attempts to be included, which were always denied. From my perspective this is a clear case of bitterness. Chantal is upset that she didn't get to be a part of my record. She did email me after the article came out apologizing and I forgive her but I have to put the truth out there so my fans are not confused by these false accusations.

Let it be crystal clear that I have not ripped anyone off or done anything wrong. I have never had to deal with anything publicly like this and surely never wanted to. I do not deserve this negative press and attention. I take pride in the songs that I write and appreciate the opportunities to work with some great writers and musicians.

My fans have been so dedicated to my music and it is because of them that I have this amazing career. Thank you again to my fans for continuing to be so supportive. This is a very positive time for me in my life. I have a very successful career and I feel very lucky to have accomplished all that I have. I am so thankful every day.

I would like to say more but my lawyers have advised me not to. Why is it when you get to a certain level people want to attack you?... and now I have said my piece.

Avril

Canadian punk princess Avril Lavigne is being sued by U.S. songwriters who claim that her smash hit "Girlfriend" sounds suspiciously like a track they took up the charts in the 1970s. Lavigne's manager, Terry McBride, says the pop starlet is one of several people named in a lawsuit filed July 2 that alleges striking similarities to the Rubinoos song "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend."

The group's founder, Tommy Dunbar, filed the suit in California's Northern Federal District Court and also names Lavigne's publishing company Avril Lavigne Publishing and Lavigne's songwriting partner Dr. Luke as defendants. McBride says from Vancouver that the claim is baseless, noting that a musicologist he hired to study both tracks has deemed them completely different songs.

Still, McBride, also CEO of Nettwerk Music Group, admitted that he is considering settling the suit out of court if the costs of defending the case prove too high. The suit comes on the heels of a jab at Lavigne by fellow Canuck songstress Chantal Kreviazuk, who recently suggested to Performing Songwriter magazine that Lavigne stole one of her songs for the disc "The Best Damn Thing."

Other media companies also have major concerns about YouTube, but Viacom's was the first lawsuit filed by a major media owner. Several media companies have reached agreements to supply YouTube with clips, including CBS Corp., General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal and the British Broadcasting Corp., but many others remain reluctant to deal with the Web site because of copyright concerns. YouTube had been a quirky, fast-growing startup until the deep-pocketed Internet search behemoth Google Inc. bought the company last November for $1.76 billion.

But YouTube's soaring popularity, especially among younger people who are increasingly tuning out traditional media, has broadcasters frightened of losing viewers and advertising dollars. Last month, Viacom demanded that YouTube remove more than 100,000 unauthorized clips from its site, and since that time, the company has uncovered more than 50,000 additional unauthorized clips, Viacom spokesman Jeremy Zweig said.

A quick search of YouTube's site turned up numerous clips from Viacom programs including segments from Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and Nickelodeon's "SpongeBob SquarePants" cartoon. In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, Viacom says YouTube "harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale" and had "brazen disregard" of intellectual property laws.

Viacom is especially at risk because many of its shows are aimed at younger viewers who also are heavy Internet users. At the same time, Viacom is trying to find other, legal ways to distribute its shows digitally, such as by selling episodes of "The Daily Show" and "South Park" for $1.99 each through Apple Inc.'s iTunes service. Those shows can then be viewed on a computer or iPod.

The film was shot over a three-day period in 1970 by Tony Cox, Ono's former husband. It shows Lennon and Ono at their countryside estate and captures Lennon writing "Remember" and "Mind Games." In 2000, it was sold by Cox to three New England men, John Fallon, Ray Thomas, and Robert Grenier, for $1 million.

In a letter that was sent to Berwick Academy, Dorothy Weber, Ono's attorney, asserted that Ono owns the tapes shot by Cox. "Mrs. Lennon owns all rights, title and copyrights in and to all film, outtakes and videotapes embodying the images of the late John Lennon and herself as filmed by Anthony Cox in 1970," wrote Weber. "The sum and substance is that there is a dispute over the ownership of the film, but I can't get into the specifics while there's a pending dispute," Weber later told the Globe.

In a statement released by the school, Berwick said the copyright ownership was in question. "Berwick Academy received a correspondence from Ms. Ono's attorneys indicating that Ms. Ono retains a copyright interest in the footage and has not granted a license or permission for a public showing of the film. Given the apparent dispute over ownership rights in the film, Berwick Academy has decided not to show the film as previously scheduled until the parties resolve the underlying ownership dispute," the statement read.

Tom Rubin, associate general counsel for Microsoft, will say in a speech in New York that while authors and publishers find it hard to cover costs, "companies that create no content of their own, and make money solely on the back of other people’s content, are raking in billions through advertising and initial public offerings."

Mr Rubin's remarks, presaged in an article in Tuesday's Financial Times, come as Google faces criticism and legal pressure from media companies over services allowing users to search online for books, films, television programmes and news. Viacom, the US media group, instructed YouTube, which Google owns, to remove 100,000 clips of copyright material.

The Authors Guild and a group of publishers backed by the Association of American Publishers have separately sued Google for making digital copies of copyrighted books from libraries without permission. Mr Rubin will tell the AAP's annual meeting that Google's decision to take digital copies of all books in various library collections, unless publishers tell it not to, "systematically violates copyright, deprives authors and publishers of an important avenue for monetising their works and, in doing so, undermines incentives to create."

He will say Google is breaching copyright law because it has "bestowed upon itself the unilateral right to make entire copies of copyrighted books." Google thinks it is acting legally because it publishes only "snippets" of copyrighted works unless it has the publisher's permission. But Mr Rubin will say in Tuesday's speech: "Google is saying to you and other copyright owners: 'Trust us, you're protected. We'll keep the digital copies secure. We'll only show snippets. We won't harm you, we'll promote you.' "But . . . anyone who visits YouTube . . . will immediately recognise that it follows a similar cavalier approach to copyright."

Hitting the financial jackpot, it appears, may have created some headaches for YouTube, the wildly popular video-sharing Web site that has agreed to be bought by Google for $1.65 billion in stock. The site late last week began purging copyrighted material from Comedy Central, including clips from YouTube stalwarts like 'The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report and South Park.

The action was "a result of third-party notification by Comedy Central," according to one such e-mail message sent to a YouTube user, Jeff Reifman, who broke the news on the Web site NewsCloud. A week earlier, nearly 30,000 clips of TV shows, movies and music videos were taken down after the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers cited copyright infringement.

*****

In an interview with Wired magazine in September 2005, Mr. Stewart explained his view: "We get an opportunity to produce this stuff because they make enough money selling beer that it's worth their while to do it. I mean, we know that's the game. I'm not suggesting we're going to beam it out to the heavens, man, and whoever gets it, great. If they're not making their money, we ain't doing our show."

A Boy Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, etc., etc. He is also respectful of copyrights. Boy Scouts in the Los Angeles area will now be able to earn an activity patch for learning about the evils of downloading pirated movies and music. The patch shows a film reel, a music CD and the international copyright symbol, a "C" enclosed in a circle. The movie industry has developed the curriculum.

"Working with the Boy Scouts of Los Angeles, we have a real opportunity to educate a new generation about how movies are made, why they are valuable, and hopefully change attitudes about intellectual property theft," Dan Glickman, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, said in a statement Friday. Scouts will be instructed in the basics of copyright law and learn how to identify five types of copyrighted works and three ways copyrighted materials may be stolen.

Scouts also must choose one activity from a list that includes visiting a movie studio to see how many people can be harmed by film piracy. They also can create public service announcements urging others not to steal movies or music. Many of the Scouts in the Los Angeles area come from families whose members are somehow connected to the region's sprawling entertainment industry, said Victor Zuniga, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Area Council.

The program is being introduced to the 52,000 Scouts in the Los Angeles area, with plans to offer it to other California councils early next year. The program will reach Scouts ages 6 to 21. Unlike a merit badge, an activity patch is not required to advance in the Scouts. Instead, they are awarded for various recreational and educational activities, such as conservation or volunteering at a food bank.

Fan fiction, stories by amateur writers about characters from their favorite books, movies and television shows, was once mainly a fringe pursuit. Now, it's changing the world of fiction, as Internet exposure helps unknown authors find mainstream success. Some Web sites are attracting unprecedented numbers of readers and, in some cases, leading to book deals. They are also feeding the appetites of readers and viewers who can't get enough of shows like "Lost" or "House."

*****

One sign of the growing influence of these authors and stories is that media companies, usually quick to go after people who use their copyrighted material, are increasingly leaving fan fiction writers alone. Mindful of the large, loyal audience the writers represent, many companies are adopting an attitude one media professor describes as "benign neglect." While most professional writers say their lawyers advise them not to read fan fiction to protect themselves against charges of plagiarism, some say they check the numbers of fan fiction stories posted about their work regularly as a measure of their success.

The rise of fan fiction is part of the spread of amateur-created content online, from viral videos to music playlists and blogs. Increasingly, audiences have become used to watching videos posted by other users on sites such as YouTube and MySpace. Reading fiction online is another extention of this trend.

*****

Some authors take a less friendly view of the genre, however. "No matter how flattering, it's still robbery," says fantasy novelist Chelsea Quinn Yarbro, whose vampire works have inspired a number of fan-fiction writers. She estimates that her attorney has sent out about 20 "cease and desist" letters to writers and owners of fan sites. Ms. Yarbro says this has caused some of the writers and sites to take their stories down.

[T]he extensive use of Times material from so many writers has drawn at least some grumblings among staffers. In addition to not being paid for their work to be re-used, some are miffed that they are not even being told what material from their past is included. Although each item, from single-paragraphs to lengthy article reprints, is fully credited, none of the items are indexed by author. "Due to the sheer number of entries, we cannot write each one of you and tell you exactly what yours is," Ward wrote contributors in an e-mail last month. "Secondly, with very few exceptions, there is no payment. (A handful of writers whose entries formed a significant part of a particular section will be notified separately and receive an honorarium.)"

Anthony Napoli, a representative of the Newspaper Guild of New York, which represents Times staffers, said the paper is not legally obligated to pay for the use of material that has already appeared in print. "If they are doing it as a regular employee, it belongs to the New York Times," he said about such material. "The content belongs to them."

*****

"I prefer being paid to not being paid," said Eric Asimov, a wine writer whose views on vino fill several pages of the new book. "I don't think anyone would argue with that." Columnist Nicholas Kristof, whose opinions on hybrid cars from a previous column span several pages in the guide, said the book is the latest in a growing move to make more money from the paper's work. "There is certainly more of an effort to use the brand and find ways of taking control and making money off of it more systematically," said Kristof. "It is nice if they can include some benefit to the writers."

David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer Prize winner who had at least one small item in the guide, said he was not troubled by the lack of payment or information on which materials were used, but knew why other writers were. "I understand why some people are and I can see why," he told E&P. "Some people probably feel they should be paid for it."

The self-published Star Wars fan novel Another Hope was finally pulled from sale on Amazon.com on April 25, though copyright holder Lucasfilm had asked it to be removed at least a day earlier. The listing, however, remains. The book, an unlicensed and unauthorized book by Lori Jareo, has also been removed from sale at Barnes&Noble.com, but remains on sale at Amazon.co.uk as of 10 a.m. PT April 26. A listing also remains on Powells.com, though the book is listed as being "out of stock."

Lucasfilm spokeswoman Lynne Hale had told SCI FI Wire that the company asked Jareo to remove the book from sale, and that she had complied happily. SCI FI Wire e-mails to Jareo have gone unanswered. News of the book first broke on the blogs of writers John Scalzi, Nick Mamatas and Lee Goldberg.

After losing a copyright claim against Random House, the publishers of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, Leigh, an American-born novelist and historian, and his colleague, Michael Baigent, have to make a down payment of £350,000 in the next 28 days. Even after that they will still owe £750,000 - plus their own costs, estimated in court at £800,000.

It was one of the most expensive mistakes in British legal history and Leigh, shell-shocked by the verdict, admitted that he had no idea how he would find the money. "I welcome any suggestions on that," he said. Baigent and Leigh had accused Brown of stealing the "central themes" and "architecture" of their 1982 book, The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail - a claim totally rejected by Mr Justice Peter Smith. Both books posit the theory that Jesus Christ married and had children with Mary Magdalene, the bloodline continuing to this day.

*****

After ordering the two men to meet 85 per cent of the costs of the publisher Random House, which coincidentally published both books, Mr Justice Smith asked how the two men were going to meet the bill. The answer was unclear, although their lawyer suggested that one of them might have to sell their house. At that point, James Abraham, QC, for the publisher, jumped up to say that it had never been his client's intention to bankrupt the two writers, or force anyone to sell their house. How else, asked the judge, are they going to pay?

The pair wrote the Holy Blood book with a third writer, Henry Lincoln, an Englishman who now lives in New Zealand. Lincoln, a former scriptwriter for Z Cars and Dr Who, has been as disparaging as his colleagues about Brown's book, but refused to subscribe to their lawsuit and did not attend the High Court hearing.

Brown is just doing what we all do every day, and what we've all been trained to do through years of schooling: Take an idea, go to the library or online to look for facts that support or deny that idea or examples to enhance it then write your paper, letter, book or song.

If there still is such a thing as an original idea, I'd like to hear about it. Turn on any TV show or open any newspaper, magazine or book, and chances are that most stories are there because the writer, editor or producer saw it somewhere else first. If the judge rules that Brown did indeed plagiarize from Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh's 1982 book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, a book that they've profited from handsomely, needless to say research as we know it, for writers, students, professionals, anyone who relies on any form of media, will be forever changed.

The worst-case scenario is that a flurry of unfounded accusations will emanate from slighted creative types everywhere, with the "authors" of overheard conversations suing writers for "copying" their words and ideas. This prospect is much more frightening than James Frey's sin of thinking his fiction was no different from nonfiction. In the aftermath, the only thing that's changed in the publishing industry is that the fact-checking calvary is now called in whenever a manuscript is tagged as a "memoir."

Industry wags figure the plaintiffs' chances at winning are about as good as Dan Brown's fifth novel being published this year, an extreme long shot since a manuscript is nowhere in sight. Publishing insiders pegged the trial as a cheap publicity stunt from the start, launched only to attract attention for Holy Blood and for Baigent's next book, The Jesus Papers, to be published April 1, just in time for the worldwide release of The Da Vinci Code movie in mid-May.

*****

The fact of the matter is that Baigent and Leigh didn't pluck the premise for Holy Blood, Holy Grail out of thin air, since it's been written about and bandied about for centuries. They read about it somewhere else first. Just like Dan Brown. No one — artist or not — lives in a vacuum. We learn from and are inspired by the ideas of others, which we then absorb and convert into our own. Then someday, someone else will hopefully be likewise inspired by our ideas. Perhaps Chilean novelist Isabel Allende said it best in her book Aphrodite: A Memoir of the Senses: "Copying one author is plagiarism. Copying many is research."

The dispute was prompted by revelations that a publishing house in Milan had to pay £10,000 to reprint 30 lines from the first speech by the Pope following his election in April, after the Vatican transferred copyright on papal texts to its own publishing house, Libreria Editrice Vaticana. The Vatican also plans to charge rights on any papal texts of the past 50 years.

"I am perplexed," said Vittorio Messori, who has co-authored two books with two popes. "The Church is an organisation that exists to spread the word of God and levying a duty on those words, putting a smell of money on it, seems to me to be a very negative thing." The Union of Catholic Booksellers and Publishers has also complained.

The Vatican has said that papal texts have always been subject to copyright but that the rules were often not observed. Transferring the copyright was to protect papal works and ensure that the rules would be applied more rigorously, a spokesman said. He denied that the charges were excessive and said there was a sliding scale of 3% to 5% in royalties on books which used extracts from the Pope's teachings. But the newspaper La Stampa claims that the Milan publishing house which printed an excerpt from the Pope's first speech had to agree to pay 15% in royalties and £2,000 in legal costs.

Two authors are launching a High Court action against the publishers of The Da Vinci Code, which they say infringes upon their ideas. Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are suing Random House, claiming the bestseller lifts from their 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. A High Court hearing will be held next week, followed by a trial next year. Random House was unavailable for comment on the claim that Brown stole the idea that Jesus had a child.

A spokeswoman for Baigent and Leigh said the authors had been struck by alleged similarities to their history book. She said: "The basis of their case is theft of intellectual property. "There are huge chunks of The Da Vinci Code which they say is lifted from their book." The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was recently reissued through Century, part of the Random House group. It features "cryptically coded parchments, secret societies, the Knights Templar" and links them to "a dynasty of obscure French kings" and the Holy Grail. It also claims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child together.

In August, Brown won a court ruling in New York against writer Lewis Perdue, who claimed The Da Vinci Code plagiarised elements of two of his novels, Daughter of God, published in 2000 and 1983's The Da Vinci Legacy. Perdue sought to block future distribution of the book and forthcoming film, as well as $150m (£84m) in damages, but the judge said any similarity was based on "unprotectable ideas".