Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:The Case for Copyright Reform (Score 1) 183

They should just read The Case for Copyright Reform by Christian EngstrÃm (Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party) & Rick Falkvinge (founder of the original Pirate Party), and implement it. You can, of course, download the book for free on that website. I highly recommend reading it.

Thanks for the recommendation. You deserve to be modded up for that.

Comment Re:So, what are you prepared to give away for no p (Score 1) 183

I'm not hostile to copyright. I have been working in copyright law since 1974.

The problem is that due to influence peddling, copyright law has lost its mooring.

It is supposed to ensure
-to the author,
-reasonable compensation,
and it is supposed to ensure that
-the work is turned over to the public after a reasonable time.

It is also supposed to permit fair uses of copyrighted works.

What we have now is:

-money which flows mostly to large corporations who are not authors

-a flow of money for vastly unreasonable periods of time

-the virtual abolition of fair use.

I am in favor of copyright law. What we have now is not copyright law.

Comment Re:Big money owns and runs govt. (Score 1) 183

Right then, send in your arguments, so they can all be shot down more effectively, and precisely, by the likes of the copyright lobby and other big money interests with crack legal teams. Big money owns, and runs govt., including the chit-chat at the water cooler.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.

Even this 'call for comments' by the government (a) comes from an agency that doesn't administer copyright law, and (b) has no return address for the actual 'comments'.

Fortunately, we have Slashdot, though. The government can come here and see what people think.

Submission + - Uncle Sam finally wants to hear from us on digital copyright law?

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: Can it be true? The US government claims it really wants to hear from us on the subject of how copyright law needs to be modified to accommodate the developing technology of the digital age? I don't know, but the US Patent & Trademark Office (which btw has nothing to do with administering copyright) says "we really want to hear from you" and the Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force wrote a 122-page paper (PDF) on the subject, so they must really mean it, right? But I couldn't find the address to which to send my comments, so maybe that was an oversight on their part.

Comment Can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion (Score 2) 49

When you win a copyright case you may be awarded your attorneys fees. I can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion. It's going to make my firm's bills seem like chicken feed.

But the defendant's lawyers have done a great job of beating back the Evil Empire, and in so doing have accomplished an important victory for the vitality of the internet.

Comment Re:That's a new one... (Score 1) 49

Right, I had figured that was who it meant, but I'm not sure I understand how that makes them 'content' maximalists. Is it just a typo like someone else suggested and it should read 'copyright' maximalists instead? If that's not it, then it seems a bit ambiguous. I want as much content as possible to be out there, wouldn't that make me a 'content' maximalist too?

Actually, you're 100% right. I think I was trying to decide between the phrase "content cartel" and "copyright maximalists", so my aging brain settled on "content maximalists". Would you change that to "copyright maximalists" for me, please :)

Comment Re:That's a new one... (Score 1) 49

Content maximalists? In context it's obviously supposed to refer to Viacom et al, but I'm not sure what that means. They want maximum content? Doesn't quite sound right.

It means the big old school content "gatekeeper" companies, and their trade groups like the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc., whose economic power is being eroded by digitalization and the internet, and who are fighting back by taking extremist positions in defense of their copyright ownership.

Submission + - YouTube wins again 3

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: Once again YouTube has defeated Viacom and other members of the content cartel; once again the Court has held that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act actually does mean what it says. YouTube had won the case earlier, at the district court level, but the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, although ruling in YouTube's favor on all of the general principles at stake, felt that there were several factual issues involving some of the videos and remanded to the lower court for a cleanup of those loose ends. Now, the lower court — Judge Louis L. Stanton to be exact — has resolved all of the remaining issues in YouTube's favor, in a 24-page opinion. Among other things Judge Stanton concluded that YouTube had not had knowledge or awareness of any specific infringement, been 'willfully blind' to any specific infringement, induced its users to commit copyright infringement, interacted with its users to a point where it might be said to have participated in their infringements, or manually selected or delivered videos to its syndication partners. Nevertheless, 5 will get you 10 that the content maximalists will appeal once again.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...