Last week, I noted the server problems this site was having. They extended into this week, making the site slow to load or unresponsive, but things seem to be back to normal now. Sorry for the inconvenience!

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons — This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving copyright’s first sale doctrine and grey market goods. SCOTUSBlog has more info on the case; also check out Andrew Berger’s analysis of the 2nd Circuit’s decision on that case when it was released last August.

Hulu Plus subscriptions hits 2 million, accelerates revenue — The online TV site continues to quietly chug ahead, with over two million paid subscribers. And if you haven’t already, check out the Hulu exclusive series Battleground, a very smart, well-scripted mockumentary that takes a behind the scenes look at a political campaign (available on regular Hulu, not just Hulu Plus).

The internet wants to be open, but some internets are more open than others — Google’s Sergey Brin had some interesting things to say this week. Dominic Young takes a look at Brin’s remarks in the Guardian where he complains about having to follow the law like the rest of us chumps, and how Google’s inability to crawl Facebook and Apple threatens innovation. “Is is really true that because data in apps is not crawlable it is ‘lost’?” asks Young. “I use apps all the time, and the data appears to be available to me.”

I Am the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Other Copycats Litter Amazon— The author of “I am the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” published 10,000 books on Amazon, according to this article. “What’s worse is that Amazon has actually been helping these books come into fruition. All of the copycat books that Fortune found were made through CreateSpace, a division of Amazon that allows authors to create and self-publish their books.”

Supporting copyright is not the same as opposing freedom of speech — Helienne Lindvall reports on her participation in a debate over the ACTA. “I understand why many people would sign an online petition against Acta if they’ve been told it’s a threat to freedom of speech and privacy. I would have done the same if I hadn’t read through the actual agreement. And if I didn’t think counterfeit trade in any way impacted on me, it would be even easier to for me to say no without bothering to read it. Maybe that is why so many of the opponents of Acta have never seen a proposal for copyright enforcement that they wouldn’t say no to. But what we’re doing is the cultural equivalent of overfishing the lake.”

RapidShare Publishes Anti-Piracy Manifesto for Cyberlockers — The Swiss cyberlocker took a positive step this week by releasing a paper on “Responsible Practices for Cloud Storage Services.” The paper suggests several steps that cyberlockers can take to actively promote legitimate uses and discourage illegitimate uses of their services, “balancing the needs for safe, reliable, and private storage and communications with respect for intellectual property and the public interest inreasonable enforcement.”

Share: Reddit Google+ LinkedIn

2 Comments

  1. The ‘comments’ on the TorrentF**ker link are depressing. Of course… all comments on all their “articles” are depressing. The sheeple flock to yell “me too!” with zero thought behind the comments.

    Little do they know, they just add to resolve and determination to shut down their practices. The clock is ticking…

  2. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons:

    In the 2nd Circuit decision the court lays out three (3) possible interpretations of the term “lawfully made under this title”. I find it a bit puzzling why a fourth possible interpretation was not proferred; to wit, “made” as that term is used in the definition of what comprises a “work made for hire”.

    It seems to me that the focus to date is the country where a work is manufactured, and makes no mention of where a work was initially “fixed in a tangible medium of expression…” If the former, then it does seem that Section 609 man very well trump Section 106. However, it the latter then it is entirely possible that Section 106 would control as it pertains to the First Sale doctrine.

    I am curious if I am missing an important point because in my view the fourth possible interpretation of the term does not even appear to have been considered.