Return of the AmeriKat I: Berne takes a bite out of the US ConstitutionÂ â€” The Supreme Court’s opinion in Golan v. Holder, which was argued last month, likely won’t be out for several months. In the meantime, IPKat offers a substantial look at the background and issues raised in the case.
Where are all those mashers and mixers we keep hearing about?Â â€” One of the central tenets of some “copyfighters” is that remixing and mashing up somehow represents the new paradigm of culture, replacing “traditional” notions of authorship. The takeaway being that corporations like Google should be given free reign to profit off the aggregation of such remixes and mashups without any regard to the original creators. John Degen points to a recent study that reveals that, contrary to this tenet, only 12% of the respondents said they engage in remixing.
Public Safety Community Overwhelmingly Supports Rogue Sites LegislationÂ â€” The Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Fire Fighters join an array of public safety organizations backing legislation aimed at online copyright infringement and counterfeit goods. Counterfeit safety equipment is a very real public safety issue.
Copyright Small Claims?Â â€” The US Copyright Office has recently begun seeking comments on possible remedies for small copyright claims. Attorney David Lizerbram takes a deeper look at the issue.
Does Culture Really Want to be Free?Â â€” Salon sits down with Robert Levine to discuss many of the issues he raises in his new book Free Ride. Full of choice quotes like this one: “I donâ€™t think anyone is going to go to hell for downloading ‘Iron Man 2.’ But saying you have the right to download it is also pretty silly.”
5 Steps to Understanding Bill C-11 and “Digital Locks”Â â€” As Canada moves toward reforming its copyright law, concern has been raised over provisions dealing with technological protection measures. James Gannon explains what these provisions do and why they are needed.
The Entire $1.65B Acquisition of YouTube Took a Week, Was Negotiated at Denny’sÂ â€” “Schmidt basically promised the founders unlimited resources in return for an â€œinfinite amount of happy usersâ€ and an â€œinfinite amountâ€ of good content.” (Sadly, Schmidt could only promise a finite amount of Moons Over My Hammy.)
More Than Just a Formality: Instant Authorship and Copyright’s Opt-Out Future in the Digital AgeÂ â€” UCLA law student and friend of the site Brad GreenbergÂ penned this forthcoming law review article about proposals to bring back copyright formalities in the digital age. Ultimately, he concludes that “returning to an opt-in copyright system via formalities would actually disincentivize authors who are presently motivated by copyright.”
Different subject, but there is another in a series of posts by Post on Volokh re Protect-IP and SOPA.
His First Amendment absolutism is starting to wear thin.
Link is here: http://volokh.com/2011/11/04/how-about-occupy-hollywood/
Post appears to be flying his pirate-freak flag high. His conclusion that “itâ€™s an independent violation of law to keep the prosecutors from â€œconfirmingâ€ that youâ€™re violating the law” doesn’t even follow from the text of the bill. His reasoning is all over the place. Yikes. And really, “this law will destroy the Internet as we know it”? Give me a break with the ridiculous rhetoric.
I wouldn’t place a whole lot of stock in the claims of the “remixers”.
Anyone that has ever been around a real artist knows they want to express their own unique, unheard creations, not recycle what has been, at the very least, already experienced.