â€œFifteen years of utter bollocksâ€: how a generationâ€™s freeloading has starved creativity â€” A great essay from author Chris Ruen, whose excellent book Freeloading: How our insatiable appetite for free content is starving creativityÂ has recently been released in the UK. “Any desperate excuse was good enough, so long as it justified the original campaign. Otherwise, the people who fought against copyright in this battle would have to confront the fact that they were never carrying the flag for freedom or ‘openness’, but for aggression, entitlement and selfishness masked by superficial delusions of grandeur.”
5 Major Publications that Cover Copyright Well â€” From Jonathan Bailey at PlagiarismToday, a nice list of mainstream news sources with above average copyright coverage.
Aereo Hits Roadblock in Effort to Become Cable System â€” Back in the District Court following the Supreme Court’s remand, Aereo pursued a new line of argument: that it is a cable system, and thus entitled to carry broadcast programming under the Copyright Act’s Section 111 compulsory license. This week, the Copyright Office rejected that argument (though it provisionally accepted the application until the court rules on the issue). Aereo still has the option of bringing the question to the FCC, but that would subject it to a host of regulations, including the need to negotiate retransmission consent with the broadcasters.
DMCAâ€™s protection of copyright management information applied to non-electronic works â€” Evan Brown provides a heads-up on a recent decision involvingÂ Â§ 1202, a lesser known section of the DMCA that prohibits the removal or alteration of “copyright management information.” The question here was whether that provision applies “only to electronic works intended for distribution over the internet, or whether it applies to more traditional works such as hard copy technical drawings.” The court here chose the latter.
Fishman on Creating Around Copyright â€” “It is generally understood that the copyright system constrains downstream creators by limiting their ability to use protected works in follow-on expression. Those who view the promotion of creativity as copyrightâ€™s mission usually consider this constraint to be a necessary evil at best and an unnecessary one at worst. This conventional wisdom rests on the seemingly intuitive premise that more creative choice will deliver more creativity. Yet that premise is belied by both the history of the arts and contemporary psychological research on the creative process. In fact, creativity flourishes best not under complete freedom, but rather under a moderate amount of restriction.”