â€˜Mad Menâ€™ era Copyright Office needs to be brought into the 21st century â€” “Letâ€™s start with where the U.S. Copyright Office is housed: in the Library of Congress. Why? Well, in 1890, placing it there was a convenience to help the Library build its collection of books that were deposited for registration. Of course, this is meaningless in the electronic era and allows the Library to re-direct funding to other projects. Although knowledge of copyright law is not a requirement to be Librarian of Congress, that person is in charge of issuing copyright regulations. Congressional hearings have produced a consensus that the Copyright Office needs budget and operational autonomy to function properly.”
Making John Lasseter Cry: Pete DoctorÂ and Jonas RiveraÂ on â€œInside Outâ€ â€” Great interview with the producer and director of Pixar’s latest, “Inside Out”, out today. The original story took five years to develop.
Justin Bieber Must Face Copyright Suit, Appeals Court Rules â€” The Fourth Circuit reversed the decision of a lower court to dismiss a copyright complaint alleging Usher and Bieber infringed an existing song. The Circuit held, after listening to the two songs itself, that “a reasonable jury could find the songs intrinsically similar,” so the litigation should survive the pleadings stage.
Jenner & Block Accuses Google of Abusive Litigation Tactics â€”Â “‘The most fundamental purpose of these subpoenas is to send a message to anyone who dares to seek government redress for Googleâ€™s facilitation of unlawful conduct: If you and your attorneys exercise their First Amendment right to seek redress from a government official, Google will come after you,’ Jenner & Block partner David Handzo wrote. ‘The court should not allow Googleâ€™s abuse of the litigation process.'”
Canadian court reflects common sense in rejecting Google appeal â€” Google lost an attempt in Canada to ignore a court order to restrain infringement. Here’s David Newhoff’s take. “The case of Equustek v Google demonstrates that a very narrow and carefully weighed judicial approach to de-indexing clearly criminal sites can coexist with free speech and of course not break the Internet. More importantly, the Canadian court places what seems like a very fairÂ and minimal degree of burden on the site owner, rejecting the all-too-popular claim that sites are to be treated exclusively and universally as neutral, passive entities in these matters.”