- First U.S. GPL lawsuit filed: The makers of GPL licensed software BusyBox are suing Monsoon media for using the software without redistributing the underlying source code. This could be a case to watch–especially since “BusyBox” already makes a potentially neat case name.
- 9 ways for a Web 2.0 company to commit legal suicide, in preview of EFF Bootcamp: It’ almost too easy to throw some code together and generate a little venture capital; or at least easy enough where important legal issues are evidently frequently overlooked (the article quotes the EFF’s Fred von Lohmann, “Half the companies you blog about have copyright or privacy legal issues simmering just under the surface. Since most of them are thinly capitalized, when they get into trouble, they’re likely to call EFF for legal advice. Several already have.”). Perhaps this is another case of how easy it is to overlook unknown or “obscure” laws?
Category: Copyright
Links: First Sale Doctrine, Privacy Standards, and Ad Blocking
- Autodesk Sued By eBay Seller For Pretending Right Of First Sale Doesn’t Exist | Techdirt: Here’s an interesting mix of a number of issues… first sale, the DMCA, and shrinkwrap licensing.
- Call for global privacy standards | Google: Google is pushing for international privacy standards. This could potentially have a substantial impact on how the future, more personal, web functions. (story at Ars)
- Web ad blocking may not be (entirely) legal | CNet: It’s amazing how much of this comes down to use policies, which nobody reads anyway. Pretty good analysis here.
Patry: Non-profit, non-partisan education in copyright
The Patry Copyright Blog: Non-profit, non-partisan education in copyright
Inspired by a response by the director of the Copyright Alliance to a previous post, Patry takes on an issue I’m hoping to take on in my own research: how do we educate the public about copyright.
Patry argues that the Alliance practices “‘education’ of a distinct type; equating copyright education overwhelmingly with stopping file sharing,” rather than a “balanced viewpoint.” This type of “education” happens on both sides of the debate (example: the Association of Research Libraries produces material which they hope will “encourage the campus community to confidently and assertively exercise their rights.”)
The difficulty here is that copyright has developed to be so complex and indeteriminate that I would argue any effort at copyright education (short of quoting the law) will end up being political. The result of this is when the law is put into action by creators and users of copyrighted works, they have their choice of interpretation. Additionally, educational materials are easy to ignore.
In my opinion, a better approach than education about copyright is to involve the public more in the debate over pending copyright reform. Giving people the feeling that their voice has been heard increases the chance that they will buy in to the resulting law. I believe promoting compliance in this way is a much cheaper and (eventually) less political way to go.
Catch-up
Even with a good feed reader, it can be hard to keep up with the news, and even harder to blog. Something worth mentioning that mostly happened “while I was away” was a brief online debate about the scope of copyright and fair use.
- Fair use is not a consumer right | Perspectives | CNET News.com
- The director of the Copyright Alliance argues against the notion of fair use as a “right.” I’d argue that legally, he’s correct, but in the minds of the public it’s a really tough sell. Evidenced by a number of posts and comments on the subject.
- Free Speech Sometimes Trumps Copyright | Wired
- Copyright is always Government Intervention | The Patry Copyright Blog
- Google’s copyright council, William Patry, rightly points out counter to the Copyright Alliance’s demands of respect for strong copyright. He notes that copyright’s very existence should be thought of as an act of government intervention:
One thing should be beyond dispute, and that is copyright is always an act of government intervention. Without Congress enacting title 17, there would be no (federal) law at all, as the Supreme Court held in its very first (1834) opinion in a copyright case, Wheaton v. Peters. Copyright in the U.S. is, therefore, in its very essence, an act by Congress interfering with an inherent lack of rights: every grant of rights represents government intervention. I support such intervention when it is responsible, as it has been for much of our countries’ history, at least until 1998, when in my opinion things ran permanently off the rails with term extension and the sui generis DMCA provisions of chapter 12.
- Economic Value
- A report on the economic value of fair use (story) has drawn arguments from more than one fan of liberal copyright protection. Google realizes that much of their business relies on fair use, while Carr contends that the data might be misleading. Considering it was a consulting firm that collected the data and prepared the report, it’s probably best to take the results with a grain of salt–but the debate is nonetheless interesting.