Tag Archives: copyright reform

SoundCloud’s Automatic Content Protection System Removed a Remix of John Cage’s Silent Composition, “4’33”

How much more idiotic does copyright have to get before we do something about it? Also, best DJ name ever!

Does John Cage own the copyright for silence?

Source: SoundCloud’s Automatic Content Protection System Removed a Remix of John Cage’s Silent Composition, “4’33” | Pigeons & Planes

Librarian of Congress grants limited DRM-breaking rights for cars, games, phones, tablets, and remixers

It may not be all great news, but it is a start, a step in the right direction. Naturally, Congress could eliminate this waste of taxpayer money by simply repealing the DMCA (or, at least, Section 1201).

But there’s some good news: the rule permitting jailbreaking phones was extended to tablets, something the Copyright Office rejected three years ago. Then it said that it couldn’t tell laptops from tablets (raising two important questions: “why not allow jailbreaking on laptops”; and, “if you don’t know the difference between a laptop and a tablet, maybe you shouldn’t be regulating either of them?“) [emphasis added]. This year, thanks to EFF, it decided it could finally tell the difference.

Source: Librarian of Congress grants limited DRM-breaking rights for cars, games, phones, tablets, and remixers / Boing Boing

Copyrights and wrongs

I’m torn on long-term copyrights because of long-running, beloved characters like Mickey Mouse, but I feel like there should be some clause for commercial utilization (or under-utilization) after the original term expires. For example, if Disney doesn’t create any new works in a particular medium for a particular time using Mickey Mouse (as what happened from the 1990s until the mid-2000s or Oswald The Lucky Rabbit since the 1920s), Mickey (in that particular medium: short-subject animation) falls into public domain. Disney is still free to capitalize on Mickey’s likeness in other media, but animation is no longer their exclusive ground. It’s admittedly a hackneyed solution and probably isn’t ideal for anyone, but it’s arguably better than extending copyright terms into infinity.

This sort of “infinite copyright” is singularly important to the Gen Xers and Millennials because, unlike past generations, our epics, our heroes, and our legends may never pass into public domain and those stories might never be retold without express consent of the rights holder. Imagine a world in which Odysseus or even Sherlock Holmes was held in copyright for over 2000 years! (For one thing, Steven Moffat would never have been able to get a job–for better or worse.) Those heroes were to their generations what Batman, Doctor Who, and Han Solo (to name but a few) are to ours. Copyright financially protects the rights holder for a period of time, incentivizing creativity, but extensions into perpetuity ultimately stifle creativity and erode our shared culture.

Source: Copyrights and wrongs

Also on:

Countersuit: Georgia can’t copyright its laws

Good job, Georgia. Laws are public domain. Period. I guess you’ll need a black robe to tell you that before you believe it. Thanks for wasting taxpayers’ money.

Source: Countersuit: Georgia can’t copyright its laws / Boing Boing

An International Copyright Fight Over the Marcels Duchamps Chess Set

More reason that draconian copyright law needs to be overturned NOW!

How a hand-carved game got tangled in a dispute over copyright law, and what it means for the future of sharable things

Source: An International Copyright Fight Over the Marcels Duchamps Chess Set – The Atlantic

Why Shouldn’t Copyright Be Infinite?

Short answer: because while copyright can secure and bolster freedom of expression in the short-term, nearly infinite copyright extensions stifle creativity and expression becomes prohibitively expensive.

If an 11-note sequence counts as infringement, how much do modern artists owe Pachelbel’s descendants? The four-chord sequence making up the core of his Canon in D has been repeated in dozens, if not hundreds, of subsequent songs. Should evidence produced by Australia’s Axis of Awesome be used in copyright lawsuits by anyone who can document that, ten generations back, Johann Pachelbel was a great-great-grandfather? It seems absurd.

Source: Why Shouldn’t Copyright Be Infinite? | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Also on:

What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2015?

The films Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, and Gigi, the books Things Fall Apart, Our Man in Havana, and The Once and Future King, great music, and more. . .

Read the rest

How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us to Greater Harm

We live in a world made of computers. Your car is a computer that drives down the freeway at 60 mph with you strapped inside. If you live or work in a modern building, computers regulate its temperature and respiration. And we’re not just putting our bodies inside computers—we’re also putting computers inside our bodies. I recently exchanged words in an airport lounge with a late arrival who wanted to use the sole electrical plug, which I had beat him to, fair and square. “I need to charge my laptop,” I said. “I need to charge my leg,” he said, rolling up his pants to show me his robotic prosthesis. I surrendered the plug.

Read the rest

Also on:

A leaked MPAA memo reveals a troubling plan for blacklisting pirate sites

Considering what sorts of rampant censorship are on the web today, this would be a VERY BAD development for open speech.

Most anti-piracy tools take one of two paths: they either target the server that’s sharing the files (pulling videos off YouTube or taking down sites like The Pirate Bay) or they make it harder to find (delisting offshore sites that share infringing content). But leaked documents reveal a frightening line of attack that’s currently being considered by the MPAA: What if you simply erased any record that the site was there in the first place?

Read the rest

Pointing Users to DRM-Stripping Software Isn’t Copyright Infringement, Judge Rules

This could strike a huge blow to the idiotic clause in the DMCA that forbids circumventing DRM locks. I’m crossing my fingers on further developments.

Telling users how to strip the DRM from their legally purchased ebooks is not contributory copyright infringement, according to a ruling last month by a federal judge in New York. Judge Denise Cote dismissed two publishers’ claims of contributory infringement and inducement in Abbey House Media v. Apple Inc., one of the many cases to come out of the antitrust litigation against Apple and a handful of major publishers.

Read the rest

Also on: