Big Content will not rest until they control every aspect of your consumption experience. Welcome to digital feudalism.
Hollywood thinks that copyright holders should be able to use licensing agreements to place whatever restrictions they like on how people can access their content.
Source: Copyright Office Jumps Into Set-Top Box Debate, Says Hollywood Should Control Your TV | Electronic Frontier Foundation
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
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
More evidence on just how broken US Copyright and YouTube’s DMCA policies are.
For the past few years, people have been contending with more and more false copyright claims and ID matches on services such as YouTube.
Source: Sony Filed a Copyright Claim Against the Stock Video I Licensed to Them
Fair use wins!
A U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that Google’s massive effort to scan millions of books for an online library does not violate copyright law….
Source: Google book-scanning project legal, says U.S. appeals court | Reuters
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
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
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
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