Friday, August 20, 2004

Sound philosophy for developing policy for this century: "We live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of Internet innovation," Judge Thomas wrote. "The introduction of new technology is always disruptive of old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through well-established distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine or an MP3 player." (NYT) comment [] 5:37:23 AM

	Thursday, August 19, 2004

I find the contrasts in the following headlines interesting for what they say of the editor's knowledge of the subject before the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Court Rules Some File-Sharing Companies are not liable (NYT) Judges rule file-sharing software legal (News.com) Studios are dealt Piracy setback (WSJ) US Court rejects Movie, Music Makers' Piracy Claims (Reuters) Court ruling favors music-sharing networks (Post) Now, the following is the most accurate headline from early in the day today: Court Finds for Grokster, Others on Copyright (Reuters). Reuters - A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled several Internet file-sharing software companies are not liable for copyright infringement for digital video and music files traded online utilizing their programs. I have read a couple of critiques of the ruling and it boils down to an affirmation of the Sony Betamax decision of 1984.  Such affirmation hardly constitutes a blow to piracy efforts anymore than it legitimizes illegal sharing of music across a network.  Perhaps editors need to spend more time in class so that the content and context are more clearly represented in the headline (but, then they couldn't sell papers then could they?)   comment [] 9:44:33 PM

	Saturday, July 17, 2004

Haven't read it yet.  But should use as reference. Link Law Revisited : Internet Linking Law at five years. comment [] 4:46:07 PM

	Tuesday, December 02, 2003

This would be funny, if the lies weren't true. We oppose the UN regulating the Internet because we (the US and business folks) fear that such regulation would give UN government types power that would affect the free flow of information. So, the PATRIOT Act doesn't affect the free flow of information? CIPA doesn't affect the free flow of information? The FCC trying to regulate VOIP because the White House ways the technology would hamper wire tap tries against terrorists -- doesn't hampe the free flow of information? And, the anti-spam bill, which favors the Fortune 500 , yet does nothing against real spam, thus killing the internet -- doesn't hamper the free flow of information? Give me a break! Rifts mar digital divide summit. Political wrangling is threatening to derail the first United Nations summit aimed at bridging the digital divide. [BBC News | Technology | UK Edition] comment [] 10:39:11 PM

	Saturday, August 09, 2003

"Lawyernetbook" [Daypop Top 40] comment [] 9:37:26 PM

	Friday, August 01, 2003

Two Register Articles One piece talk about how security officials totally missed the obvious fact that a physical attack on infrastructure would be as damaging to our information systems (i.e. the airliner into the world trade center) as a "hack" attack.  So, while they were looking for someone to live out a Tom Clancy dream, the attack came from the real world. Second piece deals with SBC challenging RIAA on their legal tactics.  The article goes on to say that calls are now out to re-look DMCA, as one congressman says - "we don't cut off hands for stealing here."  hmm... comment [] 9:13:17 AM

	Thursday, July 31, 2003

Why Government should avoid SPAM. Come to think of it, it was the Government in WW II that promoted SPAM (the meat? product) to its glorious heights.  Now, Congress (and some state legislatures) think they can regulate SPAM out of existence.  Well, as they say, once the SPAM is out of the can... Anyway, this article is good info for coming legislation. Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?. Many online advocates would love to see spammers burn in hell. But they caution that Congress' zeal to pass antispam legislation is more likely to wreak havoc on the Net than to solve the junk e-mail problem. By Ryan Singel. [Wired News] comment [] 7:16:11 AM