Did white house business liaison valerie jarrett just give the big kiss-off to verizon chairman ivan seidenberg? Or did she invite more negotiations on some crucial telecommunications issues?
Ipo is rightfully worried that acta’s focus on penalties for internet-based infringement might result in criminal sanctions for things like using trademarks in website metadata, or buying AD space on web searches for trademarks.
Under allvid, all pay TV providers would simply provide their customers with a small adapter that takes pay TV content and makes it available on a customer’s home network.
What do copyright infringement damages have to do with the constitution at all?
Both summit and angle seem to be under the misguided impression that they should have absolute power and control over their intellectual property, but, as mulligan thoughtfully points out, the supreme court spelled out in sony v. Universal city studios back in 1984 that copyright “has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible uses of his work.
Creating a copyright in the work of military faculty is not necessary, but would only harm the public’s access to the research and insight of its government.
The new york times editorial page put its formidable magnifying glass up to some fabulous work done by the sunlight foundation in the ferocious industry lobbying over telecommunications policy.
One of my research assignments as an intern here at PK involves looking at the organization and function of the copyright office, which exists as a part of the library of congress.
Acta, a one-of-a-kind negotiation that is looking to create a “(Non)-treaty of the willing” is expressly designed to avoid the political and procedural challenges of wipo.
The internet is the single most important tool we’ve seen in this lifetime to encourage free speech and access to information, and when we cut people out of the loop we cut them off from participating in society.
Just as content creators’ interests aren’t necessarily in perfect alignment with those of the intermediaries (Such as book publishers or record labels) Who promote them, as pointed out by UC berkeley law school’s peter menell, even the term “content creators” is overbroad.
For the past several days, we here at public knowledge have been sitting back being mildly amused by the dust-up over an ascap fundraising letter that sought to demonize public knowledge, creative commons and eff as “copyleft” organizations that want to undermine their “copyright,” and want “music to be free.”
One of the things that net neutrality opponents often use to justify their position is that a neutral network will kill the future development of the internet.
A decision from a federal district court in new york today affirmed that online hosts shouldn’t have to pay if their users are infringing.
Earlier today (Sept. 6), the Justice Department filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) opposing Net Neutrality. The DoJ, supposedly the protector of consumers and guardian of competition, said that “market forces” were sufficient to do both of those jobs.
Ever since the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica story broke, privacy has been the talk of the town in Washington, DC, and conventional wisdom is that Congress will begin debating comprehensive privacy legislation in earnest in 2019.