Tim Marman's Loosely Coupled

Browse by Tags

• Gadgets
• Intellectual Property
• Law
• Music
• Personal
• Security
• Technology

• Stanley

  I just read that Stanley Rothenberg passed away . This is sad news indeed. I took an advanced copyright course with Stanley last semester. His experience is, to say the least, impressive. His knowledge of copyright law was unsurpassed and he was a wonderful teacher. More importantly, as Prof. Patry noted, he was an absolutely wonderful person. He truly was one of the most generous and caring people I have ever met, something evident even in the very short time I knew him. (Interestingly, his son - who I've never met - also went to the same small college ). I'm fortunate to have met and learned from him, and only regret that I won't have that opportunity again. He will be missed, and my prayers go out to his family. Goodbye, Stanley. Posted Nov 06 2006, 10:38 PM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Intellectual Property, Law School, Personal, Copyright, Law

• Unauthorized Propogation Prohibited: IP Rights in House Plants

  David Dailey shares this amusing story about IP rights in house plants . Posted Aug 16 2005, 11:51 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Intellectual Property, Law School, Copyright

• John Dvorak on Creative Commons: Will this nonsense ever end?

  Derek says John Dvorak reachs a new low in his latest uninformed rant which, considering his past, is quite impressive. John Dvorak continues to impress me with his ability to completely misrepresent issues. He brings new meaning to FUD. Why PC Magazine continues to employ him is beyond me. Like Derek, I don't even know where to start on this one. (Karl-Friedrich, however, does ). I can only echo Mr. Dvorak's closing question: Will this nonsense ever end? Posted Jul 19 2005, 08:10 PM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Law School, Copyright

• Legislating IP Blog

  I've recently started writing at Legislating IP , the blog formerly known as INDUCE Act Blog and the brainchild of Kevin . (My last two copyright posts have been published both here and on Legislating IP). This blog has long been in my list of must-read IP blogs (with contributions by Kevin, J. Matthew Buchanan , Chris Cohen , Ron Coleman , Stephen Nipper , Andrew Raff , and Brandon Rash ), so it's quite an honor for me to join their ranks . Posted Jul 15 2005, 11:53 AM by Tim with | with 1 comment(s) Filed under: Intellectual Property, Law School, Copyright

• Linking can be illegal in Australia

  An Australian man have been found guilty of copyright infringement for linking to infringing material, even though he didn't host it himself ( via Furd ). The ISP was also found liable because they did not take affirmative steps to prevent the infringement. I haven't been able to find a copy of this latest decision, but it would be interesting to see if there was any similarity to Grokster's "Active Inducement" test. This article suggests that the site had "authorised copyright infringement by providing links to illegally copied music files" and that "[d]isclaimers published on the site were insufficient to provide a shield against copyright claims". Posted Jul 15 2005, 09:51 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Intellectual Property, Law School, Copyright

• Grokster Reversed in Unanimous Decision

  Some bad news from SCOTUS(Blog). The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that developers of software violate federal copyright law when they provide computer users with the means to share music and movie files downloaded from the internet. Read Justice Souter's opinion . Justice Ginsburg concurrence (joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy); and Justice Breyer's concurrence , joined by Justices Stevens and O'Connor. I haven't had a chance to give them a thorough review, but at first glance it looks like they are adopting something along the lines of the "Active Inducement" test suggested by Justice O'Connor at oral arguments. Ernest is participating in a Grokster Roundtable . Others, including Prof Felten, are participating in SCOTUSblog discussions . Marty has some commentary and Kevin has a good roundup . And don't forget, even though it's a unanimous decision, Fred says we've already won . Plenty of good coverage out there, as you might expect. An incomplete roundup of additional... Posted Jun 27 2005, 07:46 AM by Tim with | with 2 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Law School, Gadgets, Music, Copyright

• FECA and Commercial Skipping

  As Fred reports , the Copyright Office's position is that FECA will not legalize commercial skipping. Their position is that the commercials are separate motion pictures, and thus "skipping the entirety of an ad would go beyond the extent of the bill's authority of making limited portions imperceptible." This analysis seems a little flawed to me. If the broadcast and commercial are truly independent, skipping the commercials shouldn't be an issue in the first place. The problem with transformative actions like skipping commercials is that the result was an unauthorized derivative work - and it seems to me that's what this bill was intended to address. Why should making an entire work imperceptible be an issue? If you're skipping the whole thing, it's hard to make the argument that it's a derivative work. It's not clear what rights skipping a work in its entirety would infringe. I think it's fair to assume that they are doing this to classify the whole as a compilation. Nothing wrong with... Posted May 06 2005, 08:04 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Intellectual Property, Law School, Copyright

• Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (FECA) 2005

  Denise Howell says : " According to the L.A. Times, President Bush is expected to sign a fascinating piece of legislation , the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act ." Alex at Copyfight asks (and answers) what, exactly, did Congress propose to legalize , in response to this story with the headline "Congress legalizes DVD Censorship". Ed Felten says : "Let's review. The FMA prevents no speech. The FMA allows more speech. The FMA prevents private parties from suing to stop speech they don't like. The FMA is not censorship. The FMA prevents censorship." Eric also discusses another pillar of FEMA : "The ART Act adds two new major criminal standards: (1) using a camcorder to record a film in a movie theater, and (2) the willful distribution of pre-release software, movies and music by making it available on a computer network accessible to the public." Posted Apr 21 2005, 08:21 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Law School, Copyright

• The Paradox of DRM: What is the value of control?

  As a follow-up to my previous post : I think part of the problem stems from the belief that control is the most valuable aspect of copyright. As a result, (some) rightsholders will fight against any practice where they feel control is lost. In reality, as Fred laid the groundwork for in his paper, a lot of the work's value is unlocked only when control is lost. (Hint: compulsory licenses are your friend). It seems to me this is the paradox of DRM. Rightsholders want TPM because they see it as the only way to ensure control. The problem with TPM is that, frankly, it doesn't work. It keeps the "good guys" from using works in ways that would arguably fall under fair use (or after the Grokster arguments, admittedly), but it never really protects against the "bad guys" determined to steal anyways. Ultimately, this drives otherwise would-be customers to software like Grokster. The net result is that control, believed to be the lynchpin in the set of rights, actually has a detrimental effect on... Posted Apr 07 2005, 06:13 PM by Tim with | with 2 comment(s) Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Security, Law School, Copyright

• Clarifying my position on Copyright

  Looking back over some of my previous posts , I realized I came across as a bit of a protectionist. Let me set the record straight: IIAC (I am a Copyfighter), at least by Erik's definition . I'm a big advocate of fair use. I'm not sympathetic with those who just want to get things for free, but I am sympathetic with those who want to use content they "own" as they please. (Remember, I'm also a big gadget freak and a developer). In fact, I'm planning on writing a paper about fair use with regards to digital music for the upcoming semester. The original advisor I had actually suggested I speak to another professor who would be "more sympathetic" to my views than he is. Apparently, I came off as pretty "leftist". That said, I'm also a realist. I understand that creators are not going to just give away everything for free. If they feel like they are losing complete control, they are going to resist fair use tooth and nail. If we really want to be able to use things as we see fit, we need to... Posted Apr 06 2005, 08:13 AM by Tim with | with no comments Filed under: Technology, Intellectual Property, Law School, Copyright