« FCC Out of Copyright |
| Ok/Cancel: The sunk costs of innovation vs. litigation »
August 9, 2004
- Induce No More: "As we fashion a strategy to address this threat to innovation and technical progress, I would welcome thoughts on whether the Induce Act does in fact gut the Betamax decision, how its effect will be felt beyond devices, and whether it raises any First Amendment issues by potentially chilling speech (e.g., product reviews)" [Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) @ Lessig Blog].
- The Importance Of...Induce Index [Ernie Miller on the Induce Act. 'Nuff said].
- A Blueprint for Better Copyright Law: "Just as the U.S. experience has been riddled with errors, [the Canadian recording industry's] notice and termination proposal would cut off Internet access for entire families despite questions about whether there is even grounds for a copyright infringement claim, in addition to doubts over whether the party responsible for the file sharing is the subscriber, a family friend who used the computer without permission, or perhaps a stranger who accessed the family's wireless Internet signal" [Michael Geist @ The Toronto Star].
- Heat Turned Up on Streaming Video Patents (reg. req.): "Acacia wants to extract a toll on each and every lesson that a student learns over the Internet. I think that's despicable. Universities are under enough pressure in their budgets right now to try to pay for everything. The last thing they need to do is give a pound of flesh to some tech company that doesn't even make a product" [Jason Schultz, to the Washington Post].
- Farenheit FBI: "Do you think that the FCC has the authority to extend CALEA to the Internet, given that Congress explicitly rejected that notion a decade ago?" [Declan McCullagh to Attorney General John Ashcroft, @ CNET].
- EFF CALEA FAQ: "Q: Is the FBI trying to dictate how the Internet should be engineered to permit whatever level of surveillance the FBI deems necessary?
A: Yes. What the FBI is really asking for is a massive overhaul of how the Internet works to make it easier for federal agents to listen in on people's digital conversations. EFF believes that law enforcement should not be allowed to have veto power over proposed innovations to the Internet in order to make spying easier. In addition, federal agencies should not force the broadband industry -- and by extension, its consumers -- to bear the considerable costs of purchasing and implementing surveillance-ready network technologies simply because it suits the government's needs."
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Misc.
- RELATED ENTRIES
- Music Business for 21st Century Independent Artists
- Net Neutrality? Still Could Be Kept
- Hey, Look, E-Books Still Suck
- Makers, Fan Art, Making it Pay
- IP Analogy to Physical Property (in Architecture)
- That Sound You Hear is the Anti-Neutrality Dam Breaking
- Having (Mostly) Failed with Authors, Amazon Makes a Pitch for the Readers
- And No Kill Switches, Either