There is a slight error in the statement: "It is important to note that the lost sales estimated in this report represent hypothetical additional revenue that the recorded music sector would have earned, had infringement not taken place"
They mean the revenue they would have earned not just had the infringement not taken place, but had it been substituted with the purchase of a non-infringing copy. That's a massive difference.
"The legislative branch is far better positioned to respond to changes in technology than are the courts."
A meaningless statement.
There is no way for the courts to pass decisions to congress when changes in technology make interpretation of the law difficult. It falls onto them to make the decision. Saying congress can change it if they want applies regardless of which decision they make and is nothing but a cop out.
It's warped and twisted enough so that anyone who is popular will get sued to the point they need to pay out over a song that sounds similar. It's twisted enough so that 3-5 notes that sounds similar are good enough to take to court without getting immediately shut down. It's that bad now, but it's getting more twisted every day.
"I can certainly understand why she would feel like this was unfair and potentially illegal"
You mean because of the garbage propaganda she has been fed that you have absolute control over anything you ever put to wax? If you could copyright putting 5 notes together there wouldn't be any non-infringing music.
"Developers beware. You may think you got a win yesterday."
We will certainly give your warning the consideration it deserves. You know, considering it's coming from someone who clearly doesn't know the first thing about what APIs are or what they are used for.
I'm not sure "open source" licenses have been tested in this scenario to see if their original intent actually holds up against a company like Oracle who is doing their legal best to take the code out of open source.
Worse because if it the decision actually controlled all creation of compatible APIs, I have enough confidence it wouldn't last at all, whereas a decision that says they "might be able to control some" has a good chance of haunting us forever.
You had to expect this result. Basically the worst result we can hope for in this case imho is a result that says API is covered by copyright, but Google gets off on a technicality of some sort and everyone else is left unsure of whether or not they are allowed to create compatible APIs in their situation.