If you're looking for some additional bright side, Windows 10 at least blocks some of the more obnoxious, invasive flavors of DRM that have made the rounds over the last few years, including SecureROM and SafeDisc. Unfortunately, that means titles that used this DRM simply won't work on the new OS without a patch.
Where can I get these patches? They have no right to disable any functionality without our informed consent.
I believe the test for whether the features are important comes from the original (Sony) case in the '70s in which the Supreme Court created the "fair use" doctrine. They decided that because VCRs have "substantial non-infringing uses," it was OK to make them.
... where we have to replace our perfectly good printers after one or two Windows updates, because the manufacturer doesn't want to bother updating his drivers any longer and won't release the code so someone else can do so!
The big thing wrong with copyright is that it lasts so long that new works which reuse existing works (and they all do) are prevented from appearing for close to a century, unless the owner of the old work okays it (which approximately never happens). Under a more sensible copyright scheme, not only could works of music be remixed within a few years of their first release, but things like computer software -- which typically go obsolete or get replaced by new versions in 2 to 5 years -- could be improved on by third parties as soon as they are taken off the market by the original publisher.
What I'm proposing is that after a short initial period, depending on the medium but no longer than 5 years, copyright should be narrowed to only the right to collect a standard royalty (like the mechanical licensing scheme that used to exist for music), and neither the artist nor a publisher should have any veto power over its use, including derived works. Furthermore, I'd allow the user to make that standard payment to the copyright office, thus eliminating the orphaned works problem.
Citizens United was decided on First Amendment grounds. Any new law similar to McCain-Feingold would obviously fall to the same principles. Therefore, a constitutional amendment would be necessary to achieve the "reform" Lessig wants.
Which is fine with me. The SJWs already have far too much power to make their opponents shut up as things are now.
This sounds like the kind of guy who installs a loud alarm on his car, parks it in a city, and never responds to the alarm. He deserves to have it vandalized, just for creating a nuisance with his alarm -- and so does the IP owner who does likewise.
Please print the name of the "rogue chemist." Because it sounds like there are 10,000 people wrongly in prison because of him -- and going after his ill-gotten personal life savings in a court of law is the best way to encourage the next guy to do his job honestly.
Search for ISP+YourZipCode. There are lots of small mom-n-pop ISPs (like mine) that deserve your support,
I've used a mom&pop ISP for years. But they get their feed through a major phone company.
The MAFIAA are the big 8 media conglomerates worldwide. They own most phone companies, TV and radio stations, newspapers, and the movie and music studios. I'm trying to find or create an alternative to them, because once they control the Internet they'll tighten the screws and narrow political debate to what it was 50 years ago.
If the law is ever successfully copyrighted, the courts will need to revisit the old saw "ignorance of the law is no excuse." After all, we can't be required to know something if we're not allowed to read it without paying.
"Copyleft" has nothing to do with copyright trolls (unless you take the extreme position that all content owners are trolls). "Copyleft" refers to Richard Stallman's philosophy, which more or less expresses his desire to make it impossible for anyone to earn a living from royalties.
By all means, let's defeat copyright trolls, but let's not conflate all opposition to them with Stallman's movement.
And by the way: I notice that Malibu Media's court motion left out the last "t" in the domain name fightcopyrighttrolls.com . So if the court grants the motion, their opponents can still refer to the actual name.
The Constitution is a contract and it goes both ways. If the courts will not allow the victim to directly prosecute this thug for misusing her authority, then it's time for armed resistance. The police work for us, and those who break their oaths must and will answer to us.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by John David Galt.