This dispute inspired some California legislators to write a bill that would have required state agencies to register as many trademarks (and copyrights) as they could on state-produced materials, making a whole bunch of public records subject to IP claims by the state, all so nothing like this could ever happen at the state level. Fortunately it didn't pass.
You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with [subpoenas]. Who's gonna do it? You? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for [Apple users] and you curse the [FBI]. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that [access mandates], while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like [“going dark,” “terrorism,” and “higher loyalty.”] We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a [badge], and [demand a backdoor]. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
Selling a printed book through a website probably isn't covered under any of the DMCA safe harbors, and the safe harbors don't replace the application of traditional secondary liability. So the DMCA doesn't even seem relevant here. I hope this gets appealed.
Casting meritless aspersions on open source in general sounds like the early '00s when software company/copyright troll SCO and various astroturf groups, likely funded in part by Microsoft, sought to discredit the concept. They failed.
Totally agree with this article, but I think there's some confusion about the term that changed: the Canadian copyright term for sound recordings was 50 years from publication, not from the death of the author, and now it's 70 years from publication. I think other Canadian copyrights are tied to the life of the author, as in the US. 70 years from publication is still far beyond the point where all but the tiniest fraction of works has any commercial value.
Ironically, the TV network plaintiffs in the Aereo and FilmOn cases keep saying that over-the-top video costs them advertising revenue because Neilsen doesn't measure Internet viewership.
Really, competing network executives talking "over coffee" about boycotting the airwaves? I would say that they're smart enough not to violate antitrust law and then talk about it, but it's happened before.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by mstoltz47.