Showing archive for: “Fair Use”
Permissionless innovation does not mean “no contracts required”
UPDATE: I’ve been reliably informed that Vint Cerf coined the term “permissionless innovation,” and, thus, that he did so with the sorts of private impediments discussed below in mind rather than government regulation. So consider the title of this post changed to “Permissionless innovation SHOULD not mean ‘no contracts required,'” and I’ll happily accept that ... Permissionless innovation does not mean “no contracts required”
How the Court’s “looks-like-cable-tv” test in Aereo protects the cloud
In our blog post this morning on ABC v. Aereo, we explain why, regardless of which test applies (the majority’s “looks-like-cable-TV” test or the dissent’s volitional conduct test), Aereo infringes on television program owners’ exclusive right under the Copyright Act to publicly perform their works. We also explain why the majority’s test is far less ambiguous than its critics ... How the Court’s “looks-like-cable-tv” test in Aereo protects the cloud
Why the Supreme Court’s Aereo Decision Protects Creators Without Endangering the Cloud
Yesterday, the Supreme Court released its much-awaited decision in ABC v. Aereo. The Court reversed the Second Circuit, holding that Aereo directly infringed the copyrights of broadcast television program owners by publicly performing their works without permission. Justice Breyer, who wrote the opinion for the Court, was joined by five other Justices, including Chief Justice ... Why the Supreme Court’s Aereo Decision Protects Creators Without Endangering the Cloud
A Supreme Court ruling against Aereo won’t spell the end of cloud computing
Interested observers on all sides of the contentious debate over Aereo have focused a great deal on the implications for cloud computing if the Supreme Court rules against Aereo. The Court hears oral argument next week, and the cloud computing issue is sure to make an appearance. Several parties that filed amicus briefs in the ... A Supreme Court ruling against Aereo won’t spell the end of cloud computing
The “Common Law Property” Myth in the Libertarian Critique of IP Rights (Part 2)
In Part One, I addressed the argument by some libertarians that so-called “traditional property rights in land” are based in inductive, ground-up “common law court decisions,” but that intellectual property (IP) rights are top-down, artificial statutory entitlements. Thus, for instance, libertarian law professor, Tom Bell, has written in the University of Illinois Journal of Law, ... The “Common Law Property” Myth in the Libertarian Critique of IP Rights (Part 2)
Hill Event on December 13: “CopyRIGHT: Can Free Marketeers Agree on Copyright Reform?”
What promises to be an interesting and lively panel discussion on copyright will occur on the Hill on December 13. Even better, it includes not one but two Truth on the Market bloggers–Geoff and me! Come one, come all! EVENT ADVISORY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 30, 2012 CONTACT: Will Rinehart (202) 599-0408 Register for ... Hill Event on December 13: “CopyRIGHT: Can Free Marketeers Agree on Copyright Reform?”
Bruce Kobayashi on Copyrighting Law and Deregulation
My first post discussed one primary impediment to deregulating all the lawyers – which is the current system of legal regulation of lawyers. Even if one agrees that deregulating all the lawyers may be the ultimate goal, this still leaves the question of how best to achieve this result. Deregulating all the lawyers may not ... Bruce Kobayashi on Copyrighting Law and Deregulation
Sprigman and Buccafusco on Valuing Intellectual Property
We would like to start by thanking Josh for inviting us to participate in what promises to be a fascinating discussion on an important subject. We’re looking forward to engaging with the other members of the symposium. To begin with, we would like to talk about some of our own experimental research on the valuation ... Sprigman and Buccafusco on Valuing Intellectual Property
