Christian Engström, the Pirate Party's member of the European parliament, has penned a great op-ed in the Financial Times on the need for IP reform in the digital age.

A sample taste:

Whenever there are ways of communicating in private, they will be used to share copyrighted material. If you want to stop people doing this, you must remove the right to communicate in private. There is no other option. Society has to make a choice.

The world is at a crossroads. The internet and new information technologies are so powerful that no matter what we do, society will change. But the direction has not been decided.

The article got linked to on the Drudge Report under the appropriately worded headline: "Copyright laws threaten online freedom; Governments restrict right to communicate..."

Read the whole thing HERE.

Mathew Yglesias has an interesting post on Chris Anderson's book "Free" which inspired some comments that are worth taking a look at.

Read it all HERE.

Jim Lindgren has an interesting post over at Volokh.com concerning the legal battle over a book that may or may not be characterized by some as an unauthorized sequel to "Catcher in the Rye".

Be sure to read it here.

This case brings up a number of issues:

First, it exposes the lie that is perpetuated in the legal community that copyright laws don't protect "ideas", but rather only the "concrete expression" of ideas. In practicality, this statement is pure nonsense as evidenced by the fact that a copyrighted work seals in monopoly protections of "characters" and "derivative works" - even if such derivative works don't include any actual "copying" of cloned material from the underlying work.

For instance, if I feel that I have a far better script or storyline that utilizes the character of James Bond, but without utilizing any previous cloned image from a Bond film and without copying previously used dialogue beyond a minimal instance of "My name is Bond...James Bond." or "Shaken...not stirred.", I still would not be able to create it, because Ian Flemming's estate and/or Sony Pictures, etc. has a monopoly over the IDEA of James Bond.

I would argue that by protecting "derivative" works, copyright effectively asserts control over ideas - except for those envisioned at the most abstract levels.

Second, this case also illustrates just how slippery (and I would argue, unsustainable) current fair use concepts are that try to differentiate between "criticism", "parody" and academic explorations of previous literary works versus competing concepts such as "satire" and unauthorized "derivative works" that may contain some vestiges of the previously mentioned fair use categories.

How will "Coming Through The Rye" be classified if it functions as both a "derivative work" of "Catcher in the Rye" as well as literary criticism and history concerning the creation of the same?

Third, this case seems to be another instance of where the judiciary throws out their usual rules regarding prior restraints against free speech when it comes to mere (unproven) allegations of IP infringement. Courts will not allow prior restraints in libel cases. They didn't even allow it in the famed Pentagon Papers case which involved allegations of breaches of national security. But when it comes to protecting IP whenever somebody shouts "copyright" - judges too often seem to ignore free speech concerns.

Eugene Volokh wrote a great law paper on this issue. I'd advise checking it out here:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/copyinj.htm

I remember once being lucky enough to come across a copy of "The Wind Done Gone" during a time when a federal judge had enjoined its publication through a temporary restraining order - essentially declaring it unlawful to own and distribute due to copyright complaints from the Margaret Mitchell estate. I purchased it, and secretly horded it away as though I was living through some twisted version of "Fahrenheit 451". I thought it might remain on the list of "banned books" in the U.S. As it turned out however, the copyright case over it was settled, and the book was eventually "allowed" to published.

Perhaps the proper solution is the same one utilized in "Fahrenheit 451". When a rebellious populous was faced with a nation of "firemen" whose job it was to burn all books, each person was given the task of committing a book to memory in order to orally recite it later to others, thus circumventing the state by placing the books in the one area it could not reach - the human mind.

On second thought, that won't work. Current copyright laws prevent the unauthorized "performance" of copyrighted works - including recitals.

Beware the current crop of "firemen" looking to set the nation's Rye fields ablaze....

Popular music and DJ artist Moby has called for the disbanding of the RIAA in light of its legal victory over file sharer Jammie Thomas-Rasset - subjecting her to an outrageous (and possibly unconstitutional?) fine of $80,000 per song.

Read Moby's thoughts here.

If you are one of the few who are still unfamiliar with Moby's work, I'd encourage you to check it out. He does some sublime stuff - especially his tracks that showcase his ability to remix older (presumably public domain?) works into new dance beats.

Those dedicated to the destruction of file sharing networks often fail to recognize (or at least admit to) the side benefits that such networks can bring towards overcoming efforts by autocratic regimes in stifling free speech.

Many free market activists often cite the nexus between free economies and free speech, yet some fail to exhibit even a glimmer of cognitive dissonance when it comes to the free flow of IP. The trouble for their position is that the current world of IP has so thoroughly fused the concepts of speech and commerce that one side of the other will now have to bend to keep the other side flowing.

I suppose it would be a bit much to try and portray the RIAA as de facto supporters of fascist Islamic regimes in their efforts to try and shut down networks such as Pirate Bay, but I'm still getting a kick out of Pirate Bay's efforts to help facilitate freedoms in Iran. ;-)

Details here.

The 'Anonymous Iran' site can be found here.

I don't intend to use this forum to get into the debate over global warming/climate change. My personal views on the subject have been aired elsewhere in the blogosphere.

However, it should be noted that the Democratically controlled U.S. House recently voted by large margins to oppose any global climate change treaty that weakens the IP rights of American "green technology." This effectively demonstrates where the true priorities have been all along with regards to the "climate change" issue.

Details here.

(I note that the House is 'Democratically controlled' merely to help illustrate the fact that IP protection currently has well entrenched bipartisan support among the political establishment - overriding more partisan divides that might otherwise take place concerning environmental legislation. I have no doubt that this particular vote would have been the same had the Republicans been in control.)

France's Constitutional Council has scuttled (for now?) the country's attempt to cut off Internet connections for those engaged in file sharing.

Details here.

A few notable quotes:

The council said the proposal was contrary to French constitutional principles, like the presumption of innocence and freedom of speech. The latter right "implies today, considering the development of the Internet, and its importance for the participation in democratic life and the expression of ideas and opinions, the online public's freedom to access these communication services," the council said.

Mark Mulligan, an analyst at Forrester Research, said: "What this highlights is the danger of using legislation and the courts to further your business aims. You become a victim of the whole process."

Joe Mullin lists the reasons to be relatively optimistic that the Supreme Court will do the right thing in helping to reign in the abuse of patent law by at least a smidge.

Read it here.

Good news indeed.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the very important Bilski v. Doll case which will examine the legitimacy of so-called "business method" patents and other forms of patents that are not tied to a particular machine or transformative device.

This could be the best opportunity yet for the Court to start to reign in the growing cancer that patent law has mutated into.

News summary here.

Details and filings in the case here.

No - not King's civil rights legacy, but rather the tragicomic copyright legacy which prevents others from hearing his words and has now reduced King's historical significance in today's news to a question of who controls the money generated by having his image on a T-shirt.

If such restrictions can be placed on King's words and image, then why couldn't they be placed on any other public figure including Presidents and other elected officials?

The implications for historical inquiry are staggering.