I don't mean to be linking exclusively to Volokh.com these days, but there has been a number of great IP posts over there recently worth checking out.

The latest comes from David Post who does a great job in defending the idea behind Google's book scanning project.

Some choice words from Post -

The Google Books project has the potential to become one of the great information-gathering activities in human history -- every book (just about), at everyone's fingertips, searchable and instantly accessible from any corner of the globe. And we want to deter that?? Because that will decrease "respect for IP laws"? Talk about putting the cart before the horse!! Because it will inflict some sort of terrible "harm" on copyright holders? I'm not terribly sympathetic. Copyright, as Jefferson stressed so long ago, is a "social right" -- given by society because we feel it serves useful ends (incentivizing authors to produce new creative works). When it ceases to serve those ends, it should be eliminated. The Google Books project is another example of how copyright interests, these days, do little more than obstruct useful innovations. There are 7 million (or more) out of print books that Google would like to place on-line where they can actually be accessed and read. I'm sorry if that infringes someone's copyright, but really -- in what way is society better off, exactly, from recognizing the copyright holder's rights in this circumstance?

Read the whole thing - along with the comments it generated.

Check out Prof. Adam Mossoff's recent guest blogging at Volokh.com where he discusses the history of the U.S. patent system via how the sewing machine developed, and the slew of lawsuits it generated in order to try and stifle competition.

Mossoff seems to advance some conclusions that I take issue with (i.e., that legal innovations such as 'patent pools' are solutions worth considering to help help resolve patent troll problems - as opposed to more fundamental reforms of patent law), but its still stimulating reading.

Read it all on one page here:

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1240849478.shtml

Following up on David's 'Innovation and Copyright' post below, Christopher Breen explains why the RealNtework DVD case is so important, and why judges unfortunately tend to avoid the big issues in copyright cases.

Details here.

Monster's abuse is particularly galling in light of the fact that their product is vastly overpriced and no better than any other (far less expensive) cables used to hook up electronic components.

President Obama reportedly gave an iPod, loaded with 40 show tunes, to England's Queen Elizabeth II as a gift. Did he violate copyright laws when he did so?

Read here for a great analysis.

David Post over at Volokh.com has some important insights regarding copyright law and the free software movement, and how copyright law can actually be used to undermine itself.

Well worth a read!

David Post over at Volokh.com has an interesting discussion going on regarding how Microsoft's 'Songsmith' software is butting up against the limitations of copyright law.

I think the re-mixed Beatles song he links to is awful. But the Marvin Gaye remix is interesting and this Peter Gabriel Songsmith re-mix is sublime.

Dan McCurdy's article on Patent Trolls spawned supportive comments from CATO's Timothy Lee, which in turn attracted the approving notice of Ramesh Ponnuru and Jim Manzi over at National Review.

Baz Luhrmann has reportedly spent money acquiring the film rights to F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic novel "The Great Gatsby".

The question I have is: Why???

Gatsby is already in the public domain in his home country of Australia, Canada and other territories that use a "life, plus 50 years" copyright term.

For most other countries (including the U.S. and most of Europe), Gatsby becomes public domain in just over a year from now. Fitzgerald died in 1940. Applying the (insanely long) term of "life, plus 70 years", "Gatsby" should fall into public domain sometime in 2010.

[Am I wrong on this? I've double-checked my math and the current state of copyright law, so I don't think I am.]

Since it usually takes over a year to develop and produce a major Hollywood film, Luhrmann's adaptation of Gatsby wouldn't be released until after the original literary work falls into the public domain worldwide. Clearly it doesn't violate copyright laws to merely begin production on an adaptive work that won't actually be completed until after the public domain date. Any unpublished drafts of potential scripts and other developmental materials would certainly fall under fair use in this instance.

Luhrmann wasted his money. But then, Hollywood culture has always been overlawyered when it comes to IP rights.

For anyone who wants to make their own "Gatsby" adaptations to compete with Luhrmann and release it around the same time - have at it! May the best quality work garner the most attention. Hopefully, the competition will raise the quality of all works involved.

[UPDATE: As Gilda Radner used to say: "Never mind. As someone who follows copyright law, I'm admittedly embarrassed in that I forgot that the "life, plus 70 rule" in the U.S. only applies to works published after 1977. Gatsby was published between 1923 and 1963, so it remains under copyright in this country for 95 years (since the copyright was presumably renewed). So Gatsby won't become public domain in the U.S. until around 2020. But the anomaly still stands that it is public domain in countries such as Canada and Australia.

Singer Jackson Browne has sued John McCain for copyright infringement after a state Republican party ad supporting McCain used a snippet of Jackson's song "Running on Empty".

Some background of the case HERE and HERE.

Courtesy of The Hollywood Reporter blog, McCain's Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit can be found HERE. [PDF]

McCain's "Anti-SLAPP" Special Motion To Strike the complaint can be found HERE. [PDF]

While I support McCain's legal efforts in this instance, it is hard to feel sorry for him as he has little moral credibility on the issue. Leaving aside all other aspects of Presidential politics, McCain has stood aside for years in the Senate and allowed copyright law to metastasize out of control into the current cancer it is.

Then, after McCain's campaign first got BURNED with the law that he supported, he had the GALL to SUGGEST that SPECIAL fair use considerations should be given to politicians and their campaigns - but not necessarily to the general public. Because after all, we wouldn't want to make meaningful reforms to copyright law, now would we?

For shame Senator! But good luck with with your fair use defense in your copyright infringement suit using laws that apply to everyone equally.