[TAG] [Fwd:] In RI federal court -- Harvard vs. the RIAA

[Jimmy O'Regan]

2008/12/22 Ben Okopnik <ben at linuxgazette.net>:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 07:16:18PM +0000, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
>> 2008/12/21 Ben Okopnik <ben at linuxgazette.net>:
>> >
>> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons)
>> >
>> > (Incidentally: I, personally, have no dog in this fight. I've used
>> > Limewire maybe four times when it first became available, and have
>> > pretty much ignored that side of the world ever since.)
>>
>> Well, I'm not interested in the file sharing fight too much, but I am
>> interested in the weird and wonderful world of copyright.
>
> Truth to tell, when it comes to the current state of that, I get lost
> very quickly. There's *so* much data - all of it seemingly pertinent -
> that I just run out of mental space, and have to run off and do
> something simple like programming. :)
>

Heck, even Project Gutenberg, who have *decades* of experience working
with PD material, still have problems with some copyright rules (which
is why--for the most part--they stick to items published before 1923).
They have a somewhat amusing page, somewhere (mislaid the link), that
has a list of their various replies to people who have accused them of
infringing copyright. :)

>> The act of sticking a book on a scanner may be
>> enough to create a new copyright in the EU, in which case I may be
>> screwed--it's highly unlikely, not least because nothing can stop PG
>> from distributing the e-texts, but it's a possibility.
>>
>> I'm not losing any sleep over it, though :)
>
> So, we have (at least potentially) an international criminal on staff.
> *COOL!!!* Now, we'll get all the girls! :)
>

[Note to self: in future, stick to the crimes that gain money :)]

>>
>> It does, but not enough :) Eldred v. Ashcroft, for example, lost in
>> the Supreme Court by 7-2.
>
> And then there's Judge Peter "I don't know what a website is" Openshaw.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Openshaw
>
> There are many others like him, too.

"Court officials later said his statement was an attempt to clarify
issues for the benefit of the court, not for himself, as is the role
of the judiciary."

*cough*