The so-called “copyright war” began years before I joined the fight, arguably in 1999, when defenders of the P2P platform Napster equated music piracy with liberty. Thus, rather than a rational discussion about the interdependence of creators and technology, Big Tech cultivated a syncretic foundation from which to sell the paradox that devaluing individual rights was somehow good for democracy. ...
“Where AI merely assists an author in the creative process, its use does not change the copyrightability of the output. At the other extreme, if content is entirely generated by AI, it cannot be protected by copyright.” – Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Part 2, Copyrightability, USCO – Last week, the U.S. Copyright Office released Part 2 of a planned three-part ...
“One might expect a 140-year history of Supreme Court precedent would have led to a grant of summary judgment below, sparing everyone unnecessary time and money,” states the brief for Jeffrey Sedlik to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. “Copyright infringement should have been decided by the district court as a matter of law, not at trial by a poorly-instructed ...
Many copyright scholars refer to England’s Statute of Anne (1710) as the “first authors’ copyright law,” but I quarrel with that summary. In that year, and for many decades to follow, English “rights” for authors were too intertwined with the Crown’s authority to sanction publication of works for us to think of the Statute of Anne as affirming copyright rights ...
Now that the December 3rd deadline has passed for Internet Archive to file for cert with the Supreme Court, the copyright case litigated by book publishers Hachette et al. is closed. The Second Circuit decision will stand, finding that IA’s legal theories were without merit—theories I have discussed in multiple posts and will not rehash again here. I have also ...
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
– Daniel J. Boorstin