Jonathan Zittrain asks, and answers.

[from Corrante: Copyfight]

The LII at Cornell has RSS feeds (recent or daily) for the recent Supreme Court opinons. Will CanLII follow?

[Dennis Kennedy → The Virtual Chase]

[updated: corrected the links]

Tried to start reading « The Layers Principle: Internet Architecture and the Law » by Pr. Solum after reading about it yesterday.

Comments by Derek Slater here and a follow-up here.

I’m still trying to start reading though. The basic idea of transparent flow between the layers and targeting regulation at the problematic layer is interesting. Too bad there is no human layer in the OSI model.

You download a copyright protected file ? Zap … your computer is dead … at least that is what the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee wants.

 » « I’m interested, » Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone’s computer « may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights. »

From here, you have to know that law enforcement agency cannot take such actions under the laws of the USA… so the only solution is to let the copyright owner do such dirty work and to exempt them from all anti-hacking legislation currently on the book.

I don’t know about you, but would you even propose to destroy the car of someone suspected … not even convicted… of drunk driving. Maybe some police officer would realise their fantasy.

And let’s not start talking about due process of law and letting private groups enforce public legislation.

Story is on Yahoo news

Somehow the Gowling IP Reports had escaped my radar. The third issue is now online.

IP and Cyberlaw Symposium at the University of Ottawa next October. Check out the panelists.

The dead poets society: The copyright term and the public domain by Matthew Rimmer in First Monday

[via Furdlog] (but I really wish he would post his news in smaller units than one incrementally updated daily post. I might just mention it to him)

Update: Lessig’s comments.

The Constitutionnal Law of Intellectual Property After Eldred v. Ashcroft, by Pamela Samuelson.

Read Derek’s comments on the article.

Is downloading copyrighted music tantamount to stealing? Lawrence Lessig, an expert on Internet law from Stanford University’s Law School, and Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president of business and legal affairs for the Recording Industry Association of America, answer your questions about this heated debate.

[via Slashdot]

I had missed that post by Derek on the first sale doctrine and video stores. The context is Bowers v. Baystate. Cory’s comment on that post was noted by Donna and it calls for regulation of contracts related to intellectual property.

Can you even call those contracts licenses now that they apply to objects that are subject to intellectual property but concern rights and obligations outside the scope of IP?

Derek’s post also points to Findlaw’s model contracts directory, which is a nice resource I did not know about.

Remember Aimster? Oral arguments on appeal were last week.

Aaron Schwartz posts about his experience in the courtroom.

Another report, by an attorney this time. [via Lessig].

Derek posted his thoughs on the case, including his opinion on the contributory vs vicarious infringement debate.

Of course, Donna has tons of links too.

Some people seem to focus more on Aimee herself than on the underlying legal argument. But hey, she’s a good poster child.

And why is this case important? In two very short words, it could change the principle under which the manufacturer of goods cannot be held liable for its misuses. Like a VCR, which you could use to copy movies (but does anyone actually bother?) or tape TV shows for later viewing.

Ed Felten Explains How Black Boxes Interfere With Effective Public Policy: the video. From the Berkeley DRM conference

[via Boing Boing]

«Cable Modem Service and the First Amendment: Adventures in a ‘Doctrinal Wasteland.’» dans le dernier JOLT traite, entre autres, du statut des cablos en tant que fournisseurs de connectivité Internet et de services.

Ce billet chez A Copyfighter’s Musings expose bien la problématique.

(btw, Cla, on y parle d’AOL et de la transition vers le broadband.)

Une des première chose a savoir lorsque l’on travaille en production télé ou film, c’est de ne pas utiliser de vrais numéros de téléphone. C’est pour cette raison que toutes les émissions ou films utilisent des numéros débutant par 555. (genre l’épisode des Simpsons avec le « dialer » où on apprend que le 555-0001 est la ligne directe de Mr Burns)

Pour ceux qui verront « Bruce Almighty », vous remarquerez le numéro que Jim Carey reçoit sur ça pagette … devinez quoi: c’est pas un 555 … et ils vont probablement se faire poursuivre pour cela. Au nombre des personnes qui partagent le numéro avec Dieu, il y a un pasteur (coincidence) et une station de radio… qui ont reçu plus d’une centaine d’appels par jour.

Toute l’histoire est sur CNN

Copy Protection Is a Crime…against humanity

Having heard more than I would have liked about human rights abuses, I think using this expression may be a bit insensitive. Yet, the point that David Weinberger is trying to make is interesting: perfect enforcement of rules is by its nature unfair.

[via Furdlog]