LawFont.com

Larry Lessig has many examples of ‘remix culture’ in his book, Free Culture. Examples of images or other existing works taken out of context and then used to make a point or make new creative works. I’ve given examples in the past, too, like the post I once did on the Tarnation film. The point that Lessig (and others) have made about ‘Remix Culture’ is the fairly simple old adage: creativity often builds on the past.

I reckon this new Unicef ad campaign against child soldiers in Belgium is a pretty good example. (more…)

The US Copyright Office has announced the start of the next rule-making on exceptions to the ban on circumventing access control measures under the US DMCA. Submissions from the public are now being sought, with hearings scheduled for April 2006.

This is relevant to us here in Australia, as the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is currently holding an inquiry on the appropriate exceptions under the currently-being-drafted Australian version of the DMCA, which we must enact as a result of the US-Australia FTA (for my previous comments on this, see Weatherall’s Law, on the sidebar, or click here and here).

Might I point out the process adopted by the US to prepare submissions on this issue? 2 months for initial comments, with a period set aside for reply comments. Overall, the US process looks decidedly less rushed than what the Australian government appears to be doing.

The Delaware State Supreme Court has held that where a defamation suit is brought against an anonymous blogger, the identification of that blogger cannot be compelled.

In John Doe No. 1 v Patrick Cahill and Julia Cahill, the court also considered the nature of blogs in dismissing the defamation claim. In particular, the court noted that:

Blogs and chat rooms tend to be vehicles for the expression of opinions; by their very nature, they are not a source of facts or data upon which a reasonable person would rely.

The court considered the nature and reliability of Internet communications when evaluating the claim. (more…)

You can find here, in this special edition of First Monday. Cool!

Bit of a round up around the place on the Stevens v Sony ruling by our High Court, which I’ve commented on already: (more…)

Whenever someone comes along and suggests re-ordering a well-accepted way of arranging things, it’s always good to scrutinize what they say carefully. Sometimes they may turn out to be a Darwin or a Copernicus. But other times, of course, they may not.

Richard Stallman tries just such a thing in respect of the term ‘intellectual property’.

It has always kind of bugged me, especially after seeing him push the theme (or meme) in one of his public lectures with vigour and eloquence. Because, basically, while he has germs of the right idea in there, he is mostly wrong. And his errors detract from a good cause, instead of assisting it. (more…)

Apparently special leave was refused by the High Court in The Panel case this morning. I assume the issue on which special leave was sought was the concept of ‘substantial part’ as interpreted in the recent Full Federal Court decision. (yes, I know – it’s already been to the High Court once. On the meaning of ‘broadcast’. But then the Full Federal Court gave a judgment on what constitutes a ‘substantial part’ of a broadcast).

So that long copyright saga draws to a close. All together now … sigh.

I’d be relieved, only that it leaves Australian copyright law on the meaning of ‘substantial part’, particularly as it relates to Part IV subject matters, pretty much incomprehensible (hat tip: Michael Handler for passing on this news).

Is ICANN’s control of Internet governance at an end? Representatives from the European Union and other countries are lobbying for this to be true. At the recent World Summit of the Information Society, organised by the United Nations in Geneva, several countries argued that the allocation of domain names and similar tasks be run by an international body, rather than by ICANN in conjuction with the US government. Such a change would be a radical shift from the current policy, and it is not altogether clear which option would have the best results. (more…)

USA Today has reported that a Yahoo-backed alliance plans to provide digitised copyright material online. Yahoo Inc., along with partners including Adobe Systems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., the Internet Archive, O’Reilly Media Inc., the University of California, and the University of Toronto, plans to do something similar to the Google-backed initiative that I described in an earlier post.

The difference between the projects is significant. Where Google has, controversially, announced that it will provide excerpts of copyrighted works unless the copyright holders “opt out”, the Open Content Alliance is instead pursuing an “opt in” policy: only when the copyright holder explicitly gives permission will a work be made available. The actual difference between the two approaches is not so great, however. (more…)

You can find his comments here, on Weatherall’s Law, and here, on Michael Geist’s blog.

In Stevens v Sony, the Australian High Court today offered its first view on Australia’s current legal equivalent to the US DMCA. The encounter is an interesting one.

(more…)

The High Court of Australia has delivered its highly-anticipated judgment in Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment.

The case considered recent changes to the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) enacted by the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 (Cth), which adapted existing copyright laws to certain challenges presented by digital technology. The particular issue addressed by the High Court was whether Eddy Stevens, who sold PlayStation game consoles with modified chips that allowed users to play copies of PlayStation game software not authorised for use with consoles purchased in Australia, had circumvented a “technological protection measure” as defined by seetion 10(1) , and prohibited by section 116A of the Copyright Act.

The short answer to all of this is that the High Court ruled that Stevens did not violate the Copyright Act as contended by Sony. See Kim’s post for further details.

Harvey Danger — whom you may remember from “Flagpole Sitta” — has released their new album for free over the web, and also via bittorrent. Their stated reason:

In preparing to self-release our new album, we thought long and hard about how best to use the internet. Given our unusual history, and a long-held sense that the practice now being demonized by the music biz as “illegal” file sharing can be a friend to the independent musician, we have decided to embrace the indisputable fact of music in the 21st century, put our money where our mouth is, and make our record, Little By Little…, available for download via Bittorrent, and at our website. We’re not streaming, or offering 30-second song samples, or annoying you with digital rights management software; we’re putting up the whole record, for free, forever. Full stop. Please help yourself; if you like it, please share with friends.

Good luck to them; I hope it works. If I like it, I’ll buy the album: Harvey Danger – Little by Little

President Bush has reportedly nominated Harriet Miers to fill Justice O’Connor’s seat on the US Supreme Court.

The New York Times is reporting that Australians Win Nobel Prize in Medicine — Barry Marshall and Robin Warren won for their 1982 discovery that helicobacter pylori is the predominant cause of peptic and gastric ulcers. Very neat work that was completely at odds with then-accepted wisdom.