People & Blogs

Paris in the Ninth Circuit

by Zohar Efroni, posted on September 25, 2009 - 1:47pm

I simply could not resist sharing this one, for those who don’t check IPKat regularly. Apparently, transformativeness is not only a big deal in copyright fair use law, but also in tort claims for misappropriation of celebrities’ name and likeness (aka the right of publicity).

In the copyright context, at least, the underlying work – i.e., the work that is being sufficiently transformed (or not) by the defendant - must be original in the first place in order to give rise to a legal action. Would Paris Hilton’s pitch “That’s hot” qualify? Obviously not. But when Paris says “That’s hot” – then, folks, we have some heavyweight first amendment issues coming our way…

Substantive Tags: intellectual property
Free tags: paris hilton, right of publicity

The Persistent Myths of Identity Theft

by Larry Downes, posted on September 25, 2009 - 12:15pm

Stealing credit card numbers from corporate computers is a serious crime, but it is not "identity theft." Why does terminology matter? See below:

http://larrydownes.com/the-persistent-myths-of-identity-theft/

Substantive Tags: cybercrime

The interests of nations and peoples are shared

by Colin Rule, posted on September 23, 2009 - 10:28am

Our President, to the world (I tried to summarize but couldn't do it, so the emphasis is mine): "I come before you humbled by the responsibility that the American people have placed upon me; mindful of the enormous challenges of our moment in history; and determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad.

red/blue dialogue on health care part n+1

by Colin Rule, posted on September 22, 2009 - 5:43pm

Don's latest post is here. Sorry for the delay in response -- I've been on the road, and I'm only now catching up.

I agree with you, Don, that this has been a very good dialogue. I've come to understand not only the perspective of those who oppose the President's plan, but also what the ZOPA (zone of possible agreement) is for this area. While I may be personally comfortable with some of the ideas proposed, such as a public option, it's clearer to me why others are not, and that has helped to moderate some of my ambitions for what could be achieved with health care reform.

Zombieland - Net Neutrality rises from the grave

by Larry Downes, posted on September 21, 2009 - 5:19pm

Net neutrality is back. Rather than rehash my earlier arguments against it, I point out a few relevant differences between the legislation proposed last time around and the proposed rulemaking described in Chairman Genachowski's speech today:

http://larrydownes.com/the-return-of-net-neutrality/

Substantive Tags: infrastructure

A crisis of legitimacy

by Colin Rule, posted on September 18, 2009 - 11:01am

I had an interesting back-and-forth with my friend Conor Sen in email this morning. I'm usually the one who sends him links to David Brooks columns in the NYT, but this one he sent my way. My favorite part:

“What we’re seeing is the latest iteration of that populist tendency and the militant progressive reaction to it. We now have a populist news media that exaggerates the importance of the Van Jones and Acorn stories to prove the elites are decadent and un-American, and we have a progressive news media that exaggerates stories like the Joe Wilson shout and the opposition to the Obama schools speech to show that small-town folks are dumb wackos.

“One could argue that this country is on the verge of a crisis of legitimacy,” the economic blogger Arnold Kling writes. “The progressive elite is starting to dismiss rural white America as illegitimate, and vice versa.”

It’s not race. It’s another type of conflict, equally deep and old.”

My argument is that all of this is more about class than race. But this cleft represents a major threat to our democracy. It also resonates with me based on my current back and forth with Don on this blog...

Sword or Shield? Rethinking the Federal Shield Law

by Sarah Hinchliff..., posted on September 15, 2009 - 12:20pm

The proposed federal shield law for journalists has recently had a surge in momentum, and nearly every news organization and First Amendment advocacy group is applauding. But I’m not. As a strong believer in the importance of investigative reporting, I am naturally sympathetic to the idea of a federal shield law for journalists. Anything that helps people hold the government and others in power accountable for their actions is a good thing in my book. So what is the problem?

The problem with giving legal privileges based on someone’s “status” as a journalist is that it simply doesn’t make sense in light of the communications environment we live in today. Thanks to the Internet, there is no rational way to differentiate journalists from non-journalists. And further, there is no good reason to try to do it.

Substantive Tags: free speech
Free tags: journalism

Creative Commons - Release of NonCommercial Use Study

by Colette Vogele, posted on September 15, 2009 - 11:15am

Creative Commons just released Defining Noncommercial: A Study of How the Online Population Understands 'Noncommercial Use'. (pdf link).

The narcissism of minor differences

by Colin Rule, posted on September 14, 2009 - 6:53am

Cohen in the NYT today: "Some of my summer in France was spent listening to indignant outbursts about U.S. health care reform. The tone: “You must be kidding! What’s there to debate if 46.3 million Americans have no health insurance?”

I think the French are right. I don’t think there’s much to debate when France spends 11 percent of its gross domestic product on health care and insures everyone and the United States spends 16.5 percent of G.D.P. and leaves 20 percent of adults under 65 uninsured. The numbers don’t lie: The U.S. system is wasteful and unjust.

red/blue dialogue on health care part 5

by Colin Rule, posted on September 14, 2009 - 3:03am

This is a great dialogue. See Don's latest post here. I feel like my understanding of the issues we're discussing is improving, and I think I've got a much better handle on Don's perspective. I'll follow the numbering system we've been using to keep the points ordered.

1. Government is getting involved because the current system has become so inefficient and ineffective in addressing society's need for broad based health care. The creation of HMOs in the 80s was an attempt to turn everything over to the private sector, and it has created many of the problems we're now encountering. You can't optimize the benefit of social expenditures on health through a largely unregulated private process, which is based on profit maximization. This reform preserves the private system we currently have but increases the role of government in regulating and managing it. There's nothing in that design that violates the laws of economics -- government is constantly changing rules and incentives in the marketplace, and the market adjusts in response. The only thing that will generate bad outcomes is if the government fundamentally disrupts the incentives for private companies to provide coverage and care, and I haven't seen anything that indicates this reform will do that.

Syndicate content

Bloggers

Central Processing Unit

Fellows

Student Fellows

Students

Past Students