<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (jtyost2)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from jtyost2</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3k38nw/read-the-best-parts-of-alex-joness-159-page-deposition-about-pepe-the-frog"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adambvary/donald-trump-the-dark-knight-rises-warner-bros"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/3/26/18280986/mueller-report-release-book-melville-house-skyhorse-scribner"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/fashion/keen-gucci-shoes-copy.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47497436"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://medium.com/@hankgreen/theft-lies-and-facebook-video-656b0ffed369"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.alexisrossi.com/digital-knowledge-gap/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.defectivebydesign.org/drm-streaming"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/eff-joins-diverse-coalition-get-copyright-right"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-our-open-source-patent-grant/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-busts-podcasting-patent-invalidating-key-claims-patent-office"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/03/30/flickr-now-offers-public-domain-and-cc0-designations/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-31963148"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/03/12/why-obamas-key-trade-deal-with-asia-would-actually-be-good-for-american-workers/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.vox.com/2015/3/10/8187225/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-gaye"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/what-the-blurred-lines-ruling-means-for-music.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://m.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-31825059"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.vox.com/2014/11/18/7238825/copyright-for-apis-is-going-to-be-a-disaster-and-only-the-supreme"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/revenge-porn-boss-wants-google-to-remove-his-identity-related-info/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150212/06583630000/dear-elon-musk-please-put-spacex-photos-public-domain.shtml"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/negotiators-burn-their-last-opportunity-salvage-tpp-caving-copyright-term"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.jwz.org/blog/2015/01/googles-upcoming-paid-streaming-service/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.vox.com/2015/1/13/7540027/selma-copyright-king-speeches"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://torrentfreak.com/netflix-cracks-down-on-vpn-and-proxy-pirates-150103/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16646023"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-interview-sony-hack-seth-rogen-james-franco-vod/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://boingboing.net/2014/12/15/drm-screws-blind-people.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2014/12/an-update-on-google-news-in-spain.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/4/7157201/warner-music-group-first-major-label-to-sign-with-soundcloud"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/4/7155813/pirate-bay-co-founder-arrested-in-thailand"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/project-free-tv-torrent-sites-drop-in-google-results-with-new-algorithm/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://gizmodo.com/netflix-under-pressure-to-close-down-the-vpn-loophole-1636210923/+chris-mills"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/08/29/welcome-the-internet-archive-to-the-commons/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140806/07262728128/city-london-police-arrest-creator-anti-censorship-proxy-service-based-hollywood.shtml"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-at-center-of-copyright-brouhaha/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/07/some-rambling-thoughts-on-regi.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/red-hat-joyent-and-others-break-down-licensing-barriers-244727"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://boingboing.net/2014/07/01/soundcloud-annoints-universal.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28020802"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.vox.com/2014/6/25/5833864/aereo-loses-supreme-court-case"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bea/article/62577-bea-2014-why-drm-is-the-problem.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/19/5731678/twitch-youtube-copyright-issues"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140514/14380927236/automattic-wordpress-states-explicitly-that-it-wont-claim-copyright-over-its-apis.shtml"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/aereo-cant-be-bound-secret-interpretations-copyright-law"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/german-court-says-creative-commons-non-commercial-licenses-must-be-purely-personal-use.shtml"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/dropbox-clarifies-its-policy-on-reviewing-shared-files-for-dmca-issues/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5475202/getty-images-made-its-pictures-free-to-use"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.thenation.com/blog/178575/obama-nominates-sopa-lobbyist-tpp-trade-post"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26362784"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2014/02/18/machines-are-better-referees-than-humans-but-well-be-sued-if-we-use-them/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pcworld.com/article/2097660/no-authorisation-required-for-hyperlinks-to-copyright-works-cjeu-says.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/opinion/edsall-free-trade-disagreement.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26055297"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/broadcasters-get-u-s-supreme-court-review-in-bid-to-stop.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://medium.com/the-magazine/11776eba0257"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/sherlock-holmes-is-in-the-public-domain-american-judge-rules/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standards"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the-case-against-kim-dotcom-revealing-e-mails-and-financial-data/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/21/5234580/patent-pending-ias-militant-stance-on-syntax-control"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/fbi-copyrighted-interrogation-manual-unredacted-secrets"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeworld.com/consumerization/22803/iron-maiden-musicmetric"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/after-sailing-the-domain-name-seas-pirate-bay-returns-to-sweden/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/tpps-attack-artists-termination-rights"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/12/youtube-goes-nuts-flagging-game-related-content-as-violating-copyright/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/british-library-sticks-1-million-pics-on-flickr-asks-for-help-making-them-useful/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/aereo-to-tv-companies-you-want-a-supreme-court-fight-no-problem/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/nz-judge-kim-dotcom-is-likely-still-being-spied-upon/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/pirate-bay-once-again-forced-to-change-domain-names/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/hotfile-settles-copyright-case-will-accept-80-million-judgment/"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3k38nw/read-the-best-parts-of-alex-joness-159-page-deposition-about-pepe-the-frog">
    <title>Read the Best Parts of Alex Jones's 159-Page Deposition About Pepe the Frog</title>
    <dc:date>2019-04-10T02:38:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3k38nw/read-the-best-parts-of-alex-joness-159-page-deposition-about-pepe-the-frog</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[ In a court deposition obtained by Motherboard, Infowars’s Alex Jones claimed Pepe the Frog was more than just a cartoon frog.

“[Pepe the Frog] is a symbol of free speech,” Jones said. “There’s now a movement to try to then control and own symbols that have entered the public domain and public use….and so now I see it as basically a tombstone of free speech and fair use in the Western world. So I see it for what it is, from the perspective of the corporate fascists.”

Last year, Jones was sued by Pepe the Frog artist Matt Furie for allegedly infringing Furie’s copyright on the cartoon frog by putting Pepe on a poster that Infowars was selling. Jones is fighting the case. The court documents are part of a 159- page deposition given on December 18, 2018 as part of the case, and is embedded below.

Furie originally created Pepe as a chill frog who spreads love, but internet fascists and assorted reactionaries appropriated the frog as a symbol of white nationalism in the run up to the 2016 election. ]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal lawsuit copyright PepeTheFrog AlexJones</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:5f292614879f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:PepeTheFrog"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:AlexJones"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adambvary/donald-trump-the-dark-knight-rises-warner-bros">
    <title>Warner Bros. Is Filing A Copyright Claim Over Trump's 2020 Video For Using The &quot;Dark Knight Rises&quot; Score</title>
    <dc:date>2019-04-10T02:13:48+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adambvary/donald-trump-the-dark-knight-rises-warner-bros</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><dc:subject>legal copyright DonaldTrump politics</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:3b9b22a62c50/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:DonaldTrump"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:politics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/3/26/18280986/mueller-report-release-book-melville-house-skyhorse-scribner">
    <title>Publishers are racing to turn the Mueller report into a book</title>
    <dc:date>2019-03-27T02:13:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/3/26/18280986/mueller-report-release-book-melville-house-skyhorse-scribner</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><dc:subject>politics business copyright government</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:d37326966cb4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:government"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/fashion/keen-gucci-shoes-copy.html">
    <title>Gucci Makes a Shoe and Keen Gets the Last Laugh</title>
    <dc:date>2019-03-26T20:56:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/fashion/keen-gucci-shoes-copy.html</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[On the Runway What if online call-out culture could be weaponized with humor instead of anger? Keen employees, and Ridley the dog, wore its Newport Retro shoes…]]></description>
<dc:subject>fashion copyright business innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://instapaper.com/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:fa168ee1c035/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:fashion"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html">
    <title>Who Should Own Photos of Slaves? The Descendants, not Harvard, a Lawsuit Says</title>
    <dc:date>2019-03-21T02:31:55+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The two slaves, a father and daughter, were stripped to the waist and positioned for frontal and side views. Then, like subjects in contemporary mug shots, their pictures were taken, as part of a racist study arguing that black people were an inferior race.

Little did they know that 169 years later, they would be at the center of a dispute over who should own the fruits of American slavery.

On Wednesday, Tamara Lanier, 54, filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts saying that she is a direct descendant of the pair, who were identified by their first names, Renty and Delia, and that the valuable photographs — commissioned by a professor at Harvard and now stored in a museum on campus — are hers.

The images, Ms. Lanier said, are records of her personal family history, not cultural artifacts to be kept by an institution.

“These were our bedtime stories,” Ms. Lanier’s older daughter, Shonrael, said.

The case renews focus on the role that the country’s oldest universities played in slavery, and also comes amid a growing debate over whether the descendants of the enslaved are entitled to reparations — and what those reparations might look like.

“It is unprecedented in terms of legal theory and reclaiming property that was wrongfully taken,” Benjamin Crump, one of Ms. Lanier’s lawyers, said. “Renty’s descendants may be the first descendants of slave ancestors to be able to get their property rights.”

Jonathan Swain, a spokesman for Harvard, did not immediately respond to a request to comment on the lawsuit.]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal history slavery humanrights civilrights culture lawsuit copyright</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:e30c725011b8/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:slavery"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:humanrights"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:civilrights"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47497436">
    <title>Fresh Prince star Alfonso Ribeiro withdraws Fortnite lawsuit</title>
    <dc:date>2019-03-09T02:52:03+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47497436</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air star Alfonso Ribeiro has temporarily dropped his legal action against Fortnite's creators Epic Games, for copying his character's dance moves.

The actor also withdrew a similar suit against Take-Two Interactive, creators of the basketball game series, NBA 2K.

Ribeiro's case was weakened when the US Copyright Office refused to register his "Carlton dance" routine.

Ribeiro's lawyer said his client intends to refile the lawsuits.]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal lawsuit copyright dance</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://instapaper.com/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:7f4745168ae9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:dance"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://medium.com/@hankgreen/theft-lies-and-facebook-video-656b0ffed369">
    <title>Theft, Lies, and Facebook Video</title>
    <dc:date>2015-08-04T00:26:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://medium.com/@hankgreen/theft-lies-and-facebook-video-656b0ffed369</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[I’m a professional YouTube creator. Some people think that this is some kind of joke but I have 30 employees. All of them work in the online video industry, about half of them work directly on producing videos for our educational YouTube channels. We’re a small, profitable business.

Facebook is an interesting, emerging platform for us. Reaching an audience is valuable, even if there’s no way to turn that value into money. So I’m excited about the potential future of Facebook as a video platform.

But there are a few things that make me wary, not of their ability to grow my business, but of whether they give a shit about creators, which is actually pretty important to me. Let’s go through them one by one.]]></description>
<dc:subject>facebook advertising youtube legal copyright business</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:edad9740166b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:facebook"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:advertising"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:youtube"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.alexisrossi.com/digital-knowledge-gap/">
    <title>The digital knowledge gap | Alexis Rossi</title>
    <dc:date>2015-05-20T01:16:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.alexisrossi.com/digital-knowledge-gap/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Regardless of access levels, this library of 4 million books is missing a lot of content from the 20th century.  Most of these books are not in print any longer, and the publishers (if they still exist) have little incentive to make digital copies available.  And according to Heald’s small study, they may not be easy to buy – at least from Amazon.

These physical books do still exist in libraries around the country, but will those libraries make digital copies and make them available to the general public — not just their own students and patrons?

If we don’t address this digital knowledge gap, we may lose access to a century of information.]]></description>
<dc:subject>copyright information</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:bd26200266b9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:information"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.defectivebydesign.org/drm-streaming">
    <title>DRM on streaming services: The ultimate antifeature | Defective by Design</title>
    <dc:date>2015-05-11T18:07:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.defectivebydesign.org/drm-streaming</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We should remember that, like ten years ago, the real effect of DRM is to allow technology companies to capture value by creating dependence in their customers and by blocking innovation and competition. For example, DRM in streaming services blocks third-party apps from playing music from services, just as FairPlay ensured that iTunes music would only play on Apple devices. DRM in streaming services means that listening to music requires one to use special proprietary clients. For example, even with a premium account, a subscriber cannot listen to music from their catalog using an alternative or modified music player. It means that their television, car, or mobile device manufacturer must cut deals with their service to allow each paying customer to play the catalog they have subscribed to. Although streaming services are able to capture and control value more effectively, this comes at the cost of reduced freedom, choice, and flexibility for users and at higher prices paid by subscribers.

A decade ago, arguments against DRM for downloaded music focused on the claim that users should have control over the music they purchase. Although these arguments may not seem to apply to subscription services, it is worth remembering that DRM is fundamentally a problem because it means that we do not have control of the technology we use to play our music, and because the firms aiming to control us are using DRM to push antifeatures, raise prices, and block innovation. In all of these senses, DRM in streaming services is exactly as bad as FairPlay, and we should continue to demand better.]]></description>
<dc:subject>drm copyright legal business music</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:31214c8f872d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:drm"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:music"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/eff-joins-diverse-coalition-get-copyright-right">
    <title>EFF Joins With Diverse Coalition to Get Copyright Right | Electronic Frontier Foundation</title>
    <dc:date>2015-04-29T00:06:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/eff-joins-diverse-coalition-get-copyright-right</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[After decades of increasingly draconian statutes and judicial decisions, our copyright system has veered far away from its original purpose. To help get copyright back on track, EFF is joining forces with a variety of groups—including libraries, industry associations, and public interest advocates—to launch a new coalition focused on promoting smart, balanced copyright policy: Re:create.

Restoring a sense of balance, fairness, and rationality to the copyright system has never been more urgent. Copyright is supposed to promote creativity, but too often we’ve seen it used to shut down innovation, new creative expression, and even everyday activities like tinkering with your car. When a farmer needs to ask the Librarian of Congress for permission to fix her tractor, it’s not just the tractor that’s broken.

Re:create members have diverse views on some copyright issues, but we share a commitment to building a copyright system that works and, above all, matches its constitutional purpose.]]></description>
<dc:subject>eff copyright legal business technology usa government</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:a551149449b8/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:eff"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:usa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:government"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-our-open-source-patent-grant/">
    <title>Updating Our Open Source Patent Grant | Engineering Blog | Facebook Code | Facebook</title>
    <dc:date>2015-04-11T04:15:06+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-our-open-source-patent-grant/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[At Facebook, we strive to open source innovative, world-class software. These are the same technologies that we ourselves use in production, and we strive to ensure that developers feel comfortable about their quality. But we also know that there are other things people look at when choosing to use or build on open source software projects, such as their licenses and terms of use.

We default to using the BSD license when we open source projects. While this is simple and permissive, we also know that intellectual property is a concern to many developers. So over a year ago, we started offering an additional grant which provided rights to any Facebook patents relevant to each given project.

This grant was designed to ensure that developers can use our projects with confidence. But we've also continued to think about how to make its scope clearer, and its intent less ambiguous. Any inadvertent doubts it introduces detract from what we want our program to be about: world-class communities and world-class software.

So today we're pushing a new version of the grant. Its main significant improvement is that it is clearer with regard to what we mean by 'affiliates' and 'assertions' and the circumstances under which the grant terminates, all of which had caused confusion. You can see the full text of the new grant on our osquery project, for example.

As of today, this version will be used on all new BSD-licensed Facebook open source projects. What's more, we are currently updating all the projects that used the previous version, and they can also be used under these revised conditions as soon as the diffs land.

We are confident that these changes will make everyone - individuals and companies alike - feel more comfortable about using our projects and taking part in their open communities. And now... back to shipping software!]]></description>
<dc:subject>facebook copyright legal software patent</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:88de51300e64/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:facebook"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:software"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:patent"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-busts-podcasting-patent-invalidating-key-claims-patent-office">
    <title>EFF Busts Podcasting Patent, Invalidating Key Claims at Patent Office | Electronic Frontier Foundation</title>
    <dc:date>2015-04-11T03:09:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-busts-podcasting-patent-invalidating-key-claims-patent-office</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) invalided key claims in the so-called “podcasting patent” today after a petition for review from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)—a decision that significantly curtails the ability of a patent troll to threaten podcasters big and small.

“We’re grateful for all the support of our challenge to this patent. Today is a big victory for the podcasting community” said EFF Staff Attorney Daniel Nazer, who also holds the Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents. “We’re glad the Patent Office recognized what we all knew: ‘podcasting’ had been around for many years and this company does not own it.”

The “podcasting patent” became big news in 2013, when a company called Personal Audio, LLC, began demanding licensing fees from podcasters including comedian Adam Carolla and three major television networks. Personal Audio doesn’t do podcasting itself, but instead used its patent to claim infringement and collect payouts from actual creators.]]></description>
<dc:subject>eff podcast legal lawsuit copyright usa government</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:10b409815d78/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:eff"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:podcast"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:usa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:government"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/03/30/flickr-now-offers-public-domain-and-cc0-designations/">
    <title>Flickr now offers Public Domain and CC0 designations | Flickr Blog</title>
    <dc:date>2015-03-30T23:32:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/03/30/flickr-now-offers-public-domain-and-cc0-designations/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Flickr supports a wide range of licenses to match the many ways photographers on our site want to share and distribute their works.

We’ve been proud to support Creative Commons licenses since 2004, and we’ve become an important repository of U.S. Government works and historic images from galleries, libraries, archives, and museums around the world (check out The Flickr Commons for examples).

But we’ve heard from our community that we’re missing two important designations: Public Domain and Creative Commons 0 (CC0). Many members of our community want to be able to upload images that are no longer protected by copyright and correctly tag them as being in the Public Domain, or they want to release their copyright entirely under CC0.

So, starting today we’re happy to support these two new options. One of the first accounts on Flickr to change its designation was SpaceX, which has uploaded more than a hundred gorgeous images of its launches. These extraordinary photos are now available for others to freely use, enhance, and promulgate without restriction under copyright law.

As with any license you choose, it’s important to be informed about what the Public Domain and CC0 designations mean. You can find more information about what it means when a work is part of the Public Domain here (note: this designation is not applicable everywhere), and you can read up on the CC0 designation on the Creative Commons info page.]]></description>
<dc:subject>flickr photography copyright legal</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:c17693a74ef8/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:flickr"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:photography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-31963148">
    <title>BBC News - Marvin Gaye family in court bid to halt Blurred Lines sales</title>
    <dc:date>2015-03-20T06:09:57+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-31963148</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Marvin Gaye's family want to stop sales of Blurred Lines, after a court ruled it copied one of the R&B star's hit songs.

Gaye's children have filed an injunction to prevent the copying, distribution and performance of Robin Thicke, TI and Pharrell's 2013 track.

Last week, a jury said the performers had based elements of their single on the 1977 hit Got to Give It Up.

Pharrell and Thicke were ordered to pay Gaye's three children $7.4m (£4.8m).

Gaye's family also want to amend the verdict to include rapper TI - who contributed a verse to the song - as well as record labels Universal Music, Interscope Records and Star Trak Entertainment.

Blurred Lines was the biggest hit of 2013, topping the charts in 14 countries, including the UK, and earning two Grammy Award nominations.

It generated more than $16m (£10.8m) in profits and made more than $5m (£3m) for both stars.

Gaye died in April 1984, leaving his children the copyright to his music. His children - Nona, Frankie and Marvin Gaye III - sued Thicke and Williams in 2013.

The injunction against Blurred Lines, which was filed in court on Tuesday, could put Gaye's family in a position to negotiate for royalties and songwriting credits.]]></description>
<dc:subject>copyright legal music</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:7363f2198777/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:music"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/03/12/why-obamas-key-trade-deal-with-asia-would-actually-be-good-for-american-workers/">
    <title>Why Obama’s key trade deal with Asia would actually be good for American workers</title>
    <dc:date>2015-03-14T00:08:34+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/03/12/why-obamas-key-trade-deal-with-asia-would-actually-be-good-for-american-workers/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Opponents of giving President Obama fast-track authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — the pending trade pact between the United States and 11 countries in Asia and the Americas — cite the job-killing impacts of globalization as a prime reason for their objection. The free-trade agreement would lower tariffs and remove other barriers to imports from member countries, which opponents fear would create steep competition for U.S. industries domestically. There is indeed substantial evidence that import competition from low-wage countries has contributed to the momentous decline in U.S. manufacturing employment in the last two decades. We even researched and published some of that empirical evidence. Still, we believe blocking the TPP on fears of globalization would be a mistake.

There are several reasons to support the TPP despite globalization concerns. First, the TPP — which seeks to govern exchange of not only traditional goods and services, but also intellectual property and foreign investment — would promote trade in knowledge-intensive services in which U.S. companies exert a strong comparative advantage. Second, killing the TPP would do little to bring factory work back to America. Third, and perhaps most important, although China is not part of the TPP, enacting the agreement would raise regulatory rules and standards for several of China’s key trading partners. That would pressure China to meet some of those standards and cease its attempts to game global trade to impede foreign multinational companies.]]></description>
<dc:subject>economics trade regulation copyright legal business</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:f551d136c90b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:trade"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.vox.com/2015/3/10/8187225/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-gaye">
    <title>Jury rules Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams stole &quot;Blurred Lines.&quot; Here's what that means.</title>
    <dc:date>2015-03-12T01:14:29+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.vox.com/2015/3/10/8187225/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-gaye</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[After Robin Thicke’s hit “Blurred Lines” permeated American popular culture in the summer of 2013, questions were raised about the originality of the song, particularly the composition in the background and the rhythm section. The Gaye estate, which represents the late Marvin Gaye’s two children, Frankie and Nona, threatened to sue Thicke for his song on the grounds that it sounded too similar to Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up.”

Thicke, Pharrell, and T.I. responded to the threats by preemptively suing the Gaye estate. At the time, Thicke’s lawyer said that “the intent in producing ‘Blurred Lines’ was to evoke an era,” and that the Gaye family was “claiming ownership of an entire genre, as opposed to a specific work, and Bridgeport is claiming the same work.”

Thicke, though, had already made some key mistakes. He told GQin a May 2013 article that “Got to Give It Up” was one of his favorite songs. The Gaye family, of course, cited this as evidence that Thicke had stolen the song.

By April 2014, Thicke had adjusted his story. He claimed he was high on Vicodin and had very little to do with the writing or creation of “Blurred Lines.”

As the trial progressed, damages experts found that “Blurred Lines” had generated almost $17 million in profit as a performance, with $5,658,214 going to Thicke, $5,153,457 to Williams, and $704,774 to T.I., according to testimony in the proceedings as reported by the Hollywood Reporter.

During opening argument for the trial, the attorney representing the Gayes tallied the damages at approximately $40 million. The jury awarded the family $7.3 million.]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal copyright music RobinThicke PharrelWilliams</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:c29c8b824c08/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:music"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:RobinThicke"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:PharrelWilliams"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/what-the-blurred-lines-ruling-means-for-music.html">
    <title>A Copyright Expert Explains the ‘Blurred Lines’ Ruling</title>
    <dc:date>2015-03-12T01:09:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/what-the-blurred-lines-ruling-means-for-music.html</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The “Blurred Lines” saga has finally come to its legal end, but the story may not be over. On Tuesday night, a federal jury ruled that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams’s smash hit had infringed on the copyright of Marvin Gaye’s 1977 song “Got to Give It Up,” and subsequently awarded more than $7.3 million to Gaye’s family. Aside from the size of the damages awarded — some of the largest ever in a music copyright case — the ruling was surprising for the legal thinking behind it: Rather than an obviously derivative melody, “Blurred Lines” was determined to have stolen a “feel” from Gaye’s song. What could conceivably have been called homage was, in this case, illegal. 

We spoke with Jeff Peretz, a professor at NYU’s Clive Davis School of Music who has often spoken on copyright law, about what precedents the “Blurred Lines” ruling may have set, and what it might mean for musicians moving forward. ]]></description>
<dc:subject>copyright legal lawsuit ethics usa</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:bafe3d2d6822/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:ethics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:usa"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://m.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-31825059">
    <title>Blurred Lines jury awards Marvin Gaye family $7m - BBC News</title>
    <dc:date>2015-03-10T23:39:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://m.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-31825059</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A jury in the United States has ruled that the writers of Blurred Lines - one of the best-selling singles of all time - copied a Marvin Gaye track.
Jurors in Los Angeles decided that the 2013 single by Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke breached the copyright of Gaye's 1977 hit Got To Give It Up.
The family of the late soul singer has been awarded $7.3m (£4.8m) in damages.
Thicke and Williams denied copying the hit, and their lawyer said musicians would find the ruling chilling.
Gaye died in April 1984, leaving his children the copyright to his music.
His children - Nona, Frankie and Marvin Gaye III - sued the singers in 2013. Nona wept as the verdict was read in court.
"Right now, I feel free," she told reporters after the ruling. "Free from... Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke's chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told."
In court, Williams had told jurors that Gaye's music was part of the soundtrack of his youth but he insisted it was not on his mind when he wrote the song.
But the musician recognised a likeness between the songs and agreed he was "channelling... that late-70s feeling" when he co-wrote the song.
Thicke testified that he had contributed little to the writing of the song.
The hit, which earned a Grammy nomination, generated more than $16m (£10.8) in profits and made more than $5m (£3m) for both stars.]]></description>
<dc:subject>copyright legal music</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:c222a74ea13f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:music"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.vox.com/2014/11/18/7238825/copyright-for-apis-is-going-to-be-a-disaster-and-only-the-supreme">
    <title>Copyright for APIs is going to be a disaster and only the Supreme Court can stop it</title>
    <dc:date>2015-03-03T02:01:10+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.vox.com/2014/11/18/7238825/copyright-for-apis-is-going-to-be-a-disaster-and-only-the-supreme</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A 2014 ruling on copyright law threatens to create headaches for a lot of software companies, as practices that had long been viewed as legal are suddenly thrown into doubt. Critics of the ruling have asked the Supreme Court to review it, and earlier this year the nation’s highest court asked the Obama administration to weigh in on the case.

Here’s the problem with the ruling, which was handed down last May by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals: the digital economy depends on gadgets and software being able to communicate seamlessly. The Federal Circuit’s ruling has opened the possibility that efforts to make software work together better could trigger copyright liability. If it’s allowed to stand, it could lead to more compatibility problems and less innovation.

The Supreme Court only agrees to hear a small fraction of the cases it’s asked to review each year. If the court is not sure a case is worth hearing, as in this case, it will often ask the government for an opinion. If the government recommends that the court step in, it court usually does so. So the Obama administration’s view could make a significant difference.]]></description>
<dc:subject>copyright technology hardware software api usa supremecourt legal lawsuit government</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:e3534feb3398/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:hardware"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:software"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:api"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:usa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:supremecourt"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:government"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/revenge-porn-boss-wants-google-to-remove-his-identity-related-info/">
    <title>Revenge porn boss wants Google to remove his “identity related” info</title>
    <dc:date>2015-02-26T05:21:55+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/revenge-porn-boss-wants-google-to-remove-his-identity-related-info/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[What do you do if you’re a revenge porn site operator and the Federal Trade Commission has barred you from publishing nude images of people without their consent?
You demand that Google remove from its search engine links to news accounts about the FTC’s action and other related stories, citing “unauthorized use of photos of me and other related information.”

Craig Brittain—the former operator of revenge porn site IsAnybodyDown.com—is invoking the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in a bid to remove 23 links in all—an irony-filled DMCA takedown request that Google is ignoring. One of the links renders the FTC’s press release in January about its enforcement against Brittain. Another is a link to Ars’ story about the FTC’s move: “Sleazy ‘revenge porn’ site is banished to settle federal charges.”

In addition to claims that the links contain “unauthorized” information about him, Brittain asserts ”unauthorized use of statements and identity related information. Unauthorized copying of excerpts from isanybodydown.com. Using photos which are not ‘fair use.’”]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal crime dmca copyright google privacy civilrights</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:ac40083c10b8/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:crime"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:dmca"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:google"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:privacy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:civilrights"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150212/06583630000/dear-elon-musk-please-put-spacex-photos-public-domain.shtml">
    <title>Dear Elon Musk: Please Put SpaceX Photos In The Public Domain | Techdirt</title>
    <dc:date>2015-02-15T00:02:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150212/06583630000/dear-elon-musk-please-put-spacex-photos-public-domain.shtml</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Of course, that doesn’t mean that the story is over. There is a clearer answer, which is to have SpaceX declare that it will put the images from its spacecraft into the public domain as well. After all, this is the same Elon Musk who recognizes that patents often hold back innovation, and has thus agreed to free up all of Tesla’s (and who has also admitted that SpaceX didn’t spend much effort on patents). So he already recognizes that perhaps overprotecting via intellectual property is a bad idea. 

So, now he can do the same thing with respect to those photos. While it’s not a perfect solution, Musk can (and should) make use of something like the CC0 public domain declaration offered by Creative Commons to make it clear that these photos should be treated the same way that NASA’s images are: as public domain materials for everyone to use.]]></description>
<dc:subject>ElonMusk technology space spacex copyright photography science</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:1808032fc88f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:ElonMusk"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:space"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:spacex"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:photography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:science"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/negotiators-burn-their-last-opportunity-salvage-tpp-caving-copyright-term">
    <title>Negotiators Burn Their Last Opportunity to Salvage the TPP by Caving on Copyright Term Extension | Electronic Frontier Foundation</title>
    <dc:date>2015-02-08T19:02:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/negotiators-burn-their-last-opportunity-salvage-tpp-caving-copyright-term</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[New reports indicate that Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiators have agreed to language that would bind its 12 signatory nations to extend copyright terms to match the United States' already excessive length of copyright. This provision expands the reach of the controversial US Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (or the “Mickey Mouse Act” as it was called due to Disney’s heavy lobbying) to countries of the Pacific region. Nations including Japan, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Canada would all be required to extend their terms and grant Big Content companies lengthy exclusive rights to works for no empirical reason. This means that all of the TPP's extreme enforcement provisions would apply to creative works for upwards of 100 years.

Negotiators have been made well aware [PDF] that there is no economic rationale that can justify this extension. The fact that they have chosen to ignore what is a clear consensus among economists points to the fact that this agreement has not been driven by reason, but by the utter corruption of the process by lobbyists for multinational entertainment conglomerates, who have twisted what is notionally a trade negotiation into a special interest money-grab. After all of the trouble that public interest advocates have gone to educate negotiators about the folly of term extension, the fact that they have gone ahead anyway is the last straw for us. We'll now be pulling out all the stops to kill this agreement dead.

These are the terms of the proposal, revealed by several leaks of the TPP Intellectual Property chapter: If the copyright holder is an individual, the minimum copyright term would extend to the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years after her death. This means restrictions could easily be in place for a century after a work is created. In the case of works with corporate authors, the term extends to 95 years from the first publication, or if not published within 25 years of its creation, 120 years from then. These terms go far beyond what is required by international standards set out in the Berne Convention (WIPO) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

]]></description>
<dc:subject>business copyright legal usa government diplomacy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:9094089e9994/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:usa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:government"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:diplomacy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.jwz.org/blog/2015/01/googles-upcoming-paid-streaming-service/">
    <title>Google's upcoming paid streaming service</title>
    <dc:date>2015-01-27T06:28:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.jwz.org/blog/2015/01/googles-upcoming-paid-streaming-service/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[It's another bait-and-switch: "We had been paying you for your work for years, under these terms. But now we have altered the agreement. Pray we do not alter it further."

This sounds like Google using the same strategy they used with Google Plus: instead of creating a new service and letting it compete on its own merits, they're going to artificially prop it up by giving people no choice but to sign up for it. Except in this case the people being strong-armed are the copyright holders instead of the end users. (So far, that is! Wait for it.)

I think you can expect to see a lot of old videos on Youtube getting blocked in the near future because of this.]]></description>
<dc:subject>google youtube business advertising copyright music</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:3a881eec1285/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:google"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:youtube"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:advertising"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:music"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.vox.com/2015/1/13/7540027/selma-copyright-king-speeches">
    <title>The crazy reason Selma doesn't use the actual words from MLK's speeches - Vox</title>
    <dc:date>2015-01-15T06:43:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.vox.com/2015/1/13/7540027/selma-copyright-king-speeches</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[If Paramount had distributed a version of Selma that relied on fair use to justify using some King clips, and a court later ruled these uses were not actually fair, it would have been a financial disaster. Paramount could have been on the hook for big damages and could even have been forced to cancel showings of the movie and destroy its inventory of Selma DVDs. And the King estate is famously litigious, having sued both USA Today and CBS for quoting his "I Have a Dream" speech without permission. So rather than take that kind of gamble, studios almost always insist that works be licensed, even if a plausible fair use argument exists.

Fair use is supposed to operate as a safety valve for free expression. Without it, you can wind up giving the descendants of historical figures veto rights over how they are portrayed in print and film. Works that meet with the King family's approval can include excerpts from King's famous speeches, works that don't, can't.

And the King family is far from the only example of an estate using copyright to police how a public figure is depicted. In one famous case, the grandson of James Joyce used legal threats to squelch biographies that cast his grandfather in a negative light.

The ultimate solution, as Band notes, is for copyright terms to be shorter. Prior to 1976, the maximum length for copyright protection was 56 years. If that rule were still in effect, "I have a Dream" would fall into the public domain in 2019. After that, anyone could use the speech without worrying about copyright. But Congress has retroactively extended copyright protection in 1976 and again in 1998. As a result, Band says, King's works won't fall into the public domain until 2039.]]></description>
<dc:subject>copyright legal usa business</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:2d9380081ffa/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:usa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://torrentfreak.com/netflix-cracks-down-on-vpn-and-proxy-pirates-150103/">
    <title>Netflix Cracks Down on VPN and Proxy &quot;Pirates&quot; | TorrentFreak</title>
    <dc:date>2015-01-04T21:55:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://torrentfreak.com/netflix-cracks-down-on-vpn-and-proxy-pirates-150103/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Due to complicated licensing agreements Netflix is only available in a few dozen countries, all of which have a different content library.

Some people bypass these content and access restrictions by using VPNs or other circumvention tools that change their geographical location. This makes it easy for people all around the world to pay for access to the U.S. version of Netflix, for example.

The movie studios are not happy with these deviant subscribers as it hurts their licensing agreements. Previously entertainment industry sources in Australia complained bitterly that tens of thousands of Netflix “VPN-pirates” were hurting their business.

Over the past weeks Netflix has started to take action against people who use certain circumvention tools. The Android application started to force Google DNS which now makes it harder to use DNS based location unblockers, and several VPN IP-ranges were targeted as well.

Thus far the actions are limited in scope, so not all VPN users may experience problems just yet. However, TorGuard is one of the VPN providers which noticed a surge in access problems by its users, starting mid-December.]]></description>
<dc:subject>netflix business legal copyright piracy vpn</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:d5aa307f06bc/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:netflix"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:piracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:vpn"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16646023">
    <title>BBC News - Hackers retaliate over Megaupload website shutdown</title>
    <dc:date>2014-12-18T19:12:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16646023</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Hackers have targeted the US government and copyright organisations following the shutdown of the Megaupload file-sharing website.

The Department of Justice (DoJ), FBI and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) among others have been bombarded with internet traffic.

Web links have been been distributed which, when clicked, make the user's computer part of the attack.

A statement attributed to Anonymous claimed responsibility.]]></description>
<dc:subject>megaupload legal DeptOfJustice mpaa fbi hacking ethics copyright</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:b6656e1388bd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:megaupload"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:DeptOfJustice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:mpaa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:fbi"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:hacking"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:ethics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-interview-sony-hack-seth-rogen-james-franco-vod/">
    <title>Sony Should Send 'The Interview' Straight To Video On Demand</title>
    <dc:date>2014-12-18T05:17:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-interview-sony-hack-seth-rogen-james-franco-vod/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[As a result, we really don’t have any data about the financial possibilities of VOD. (I’m talking specifically about the kind of video on-demand where you pay iTunes or your cable company to watch a movie, rather than streaming services like Netflix or Hulu.)

The closest thing we have to data on VOD’s potential is “Snowpiercer,” the 2014 sci-fi movie/class parable that The Weinstein Company made available for digital purchase two weeks after its theatrical release. The results were really interesting. The film made $3.8 million in its first two weeks on VOD, compared to $3.9 million over its first five weeks in theaters, according to Variety’s reporting.

That’s a data point, but it’s not enough to draw any conclusions. We don’t have multiple instances of studios seriously kicking the tires of VOD for major theatrical releases. And that’s the kind of data that — hypothetically, if VOD is really worth the hype — could potentially persuade studios to look into the distribution medium as their first avenue of release.]]></description>
<dc:subject>sony statistics business copyright movie</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:fb90b5ec305f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:sony"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:statistics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:movie"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://boingboing.net/2014/12/15/drm-screws-blind-people.html">
    <title>DRM screws blind people</title>
    <dc:date>2014-12-16T06:29:40+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://boingboing.net/2014/12/15/drm-screws-blind-people.html</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Tricking the technology used by Amazon, Apple, Adobe and Google to stop blind people from adding text-to-speech to their devices isn’t hard — but it is a felony, thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A UN treaty intended to help people with visual, cognitive and sensory disabilities access copyrighted works has been all but killed by the big publishers.

Groups representing blind people have asked the US Copyright Office to renew the very narrow exemption that allows legally blind people to jailbreak their devices to add text-to-speech, but no one knows if they’ll get it. And even if they do, it remains a felony to make or supply the tools that allow blind people to undertake this feat.]]></description>
<dc:subject>drm technology copyright legal accessibility ebooks usa</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:6eb547abb6f5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:drm"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:accessibility"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:ebooks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:usa"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2014/12/an-update-on-google-news-in-spain.html">
    <title>Google Europe Blog: An update on Google News in Spain</title>
    <dc:date>2014-12-11T04:09:50+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2014/12/an-update-on-google-news-in-spain.html</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[It’s a service that hundreds of millions of users love and trust, including many here in Spain. It’s free to use and includes everything from the world’s biggest newspapers to small, local publications and bloggers. Publishers can choose whether or not they want their articles to appear in Google News -- and the vast majority choose to be included for very good reason. Google News creates real value for these publications by driving people to their websites, which in turn helps generate advertising revenues. 

But sadly, as a result of a new Spanish law, we’ll shortly have to close Google News in Spain. Let me explain why. This new legislation requires every Spanish publication to charge services like Google News for showing even the smallest snippet from their publications, whether they want to or not. As Google News itself makes no money (we do not show any advertising on the site) this new approach is simply not sustainable. So it’s with real sadness that on 16 December (before the new law comes into effect in January) we’ll remove Spanish publishers from Google News, and close Google News in Spain.

For centuries publishers were limited in how widely they could distribute the printed page. The Internet changed all that -- creating tremendous opportunities but also real challenges for publishers as competition both for readers’ attention and for advertising Euros increased. We’re committed to helping the news industry meet that challenge and look forward to continuing to work with our thousands of partners globally, as well as in Spain, to help them increase their online readership and revenues. ]]></description>
<dc:subject>GoogleNews spain legal copyright media journalism</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:2b24339a03e4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:GoogleNews"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:spain"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:journalism"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/4/7157201/warner-music-group-first-major-label-to-sign-with-soundcloud">
    <title>Warner becomes first major label to strike licensing deal with SoundCloud | The Verge</title>
    <dc:date>2014-11-04T23:20:48+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/4/7157201/warner-music-group-first-major-label-to-sign-with-soundcloud</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[SoundCloud can finally say it's got the support of at least one major music label: Warner Music Group. The streaming site has signed a licensing agreement with Warner and will pay the label royalties whenever one of its songs is played on SoundCloud. Warner will also earn money if a song from its catalog is cut up and spliced into mashups on the site, according to The Wall Street Journal, where news of today's deal was first reported.]]></description>
<dc:subject>SoundCloud music copyright legal business</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:4ec27f01d0cd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:SoundCloud"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:music"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/4/7155813/pirate-bay-co-founder-arrested-in-thailand">
    <title>Pirate Bay co-founder arrested in Thailand | The Verge</title>
    <dc:date>2014-11-04T23:19:30+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/4/7155813/pirate-bay-co-founder-arrested-in-thailand</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Pirate Bay founder Fredrik Neij was apprehended by immigration police while crossing the border between Laos and Thailand today, more than five years after initial conviction for sharing copyrighted material. After being convicted by Swedish courts, Neij fled the country, and is believed to have spent the bulk of the intervening time in southeast Asia. He was finally apprehended when police spotted him wearing the same graphic t-shirt as in his official police photo. Neij has been sent to Bangkok while he awaits extradition back to Sweden.

Once the world's most popular file-sharing site, the Pirate Bay founders have been subject to intense legal pressures since 2009, when Swedish courts handed down the first convictions. In May, co-founder Peter Sunde was arrested in Sweden for his role in running the site, and a third co-founder, Gottfrid Svartholm, was sentenced to three and a half years in prison on Monday, for hacking the American tech company CSC in 2012. Svartholm maintains his innocence, claiming a third party used his computer as a virtual link to perform the attacks.]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal PirateBay copyright</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:a97af4af4d73/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:PirateBay"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/project-free-tv-torrent-sites-drop-in-google-results-with-new-algorithm/">
    <title>Project Free TV, torrent sites drop in Google results with new algorithm</title>
    <dc:date>2014-10-29T01:19:50+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/project-free-tv-torrent-sites-drop-in-google-results-with-new-algorithm/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Video streaming and torrent sites have dropped precipitously in Google rankings after the company altered its algorithm last Monday, according to reports from Searchmetrics. One of Project Free TV’s main operating domains, free-tv-video-online.me, fell 96 percent in Searchmetric’s rankings, one of the biggest drops alongside torrentz.eu and thepiratebay.se.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>google copyright bittorent searchengines</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:f4369ca68231/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:google"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:bittorent"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:searchengines"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://gizmodo.com/netflix-under-pressure-to-close-down-the-vpn-loophole-1636210923/+chris-mills">
    <title>Netflix Under Pressure to Close Down The VPN Loophole</title>
    <dc:date>2014-09-19T04:44:56+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://gizmodo.com/netflix-under-pressure-to-close-down-the-vpn-loophole-1636210923/+chris-mills</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Even worse, while a ban on the most common VPN services would definitely impact on the hundreds of thousands of legitimate users of those servers, it wouldn’t fix the problem (if it is a problem) of US content being streamed from Australia. Anyone that desperate enough to watch House of Cards could rent a Virtual Private Server in the US, spend ten minutes setting up free VPN software, and be back streaming in as long as it takes to pop another bag of corn.]]></description>
<dc:subject>vpn netflix internet legal business copyright</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:20a437215937/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:vpn"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:netflix"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:internet"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/08/29/welcome-the-internet-archive-to-the-commons/">
    <title>Welcome the Internet Archive to The Commons | Flickr Blog</title>
    <dc:date>2014-09-01T00:20:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://blog.flickr.net/en/2014/08/29/welcome-the-internet-archive-to-the-commons/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Over the past couple of weeks, The Internet Archive has already been uploading content behind the scenes, and today we are very excited to officially launch them into The Commons.

The Internet Archive is best known for its historical library of the web, preserving more than 400 billion web pages dating back to 1996. Yet, its 19 petabytes include more than 600 million pages of digitized texts dating back more than 500 years. What would it look like if those 600 million pages could be “read” completely differently? What if every illustration, drawing, chart, map, or photograph became an entry point, allowing one to navigate the world’s books not as paragraphs of text, but as a visual tapestry of our lives? How would we learn and explore knowledge differently? Those were the questions that launched a project to catalog the imagery of half a millennium of books.

The Internet Archive processed more than 2 million volumes from its digital archive, compiling more than 14 million high resolution images spanning nearly every topic imaginable. Each image includes detailed descriptions, including the subject tags of the book it came from and the text immediately surrounding it on the page. The latter is especially powerful, as it allows to keyword search 500 years of images, instantly accessing particular topics or themes. Searching for love yields a myriad images of cherubs and courtship, while mortis (death) offers a glimpse into the early modern period’s fascination with the subject. A search for bird offers a vividly colorful showcase of the world’s bird species, while searching for telephone traces the invention’s history from its introduction as an electric novelty to its widespread adoption.]]></description>
<dc:subject>flickr copyright legal photography history culture</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:50c9f029c40f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:flickr"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:photography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:history"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:culture"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140806/07262728128/city-london-police-arrest-creator-anti-censorship-proxy-service-based-hollywood.shtml">
    <title>City Of London Police Arrest Creator Of Anti-Censorship Proxy Service Based On Hollywood's Say So | Techdirt</title>
    <dc:date>2014-08-08T05:39:34+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140806/07262728128/city-london-police-arrest-creator-anti-censorship-proxy-service-based-hollywood.shtml</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Of course, based on that reasoning, the very same VPNs that many of us use to protect our internet surfing from surveillance would be equally considered “illegal.” Basically anything that challenges the business model of these legacy companies must be illegal and the City of London Police seem to think they can arrest those associated with them. Talk about going way overboard and creating massive chilling effects…]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal police copyright UnitedKingdom government</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:22ce63eba1a9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:police"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:UnitedKingdom"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:government"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-at-center-of-copyright-brouhaha/">
    <title>Monkey’s selfie at center of copyright brouhaha</title>
    <dc:date>2014-08-07T02:58:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-at-center-of-copyright-brouhaha/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[An English nature photographer is going ape over Wikipedia’s refusal to remove pictures of a monkey from the online encyclopedia that he says are being displayed without his permission.

Wikimedia, the operation that runs Wikipedia, says that the public, not photojournalist David Slater, maintains the rights to the works. That’s because the black macaca nigra monkey swiped the camera from Slater during a 2011 shoot in Indonesia and snapped tons of pictures, including the selfie and others at issue.

“We received a takedown request from the photographer, claiming that he owned the copyright to the photographs. We didn’t agree. So we denied the request,” Wikimedia said Wednesday in its transparency report.]]></description>
<dc:subject>wikipedia copyright legal ethics</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:168286761d53/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:wikipedia"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:ethics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/07/some-rambling-thoughts-on-regi.html">
    <title>Some rambling thoughts on region restrictions - Charlie's Diary</title>
    <dc:date>2014-07-08T04:32:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/07/some-rambling-thoughts-on-regi.html</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[But in the age of ebooks, borders are increasingly porous. And Brits can see what is in the Kindle store on Amazon.com, and Americans can see what’s in the Kindle store on Amazon.co.uk, and British and American publishers can see how each others’ titles are doing. Regional publishers are jealous of their regional sales—nobody wants a big rival from another country to kick down the door and eat their lunch—so they enforce contractual terms on the ebook stores that lock in territoriality. The ebook stores for the most part are more than happy to go along with this: it gives them a valuable lever for selling their DRM-enforced walled garden model of ebook publishing to publishers. The walled gardens in turn lock end-customers into the e-book store’s platform, be it Kindle or iBooks or Adobe Digital Editions.

So what started out as a natural side-effect of books being heavy and not worth shipping across oceans has turned into a royal pain in the ass for readers—but where the desired solution for the readers (global sales, a flat worldwide market) will cause significant pain to the authors in the medium term (and by “pain” and “medium”, I invite you to consider how you’d reply to a proposal that you take a 20-40% pay cut for 3-5 years).

What I’d like is a publisher who could genuinely operate globally—that is, publish a single edition throughout the English-speaking world, offering advances for my books that reflected global sales potential rather than regional, and removing the need for regional restrictions and DRM completely. And indeed—you saw that [*] footnote asterisk up top?—such a global publisher exists within my field. But it’s Orbit … a subsidiary of Hachette, and while there are a lot of good things I can say about Hachette their corporate high-level policy makes DRM mandatory, no exceptions. (Digression: Don’t be fooled into thinking that Tor are a global player. While Tor US and Tor UK are both subsidiaries of Macmillan, which operates worldwide, they are entirely separate companies. Turns out, sibling rivalry is a thing: they’re as jealous of their regional rights as any other rival companies.) So right now I can have my books published without DRM, in return for putting up with lots of regional messing-around (which is why the new Merchant Princes omnibuses won’t be available on paper in North America until the back end of this year, a year after their UK publication). Or I can have a single publisher who operates globally … but insists on DRM. Shorter Charlie: you can’t win.

Hopefully the situation will improve in the medium term—meaning before the end of the decade. But your guess is as good as mine. And this is by way of explaining why you’ll see different covers for my books, and different prices and publication dates and ISBNs, in different countries. Globalization: nice theory, shame about the practice.]]></description>
<dc:subject>drm publishing business ebooks technology copyright</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:e8969196e942/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:drm"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:ebooks"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/red-hat-joyent-and-others-break-down-licensing-barriers-244727">
    <title>Red Hat, Joyent, and others break down licensing barriers</title>
    <dc:date>2014-07-04T21:57:07+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/red-hat-joyent-and-others-break-down-licensing-barriers-244727</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[It’s easier to innovate if you don’t have to ask for permission first. The open source way is to give permission in advance so that innovators can make things better freely. OSI-approved licenses do that for software; Creative Commons licenses do it for music, writing, and other creative works. This “permissionless” approach opens up collaboration, contribution, and innovation.

It works. Open source software is now a part of almost everything we all do every day with every computer and device, all because people could be creative without seeking permission first. This is why patents harm innovation in the technology industry. Instead of spending time innovating, too many people have to spend time seeking permission from rights-holders and paying for the privilege.

Elon Musk is following those examples and implementing the same principle for electric vehicles. By doing so, he’s likely to grow his market to the benefit of all, including his company. It’s a smart move that recognizes the power of the connected, meshed society. When we’re all peers, no one tolerates articificial barriers requiring permission in advance from others. Red Hat, Joyent, and Tesla Motors are all taking the path to permissionless innovation, and I’m sure they will reap the benefits.]]></description>
<dc:subject>software cla patent copyright legal opensource technology</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:e141dfd141f9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:software"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:cla"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:patent"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:opensource"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:technology"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://boingboing.net/2014/07/01/soundcloud-annoints-universal.html">
    <title>Soundcloud annoints Universal &quot;Lord High Executioner&quot; for music - Boing Boing</title>
    <dc:date>2014-07-02T18:53:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://boingboing.net/2014/07/01/soundcloud-annoints-universal.html</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[What's more, Universal gets to pick and choose which infringers they censor, which means that indie radio DJs who upload their sets get kicked off Soundcloud altogether (for violating the company's "three strikes" rule), while BBC radio shows that are equally infringing are left untouched, because Universal doesn't want to upset a major partner.]]></description>
<dc:subject>business soundcloud copyright legal technology software</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:d1bcbab56044/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:soundcloud"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:software"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28020802">
    <title>BBC News - US high court rules Aereo 'violates copyright law'</title>
    <dc:date>2014-06-25T23:31:07+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28020802</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The US Supreme Court has ruled against Aereo in a landmark case that pit the start-up TV company against some of the biggest US broadcasters.

Aereo uses thousands of tiny antennas to pick-up TV signals and transmit them to subscribers who pay as little as $8 (£5) a month for the service.

Major US broadcasters, including ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and PBS, had sued over the firm's business model.

But the court ruled that Aereo must pay broadcasters when it streams TV.

The US Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday by a 6-3 vote that Aereo Inc is violating broadcasters' copyrights by taking the signals for free.

It means television networks can still collect huge fees from satellite and cable systems for their programmes.

Aereo offered its service for subscribers to watch on smartphones and other portable devices.

It is available in New York, Boston, Atlanta and some other major US cities.

The firm argued each antenna is only used by one subscriber at a time which meant it was similar to a viewer using an antenna at home to watch freely available over-the-air broadcasts.

In an opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court ruled Aereo's service was not distinct from what cable and satellite companies offered.

"Aereo is not simply an equipment provider... Aereo sells a service that allows subscribers to watch television programs, many of which are copyrighted, almost as they are being broadcast," he wrote.

Justice Breyer noted that the decision did not intend to call other technologies, including cloud computing, into question.]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal lawsuit usa supremecourt aereo copyright business technology television</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:37595126981d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:usa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:supremecourt"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:aereo"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:television"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.vox.com/2014/6/25/5833864/aereo-loses-supreme-court-case">
    <title>Aereo loses Supreme Court case - Vox</title>
    <dc:date>2014-06-25T17:31:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.vox.com/2014/6/25/5833864/aereo-loses-supreme-court-case</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court dealt a potentially fatal blow to the TV streaming startup Aereo on Monday, ruling that the company with thousands of tiny antennas was guilty of copyright infringement on a massive scale.

First launched in 2012, the company allows people in several metro areas to view and record over-the-air television broadcasts over the Internet. Broadcasters sued Aereo, arguing that streaming their content without permission was copyright infringement.

But Aereo disagrees. The service is built around a vast array of tiny antennas — one for each active user. Citing a 2008 court decision, Aereo has argued that customers are just renting individual antennas to watch television they're legally entitled to watch anyway.

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court sided with the broadcasters. Three of the court's conservatives — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, dissented.

Some observers were concerned that a loss for Aereo would place music lockers and other cloud computing services in legal jeopardy. The majority was at pains to say that wasn't the case.

"We have not considered whether the public performance right is infringed when the user of a service pays primarily for something other than the transmission of copyrighted works, such as the remote storage of content," Justice Breyer wrote. He said that he agreed with the Obama administration's view that "questions involving cloud computing, remote storage DVRs, and other novel issues not before the court should await a case in which they are squarely presented."]]></description>
<dc:subject>aereo copyright legal lawsuit supremecourt business technology usa</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:f1a9b2ccf831/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:aereo"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:supremecourt"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:usa"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bea/article/62577-bea-2014-why-drm-is-the-problem.html">
    <title>BEA 2014: Why Tor Dumped DRM</title>
    <dc:date>2014-05-31T16:32:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bea/article/62577-bea-2014-why-drm-is-the-problem.html</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The subject of DRM and e-books has been a hot topic in recent years, and in an afternoon talk at the opening International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) at BEA, Tor Books founder Tom Doherty talked about the publisher’s 2012 decision to dump DRM from its e-books.

“After discussing it with authors and readers, it became pretty clear that DRM was not much of a problem for the sophisticated pirate, but it was, however, a meaningful problem and an annoyance to many of our readers,” Doherty told the audience. “So, we went all in.”

Although piracy continues to be an issue for Tor, and the publishing industry in general, Doherty acknowledged, dumping DRM on its entire list has paid off.

“So far, the lack of DRM has not increased the number of Tor e-books online illegally, nor has it visibly hurt our sales,” Doherty said. “We decided that if we play fair with [our customer] they will play fair with us. And, you know, it's working.”

While those looking for numbers or more concrete evidence about Doherty and Tor’s DRM experience were likely disappointed, Doherty’s broader message about DRM was much-needed, and well-timed. Good publishing, he stressed, is about fostering a community.

And not just a community of publishers and booksellers, Doherty stressed, but librarians, authors, readers, teachers, fans, and critics.]]></description>
<dc:subject>publishing business drm piracy copyright</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:ee6be1f89507/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:drm"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:piracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/19/5731678/twitch-youtube-copyright-issues">
    <title>What YouTube's acquisition of Twitch could mean for broadcasters and copyright</title>
    <dc:date>2014-05-20T05:24:58+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/19/5731678/twitch-youtube-copyright-issues</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Lars Doucet, co-founder of Level Up Labs and head of non-profit WhoLetsPlay, which was created to help Let’s Play creators with the copyright process, believes that if the deal goes through, it meansTwitch could have more resources. And if Twitch has more resources, this could improve technical aspects of the platform. But on the other hand, Google’s lawyers will likely impose the same or similar IP restrictions on Twitch that have been applied to YouTube. And both YouTube and Twitch will lose the chief incentive to improve their services: competition.

“Whenever the latest controversy with YouTube hits, there’s a sudden panic among the YouTube and games community, all our media channels light up with ‘what are we going to do?’ chatter, WhoLetsPlay gets a lot of attention for about a week or so … and then everybody kind of forgets about the issue and moves on while the underlying problems remain unsolved,” Doucet told Polygon. “And I understand that pattern because I find myself falling into it, too.

“That said, the chief problems here are the continuous erosion of the Fair Use doctrine and YouTube always giving the benefit of the doubt to the capricious demands of the IP overlords,” he added. “The most troubling aspect to me is when a developers’ own videos are taken down on spurious claims, because the burden of proof is entirely on the accused, not the accuser.

“The potential Twitch/YouTube merger troubles me, because Twitch was YouTube’s main competition, and so far has had a better record on IP takedowns and Fair Use.”
]]></description>
<dc:subject>youtube twitch software technology copyright legal usa business google</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:c8d33815afbb/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:youtube"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:twitch"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:software"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:usa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:google"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140514/14380927236/automattic-wordpress-states-explicitly-that-it-wont-claim-copyright-over-its-apis.shtml">
    <title>Automattic (Wordpress) States Explicitly That It Won't Claim Copyright Over Its APIs | Techdirt</title>
    <dc:date>2014-05-18T02:21:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140514/14380927236/automattic-wordpress-states-explicitly-that-it-wont-claim-copyright-over-its-apis.shtml</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In the wake of last week’s horrible ruling saying that APIs are covered by copyright, we’ve pointed out that the negative impact on innovation could be massive, creating chilling effects concerning all sorts of development. Thankfully, at least some companies are being fairly proactive in distancing themselves from the crazy idea that APIs can be covered by copyright. Automattic, the makers of WordPress, just amended their API Terms of Use to make it explicit that they don’t believe APIs are copyrightable subject matter, and they will not claim copyright on them:]]></description>
<dc:subject>wordpress software opensource legal copyright api</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:8c658e0116bc/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:wordpress"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:software"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:opensource"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:api"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/aereo-cant-be-bound-secret-interpretations-copyright-law">
    <title>Aereo Can't Be Bound by Secret Interpretations of Copyright Law | Electronic Frontier Foundation</title>
    <dc:date>2014-04-29T05:05:57+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/aereo-cant-be-bound-secret-interpretations-copyright-law</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[It may seem like a wishy-washy answer, but there's an alarming point nested within it: the Solicitor General's office's position that the interpretation of the law—which the executive branch has worked into our international trade obligations—is the only way for the law to be "properly construed."

That in turn suggests that the executive branch believes it is responsible for properly constructing the law. Of course, that position stands in conflict with Marbury v. Madison, the case that established judicial review in 1803: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

That has serious implications for the democratic process. Here's how it seems to work: the executive branch comes up with an interpretation of U.S. copyright law and then negotiates it into international agreements. It conducts these negotiations in secret, insisting that it needs no meaningful oversight because it doesn't require a change in U.S. law.]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal copyright usa politics government</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:e2fb58dfa5af/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:usa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:government"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/german-court-says-creative-commons-non-commercial-licenses-must-be-purely-personal-use.shtml">
    <title>German Court Says Creative Commons 'Non-Commercial' Licenses Must Be Purely For Personal Use | Techdirt</title>
    <dc:date>2014-04-01T23:40:40+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/german-court-says-creative-commons-non-commercial-licenses-must-be-purely-personal-use.shtml</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Now a German court has weighed in on the subject, with interesting results (original in German.) The case concerned the use of a photo from Flickr, released under a CC-BY-NC license. The photo appeared on the Web site of Deutschlandradio, part of the German public broadcaster -- a non-commercial organization, that is. Alongside the photo, Deutschlandradio's Web site included the name of the artist, the license, and a link to its terms. Despite this, the photographer demanded 310 Euros plus costs on the grounds that Deutschlandradio had used the photo for commercial purposes.
The public broadcaster pointed out that there was no charge for its Web site, there was no advertising, and no sponsorship. Nonetheless, the judge agreed it should be treated as a commercial use. In coming to this view, the judge drew on German law, which defined "non-commercial" as purely for personal use, and excluded all commercial use in the "generally accepted sense", and that apparently included radio stations, irrespective of how they were funded.
As this underlines, quite what "non-commercial" means is likely to vary from country to country, and possibly even judge to judge. Yet another reason to avoid using CC-BY-NC altogether.]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal copyright CreativeCommons business lawsuit germany</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:f36152a005a9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:CreativeCommons"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:germany"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/dropbox-clarifies-its-policy-on-reviewing-shared-files-for-dmca-issues/">
    <title>Dropbox clarifies its policy on reviewing shared files for DMCA issues | Ars Technica</title>
    <dc:date>2014-03-31T19:50:47+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/dropbox-clarifies-its-policy-on-reviewing-shared-files-for-dmca-issues/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Still, we feel this is important information for Dropbox users to know. There are certain limitations on how accounts can be used. Any Dropbox file shared via a "public link," even if it's a link that you only intend to share with a single person, is being compared against a database of previous material subject to the DMCA. It could be blocked on those grounds.]]></description>
<dc:subject>dmca legal copyright politics dropbox business</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:c1d79d78b02a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:dmca"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:dropbox"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5475202/getty-images-made-its-pictures-free-to-use">
    <title>The world's largest photo service just made its pictures free to use | The Verge</title>
    <dc:date>2014-03-06T18:42:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5475202/getty-images-made-its-pictures-free-to-use</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Starting now, that's going to change. Getty Images is dropping the watermark for the bulk of its collection, in exchange for an open-embed program that will let users drop in any image they want, as long as the service gets to append a footer at the bottom of the picture with a credit and link to the licensing page. For a small-scale WordPress blog with no photo budget, this looks an awful lot like free stock imagery.

It's a real risk for the company, since it's easy to screenshot the new versions if you want to snag an unlicensed version. But according to Craig Peters, a business development exec at Getty Images, that ship sailed long ago. "Look, if you want to get a Getty image today, you can find it without a watermark very simply," he says. "The way you do that is you go to one of our customer sites and you right-click. Or you go to Google Image search or Bing Image Search and you get it there. And that's what's happening… Our content was everywhere already."]]></description>
<dc:subject>photography business copyright legal ethics</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:01ba6302e385/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:photography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:ethics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.thenation.com/blog/178575/obama-nominates-sopa-lobbyist-tpp-trade-post">
    <title>Obama Nominates SOPA Lobbyist for TPP Trade Post | The Nation</title>
    <dc:date>2014-03-02T02:42:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.thenation.com/blog/178575/obama-nominates-sopa-lobbyist-tpp-trade-post</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This morning, President Obama nominated Robert Holleyman as deputy US trade representative. If confirmed by the US Senate, Holleyman will help lead the effort to pass the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

Notably, Holleyman is a former lobbyist who led efforts to pass the Stop Online Piracy Act legislation, better known as SOPA, when he was leader of the Business Software Alliance. The SOPA debate (along with its sister legislation, PROTECT-IP, in the Senate) brought a spotlight on industry efforts to undermine Internet freedom through what many considered to be draconian intellectual property policy.

Critics have pointed out, the leaked TPP documents relating to TPP negotiations reveal that the United States is seeking to resurrect portions of the SOPA bill through the TPP, namely, holding Internet Service Providers liable for hosting copyright infringement and extending the copyright life of certain corporate-owned copyrights. As Washington Post blogger Henry Farrell noted, the proposed TPP provisions suggest the deal will advance intellectual property rules that “could not [be] achieved through an open democratic process.”]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal copyright sopa barackobama trade economics tpp patent</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:bf0d908e3274/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:sopa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:barackobama"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:trade"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:tpp"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:patent"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26362784">
    <title>BBC News - US court orders removal of anti-Islam film from YouTube</title>
    <dc:date>2014-02-27T01:49:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26362784</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A US federal court has ordered Google to remove from YouTube a crude anti-Islam film which sparked deadly riots across the Muslim world.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favour of an actress who said she was tricked into appearing in the film.

The film denounces the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud and worse.

The ruling turned on a copyright issue not the film's content, which YouTube said did not violate its standards.

The clip from the film entitled Innocence of Muslims sparked violence in several places around the world in 2012. Dozens of people died in the Middle East during the protests.

The film has also been linked to the attack on a US diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, in which killed four Americans including the US ambassador were killed.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, had rebuffed requests to remove the film from the website, saying only the filmmaker and not the actress, Cindy Lee Garcia, owned the copyright.

Garcia sued Google to demand they remove the video, arguing the man behind it, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, gave her a script that referred neither to Muslims nor to the Prophet. She said her voice was dubbed over in post-production to make it appear as though she was speaking the inflammatory words.

Depicting the Prophet Muhammad in any way defies Islamic belief and offends Muslims, let alone satirising and mocking him, as the film does.]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal civilrights islam discrimination religion youtube copyright</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:26eefd0b875a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:civilrights"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:islam"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:discrimination"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:religion"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:youtube"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2014/02/18/machines-are-better-referees-than-humans-but-well-be-sued-if-we-use-them/">
    <title>Machines are better referees than humans but we’ll be sued if we use them « petermr's blog</title>
    <dc:date>2014-02-20T04:27:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2014/02/18/machines-are-better-referees-than-humans-but-well-be-sued-if-we-use-them/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This was the first diagram we analysed. Does that mean that every paper in the literature contains mistakes?

Almost certainly yes.

But they have been peer-reviewed.

Yes – and we wrote software (OSCAR) 10 years ago that could do the machine reviewing. And it showed mistakes in virtually every paper.

So we plan to do this for every new paper. It’s technically possible. But if we do it what will happen?

If I sign the Elsevier content-mining click-through (I won’t) then I agree not to disadvantage Elsevier’s products. And pointing out publicly that they are full of errors might just do that. And if I don’t?…

Elsevier will cut off the University of Cambridge and the University will then contact me and tell me I have broken the sacred conditions that they have signed. Because no University ever challenges conditions that publishers set. The only thing that matters is price. So all universities have agreed with the publishers that readers cannot carry out text and data mining. They didn’t ask me – they just signed my rights away. If I continue I’ll probably face disciplinary action.

And the scientific literature will continue to be stuffed full of errors. And people will continue to die because of them.

Does anyone care? I don’t think so as no-one (ZERO) from a University has commented on my analysis of Elsevier’s restrictive TDM licence. They’ll just go ahead and sign it. Because it’s the easiest thing to do.]]></description>
<dc:subject>software copyright legal business research</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:31b22f2a8019/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:software"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:research"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.pcworld.com/article/2097660/no-authorisation-required-for-hyperlinks-to-copyright-works-cjeu-says.html">
    <title>Linking to a website doesn't infringe copyright, Europe's Court of Justice says | PCWorld</title>
    <dc:date>2014-02-14T00:59:38+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.pcworld.com/article/2097660/no-authorisation-required-for-hyperlinks-to-copyright-works-cjeu-says.html</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The owner of a website does not require authorization of the copyright holder to link to freely accessible copyright works on another site, even if Internet users get the impression that the work is appearing on the site that contains the link, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) said Thursday.

The CJEU provided advice to the Court of Appeal in Svea, Sweden, in a case pitting Swedish journalists against Retriever Sverige, a media monitor and aggregation company that provides access to information from newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, Internet and social media.

Retriever provided its customers with hyperlinks to articles written by the journalists that were published and freely accessible on the website of the Göteborgs-Posten. Retriever did not however ask the journalists for permission to link to the articles. Retriever presented the linked articles in such a way that gave the impression that they appeared on Retrievers site.]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal internet europeanunion freedom copyright</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://twitter.com/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:ea804af4aa2f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:internet"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:europeanunion"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:freedom"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/opinion/edsall-free-trade-disagreement.html">
    <title>Free Trade Disagreement</title>
    <dc:date>2014-02-09T02:23:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/opinion/edsall-free-trade-disagreement.html</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Warren is right. Trade negotiations have, in fact, become so wide in scope, with so many losers and winners, that negotiations cannot be conducted in the open.

The case of trade reflects a larger shift in the balance of power. As multinational or “stateless” capital diminishes the sovereignty of individual countries, including the United States, and strengthens the autonomy of international corporations, it weakens the already fragile economic security of millions of out-of-work Americans. Their plight appears to be unheeded in the world of “advisory committees.” One can only fear what comes next.]]></description>
<dc:subject>trade TPP economics copyright legal business</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:7099de783bce/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:trade"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:TPP"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26055297">
    <title>BBC News - Skinny Puppy bills Pentagon for Guantanamo 'royalties'</title>
    <dc:date>2014-02-06T04:34:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26055297</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A Canadian rock band has sent a bill to the US military after being told its music was used to torment suspected terrorists at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, a member has said.

Skinny Puppy keyboardist Cevin Key told CTV News the band sought $666,000 (£409,000) for use of its music.

Key said a fan who had served as a guard there informed the group its music had been used.

A US military spokesman told the BBC it had not received an invoice.

Lt Col Todd Breasseale said the defence department would not comment on procedures at Guantanamo Bay.

"I am not only against the fact they're using our music to inflict damage on somebody else but they are doing it without anybody's permission," Key said in the interview.

The US has been widely criticised for the reported treatment of prisoners at the military detention centre on Cuba, including the waterboarding of detainees in what has become known as "enhanced interrogation" practices.

It has been reported that the US military there and at other detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan blasted loud music into detainees' cells, ranging from Metallica and Nine Inch Nails to Queen and Sesame Street.]]></description>
<dc:subject>music legal copyright GuantanamoBay humanrights civilrights government torture</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:878b36e09cb6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:music"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:GuantanamoBay"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:humanrights"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:civilrights"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:government"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:torture"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/broadcasters-get-u-s-supreme-court-review-in-bid-to-stop.html">
    <title>Broadcasters Get U.S. Supreme Court Review in Bid to Stop Aereo</title>
    <dc:date>2014-01-12T01:19:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/broadcasters-get-u-s-supreme-court-review-in-bid-to-stop.html</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Broadcasters will get a U.S. Supreme Court hearing in their fight to stop Aereo Inc., the company that is threatening the industry’s decades-old business model by selling live television programming over the Internet.

The justices today agreed to hear an appeal by media companies including Walt Disney Co.’s ABC, 21st Century Fox Inc., Comcast Corp.’s NBCUniversal and CBS Corp. They contend that Aereo, which is backed by Barry Diller, violates their copyrights by using thousands of dime-sized antennas to obtain broadcast signals without paying fees.

Broadcasters say a federal appeals court ruling favoring Aereo created a blueprint that might let cable and satellite providers avoid paying “retransmission” fees to carry programming. With those fees estimated to exceed $4 billion this year, some broadcast companies say they may convert to cable channels if Aereo isn’t shut down.

“This has never been about stifling new video distribution technologies, but has always been about stopping a copyright violator who redistributes television programming without permission or compensation,” Fox, Tribune Co., Univision Communications Inc., the Public Broadcasting Service and WNET said today in an e-mailed statement.

Aereo joined the broadcasters in urging Supreme Court review, saying the company needs legal clarity so it can pursue plans for growth. In separate cases, two federal trial judges ruled that another company’s similar system was a copyright violation.]]></description>
<dc:subject>legal business copyright media technology supremecourt</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:cf2dd59acedf/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:media"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:technology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:supremecourt"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://medium.com/the-magazine/11776eba0257">
    <title>Today, I Live in the Book — The Magazine on Medium — Medium</title>
    <dc:date>2014-01-10T00:58:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://medium.com/the-magazine/11776eba0257</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[More people are reading more different things across more different media than ever before. People are reading more in general because mobile devices bring more short articles, blog posts, marketing emails, books, periodicals, and all the other folderol into people’s hands, even as they make other entertainment opportunities available, too.

Before the advent of the Web, a library was the primary and only method for most people to get a steady stream of new things to read, whether classic books or new issues of periodical. The library tried to mediate scarcity by using taxes collected from all to populate reading material for both rich and poor. The poor and middle-class are always disproportionate users of libraries.

The Web and Internet at large brought free reading at some extent to now billions of people. The perfect accuracy of Wikipedia aside, humanity has never had such widespread access to the basic facts it presents without a bar of cost or of library hours and budgets. While paywalls may be rising everywhere for subscription publications, like the New York Times and far beyond, there will always be piles of fresh news to read at no cost.

This is all to the good. Society flourishes with the greatest access to ideas, whether trivially humorous or politically explosive. Libraries are a tool to bring the greatest variety of instantiations of ideas to the greatest number of people.

The BiblioTech’s name is a pun, of course, borrowed from the word in many Romance languages for library, which derives from the Latin, bibliothēca. There’s a lot of irony in defining a thing in modern terms by a word that almost proves the opposite point. The BiblioTech, in trying to capture the future, has lost the library in its name.]]></description>
<dc:subject>business copyright publishing books ebooks</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:815b766432f2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:publishing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:books"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:ebooks"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/sherlock-holmes-is-in-the-public-domain-american-judge-rules/">
    <title>Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-31T18:59:53+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/sherlock-holmes-is-in-the-public-domain-american-judge-rules/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Sherlock Holmes as portrayed by Frederic Dorr Steele.  Associated PressSherlock Holmes as portrayed by Frederic Dorr Steele.In the more than 125 years since he first appeared, Sherlock Holmes has popped up everywhere from fan-fiction set in outer space to screen adaptations like CBS’s “Elementary,”]]></description>
<dc:subject>SherlockHolmes copyright legal lawsuit</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:c30494853227/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:SherlockHolmes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standards">
    <title>Lowering Your Standards: DRM and the Future of the W3C | Electronic Frontier Foundation</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-26T21:22:46+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standards</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Just five years ago, font companies tried to demand DRM-like standards for embedded Web fonts. These Web typography wars fizzled out without the adoption of these restrictions, but now that such technical restrictions are clearly "in scope," why wouldn't typographers come back with an argument for new limits on what browsers can do?

Indeed, within a few weeks of EME hitting the headlines, a community group within W3C formed around the idea of locking away Web code, so that Web applications could only be executed but not examined online. Static image creators such as photographers are eager for the W3C to help lock down embedded images. Shortly after our Tokyo discussions, another group proposed their new W3C use-case: "protecting" content that had been saved locally from a Web page from being accessed without further restrictions. Meanwhile, publishers have advocated that HTML textual content should have DRM features for many years.

In our conversations with the W3C, we argued that the W3C needed to develop a clearly defined line against the wave of DRM systems it will now be encouraged to adopt.

A Web where you cannot cut and paste text; where your browser can't "Save As..." an image; where the "allowed" uses of saved files are monitored beyond the browser; where JavaScript is sealed away in opaque tombs; and maybe even where we can no longer effectively "View Source" on some sites, is a very different Web from the one we have today. It's a Web where user agents—browsers—must navigate a nest of enforced duties every time they visit a page. It's a place where the next Tim Berners-Lee or Mozilla, if they were building a new browser from scratch, couldn't just look up the details of all the "Web" technologies. They'd have to negotiate and sign compliance agreements with a raft of DRM providers just to be fully standards-compliant and interoperable.

To be clear, we don't think all of these proposals will come to fruition. We appreciate that there's no great hunger for DRM at the W3C. Many W3C participants held their nose to accept even the EME draft, which was carefully drafted to position itself as far away from the taint of DRM as was possible for a standard solely intended to be used for DRM systems.

But the W3C has now accepted "content protection". By discarding the principle that users should be in charge of user agents, as well as the principle that all the information needed to interoperate with a standard should be open to all prospective implementers, they've opened the door for the many rightsholders who would like the same control for themselves.

The W3C is now in an unenviable position. It can either limit its "content protection" efforts to the aims of a privileged few, like Hollywood. Or it can let a thousand "content protection systems" bloom, and allow any rightsholder group to chip away at software interoperability and users' control.

EFF is still a W3C member, and we'll do our best to work with other organizations within and without the consortium to help it fight off the worse consequences of accepting DRM. But it's not easy to defend a king who has already invited its attackers across his moat.

Still, even if the W3C has made the wrong decision, that doesn't mean the Web will. The W3C has parted ways with the wider Web before: in the early 2000s, its choice to promote XHTML (an unpopular and restrictive variant of HTML) as the future led to Mozilla, Apple and Opera forming the independent WHATWG. It was WHATWG's vision of a dynamic, application-oriented Web that won—so decisively, in fact, that the W3C later re-adopted it and made it the W3C's own HTML5 deliverable.

Recently, WHATWG has diplomatically parted with the W3C again. Its "HTML Living Standard" continues to be developed in tandem with the W3C's version of the HTML standard, and does not contain EME or any other such DRM-enabling proposals.

By contrast, W3C has now put its weight behind a restrictive future: let's call it "DRM-HTML". Others have certainly bet against open, interoperable standards and user control before. It's just surprising and disappointing to see the W3C and its Director gamble against the precedent of their own success, as well as the fears and consciences of so many of their colleagues.]]></description>
<dc:subject>drm html5 eff privacy legal copyright w3c standards html</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:5686682474f4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:drm"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:html5"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:eff"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:privacy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:w3c"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:standards"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:html"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the-case-against-kim-dotcom-revealing-e-mails-and-financial-data/">
    <title>The case against Kim Dotcom, finally revealed</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-26T02:42:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/us-unveils-the-case-against-kim-dotcom-revealing-e-mails-and-financial-data/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Nearly two years after Kim Dotcom’s New Zealand mansion was raided by police, US authorities have made their case as to why the men behind Megaupload shouldn’t simply go bankrupt like previous copyright violators before have—he should go to jail, they argue.

In a 191-page “Summary of Evidence,” government lawyers marshal Skype chats, financial data, and dozens of e-mails to make their case that Megaupload was a criminal network designed from the start to distribute copyrighted material. It discusses the payments to heavy uploaders encouraged to get them to drive traffic to the files of movies and TV shows they hid online.

Megaupload built a wall of plausible deniability, prosecutors claim, by disabling any internal search of files stored on Megaupload, meant as a “cyberlocker” site. But its administrators, who include the men behind Dotcom’s new site Mega, traded e-mails that show the real strategy. They monitored and drove traffic to third-party linking sites through which Megaupload beamed its advertisements. They guided users about how to use the site in e-mails that clearly reference movies. Finally, and critically, they provided cash rewards to their best uploaders; in their e-mails they negotiated how to control such awards and get the most bang for their buck.

At one point, Megaupload officials discussed moving some pornographic content from Megaupload to Megarotic, which was Megaupload’s racier sister site. They needed to explain the move to users, but it was complicated.

“[W]e could, however, also be shooting ourselves in the foot with this, as it proves that we looked at the file… and therefore are not the dumb pipe we claim to be,” wrote Megaupload CTO Mathias Ortmann. “[C]opyright owners may use this against us.”

Much of the information is likely what was gleaned from the servers that were copied, searched, and ultimately seized by US law enforcement. But prosecutors have also convinced several heavy users of Megaupload, identified so far only by initials, to testify against Dotcom and his comrades about how they used the system.

The purpose of the massive evidence dump is to get Dotcom extradited from New Zealand, where he has been wrapped up in legal proceedings for the 23 months since his mansion was raided. The US hardly got the quick handover they wanted—not only is Dotcom out of jail, he’s free to do business. This year, he launched a new site earlier simply called ”Mega.”

The next extradition hearing is scheduled for July 2014, and the evidence published Friday will be front-and-center in the government’s case.]]></description>
<dc:subject>KimDotcom legal copyright business meagupload privacy crime ethics</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:013237005368/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:KimDotcom"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:meagupload"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:privacy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:crime"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:ethics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/21/5234580/patent-pending-ias-militant-stance-on-syntax-control">
    <title>&quot;Patent Pending?&quot; iA's Militant Stance on Syntax Control in Writer Pro | The Verge Forums</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-24T22:17:29+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/21/5234580/patent-pending-ias-militant-stance-on-syntax-control</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[iA has a compelling new app that may ultimately be quite successful, particularly given its price point. But as more apps begin to use iOS’s syntax-parsing capabilities, it will be interesting to see if iA follows through on its grandiose statements and tries to prevent others from developing "ripoffs" to Syntax Control.

In the meantime, iA’s militant stance on its standout feature doesn’t appear to be grounded in fact. This may well alienate other developers and, ultimately, customers.]]></description>
<dc:subject>patent legal copyright trademark business software</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:b392587861df/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:patent"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:trademark"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:software"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/fbi-copyrighted-interrogation-manual-unredacted-secrets">
    <title>You'll Never Guess Where This FBI Agent Left a Secret Interrogation Manual | Mother Jones</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-24T22:00:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/fbi-copyrighted-interrogation-manual-unredacted-secrets</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["The whole thing is a comedy of errors," he adds. "It sounds like gross incompetence and ignorance."

Julian Sanchez, a fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute who has studied copyright policy, was harsher: "Do they not cover this in orientation? [Sensitive] documents should not be placed in public repositories—and, by the way, aren't copyrightable. How do you even get a clearance without knowing this stuff?"

The FBI agent who registered for the copyright did so under his own name—effectively claiming the rights for himself, not the FBI. An FBI spokesman told Mother Jones the bureau has been made aware of the matter but "cannot provide any further information at this time regarding this subject."

The version of the interrogation manual the agent deposited with the copyright office is dated August 18, 2008, but it wasn't filed until January 2010. The redacted version released to the ACLU is dated February 23, 2011.

Because the two versions are similar, a side-by-side comparison allows a reader to deduce what was redacted in the later version. The copyright office does not allow readers to take pictures or notes, but during a brief inspection, a few redactions stood out.

The ACLU has previously criticized the interrogation manual for endorsing the isolation of detainees and including favorable references to the KUBARK manual, a 1963 CIA interrogation guidebook that encouraged torture methods, including electric shocks. The group has also expressed concern that the manual adopts aspects of the Reid Technique, a common law enforcement interview method that has been known to produce false confessions. A redacted sentence in the manual says the document is intended for use by the FBI's "clean" teams—investigators who collect information intended for use in federal prosecutions. That raises the question of whether teams collecting information that's not for use in federal courts would have to follow the manual's (already permissive) guidelines at all.

Another section, blacked out in the version provided to the ACLU, encourages FBI agents to stage a "date-stamped full-body picture" of a detainee, complete with a bottle of water, for use in refuting abuse allegations at trial.

Yet the most eyebrow-raising thing about the unredacted version may be that it was available for public consumption for years. The inadvertent release of sensitive information "is not supposed to happen but it does," Aftergood says. "Security screwups are not very uncommon. But this is a first."]]></description>
<dc:subject>copyright legal government fbi politics privacy security</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:73c52a20b4cd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:government"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:fbi"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:privacy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:security"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.citeworld.com/consumerization/22803/iron-maiden-musicmetric">
    <title>How Iron Maiden found its worst music pirates -- then went and played for them</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-24T21:01:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.citeworld.com/consumerization/22803/iron-maiden-musicmetric</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In the case of Iron Maiden, still a top-drawing band in the U.S. and Europe after thirty years, it noted a surge in traffic in South America. Also, it saw that Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, Columbia, and Chile were among the top 10 countries with the most Iron Maiden Twitter followers. There was also a huge amount of BitTorrent traffic in South America, particularly in Brazil.

Rather than send in the lawyers, Maiden sent itself in. The band has focused extensively on South American tours in recent years, one of which was filmed for the documentary "Flight 666." After all, fans can't download a concert or t-shirts. The result was massive sellouts. The São Paolo show alone grossed £1.58 million (US$2.58 million) alone.

And in a positive cycle, Maiden's online fanbase grew. According to Musicmetric, in the 12 months ending May 31, 2012, the band attracted more than 3.1 million social media fans. After its Maiden England world tour, which ran from June 2012 to October 2013, Maiden's fan base grew by five million online fans, with a significant increase in popularity in South America.

This year began with legitimate questions about the security shortcomings of Android, deficiencies that have seriously slowed the adoption of Google's mobile OS by the enterprise. Now, as 2013 draws to a close, it's fair to say that Google made huge strides in providing users and IT professionals with tools to better secure the open source mobile platform.]]></description>
<dc:subject>music business copyright privacy bittorrent analytics information datamining</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:f7c4c332a58b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:music"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:privacy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:bittorrent"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:analytics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:information"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:datamining"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/after-sailing-the-domain-name-seas-pirate-bay-returns-to-sweden/">
    <title>After sailing the domain name seas, Pirate Bay returns to Sweden | Ars Technica</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-20T01:04:10+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/after-sailing-the-domain-name-seas-pirate-bay-returns-to-sweden/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[After nearly two weeks of bouncing its domain name around the globe, The Pirate Bay has returned to its home port. The notorious BitTorrent site originally went from .se to .sx (Sint Maarten), but it didn't stop there—in recent days, it has shifted from .ac (Ascension Island) to .pe (Peru) to .gy (Guyana). Now, as of Thursday, it's back to the comforts of .se (Sweden). Neither The Pirate Bay blog nor its Twitter feed offered any explanation.

The move to .sx originally took place back in April 2013 when a Swedish prosecutor filed a motion to seize thepiratebay.se, piratebay.se, and thepiratebay.is. The registrar, the Internet Infrastructure Foundation, has said previously that it would only do so after being served by a Swedish court.]]></description>
<dc:subject>PirateBay copyright legal domain business</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:76aca2e37cca/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:PirateBay"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:domain"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/tpps-attack-artists-termination-rights">
    <title>The TPP's Attack on Artists' Termination Rights</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-19T05:00:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/tpps-attack-artists-termination-rights</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[There are any number of controversial proposals in the leaked text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) chapter on intellectual property. Here’s one that’s not getting enough attention: the TPP appears to contain yet another attempt to undermine "termination rights," which grant artists the ability to regain control over copyrights they've assigned away after 35 years.

Termination rights are, under U.S. law, an inalienable counterweight to the power imbalance built into many content industry contracts. Not surprisingly, those same industries have been pushing for years to eliminate these rights, including a notorious 1999 incident where a Congressional staffer, later hired as an RIAA lobbyist, snuck anti-artist language into an entirely unrelated bill.

Termination rights aren’t the sexiest part of the copyright scheme, but they matter for artists—especially musicians. But if a trade agreement mandates the unencumbered contractual transfer of economic rights without legal limitations—as contemplated in the TPP—then existing rights granted to artists under U.S. law could be deemed out of compliance.]]></description>
<dc:subject>tpp copyright business legal government usa</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:572831bf865e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:tpp"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:government"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:usa"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/12/youtube-goes-nuts-flagging-game-related-content-as-violating-copyright/">
    <title>YouTube goes nuts flagging game-related content as violating copyright</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-15T09:47:47+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/12/youtube-goes-nuts-flagging-game-related-content-as-violating-copyright/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Several big-names on YouTube were barraged with copyright violation notices this week which could potentially be erroneous. In the past, ContentID, YouTube’s automated copyright-violation-checker, has overreached in flagging game-related content (in May, for example, when “Let’s Play” videos were cited for including some of Nintendo’s content). But this time, the flagging seems to be related to new rules from YouTube about how video makers who are part of Multi-Channel Networks (MCNs) upload their videos.

According to TubeFilter, YouTube told these MCNs last week that it would begin pre-screening a sample of their affiliates’ videos for copyright violation before the video posts to YouTube, in a process that could take as little as a few hours or up to a few days. The pre-screening system is also be based on good behavior, so to speak, and affiliates who are never caught uploading copyrighted material will be checked less frequently.

That system seems to be causing some problems now, as popular YouTube channels are seeing a spike in copyright violation notices, which cause YouTube to remove ads from the video but not to necessarily take it down. For many very popular channels, this means a significant loss of revenue.

What’s more, the copyright violation flags seem to come from third parties that don’t own the rights to the game in question. As VentureBeat reports, a lot of the videos flagged have been pre-approved by games publishers for monetization on YouTube and Twitch. But in one example, a YouTuber recieved a copyright violation notice for including video of Metro: Last Light from a company called 4GamerMovie. Deep Silver, the company that actually owns Metro: Last Light Told VentureBeat that “it fully permits YouTube creators to monetize videos featuring their games.”]]></description>
<dc:subject>copyright legal youtube business advertising software google lawsuit</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:73f8707b7d4a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:youtube"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:advertising"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:software"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:google"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/british-library-sticks-1-million-pics-on-flickr-asks-for-help-making-them-useful/">
    <title>British Library sticks 1 million pics on Flickr, asks for help making them useful | Ars Technica</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-15T03:54:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/12/british-library-sticks-1-million-pics-on-flickr-asks-for-help-making-them-useful/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In 2008, the British Library, in partnership with Microsoft, embarked on a project to digitize thousands of out-of-copyright books from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Included within those books were maps, diagrams, illustrations, photographs, and more. The Library has uploaded more than a million of them onto Flickr and released them into the public domain. It's now asking for help.

Though the library knows which book each image is taken from, its knowledge largely ends there. While some images have useful titles, many do not, so the majority of the million picture collection is uncatalogued, its subject matter unknown.

Next year, it plans to launch a crowdsourced application to fill the gap, to enable humans to describe the images. This information will then be used to train an automated classifier that will be run against the entire corpus.

The library is also soliciting ideas for how to present the collection to aid the tagging and metadata generation, and also make the pictures easier to navigate.]]></description>
<dc:subject>photography library copyright flickr</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:6aef3ff9a2a6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:photography"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:library"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:flickr"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/aereo-to-tv-companies-you-want-a-supreme-court-fight-no-problem/">
    <title>Aereo to TV companies: You want a Supreme Court fight? No problem.</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-13T07:43:09+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/aereo-to-tv-companies-you-want-a-supreme-court-fight-no-problem/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[When Aereo launched its TV-over-Internet business based on tiny antennas, it drew quick legal attack from broadcasters, who have said Aereo’s scheme breaks copyright laws.

But Aereo has won every key legal battle since, beating the TV companies in federal courts in New York and Boston as well as at a key appeals court—twice. Aereo has relied on the landmark 2008 Cablevision case, which ruled that use of a remote-DVR is legal and doesn’t constitute a “public performance” under copyright law.

TV executives are livid over the Aereo wins and have even made outlandish claims that they may go off the air if Aereo keeps winning. In October, lawyers for the major TV networks sent a petition asking for the Supreme Court to consider the case.

Today Aereo filed its response brief (PDF), and it takes a surprising position. Usually a company that experiences a total win on appeal, as Aereo did, would want the Supreme Court to not take their case. But Aereo argued just the opposite, saying that while the decision at the 2nd Circuit was spot-on, the Supreme Court should go ahead and consider it as well.]]></description>
<dc:subject>business copyright legal supremecourt lawsuit Aereo television</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:658260ab8482/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:supremecourt"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:Aereo"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:television"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/nz-judge-kim-dotcom-is-likely-still-being-spied-upon/">
    <title>NZ judge: Kim Dotcom is likely still being spied upon</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-12T06:24:41+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/nz-judge-kim-dotcom-is-likely-still-being-spied-upon/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A New Zealand court judge on Wednesday affirmed that it is likely that Kim Dotcom and his family have been and continue to be under surveillance.

However, Judge N.R. Dawson stopped short of granting Dotcom’s request to compel American authorities to provide an affidavit “stating in unequivocal terms” whether the US has conducted surveillance against him since the January 20, 2012 raid on his property. The judge added that Dotcom needs to provide further evidence that surveillance is definitely being carried out by the US “before this Application could succeed.”

Judge Dawson wrote (PDF):

In conclusion it can only be shown that interception/surveillance activities concerning Mr. Dotcom and his family are likely to have occurred but there is no direct evidence that the USA, its agencies or agents are involved. There is no evidence that Mr. Dotcom and his fellow respondents will not therefore be afforded a fair and just extradition hearing. This does not amount to a case whereby this Court should exercise its power to grant this application and the application is denied.

The Megaupload founder, who continues to fight his extradition from New Zealand to the US to face criminal charges, has been a known target of domestic surveillance.

As Ars reported in March 2013, a New Zealand appeals court ruled (PDF) that Kim Dotcom has the right to sue the government of New Zealand for illegal surveillance. As we reported further last year, the New Zealand government admitted after the fact that Dotcom should not have been subjected to government surveillance due to his having obtained permanent resident status.]]></description>
<dc:subject>KimDotcom legal usa lawsuit government NewZealand copyright piracy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:d9dfc52d46c6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:KimDotcom"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:usa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:government"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:NewZealand"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:piracy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/pirate-bay-once-again-forced-to-change-domain-names/">
    <title>Pirate Bay once again forced to change domain name</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-11T02:28:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/pirate-bay-once-again-forced-to-change-domain-names/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[On Tuesday, a Dutch anti-piracy group announced (Google Translate) that it had compelled The Pirate Bay to again alter its domain name—this time from thepiratebay.sx to thepiratebay.ac. The .sx top-level domain (TLD) is used by the Dutch Caribbean territory of Sint Maarten, while the latter is used by the British Atlantic territory of Ascension Island.

BREIN, the Dutch acronym for “Protection Rights Entertainment Industry Netherlands,” wrote in a Dutch-language press release on Tuesday that despite the criminal convictions against the site’s founders, The Pirate Bay still “persists in its illegal activities.”]]></description>
<dc:subject>bittorrent legal piracy copyright PirateBay</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:4b8b6231fc9a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:bittorrent"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:piracy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:PirateBay"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/hotfile-settles-copyright-case-will-accept-80-million-judgment/">
    <title>Hotfile settles copyright case, agrees to $80 million in damages</title>
    <dc:date>2013-12-04T02:00:03+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/hotfile-settles-copyright-case-will-accept-80-million-judgment/</link>
    <dc:creator>jtyost2</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Six days before movie studios were set to begin a jury trial over alleged copyright violations by the “cyberlocker” site Hotfile, the case has settled. Hotfile has agreed to pay $80 million and to stop operating “unless it employs copyright filtering technologies that prevent infringement,” according to a press release sent out today by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

The MPAA represents America’s major movie studios, which sued Hotfile over copyright violations in 2011. The case was finally teed up for a trial that was to begin next Monday, December 9. A Friday order by US District Judge Kathleen Williams settled a variety of pre-trial issues, including a ban on MPAA lawyers using “pejorative” terms like “piracy” or “theft.”

The trial would have likely focused heavily on damages, since Williams already ruled that Hotfile was not eligible for the DMCA “safe harbor” and that it was going to be liable for the actions of its users. Hotfile employed an incentive system to encourage downloading and paid users who uploaded popular files, including copyrighted files. The service went beyond storage and was effectively a “distribution” business, Williams held. She also held Hotfile employee Anton Titov, whom the MPAA describes as the company’s “principal,” liable for the infringement.

Hotfile also didn’t terminate the accounts of many repeat infringers. It received 10 million DMCA notices from copyright holders before the lawsuit was filed in 2011, but only terminated 43 accounts, according to Williams’ August order (PDF). ]]></description>
<dc:subject>hotfile copyright legal lawsuit mpaa dmca</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/b:884e7928a331/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:hotfile"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:copyright"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:legal"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:lawsuit"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:mpaa"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:jtyost2/t:dmca"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>