Over the last 20 years we have seen a steady erosion of the balance that the copyright law was intended to establish between the rights of the copyright owner and those of the public. We have seen a series of laws, the PRO-IP Act being just the latest, where Congress has given copyright owners increasingly greater rights, with little consideration to their effect on innovation and on user rights.

As stated by Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C.-based digital rights group, after the Senate’s passage of the bill: “The bill only adds more imbalance to a copyright law that favors large media companies. At a time when the entire digital world is going to less restrictive distribution models, and when the courts are aghast at the outlandish damages being inflicted on consumers in copyright cases, this bill goes entirely in the wrong direction.”

What is needed today is not an IP “czar” but an IP “ombudsman,” tasked with ensuring that legislation provides the proper balance between the rights of owners and those of innovators and users. We need someone who can speak for the public – a role that the Copyright Office abdicated years ago when it became a mouthpiece of copyright owners, and no longer the arbiter of a balanced copyright law. Yet, if we get a president that truly believes in a balanced approach, there is noting in the PRO-IP Act that would prevent him from appointing someone as IP “czar” that would provide a balanced approach to the development of copyright (as well as patent and trademark law). It’s a long shot, but one can only hope. . . .

Here are the show notes for this week’s episode:

Shownotes for Singularity Law Podcast Episode 1 (September 29, 2008)

Our Panel for Today:

Cloud Computing

• “Cloud computing” (Wikipedia)
• “Cloud computing may draw government action”
• “Clouded in uncertainty – the legal pitfalls of cloud computing”
• “Cloud computing is a trap, warns GNU founder Richard Stallman”

Walmart and DRM

• “Wal*Mart shutting down DRM server, nuking your music collection — only people who pay for music risk losing it to DRM shenanigans”
• EFF: “And Walmart Makes Three: Another Music Service Plans to Shut Down DRM Support”
• Josh Kagan Writes: “Ten Reasons Why DRM Schemes Are Bad For Society”

Capitol Records v. Thomas

• Text of Court’s Decision (Sept. 24, 2008)
• Josh Kagan Writes: “Capitol v. Thomas: For RIAA, Better Than “Making Available” May Be Difficult To Prove”
• Michael Scott Writes: “Prove Our Case? . . . We Don’t Need to Prove Our Stinkin’ Case!! Just Fork Over the Money”
• EFF: “Capitol v. Thomas: Judge Orders New Trial, Implores Congress to Lower Statutory Penalties for P2P”
• National Car Rental v. Computer Associates, 991 F.2d 426 (8th Cir. 1993)
• Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com (9th Cir. 2007)

New Copyright Legislation (PRO-IP Act)

• Text of PRO-IP Act as passed by the Senate
• “Congress Passes PRO-IP Act, but Bush May Veto”
• “Intellectual property bill passes in the House”
• “Senate unanimously passes RIAA-backed bill”
• “Bush administration opposes RIAA-based copyright bill”

Talking Point of the Week — Banned from the Internet for Life

• EU Makes it Official: “You Can’t Randomly Ban People From the Internet”
• EFF: “The Struggles of France’s Three Strikes Law”
• EU: “Net Access is a Human Right, We’re Not Going To Take That Away”

This recording is an informational resource only. It is not designed to offer legal advice.