 | ||
Stanford Law School yesterday announced a settlement in the litigation over unpublished materials by the Joyce Family that we discussed last year. The case resulted in a settlement not in the sort of authoritative court ruling that many had hoped for. The work that had been cut from the book on Lucia Joyce will be published here – but it's not live yet. But at least one of the world's most aggressive copyright plaintiffs has been pushed back somewhat.
[click on the author's name for more information]
Share:
Email
|
Save as PDF | Print
|
Bookmark & Share
|
2 Comments on “News Update on the Joyce Estate Copyright Litigation” |
the count:
recent comments Simon Fodden on Images in Judgments Daniel Poulin on Images in Judgments John G on The Friday Fillip: Randomness Kim Nayyer on Shoes and Dominoes Adam Dodek on Mandated or Mandatory Pro Bono Gary P. Rodrigues on What's Hot on CanLII This Week Robert Janes on Mandated or Mandatory Pro Bono George Beaton on Director of Innovation for Law Firms? Bonnie Czegledi on Crime and Cultural Property Nate Russell on The New Mega-Journal David Cheifetz on Court Nullifies 2011 Federal Election Results in Etobicoke Centre Victoria Lehman on Real Looking Scams Require Lawyers to Be Warier Than Ever Simon Fodden on Supreme Court Brochure Omar Ha-Redeye on Supreme Court Brochure Lyonette Louis-Jacques on Images in Judgments 
SlawTips |
|
|
||
…Nowhere is this more clear than online. The internet, that hotbed of innovation, has given rise to many modern copyright controversies, not only infringements such as napster (A&M Records v Napster 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001); decision; wikipedia here and here) and grokster (MGM Studios, Inc v Grokster Ltd 545 US 913 (2005); decision; wikipedia here and here | recent discussion here), but also less straightforward and still undecided issues such as google books (which I have already discussed here) or Viacom's suit against YouTube (discussed by Daithí here). Whatever about the merits of the individual cases, it is becoming increasingly clear that the the internet's culture of innovation is running squarely into the brick wall of expansive copyright protection, extended online by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1988 in the US (text | wikipedia) and the EU's copyright policy for the Information Society (monitored here by fipr). Developments on the internet are demonstrating by the minute that the balance has tipped too far in favour of the monopoly reward, and too far away from encouraging innovation. In particular, the US fair use doctrine is too narrow, and the fair dealing exception in other common law countries is quite frankly unfair. As the recent litigation by the Joyce Estate demonstrates (background: William Patry; Funferal; Fergus Cassidy. Outcome: Lessig; Concurring Opinions; Fergus Cassidy here and here; Slaw; Stanford CIS, here and here), they barely work offline. Neither can do the work required to maintain an appropriate balance between monopoly and innovation. This is beautifully illustrated in John Naughton's column in the Observer yesterday: The very model of a modern creative society? I don't think so (he blogged it on Memex 1.1; commented upon by Daithí on Lex Ferenda).
[...] Nowhere is this more clear than online. The internet, that hotbed of innovation, has given rise to many modern copyright controversies, not only infringements such as napster (A&M Records v Napster 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001); decision; wikipedia here and here) and grokster (MGM Studios, Inc v Grokster Ltd 545 US 913 (2005); decision; wikipedia here and here | recent discussion here), but also less straightforward and still undecided issues such as google books (which I have already discussed here) or Viacom’s suit against YouTube (discussed by Daithí here). Whatever about the merits of the individual cases, it is becoming increasingly clear that the the internet’s culture of innovation is running squarely into the brick wall of expansive copyright protection, extended online by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1988 in the US (text | wikipedia) and the EU’s copyright policy for the Information Society (monitored here by fipr). Developments on the internet are demonstrating by the minute that the balance has tipped too far in favour of the monopoly reward, and too far away from encouraging innovation. In particular, the US fair use doctrine is too narrow, and the fair dealing exception in other common law countries is quite frankly unfair. As the recent litigation by the Joyce Estate demonstrates (background: William Patry; Funferal; Fergus Cassidy. Outcome: Lessig; Concurring Opinions; Fergus Cassidy here and here; Slaw; Stanford CIS, here and here), they barely work offline. Neither can do the work required to maintain an appropriate balance between monopoly and innovation. This is beautifully illustrated in John Naughton’s column in the Observer yesterday: The very model of a modern creative society? I don’t think so (he blogged it on Memex 1.1; commented upon by Daithí on Lex Ferenda). [...]