Comments on: Wow — I said that? http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/wow-i-said-that/ Blog, news, books Tue, 07 Feb 2017 15:36:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/wow-i-said-that/#comment-19492 Tue, 28 Jun 2005 04:19:38 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/wow_i_said_that.html#comment-19492 Bang, you’re dead.

What does this precedent say to the makers of guns? Guns are designed to kill and many gun makers talk of the killing power or stoppin g power of their arms.

Never mind the copyright issues, how long until this precedent is used against gun makers? Or against carmakers who tout the performance of their cars?

Scalia is right about one thing: “activist judges” are wrecking the Constitution of this country. About the only right enumerated on the bill of rights that hasn’t been pretty much retracted by them is the third ammendment, and I’m sure if this war keeps up Rumsfeld will find a way to swat that one down, too.

]]>
By: ACS http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/wow-i-said-that/#comment-19491 Mon, 27 Jun 2005 23:28:37 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/wow_i_said_that.html#comment-19491 Also on an unrelated note

Im sure there will be a blog about this in a few minutes but I thought Id break the news.

It appears as thorugh the SC has mirrored Australian copyright principles in Grokster:

On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in MGM v. Grokster, ruling that the providers of software that designed to enable “file-sharing” of copyrighted works may be held liable for the copyright infringement that takes place using that software. The Court held that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.”

The decision is up and grokster is down.

Three Blind Mice will be happy and if you are reading doesnt it feel good to be right.

ACS

]]>
By: Commons Music http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/wow-i-said-that/#comment-19490 Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:46:58 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/wow_i_said_that.html#comment-19490 On an unrelated note…

Professor Lessig, have you, perchance, seen this article that criticizes CC? If so, I’m curious if you’ll respond to it.

]]>
By: Rob Myers http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/wow-i-said-that/#comment-19489 Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:10:16 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/wow_i_said_that.html#comment-19489 A painter already can produce a painting of a photo, no negotiation needed.

Modulo fair use and transformative use. Good luck with that if it goes to court.

Haven’t you heard of Andy Warhol?

Haven’t you heard of the lawsuit against Warhol by the photographer he sourced his “Flowers” from?

]]>
By: poptones http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/wow-i-said-that/#comment-19488 Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:27:24 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/wow_i_said_that.html#comment-19488 If someone has a story or book, there should be one flat rate if someone else wants to make a movie of it, for instance.

Great idea; make it even easier for Hollywood to rip off writers and other independent artists.

A painter already can produce a painting of a photo, no negotiation needed. Haven’t you heard of Andy Warhol?

]]>
By: Chuck Ivy http://www.lessig.org/2005/06/wow-i-said-that/#comment-19487 Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:01:54 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/wow_i_said_that.html#comment-19487 I’m not 100% up to speed on the new proposals, but part of me wonders if they’re going in the wrong direction… I like the idea of compulsory licenses. When the copyrighted work is a song, the license gives another performer the right to reinterpret that song in their own style. I’m a big fan of cover songs, and am always fascinated by the lives they lead beyond their original performers’ vision. If anything, I think compulsory licenses should be extended to more media. If someone has a story or book, there should be one flat rate if someone else wants to make a movie of it, for instance. If a photographer has a really strong photo, a painter should be able to pay a fixed fee and recreate that work. (Note, these are all about recreations and reinterpretations, and not the wholesale reproduction of the original artists’ work. I still hold that copyright law, more than anything, needs to be about being able to control distribution. But someone else taking that idea and going somewhere else with it? Derivative works without having to negotiate each contract? Sounds like a good thing to me.

]]>