Rattle wrote:
In the United States, intellectual property, or IP, law ensures that creators and inventors will get paid for their work, while doctrines like fair use and time-limited rights leave enough breathing room for the next innovator to use existing creations to comment, critique or make something new. But we have increasingly seen owners leverage their IP rights to get control rather than to get paid.
Jennifer Granick has an article on Wired about how the National Academy of Sciences and others are using the "copyright misuse" doctrine in a strategy to wrangle Kansas into not teaching intelligent design.
I fully agree with her that using this type of tactic is very bad. Fighting a bad problem by using bad law creates an even worse problem.
For those unfamiliar with the "copyright misuse" doctrine Jennifer talks about, there is a page on Tech Law Journal which explains it.
The defense of copyright misuse was raised in this case because Disney licensed its movie trailers subject to license terms that prohibit the licensees from using the movie trailers in a way that is "derogatory to or critical of the entertainment industry or of" Disney. That is, Disney uses the exclusive rights conferred upon it by the Copyright Act, not only to obtain a return for its creative efforts (which is consistent with the purposes of copyright protection), but also to suppress criticism (which is contrary to the purposes of copyright protection).
It's always Disney... Several decades from now, when history pages are written about intellectual property in the early days of the information age, Disney is going to be cast in the role of the great villain.
This is a great example of using copyright law as a method to obtain prior restraint. The only goal I see here is to get people to shut-up and not make any negative commentary under the threat of lawsuit. In short, it's a convoluted way for a transnational media corporation to achieve censorship in it's interests. Disney laid ground here that others can use.
And the evolution crew thinks this is a good idea?? [rattle rubs his temples] I'm seeing something.. I'm seeing a lawyer sitting behind a table... He's excited.. He's saying something... "But it's brilliant! The church can't use it! All their IP is in the public domain!" [rattle slams his head into the table] IMAGE BEGONE!
I'm confident that this type of thing will either get struck right down if it comes before the Supreme Court, or it will be allowed to happen freely and lead to a future that looks like a William Gibson novel. Be ready for it either way..
I somewhat agree with this but at heart don't. The core of this is, the NAS wants to be as far away from this turkey as possible. To that end, they are saying, you can't use own standards, you can't use our anything. They're telling Kansas to go screw using every means at their disposal. And good for them. I think Kansas has managed to make some very serious errors that will kill science in some schools, and kill everything else in others. but that's a different point. NAS wants to tell Kansas to go to hell? If IP law lets them do it, good for them.
