] Congress should amend the Copyright Act to make
] actionable false claims to copyright in the same way
] that consumers may sue businesses for false advertising.

I've been saying this for a while. Companies that make incorrect IP claims ought to
be liable. This is a nice, short presentation of the concept. Its not even comprehensive of the reasons for it.

However, I'm more concerned with application then with claim. I'm more concerned with lawsuits that claim copyright infringement where none exists then I am about companies that put a "C" in the front of a booklet containing the Constitution. Although the latter is certainly offensive, the former is where the real damage is done, and a requirement that companies list all of the public domain works contained in their publications could result in some really messy legalese, which could become as much of a burden on small publishers as the existing system.

[IP] Too Quick to Copyright

] "Cricket Media recently released 'Netflix Fanatic', an
] OSX based shareware app that lets you manage your rental
] queue without logging on to Netflix. An article on Think
] Secret reveals the reason behind it's mysterious
] disappearance. Apparently the developer's employer,
] Apple, has claimed ownership over the application's name
] and source code.

Apple really shows their true colors here. On my own time with my own resources is not your fucking property. Employers have gotten away with contracts like this because they have the resources to afford the attorneys, many employees don't understand the contracts, and those that come under fire usually don't have the resources to defend themselves. People that DO understand these contracts often find it impossible to negotiate with employers. I've turned down jobs over this in the past.

Contracts of this sort are specifically designed to remove incentives to innovate. They allow employers to prevent employees from developing anything that might threaten established businesses, while also removing the financial rewards from innovations that employers do approve of. There is absolutely no aspect of these contracts which meet the Constituional goals of Intellectual Property (promoting science and the useful arts); These contracts are typically far far too overbroad to be seen as protecting employers from unfair competition. They are specifically designed to eliminate distruptive innovation and uphold the status quo.

Can the government really use powers granted by the Consititution to craft laws that are specifically designed to be used by citizens in a manner that is destructive to goals of the Constitution?

Legal, or illegal, its obviously wrong.

Slashdot | Apple Claims Ownership of Shareware -- DON'T WORK FOR APPLE

] In other words, anyone viewing a Webcast of material that
] falls outside of copyright--such as a government-created
] documentary or a very old movie or audio recording--may
] not be able to freely store and redistribute that
] content.

Big webcasters have tipped their hand. They are now a worse threat then the RIAA. They have created an international treaty which makes it illegal to rebroadcast public domain material that someone has webcast unless the webcaster also disclaims "rights." This is unfathomable. Just like the DMCA, this law takes public domain material and makes it unavailable to the public. This isn't even about once copyrighted works not entering the public domain. This is about works that were never copyrighted being sucked out of the public domain.

Treaty could cast shadow on Webcast rights | CNET News.com

] The AFV would allow each individual to contribute a
] refundable tax credit of approximately $100 to a creative
] worker of their choice, or to an intermediary who passes
] funds along to creative workers. Recipients of the AFV
] (creative workers and intermediaries) would be required
] to register with the government in the same way that
] religious or charitable organizations must now register
] for tax-exempt status. This registration is only for the
] purpose of preventing fraud - it does not involve any
] evaluation of the quality of the work being produced.

This idea has come up before, but this is the most serious proposal I've seen. Replace copyright with a federal voucher system. I don't think its fair to say that this is less "capitalist" then the existing system. In one case the government forces you to pay for art by making it illegal to copy it. In the other case the government forces you to pay for art more directly. In either case the government is creating an unnatural economy.

The best criticism I've heard of this is that it might put the government in a position to claim that they can regulate who is allowed to participate on a content basis. That cannot be allowed. I think that problem can be resolved by placing very strong first amendment based restrictions on the government's acceptance of artists into the system, but this will remain a risk with such an enterprise into the future. There will probably need to be watchdog organizations that sue when legislatures attempt to deny access.

The real question is, how will the artists people choose to fund differ from the artists people choose to buy CDs from, and what is the significance of any difference. The best way to figure that out is to do a long term study implementing this system in a college campus. Of course, you'll have to get the recording industry's permission to do it, and there is no way in hell that they would allow it.

Another troublesome question is that by tying support for the arts to tax payers, the mean age of art consumers moves from about 20 to about 40. That will probably have bad results. Young people simply won't have the power in the system that they need to support the arts they enjoy.

Center for Economic and Policy Research: Artistic Freedom Voucher

] Brad characterizes file-sharing as ripping off artists,
] and goes on to say that it is right to condemn people
] who get all their music without paying. And yet the EFF
] continues to tacitly endorse such file-sharing, running an
] ad campaign that says "file-sharing is music to our
] ears."

This is a good collection of links. I think the EFF supports file sharing because its popular to do so. Calling them on it is reasonable. Expecting them to solve all of the problems is not. There needs to be a serious effort to organize artists outside of the present system. The EFF has made motions in that direction, but they always feel a little like political stunts. They are too focused on the law and not focused enough on the music. We need something that is really music centric that works differently. We need a counter example.

[Politech] Reply to EFF over its position on RIAA, file swapping [ip]

] adio stations must pay royalties to recording companies
] and performers, as they do to composers and songwriters,
] when musical broadcasts are "streamed" over the Internet,
] a federal appeals court has affirmed.

At Phreaknic JonnyX did a talk on how to do independent radio broadcasting. I asked him if the internet was a viable option, and he referenced this recent decision. He basically said this was the nail in the coffin all hope was lost.

Hrm.... This is interesting. Previously it was felt that (and the law literally says that) traditional radio stations that simulcast over the internet did not have to pay the RIAA royalties that people running webcast only stations have to pay. The courts have undone that interpretation. Its an example of how laws mean what they mean and not what they say. Laws are not like code.

However, as this is an issue for traditional broadcasters, and not something that impacts webcast only transmissions, I really don't think it impacts the question I posed. However, it does mean that even more internet radio is going to go away. In particular, college radio stations are probably going off the air because of this. I wonder if any have already...

It probably makes sense for everyone to pay the same royalties. Furthermore, I don't even mind if a royalty structure exists. The critical question is: can a few hobbyists set up a viable internet radio show and make the payments... Can they still make payments as the popularity of their station scales? If the answer is no, then these royalties aren't a way to pay artists, they are a way to stifle innovation. So far I have to say that it feels like the later.

Court Affirms Internet Radio Royalties

] The Federal Trade Commission today issued its report
] how to promote innovation by finding
] the proper balance of competition
] and patent law and policy.

Or in other words, the FTC thinks bad patents are hurting the economy.

FTC Issues Report on How to Promote Innovation Through Balancing Competition with Patent Law and Policy

] He added, "It's not like people are reading these memos
] in order to steal Diebold's election system. (The company
] is) trying to use this law, and specifically the
] mandatory take-down section, to conceal flaws that
] directly affect the validity of election results. This is
] a threat to our democracy."

Wired News: Students Fight E-Vote Firm

] "FTAA: A Threat to Freedom and Free Trade"

something to be aware of, among the many other issues at hand...

IP Justice: IP Justice White Paper

Hollywood frets that if top-quality copies of shows can be snared online, producers won't be able to sell them in syndication or overseas.

"Syndication" is broken. There is no "fix." Move on.

Rules would require recorders to encrypt TV shows