internetcases' shared items in Google Reader

Lars Ulrich On Metallica's Latest Album Being Leaked Online: It's Fine, We're Happy

2008-09-04T18:26:00Z

We've noted that Metallica has basically spent nearly the last decade trying to recover from the damaged reputation the band brought on itself when drummer Lars Ulrich freaked out about Napster and started suing. While the band has been trying to become more online friendly with its latest album release, you still had to wonder how Ulrich would react to the album being leaked online before the official release date. Some might assume he'd pull a Guns N' Roses and try to send the FBI after the leakers -- but, instead it looks like Ulrich has learned at least part of the lesson: don't freak out at your fans for music getting online, even before the official release. In fact, he seems almost mellow about the leak:

"It's 2008 and it's part of how it is these days, so it's fine. We're happy."

It's tough to tell if he's legitimately "happy" about these fans, or if he's just learned enough to grin and bear it for the time being -- but it's nice to see that he's at least learned something since the Napster debacle.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Are 88% Of IT Admins Really On The Verge Of Stealing Sensitive Company Info?

2008-09-04T15:16:00Z

You can't trust your IT admin -- or at least that's the story being pushed by a security firm that released the eye-catching study results saying that 88% of IT admins surveyed would take "sensitive company" info such as passwords, if they were fired. We've all heard stories about disgruntled tech workers, so perhaps some part of this feels true, but that 88% number just seems way too high. The security company obviously has every reason to push a high number, as it's goal is to sell solutions that help deal with this supposed "problem." And, of course, it fails to release the actual details of the survey, such as how the questions were worded. While I'm sure there are some IT admins who would do so, it seems highly suspect to claim that almost 90% of IT admins would act in such a manner.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Google, Chrome, and Copyright (Alan Wexelblat)

2008-09-03T14:41:08Z

I'm filing this under "IP Abuse" because I'm starting to think Chrome, Google's new wonder-browser, is a tool for (potential) copyright abuse. I was first tipped to this by Edward Champion, who blogs under the title "Reluctant Habits." In a post dated September 3, he picks apart the Chrome EULA and does not like what he sees.

In essence, Google has applied the same EULA that it uses for Gmail to everything you put into the Chrome browser. What, you never read the gmail EULA? You do realize it gives Google copyrights in your email, right? Yeah, it does.

Anyway, here's the relevant clause from the Chrome EULA:

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

So, technically, you still keep the copyrights for things you create in the Chrome browser - like, say, blog entries. But you give up to Google the right to redistribute that content, including using it for commercial purposes.

That's potentially very bad. Should Google ever choose to make use of those rights it could cause problems ranging from simple embarrassment to loss of serious value. For example, I work at a company that makes Web-based tools for securities traders. If someone runs our tools in a Chrome browser, does that mean Google owns (or thinks it has any rights to) my customers' financial data? Should I be telling my customers not to run Chrome? Does this principle apply to anyone who ever does any home banking in the Chrome browser?

This condition seems completely unnecessary for a browser. I can't find any similar language in the Firefox EULA. The Internet Explorer EULA has language some people object to in terms of disabling and potential interference, but it doesn't seem to contain any terms claiming ownership of content. WTF, Google?

GOP convention: Tasteless quote of the week

2008-09-03T03:29:22Z

Here’s my nomination for the most tasteless quote of the week:

“If (Democratic veep nominee Joe) Biden tries any of that bully stuff with Sarah Palin, he will remind women of their ex-husbands,” California GOP Chairman Ron Nehring.

This is offensive on so many levels.

Nehring knew it, too.

“I’m going to hear about that quote,” he said afterward.

Was The Mad Men Twitter Takedown Part Of An Advertising Strategy?

2008-09-02T22:03:44Z

We've talked about the concept of a reverse Streisand Effect, where a company purposely pretends to be outraged and demands to take something down in order to generate more attention for it, and now there's some evidence suggesting that last week's DMCA takedown notices for the "fake" Mad Men Twitter accounts may have been part of AMC's own marketing strategy. Buried at the bottom of a NY Times article about what happened, there's a hint that the whole thing was planned out, as following a request from the Times reporter, Brian Stelter, to one of the "fake" users for an interview, that character "referred all questions to Deep Focus, a Web marketing agency that works for AMC."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Alabama Plans to Weigh, Tax Fat Employees

2008-09-02T14:57:46Z

Shared by internetcases
Excellent idea.

Alabama is rolling out a creative but controversial program that will subject its 37,527 state employees to possibly humiliating at-work weigh-ins and fat tests. If they tip the scales, they'll be given a choice: slim down or pay up.

Morgan County Teen Arrested For Burglarizing Police Department

2008-09-02T13:23:43Z

Shared by internetcases
Felony stupid.

(BROOKLYN, IN) - State police from the Putnamville District have a Morgan County man in custody for robbing...a police department headquarters.

What stuff is worth more than its weight in gold?

*Item --

2008-09-02T06:01:00Z

What stuff is worth more than its weight in gold?

Item -- Price per pound
Gold -- $12,000
Platinum -- $20,679
Fifty Dollar Bills -- $22,680
Cocaine -- $22,680
Hundred Dollar Bills -- $45,359
Rhodium -- $77,292
Good-quality, one-carat diamonds -- $11.4 M
LSD -- $55 M
Antimatter -- $26 Quadrillion

(Via Marginal Revolution.)

Warner Bros. Sues Over Bollywood 'Hari Puttar' Film

2008-08-26T13:07:19Z

Bollywood producers set to release a film called "Hari Puttar: A Comedy of Terrors" are working to fend off a lawsuit filed by Warner Bros. that claims the movie title hews too closely to their mega-famous boy wizard franchise.

Is Obama the Anti-Christ? Just ask Google, CNN, or John McCain Online.

2008-08-26T10:14:42Z

Public Servant….Or Satan?
The idea that Obama is the devil has been kicking around among talk-radio callers for a few months. Saturday Night Live performer Victoria Jackson voiced her concern that Obama is the Anti-Christ on her blog:

“I don’t want a political label, but Obama bears traits that resemble the anti-Christ and I’m scared to death that uneducated people will ignorantly vote him into office. My mom likes him because his children are well dressed!” Though she’s funny, the post was serious.

This Obama-as-Satan idea has caught on; the seventh most popular search term paired with “Obama” is in fact “anti-Christ.” Bill Tancer of Hitwise posts analysis of this trend and CNN has aired a segment on how this idea may have been promoted by the McCain campaign using the Internet.

Is the McCain Campaign Literally Demonizing Obama?
The McCain campaign produced a web-only ad called “The One” which sure seems designed to nurture these concerns. CNN devoted three-and-a-half minutes to the ad, and how it draws on fundamentalist imagery from the “Left Behind” series. The McCain campaign says the ad was just in fun, just as the Obama “O” with devil horns coffee mug is here.

I asked a notoriously snarky conservative friend if he’s ever worried about the junior Senator from Illinois being, well, evil incarnate. He laughed it off saying “Obama might wear Prada, but that doesn’t make him the devil; at worst he’s an empty suit.” And so the side show that passes for politics continues.

ShareThis

Woman Sues City for Ordering Her to Delete Hyperlink

2008-08-25T21:00:00Z

A Wisconsin woman says the Sheboygan city attorney ordered her to remove from her Web site a link to the city's police department, in what she believes was retaliation for her support of recalling Mayor Juan Perez, according to the suit. The city's actions torpedoed Jennifer Reisinger's Web site marketing business and led to death threats against her, according to the lawsuit.

Read the article: Journal Sentinel

Comic tattoos

2008-08-25T16:30:00Z

Talk about having skin in the game: are these tattoos infringing derivative works? Or does their inarguable personal significance to the wearer help make them fair use? Note that if the tattoo artist infringed, then the person wearing the tattoo does not have a lawfully made copy to display in public, so it's hard to separate the (almost certainly commercial) activity of the tattoo artist from the noncommercial activity of the wearer. For more: a law review note, an article, and a PowerPoint presentation about tattoos and copyright.

Old Media Always Afraid of New Media... Even Back in 1929

2008-08-22T17:29:00Z

Petrea Mitchell reminds us that "old media" always ends up reacting poorly to "new media" no matter what we're talking about. As an example she points to this story about theaters (the kind that put on plays) fearing new-fangled radio broadcasters back in 1929:

Once upon a time, complimentary theatre tickets would come with a covering note like this: "Dear Sir, The Management of the ------ Theatre will be much obliged if you will very kindly co-operate with them in safeguarding the enclosed invitation from being used for the purpose of broadcasting a notice of the play from any station of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The invitation is intended to meet the convenience of legitimate journalism, exclusive of broadcasting." Dated 10 October 1929 and quoted in Ego: The Autobiography of James Agate (1935)

That's right. If you were a journalist who was given free tickets, you could report about it the newspaper, but heaven forbid you talk about it on the "radio." Why, that would just be bad.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

E-Discovery (Re)sources Abound

2008-08-19T18:26:31Z

By K&L Gates attorneys Todd L. Nunn and Trudy D. Tessaro

This article appears in the August 2008 edition of the King County Bar Bulletin, and begins:

Want to understand more about e-discovery, other than that the “e” stands for “excitement?” Need a little light summer reading? Well, you are in luck. Never before have there been so many sources of e-discovery law.

In the old days (a few years ago), only case law dealt with the important issues that are central to e-discovery: preservation, collection, search/review, protection of privilege and production. Now these issues are addressed by federal rules, state rules, numerous scholarly best practices and guidelines, model rules and guides for judges, not to mention (and this article really doesn’t with one exception) innumerable articles and blogs.

Many of these rules, protocols and best practices are “sources” of e-discovery law, in the sense that many are mandatory and binding on you when you practice in a particular court or state, but they are also important “(re)sources” because they provide specific guidance about how to handle the core issues of e-discovery. This article provides only a basic guide to the sources and resources. The rest is up to you.

View the full article here.

Stealing an Identity to Make a Fake Facebook Page for Anonymous Sex Isn’t Stalking, Except Maybe in Indiana

2008-08-21T12:41:25Z

A 23-year-old man who worked at a church in Wabash, Indiana, has been charged with felony stalking and misdemeanor harrassment.

MSNBC all but convicts him in its coverage, and complains that because he hasn’t been charged with a sexual crime, his Internet use will not be restricted. Bad journalism aside, when he appears in court to answer these charges on August 20th, there’s a good chance the charges will be tossed from court.

The man, who will undoubetedly soon to be named, used the identities of two women from his church to set up fake Facebook profiles and have online sex with other men while pretending to be the women. This went on for several years, and interestingly was discovered by the women’s pastor, who was researching his parishoners online. OK, so bad journalism and icky church dynamics aside, there’s still more.

Law professor Susan Brenner notes in her blog CYB3RCRIM3 that this offense really doesn’t seem to be stalking. He impersonated people; he didn’t stalk them. Nor did he harrass, tresspass, or attempt to violate their privacy in any conventional sense. He infact wanted to escape their notice. Brenner wisely suggests that impersonation should be criminalized. Unfortunately, not everything icky is stalking.

Forecast: lots of state and local anti-impersonation legislation most likely named after the young women involved in this case.

ShareThis

● Great Olympic moments on YouTube

2008-08-20T21:10:40Z

One of the best ways to watch the Olympics is to chase down all the references made by NBC's commentators on YouTube and watch them in addition to (or instead of) the regular telecast. Here are some of the ones I've found.

From the 1976 Olympics, the first perfect 10 in Olympic gymnastics history by Nadia Comaneci on the uneven parallel bars. This more impressive routine also earned a 10, as did this balance beam routine.

Olga Korbut's uneven parallel bars routine from the 1972 Olympics (above). Love that dismount! The skills done on the bars today are so much more athletic but Korbut's routine was a magical flowing performance. At the rate the women today are going, the uneven parallel bars will soon be replaced by the high bar used in the men's competitions...they barely use the bottom bar anymore.

My recollection of the men's 4x100m relay at the 1984 Olympics involves the US team trailing after three legs when Carl Lewis (still my favorite Olympian) seizes the baton from Calvin Smith and thunders down the last 100 meters, singlehandedly winning the race and smashing the world record. The reality was somewhat different. The American team was way ahead when Lewis got the baton but it still is amazing to watch him pull away from the rest of the field like that. Bolt-like, innit?

A similar pulling away occurred in 1996 by Michael Johnson in the 200 meters. No one even came close to threatening his world record for 12 years until the emergence of Usain Bolt.

In 1988, Greg Louganis hit his head on the board on his third-to-last dive in the preliminaries of the men's springboard. He returned to qualify for the next round and eventually won the gold medal in the event.

Bob Beamon smashed the world record in the long jump by almost two feet at the 1968 Olympics. His record stood for almost 23 years until Mike Powell broke it in 1991.

Also at the '68 Games, Dick Fosbury unveiled his unique high jumping technique, the Fosbury Flop, which became the preferred technique in this event. For comparison, here are a couple of videos showing the other techniques that were in use at the time.

Jesse Owens' 100 meter win at the 1936 Games in Berlin.

After his hamstring popped in the semifinals of the 400 meters at the 1992 Olympics, Derek Redmond, aided by his father, finished the race to roars from the crowd. Just thinking about this makes me cry.

Speaking of tear-inducing performances, Kerri Strug hobbled up to the vault runway on a bum ankle and hit a 9.712 on her final vault in the team competition at the 1996 Games, landing more or less perfectly on one foot, clinching a victory for the US team. Or so the story goes. As with all mythology, the truth is present but not entirely adhered to. As it turned out, the US team had enough of a lead on the Russian team that Strug's last vault was unnecessary. But it hardly dimishes the moment for Strug. At the time, she thought she had to do the vault for the medal and she went out there and stuck it.

And finally, Svetlana Khorkina on the uneven parallel bars at the 1996 Games. For reasons I don't fully understand, Khorkina is probably my favorite female Olympian ever.

Update: From the 1964 Games, here's a video of Billy Mills coming from behind in the 10,000 meters. I have no idea how he sprints that fast after running more than six miles. (thx, nivan)

Battle of Gettysburg 'Witness Tree' Downed in Storm

2008-08-11T02:18:13Z

Shared by internetcases
One of few remaining 'witness trees' to historic Civil War battle has been severely damaged in a storm.

One of few remaining 'witness trees' to historic Civil War battle has been severely damaged in a storm.

"DVR as a Service" Isn't Copyright Infringement--Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings

2008-08-05T01:44:03Z

By Eric Goldman

The Cartoon Network LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., No. 07-1480-cv(L) & 07-1511-cv(CON) (2d Cir. Aug. 4, 2008)

The Second Circuit has issued an interesting and potentially important ruling that Cablevision's DVR as a service does not infringe copyright law. This ruling reverses the district court's summary judgment for the plaintiff and opens the way for Cablevision to roll out its DVR service offering in the Second Circuit.

The good news is that the opinion eliminates the odd regulatory distinctions between DVRs as a device and DVR as a service. The bad news is that to reach this conclusion, the Second Circuit has to override a lot of adverse precedent, and I'm not sure that other circuits will find this panel's arguments entirely convincing. As a result, it will be interesting to see if Cablevision interprets this opinion as a greenlight for a national rollout.

Thus, while the opinion is good news for DVR service offerings, the opinion leaves open a lot of questions that will have to be answered in the future. I think it's safe to say that this opinion is hardly the last stop in our journey.

Buffering Isn't Infringement

Cablevision's DVR service splits a broadcast feed into two streams, including a "buffer" copy that goes to a router where it is stored for no more than 1.2 seconds as the router looks to see if any consumers have asked for the program to be recorded for them. If yes, the data goes into their private storage areas; if no, the stream is discarded. The court holds that this buffer copy isn't fixed because it's not embodied "for more than a transitory duration."

To reach this conclusion, the court has to fight against a lot of precedent, especially the MAI v. Peak holding that a copy into RAM is fixed, even though that copy may be embodied for even less time than the buffer copy at issue here. The court says that MAI v. Peak stands for the proposition that these short-duration RAM copies can be fixed but are not automatically fixed. The court says that in MAI (without citing any actual facts from the MAI case), the software surely was resident in RAM for "at least several minutes" while in this case the copies exist for only 1.2 seconds, and this factual difference explains the different conclusion regarding fixations.

There is a major slippery slope problem with this conclusion. Is 3 seconds fixed? 10 seconds? I could keep going, and the court deftly side-steps this problem. Nevertheless, this holding offers some promise for certain types of web activity. First, this ruling might excuse copies made by scrapers/robots who download copyrighted pages to extract unprotectable information on the page. This case suggests that the copies made to download the page and perhaps to process it are not fixed, at least so long as they are flushed really quickly (1.2 seconds or less would be good). Second, this case seems to provide another defense to the otherwise problematic argument that web browsing is infringement; so long as the user hits the back button (and kills any local cache) really fast, no fixation of the web page. The opinion deliberately limits itself to Cablevision's system of overwriting the data, so that may limits its overall applicability, but this case creates a new category of copies that are embodied in a medium but are not fixed, and this offers some hope for defendants.

Users, Not Cablevision, Make the Other Copies

Even if the buffer copies aren't fixed (and therefore cannot support an infringement claim), Cablevision still stores a copy of the broadcasted works in its storage area, where users can download the programs. There's no fixation problem with these, so plaintiffs challenge these copies as both impermissible copies and public performances. The court rejects these arguments, concluding that Cablevision is a sufficiently passive entity that the users and not Cablevision are doing the legally significant activity. Thus, Cablevision is at most exposed to contributory liability for these user activities. Because the plaintiffs had waived allegations of contributory infringement, Cablevision gets summary judgment.

To reach this conclusion, the court ignores Cablevision's active role in setting up its systems and providing ongoing services, including selecting which broadcast channels are DVRable in its system. Instead, the court sees this fact pattern as identical to DVR as a device, where the DVR manufacturer isn't directly liable for how the DVR is used. This is consistent with the uncited Field v. Google case, but it conflicts with numerous copyright cases where the service provider's hosting of files gives the provider more legal responsibility over the system usage than a device maker would have. Similarly, the court distinguishes the coursepack cases on the basis that a human employee of the copyshop presses the "copy" button, because here the system works automatically without manual intervention from Cablevision.

Note, of course, that the court didn't discuss contributory liability, which also raises the ugly and risky question of whether Cablevision users are directly infringing by using the DVR as a service. I think there is helpful language in the Sony Betamax case about DVRing as a fair use, but I doubt anyone wants to see that battle relitigated.

Similarly, with respect to the argument that the distribution of the files from Cablevision's storage area is a public performance, the court says that Cablevision isn't "transmitting" as required by the statute because the user is making the legally significant action.

Further, Cablevision's delivery of the file isn't "to the public" as required by the statute. This latter conclusion is totally fine with me as a matter of common sense interpretation of those words, but it runs contrary to numerous messy and analytically questionable precedents regarding the central serving of copyrighted works to private spaces, such as Redd Horne and On Command. The court deftly tries to evade those, but after 2 readings I still can't figure out what the court said. Maybe the third time will be the charm. I think it has something do with the fact that Cablevision encoded each file delivery to its consumers so that each file delivery could be consumed only by a single playback machine. Let me know if you can figure out what the court was saying here and how it might apply to anyone else. Because the ruling seems to let Cablevision freely broadcast third party content to potentially all of its subscribers without constituting a public performance, I think there may be some exploitable holes here.

One more open question: this opinion makes me wonder if the MP3.com opinion from SDNY is still good law. I'd need to go back through that opinion, but as I recall, a lot turned on the fact that MP3.com tried to act as a proxy for its users. Here, the court treats such proxy activities as passive, and perhaps that analysis would fit the MP3.com facts as well.

Conclusion

I'm excited about this opinion because it eliminates some of the legal anomalies between DVR as a device and DVR as a service. In many situations, DVR as a service will be a better consumer experience, and it is unquestionably better for the environment, so I'm happy that this opinion tries to get copyright law out of the way to enable this result. At the same time, the appellate court set up enough conflicts with other precedent, and sufficiently caveated its opinions to address the narrow facts in Cablevision, that I expect this case resolved nothing definitively. That will have to wait the many cases in our future.

Even so, I remain amused (in a cynical way, not a funny way) that the broadcasters are still fighting against giving consumers what they really want, which is to consume their content at the time and place of the consumer's own choosing. Eventually, broadcasters are going to have to bite the bullet and post their content onto the Internet for viewers to enjoy at their convenience. There always will be consumers who want to consume the content upon first release, but after that, content that's unavailable to consumers is just wasting away instead of continuing to make money for the broadcasters.

Tyson Plant Drops Labor Day for Muslim Holiday

2008-08-05T19:01:06Z

Workers at the Tyson Foods poultry processing plant in Shelbyville will no longer have a paid day off on Labor Day but will instead be granted the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr.

End of the Blog

2008-08-02T20:13:02Z

Shared by internetcases
Wish we could talk him out of it.

I have decided to end the blog, after doing around 800 postings over about 4 years. I regret closing the blog and I owe readers an explanation. There are two reasons.

1. The Inability or Refusal to Accept the Blog for What it is: A Personal Blog

I have been a full-time copyright lawyer for 26 years. My late mother, aleha ha-shalom, told me repeatedly that I had a religious obligation to learn every day, and I have honored her memory by doing exactly that. Learning also involves changing how you think about things; it doesn't only mean reinforcing the existing views you already have. In this respect, Second Circuit Judge Pierre Leval once said that the best way to know you have a mind is to change it, and I have tried to live by that wisdom too. There are positions I have taken in the past I no longer hold, and some that I continue to hold. I have tried to be honest with myself: if you are not genuinely honest with yourself, you can't learn, and if you worry about what others think of you, you will be living their version of your life and not yours.

I started the blog when I was still in private practice with the above goals in mind and one more: I felt there was no blog devoted to the geekery of copyright; meaning a blog where people who loved copyright could come and discuss copyright issues in a non-partisan way. In order to encourage open discussion I permitted not only comments but anonymous and pseudonymous comments. I did that because I wanted to encourage the largest number of people to participate, and after four years I believe that was the right decision. But it is also the right decision to end the blog. While in private practice I never had the experience of people attributing to my firm or my clients their views. When I moved from private practice to Google I put a disclaimer to the effect that the views in the blog (as in the past) were strictly mine. I also set a policy, which I strictly adhered to, of never discussing cases Google was involved in, and I refrained from criticizing those with whom Google was involved in lawsuits. I did not run ads, including not using Google's AdSense program. I cannot see what more I could have done to make what was a personal blog more separate from my employer.

For the first year after joining Google, with some exceptions, people honored the personal nature of the blog, but no longer. When other blogs or news stories refer to the blog, the inevitable opening sentence now is: "William Patry, Google's Senior Copyright Counsel said," or "Google's top copyright lawyer said... ." There is nothing I can do to stop this false implication that I am speaking on Google's behalf. And that's just those who do so because they are lazy. Others, for partisan purposes, insist on on misdescribing the blog as a Google blog, or in one case involving a think tank, darkly indicating also a la Senator Joe McCarthy, that in addition to funding from Google, there may be other sources of funding too. On Blogger, blogs are free. The blog had no funding because it doesn't cost anything, because I don't run ads, and because it was my personal blog, started before I joined Google.

On top of this there are the crazies, whom it is impossible to reason with, who do not have a life of their own and so insist on ruining the lives of others, and preferably as many as possible. I asked myself last week after having to deal with the craziest of the crazies yet, "why subject yourself to this?" I could come up with no reason why I should: My grandfather chose to be a psychiatrist, but I chose a different professional path, one that doesn't obligate me to put up with such nonsense.

In the end, I concluded that it is no longer possible for me to have a blog that will be respected for what it is, a personal blog. I don't draw any grand conclusions from this and hope others don't either. The decision was 100% mine. No one at Google ever asked, suggested, or hinted that I should end the blog. To the contrary, in keeping with Google's deep commitment to free speech, the company encourages blogs like mine, and has stood completely behind me.

2. The Current State of Copyright Law is too depressing

This leads me to my final reason for closing the blog which is independent of the first reason: my fear that the blog was becoming too negative in tone. I regard myself as a centrist. I believe very much that in proper doses copyright is essential for certain classes of works, especially commercial movies, commercial sound recordings, and commercial books, the core copyright industries. I accept that the level of proper doses will vary from person to person and that my recommended dose may be lower (or higher) than others. But in my view, and that of my cherished brother Sir Hugh Laddie, we are well past the healthy dose stage and into the serious illness stage. Much like the U.S. economy, things are getting worse, not better. Copyright law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which is beneficial to copyright owners. Like Humpty-Dumpty, the copyright law we used to know can never be put back together again: multilateral and trade agreements have ensured that, and quite deliberately.

It is profoundly depressing, after 26 years full-time in a field I love, to be a constant voice of dissent. I have tried various ways to leaven this state of affairs with positive postings, much like television news shows that experiment with "happy features." I have blogged about great articles others have written, or highlighted scholars who have not gotten the attention they deserve; I tried to find cases, even inconsequential ones, that I can fawn over. But after awhile, this wore thin, because the most important stories are too often ones that involve initiatives that are, in my opinion, seriously harmful to the public interest. I cannot continue to be so negative, so often. Being so negative, while deserved on the merits, gives a distorted perspective of my centrist views, and is emotionally a downer.

So between the inability or refusal of some people to accept the blog for what it is -- a personal blog --- and my inability to continue to be Cassandra, I decided it was time to pull the plug. I thank profusely all those who have accepted the blog for what it is, and who have contributed so much to it and to my learning over the years. I intend to spend my free time figuring out a constructive way to talk about the difficult issues we face and how to advance toward their solution.