More on the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to grant Google's motion for summary judgment in a copyright infringement suit brought against its video-sharing service YouTube by media company Viacom.
The law was written in an analog era, and it targeted those who copied tapes or CDs. Such people couldn't claim not to know about the copyrighted nature of the works they were copying-it was written right there on the cassette or CD! But in the digital world, this makes no sense. How could slapping a copyright notice on a CD alert anyone using a P2P network about anything?
"Google said it was alarmed by the number of government requests to censor political speech, particularly from Western democracies like the United States, Spain and Poland."
U.S. censorship piece is not so suprising to me in this post 9/11 and tube car bombing era. It is becoming difficult to site what is hampering my rights a company that wants to Know all(Google) infringing on my privacy, or a government that wants to keep people from knowledge to stamp out terror; and in doing so is impeding my privacy and speech. But what is terrifying to me is that my speech will not be free in a bit, so it seems. Democracy flaw is not the letter of law, but the people that implement it.
A federal judge ruled in favor of a defendant who reposted an entire article in a copyright case on Monday, Wired reports. The lawsuit was brought by Righthaven, a Las Vegas-based "copyright litigation factory," according to Wired, that has sued more than 200 websites, bloggers, and commenters for copyright infringement. This particular lawsuit targeted Wayne Hoehn, who posted an entire editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and its headline, "Public Employee Pensions: We Can't Afford Them" on a website medjacksports.com.