From the category archives:

VIEW FROM ENGLAND

From Wiki: “”Vindaloo” is a song by British band Fat Les. The music was written by Blur bassist Alex James and the lyrics were written by comedian Keith Allen. It was released as a single in 1998 and recorded for the 1998 FIFA World Cup. The song was originally written as a parody of football chants, but was adopted as one in its own right and became a cult classic. Much of the song consists of the phrase “nah nah nah” and the word “vindaloo” repeated over and over by a mixed group, occasionally interspersed with lines such as “And we all like vindaloo” and “We’re England; we’re gonna score one more than you”

I purchased a copy of Vindaloo from Amazon and Fat Les is now $0.99 fatter (radio mix). I wonder if the poster of this video (which contains no actual video footage) obtained her copy in a similar manner. If we both did so purchase Vindaloo, would we be clear of a copyright infringement claim?

ENGLAND 3 SWEDEN 2!!!!! Nice work Danny

{ 0 comments }



(Thanks to high-tech attorney @Cathy Gellis for these items.)

Nick Clegg leads the British government in the launch of its website YourFreedom, “The Coalition Government is committed to restoring and defending your freedom – and we’re asking you to participate.”

Attorney Gellis notes that the site, launched today, already has numerous comments calling for the repeal of the Digital Economy Act.

Quite interesting that the center-right libertarian British coalition might actually do away with DEA. Last I checked Nick Clegg was calling for its repeal.

{ 0 comments }

cfm_fbWe start with a quote from the Victor Keegan article earlier this year in the Guardian:

“The issue of copyright is a global nightmare for anyone interested in digital preservation. The problems that Google has encountered in its – utterly praiseworthy – quest to digitise the world’s books are nothing compared to the problems of preserving documentary films where the multiple permissions needed for each one from commercial interests will, as Lawrence Lessig brilliantly describes in the New Republic, lead to a situation where ” the vast majority of documentary films from the 20th century will be forever buried in a lawyer’s thicket inaccessible (legally) because of a set of permissions built into these films at their creation”.

The Lessig article informs us:

” “As American University’s Center for Social Media concluded, “rights clearance costs are high, and have escalated dramatically in the last two decades,” and “limit the public’s access” to documentary film. The consequence of this ecology of creativity is that the vast majority of documentaries from the twentieth century cannot legally be restored or redistributed. They sit on film library shelves, many of them dissolving, since they were produced on nitrate-based film, and most of them forgotten, since no content company or anyone else can do anything with them.”

In my previous post on the recent move by libraries to offer digital copies of physical books still under copyright, I was really writing about a new form, in the view of many academics, of “justified civil disobedience”.

John Rawls, the political philosopher, defines justified civil disobedience:

““My thought is that in a reasonably just (though not perfectly just) democratic regime, civil disobedience, when it is justified, is normally to be understood as a political action which addresses the sense of justice of the majority in order to urge reconsideration of the measures protested and to warn that in the firm opinion of the dissenters the conditions of social cooperation are not being honored.”

The curators of our knowledge, culture, and history are slowly moving to a Rawlsian viewpoint on the issue of unnecessary and unjust copyright protections. Perhaps we need to digitize first and seek permissions later. If we the Supreme Court says we have an unencumbered right to bear arms, perhaps we can also carry a scanner.

{ 0 comments }

Is BPI Trying To Setup Google For Copyright Infringement Lawsuit?

Google Targeted For Linking To Infringing Songs

The excellent TechDirt post, above, resonates with the salient point here: “Either way, sooner or later, it looks like we’re going to get another legal showdown over whether or not it’s legal for Google to just link to infringing material. When that case goes forward, it could be a defining moment in whether or not search engines, themselves, are actually legal.”

{ 0 comments }

Although he refused to admit to the American press whether his team is City or United, Manchester’s Chris Farnell works exclusively on sports and football law in the United Kingdom.

By the way, does anyone seriously think that Wayne Rooney will lose his temper today in the USA v. England match, and can Clint Dempsey really taunt Wayne into a yellow card?

I am rooting for both of our great democarcies today, although to get both through to the round of 16 an American win would be better.

{ 0 comments }

June 1, 2010 article published in the Guardian.

Coming soon to the United States. Read Doctorow in full, here are two salient quotes.

“Because the naive user who only downloads occasionally will still be in harm’s way, as will his family or housemates if his connection is disconnected by an entertainment bully.

And because once the state decides that it has a duty to police the internet to maximise the profits of a few entertainment companies (no matter what the public expense), it sets itself on a path of ever-more-restrictive measures.

For a quick overview of the Digiital Economy Act, click HERE.

{ 2 comments }

From the BBC today: “Under the new rules, anyone from outside the EU applying for a visa to join their spouse or partner will have to prove they have a basic command of English, to help them get by in daily life, before their application is approved.”
[click to continue…]

{ 0 comments }