This is yet another example of lawyers invoking copyright as a pretext for censorship. Gawker posted the thumbnail-sized image as part of its coverage of the news that an all-night bidding war drove the price of these photos into the stratosphere, with Time Warner paying $4.1m (nabbing the rights for People magazine) for exclusive U.S. rights. It seems reasonable that the story would include a thumbnail so that people know what the fuss was about.
Myspace says it’s revising its legal terms and conditions after songwriter Billy Bragg withdrew his songs from the website in protest.
Lessig would like to see copyright reduced to 14 years, renewable to 28, as laid down by the 1710 Statute of Anne, the basis of all subsequent legislation in the UK and many countries.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has renegotiated its terms with PACT, a UK trade organisation that represents the commercial interests of independent feature film, TV, and animation companies. This means that it is legally able to go ahead with its Peer to Peer based iPlayer service due to be launched later this year.
In a move that is certain to stoke controversy with music promoters, the founder of the Silicon Valley startup said la la will circumvent traditional copyright and royalty payment systems to compensate identifiable working musicians.
Tiscali is a European ISP that had a deal with IFPI, the international wing of the RIAA, to offer legal, paid for, licensed streaming music to its customers. IFPI made them remove the feature that allowed paying customers to search for the music they wanted to hear by artist (!) saying that this was too much “interactivity.”
We at the British Library use DRMs to manage our collections and we recognise they can be a valuable tool,” said Lynne Brindley. “However, while protecting rights holders against infringement they can prevent copying of material for fair dealing purposes.