We enemies of copyright are understandably upset by the Aaron Swartz tragedy.¹ He was an innocent, heroic Internet freedom activist. He downloaded some files from JSTOR—not a real crime by any reasonable standard of justice—and then his Javert-like federal persecutor hounded him and threatened him with decades in a federal cage and a lifetime as a federal felon. Faced with the onslaught of our Kafkaesque “justice” system, Swartz ended his life, in a sad yet heroic act of defiance. I can’t say “good for him” because I weep for his anguish, his torment. But he gave the feds the finger, in his own way. (Federal copyright persecution leads RSS co-author and anti-SOPA activist Aaron Swartz to kill himself.)

This tragedy was caused not by “overzealous” prosecutors but by copyright law itself. Without copyright law, Swartz’s actions would not even have been a breach of contract, much less a crime.

So it is a bit galling to see people bemoaning the Swartz tragedy while still supporting copyright law. Sure, most of them support copyright “reform,” but they do not call for its abolition. Case in point: Tim Lee and Lawrence Lessig: “some punishment” of Swartz was “appropriate”. Ah, I see. “Some punishment” was “appropriate”—and we need “some” copyright, and thus, “some” penalties—but this crazy prosecutor went “too far”! She was unreasonable. It’s her fault! If only she had interpreted the evil copyright statute in a more reasonable way.

It’s almost like conspiracy theorizing: 9/11 was caused by some inner cabal of cigar-chompers; implying that if we could only identify these shadowy characters and expose their machinations, all would be well. Conspiratorialists cannot accept that the system itself is the problem. As Burke said, “The thing! the thing itself is the abuse!”

Likewise, people who support the state’s existence, its right to legislate, and, indeed, its legislated imposition of a copyright scheme, cannot blame copyright itself for tragedies like the Swartz case. Or Richard O’Dwyer, the British student facing extradition for having the wrong links on his site. Or the 37-year-old man imprisoned for 15 years for piracy. Or the Six Year Federal Prison Sentence for Copyright Infringement. Or the Man sentenced to federal prison for uploading “Wolverine” movie. Or the potentially millions of dollars of statutory copyright liability faced by Jammie Thomas for sharing 24 songs.  Or Kim dotcom’s arrest, in a raid by dozens of New Zealand police, orchestrated by the FBI. Or the criminalization of unlocking one’s own cell phone ($500,000 in fines and up to 5 years in prison … for the first offense). Or the threats posed to innovative new businesses, like Pinterest, by copyright. Or dozens of cases of outright censorship in the name of copyright. Or the possible banning of sales or library lending of used books published outside the US.  Not to mention the threat to Internet freedom posed by SOPA and ACTA.

No, the copyright reformers and moderates can’t strike at the root. Instead, they have to point to “abuse” of the system, and “unreasonable” or “overzealous” prosecutors. And, of course, they call for “reform” of the copyright system at the same time. But only reasonable reform, mind you. Nothing radical, like repealing the hideous, monstrous state-run apparatus of thought control that is copyright.

And so we have libertarians like Cathy Young opposing SOPA, but not opposing copyright, and various copyright reformers like Lee and Lessig who criticize the prosecution of Swartz, while admitting he deserved some punishment—copyright is the law, and he did break the law, and, well, we need some copyright. Don’t we?

I was reminded of all this by a The Nation article, Government Persecution, From Aaron Swartz to Bradley Manning. The left are no better on IP than the right are; they are all patent and copyright fascists, so they have no grounds to act superior here. You don’t hear the democrats and leftists, who pretend to be “liberals,” calling for abolition of patent or copyright. No; they are all for the censorship of government issued copyright, and the misery that it causes. The Nation piece says:

Dean Baker estimates that reforming the patent law regime for pharmaceuticals—currently a system that guarantees Big Pharma’s monopolies—would shrink annual spending on prescription drugs from $300 billion to $30 billion, a savings some five times the annual cost of Bush’s tax cut for the richest 2 percent. Meanwhile, grotesquely prolonged copyrights for literary and artistic properties are fencing off the cultural commons, a boot on the throat of a generation’s creative voice.

Yet Dean Baker is no opponent of copyright or patent or federal or state power. As I noted in The Economist: Copyright Is An Antiquated Relic That Has No Place In The Digital Ages, Baker is not opposed to state-granted intellectual property, though he does toy with the idea of using taxpayer funded multibillion-dollar “artistic freedom vouchers” to promote artistic creation as some kind of improvement on copyright, and $30 billion/year in taxpayer funded subsidies for medical innovation. He’s also bad on §230 reform.

And speaking of patents, we see the same pattern played out as with copyright. Patents impose hundreds of billions of dollars of cost on the economy and impede and distort innovation and competition; patent literally kill people (millions of people have died from AIDS in Africa because Big Pharma and the US have blocked generic drugs in the name of patents; by making cars less safe; by denying lifesaving drugs to people with Fabry disease); patents even impose censorship, and are threatening the entire industry of podcasting; patents give rise to free trade restrictions by blocking drug reimportation.

And yet many libertarians and free market proponents blame these things on abuse of the law by inept or corrupt government officials, or on distortion of the law by special interest groups; they cannot bring themselves to make the glaringly obvious and simple diagnosis that all these evils are a perfectly predictable outcome of patent and copyright per se. For then they might have to take a—heavens to Betsy!—radical (read: principled) position on IP.

It is truly mind boggling that supporters of free markets and libertarianism would ever support any degree of patent or copyright law, or, even if they mistakenly once thought such systems were compatible with free markets, that they would continue to support IP even now, when they cannot help but see the death and devastation wrought by IP.

The problem is not abuse of patent and copyright law; the problem is IP  itself. The solution is not to improve or reform copyright and patent. It is to abolish them. Every defender of liberty should see this.

1. See, e.g., Jeffrey A. Tucker, “Aaron Swartz, Hero and Martyr,” in Liberty.me: Freedom Is a Do-It-Yourself Project (Liberty.me, 2014); also here. [↩]

Jeff Tucker of Laissez Faire Books is giving a free Webinar this afternoon: “Commerce and the Commons: How Enterprise Will Survive and Thrive the Death of Intellectual Property“. This event is sponsored by European Students For Liberty, and appears to be open to anyone. Info below:

Tuesday, January 29, at 20:00-21:00 CET/2:00PM-3:00PM EDT

Where? On your Computer!

Speaker:  Jeffrey Tucker

Topic: Commerce and the Commons: How Enterprise Will Survive and Thrive the Death of Intellectual Property

Register here: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/882656282

Intellectual Property Rights have always been a hot topic among libertarians. One of the main arguments in favor is the belief that these rights are essential for entrepreneurship. Businesses wouldn’t be able to innovate without the financial fruits of their intellectual labor. But exactly how essential is intellectual property in this regard? Would an end of these rights mean an end of commerce? Or the reverse? Find out during this upcoming webinar!

Jeffrey Tucker is executive editor of the newly refurbished Laissez Faire Books, a leading publisher of libertarian books, and founder and head of the Laissez Faire Club. He also author of Bourbon for Breakfast (2010), It’s a Jetsons World (2011), and Beautiful Anarchy (2012).

 

[TLS]

Over at Decline to State (where I recently did a podcast on IP and other topics, which should be released presently), a recent blog post by one “Aneirin” criticizes my IP arguments. Unlike most arguments for IP (or against IP abolitionism), this guy seems sincere, civil, good-willed, and actually interested in truth. I don’t agree with his arguments, but the mistakes he makes (in my view) seem not to  be the result of dishonesty or malice or stubbornness, which cannot be said of most IP proponents. Not time to respond in detail to this right now, but those familiar with my Rothbardian-Hoppean-Misesian anarcho-capitalist view of rights will probably be able to guess what I think is wrong with Aneirin’s approach—

Update: see below for a few quick responses:

In opposition to the “natural rights” arguments against intellectual property

by Aneirin — last modified Jan 26, 2013 02:10 AM

A subjectivist critique of the deontological “natural rights” view of intellectual property (IP), and including some claims about the validity of ethics in general.

Within libertarian circles, opposition to intellectual property has become more popular in recent years, and among anarcho-capitalists is almost certainly the majority position. While some of the earlier anarcho-capitalist literature (e.g. Linda and Morris Tannehill’s The Market for Liberty) endorsed IP with the assumption that it was a necessary propertarian institution, the works of N. Stephan Kinsella and others have been instrumental in making the “natural rights”-based arguments which characterize IP as inconsistent with libertarian conceptions of property.

Here I will attempt to demonstrate that these arguments are plagued by inconsistency and beg the question with regard to the definition of property. My claims, while not novel in all respects, hopefully will present some important insights into the nature of property rights in libertarianism.

The Scarcity Theory of Property
To avoid the possibility of “strawmanning” these claims, I will produce the following quotation (from Kinsella’sAgainst Intellectual Property, pp. 28-9), which characterizes a common anti-IP argument regarding scarcity and the role of property: [continue reading…]

An Objectivist friend passed on to me the news that the pro-IP Objectivist law professor Adam Mossoff¹ is giving a speech called “Convincing the Intellectual Property Skeptic” at the 2013 Objectivist Summer Conference (“OCON”) event in Chicago this summer, as can be seen on p. 4 of the Jan. 2013 ARI newsletter Impact.

My guess is that as more and more young people, libertarians² and even Objectivists turn against IP [as mentioned in my posts Yet another Randian recants on IP and An Objectivist Recants on IP, the latter of is discussed in detail in an interesting podcast I just learned about, “Complete Liberty,” Episode 98 – Copyright versus property rights, anti-IP Objectivism, contradictory logorights], the few remaining free market proponents of IP are increasingly worried and mounting a rearguard defense of it. I am sure libertarians and Objectivists like Mossoff, Richard Epstein, etc., routinely hear younger libertarians very skeptical of IP, if not for outright abolition, and they know the case mounted for IP to date does not satisfy them. Rand’s defense of IP is a strange combination of property rhetoric mixed with utilitarian considerations, and ad hoc, arbitrary term limits; Epstein’s defense is outright utilitarian but bereft of any real empirical evidence to make the IP case. Mossoff probably sees that the existing Objectivist arguments for IP are wanting, and is trying to patch things up. This is how I became an IP skeptic/abolitionist: I attempted for years to find a way to justify IP that improved on Rand’s deeply flawed arguments, until I finally realized why I was unable to find such a defense: IP is unjustified and totally incompatible with free markets and property rights.

1. Objectivists: “All Property is Intellectual Property”; Classifying Patent and Copyright Law as “Property”: So What?; Mossoff: Patent Law Really Is as Straightforward as Real Estate Law. [↩]
2. The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism; There are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property; Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012). [↩]

From StephanKinsella.com:

KOL003 | Prometheus Unbound Interview (intellectual property; science fiction)

by STEPHAN KINSELLA on JANUARY 25, 2013

in CULTURE,INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 003.

I was interviewed recently by my friend and The Libertarian Standard co-blogger, libertarian philosopher Geoffrey Allan Plauché, and Matthew Alexander for the inaugural episode of their new Prometheus Unbound Podcast. I’m posting here as KOL episode 003. Since we discussed IP and Geoff and Matthew are both fellow anti-IP anarcho-libertarians, I’m sure they won’t mind!  Prometheus Unbound is an original, well-done, and excellent ”webzine featuring news, reviews, interviews, and commentary on speculative fiction and literature from a libertarian perspective.” Libertarians and others who enjoy sci-fi, fantasy, literature, etc. should subscribe to their podcast feed.

… “at about 23:15 in, we dove into the meat of the interview. Stephan explained the historical origin of copyright (censorship) and patents (government grants of monopoly privilege, which is what copyright is now too really), how intellectual property has shaped and distorted the film and publishing industries, including Hollywood’s move to California to avoid patent disputes, and why reform is not enough. We also discussed how the Digital Age — the age of the internet, smartphone, ereader, and globalization — is making the evils of copyright and patents more obvious and acute while at the same time undermining traditional business models built around intellectual property. And finally, we explore ways artistic creators might earn a living in a world without intellectual property laws.”

Read more>>

Nice overview of some recent appearances by Jeff Tucker, on the Peter Schiff show (guest host Tom Woods) and elsewhere–

Podcast: Jeffrey Tucker smashes intellectual property law

Posted by Albert Lu

Clip 1 – Jeffrey Tucker and Saroj Rout smash conventional wisdom on IP [ 20 min 15 s ] Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download

The Economy [40] [ 27 min 22 s ] Hide Player | Play in Popup | Download

Intellectual property debate – @JeffreyATucker smashes conventional wisdom@LaissezFaireBks @SchiffRadio #freeadvertising

 

As many of my readers know, I often lecture and speak and give podcast or radio interviews on various libertarian topics and issues, such as intellectual property (IP), anarcho-libertarians, Austrian law and economic, contract theory, rights and punishment theory, and so on. I also blog and comment regularly on such matters in various blogs (primarily The Libertarian Standard, on general libertarian matters, and C4SIF, on IP-related matters), Facebook, and so on—often posting my take on a given issue in response to a question emailed to me or posted online.

This month I am launching a new podcast, Kinsella on Liberty. I expect to post episodes once or twice a week. The podcast will include new episodes covering  answers to questions emailed to me (feel free to ask me to address any issue of libertarian theory or application) as well as interviews or discussions I conduct with other libertarians. I’ll also include in the feed any new speeches or interviews of mine that appear on other podcasts or fora, as well as older speeches, interviews, and audio versions  of my articles, which  are collected for now on my media page). Audio and slides for several of my Mises Academy courses may also be found on my media page, and will also be included in the podcast feed later this year.

Feel free to Subscribe in iTunes or Follow with RSS, and spread the word to your libertarian friends. I welcome questions for possible coverage in the podcast, as well as any criticism, suggestions for improvement, or other feedback.

My general approach to libertarian matters is Austrian, anarchist, and propertarian, influenced heavily by the thought of Ludwig von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. My writing can be found in articles here and blog posts at The Libertarian Standard and C4SIF, such as:

• How I Became A Libertarian, December 18, 2002, LewRockwell.com (published as “Being a Libertarian” in I Chose Liberty: Autobiographies of Contemporary Libertarians (compiled by Walter Block; Mises Institute 2010))
• “What Libertarianism Is,” Mises Daily (August 21, 2009)
• What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist, January 20, 2004, LewRockwell.com
• How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006)
• Causation and Aggression, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, vol. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004)
• A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003)
• Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith, Winter 1998-99, Journal of Libertarian Studies
• Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide, Mises Daily (May 27, 2011)
• New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory, 12:2 Journal of Libertarian Studies (Fall 1996)
• Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach, 12:1 Journal of Libertarian Studies (Spring 1996).
• Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan, Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002)
• Montessori, Peace, and Libertarianism, LewRockwell.com (April 28, 2011)

On IP in particular, which I’ll also cover from time to time in the podcast, see:

• C4SIF Resources page;
• The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide
• Against Intellectual Property
• Selected Supplementary Material for Against Intellectual Property

[SK; TLS; PFS]

Just trying out reddit: I created an AMA, Ask Me Anything entry. Will be interesting to see how it goes–

I am Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and Austrian economics and anarchist libertarian writer who thinks patent and copyright should be abolished. AMA (self.IAmA)

submitted 445 milliseconds ago by nskinsella

As noted in a recent Techdirt post, Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee, the Indie singer Jonathan Coulton produced his own version of a previous  Sir Mix-a-Lot’s “Baby Got Back”. As noted in this Slate piece, a very similar version was then scheduled to be used in an upcoming episode of the TV show Glee. The similarities were noticed when it was unofficially leaked before the airing of the show. Coulton then complained on Twitter that Fox “never even contacted me.” There seem to be a couple of assumptions being made by Coulton and others commenting on the case: one about copyright law; another about right and wrong.

The copyright issues are laid out in the Slate piece, but somewhat mangled:

An arrangement like Coulton’s is technically called a “derivative work,” because it is based on a pre-existing “original work” (Sir Mix-A-Lot’s original rap song). In order to create his arrangement and sell it, Coulton obtained a compulsory (or “statutory”) license from the copyright holder, the Harry Fox Agency. Coulton himself does not own the rights to Mix-A-Lot’s lyrics, of course, but, according to the U.S. Copyright Office, “the copyright of a derivative work covers … the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work.”

Even if Fox got permission for the Glee cover of “Baby Got Back” from Harry Fox (which they undoubtedly did), they are also required to seek permission from Coulton for use of his “additions”—chords, phrasings, rhythms, and so on—that make his arrangement unique (and choir-boy friendly). Of course, he’d have to prove in court that the two arrangements are, in fact identical, but, to our (admittedly non-expert) ears, there’s very little question. Fox owes Coulton at least an apology—and probably a check, as well.

This analysis is not quite right (I believe): Glee‘s cover of Coulton’s version need not be identical to infringe his copyright; after all,  Coulton’s own cover of the original version was not identical to it yet still required a license in order to avoid copyright infringement.

The assumption here is that Fox has infringed copyright and has done something wrong—though it’s not clear exactly what the wrong was: Coulton’s complaint implies that Fox’s mistake was not contacting him first; others imply that using it without giving him attribution was wrong (see, e.g., the comments by Andy Ihnatko in the most recent episode of This Week in Tech [TWiT]); Masnick implies Fox has been a “bad actor” here.

As for the copyright issue: as Slate notes, Glee very likely already got a license for use of the original, just as Coulton himself did. I am not clear on whether they might have also acquired a compulsory license for Coulton’s arrangement without Coulton himself being contacted, but even if they did not, as suggested on TWiT, their tactic might be to use the song and wait for people to ding them afterwards, at which time they would pay the requested royalty.

In any case, copyright is itself wrong, so even if there was copyright infringement here, that does not imply that anything “wrong” was done.

As for complaints that Coulton did not receive attribution: well as far as I know the Glee episode featuring the song has not even aired yet, so it’s not yet known whether there is attribution in the credits.

But in my view, even if there was no attribution credit given, there is still nothing wrong whatsoever here. It’s not as if the producers of Glee are being dishonest and claiming to have come up with the arrangement on their own; there is no “plagiarism” going on here.

In the TWiT discussion about this—which ironically follows a discussion of how a prosecutor’s use of copyright law threats against Aaron Swartz drove him to suicide—Andy Ihnatko bizarrely claims that this has somehow harmed Coulton, even though Glee is seen by millions and this is no doubt great PR for the marginally known Coulton. Why? Because if Coulton performs his own version of the song in a concert, people might think he copied it from Glee. Even … though … we all know that they copied it from him. I don’t get this reasoning. Does Ihnatko think only he knows about this? He is discussing a public story. That is, Coulton’s authorship of the version is already publicly known. Coulton had no trouble demonstrating this. (This is also one reason why copyright proponents’ worries about plagiarism are off-base; not only does plagiarism have nothing to do with copyright infringement, but plagiarism is not a major problem; anyone plagiarized will easily be able to prove they authored the work first.)

In a free society, with no copyright law, in my view there is no ethical or moral obligation whatsoever to ask permission of an artist to use or copy or reuse or remix their earlier work, nor even to provide attribution credit. The only obligation is to be honest: not to dishonestly claim original authorship. But merely singing or performing someone else’s song does not mean the singer is claiming to have originated it. As for attribution: sometimes it’s called for, according to context, just as footnotes are expected in a law review article, but not in an email to a friend, but this is more a matter of scholarly protocols than morality.

Copyright law is not only evil for the direct damage it does to individual lives, but because it has distorted our entire culture and makes people think of copying as wrong. It is not wrong at all. Copying is good. Learning is good. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with learning, emulating, remixing, competing. Copyright law has confused the whole world, deluded almost everyone into thinking something harmless and natural, is somehow icky and bad. How sad.

Update: A version of this was published at LFB

It’s Not Evil to Copy

Update: Turns out Coulton may be guilty of copyright infringement after whining about Fox copying him: From Techdirt:

My friend Brad Rodriguez has a very nice piece on copyright and Aaron Swartz up on WendyMcElroy.com today:

Writing about Aaron Swartz from her highly-privleged position, Macleans columnist Barbara Amielreveals that her knowledge of “intellectual property” is stunted:

Related:

• Cato, “Derby Pie” ®, the “Super Bowl” ® and Trademark Law
• Techdirt, Reminder: Don’t Believe The NFL’s Lies About Its Super Bowl Trademarks

As noted in my post The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files, the article NFL Pulls Plug On Big-Screen Church Parties For Super Bowl, Washington Post (Feb. 1, 2008) notes that the NFL, using copyright, has prohibited churches from having Super Bowl gatherings on TV sets or screens larger than 55 inches. (And trademark is used to bully people from using “Super Bowl” in publicizing Super Bowl parties.)

Well in a series of beautiful photos profiling President Obama’s first term, one of them (below) shows O’Bama and a variety of cronies watching the game in the “family theater” of the White House. Wanna guess the screen is larger than 55″? Wanna guess no copyright charges have been filed?  And people say we live under the “Rule of law”, where the law applies to everyone equally. Ha.

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama wear 3-D glasses while watching the NFL’s Super Bowl XLIII game at a Super Bowl Party with family, friends, staff members and bipartisan members of the U.S. Congress, in the family theater of the White House, on February 1, 2009. (Reuters/Pete Souza/The White House.)

From 365 Days of Liberty, a couple of entries on Benjamin Franklin’s views on IP. See also my post Benjamin Franklin, the first IP pirate?; and as I noted in The Economist on the American Patent System, “as the inventive Benjamin Franklin realised: ‘As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously.'”

Thursday, January 17th, 2013

From the Podcast Answer Man. Another example of how it is not only copyright (and trademark) that leads to censorship of speech. Patents do too. Here, they are threatening one of the most vibrant means of speech and expression: podcasting.

On This Week in Tech, Leo Laporte, who is understandably worried, suggests that podcasters get together and fight this patent, instead of being picked off one by one. This may be a good strategy, but another thing podcasters should do is reevaluate their (typical) support for IP—for patent and copyright. Unfortunately, most people, including most tech pundits and other podcasters, have a utilitarian approach to legal olicy, and accept the basic premises of patent and copyright (that some amount is “needed” to foster innovation); so they are always seeking for a “balance” and a way to “reform,” but almost never adopt the radical approach that patent and copyright cannot be fixed and are inherently bad ideas, and so should totally be abolished. Given this existential  posed to podcasting  by a ridiculous patent, perhaps some podcasters might sit up and reevaluate their stand on IP. They should join together not only to fight this patent, but the idea of patents as well.

292 The Podcast Patent Lawsuit Against Content Creators And More Thoughts On My Trip To Las Vegas

by CLIFF RAVENSCRAFT on JANUARY 17, 2013

The Podcast Patent Lawsuit Against Content Creators 
I recently received an email from a very concerned podcaster, Jason Pyles, who notified me that one of the podcast networks that he was a part of was going to end all functions related to podcasts, effective January 31, 2013, as a result of hearing that podcasters are being sued by a company that claims to have a patent for podcasting.

There are many rumors flying around related to this story and Jason’s email includes two of the most prevalent rumors. It is true that there is a company, Personal Audio, LLC, that has sued three podcast networks for patentent infringement related to podcasting. It is true that Personal Audio, LLC has sued Apple, Inc over a DIFFERENT patent related to “playlists” and won an $8 Million judgement with an additional $4 Million in interest. However, Apple HAS NOT been sued over this podcasting patent. In this episode, I clearly explain that we are dealing with two different patent issues here.

Another rumor that has been going around is that the podcast networks in question have settled out of court for these charges. While I do not have any definitive proof that this is factually incorrect, I am very familiar with many people who are directly involved with this matter and I have heard nothing about any sort of settlement. And one thing is for certain, there is no documentation, anywhere, that provides evidence for such a settlement.

If you go to the Personal Audio, LLC website and click through to their patent on podcasting, it says, [continue reading…]