≡ Menu

Amazon.com’s One-Click Patent Application Allowed in Canada

Amazon’s notorious 1999 patent on clicking once to purchase something instead of twice caused caused quite a storm of outrage a decade ago, after Amazon used it to sue Barnes & Noble at the dawn of e-commerce, right at the beginning of the 1999 Christmas shopping season, for daring to let its customers complete a purchase with a single mouse click. As Gene Callahan noted in a 2000 article critical of patent law:

Several stories recently in the news call for a fresh look at patent law. For the last few months there has, quite rightly, been great consternation throughout the software world over Amazon.com’s “one-click” patent, whereby the company has patented the idea of purchasing items with a single mouse click. James Gleick, writing in the NY Times Sunday Magazine of March 12, said: “When 21st-century historians look back at the breakdown of the United States patent system, they will see a turning point in the case of Jeff Bezos and Amazon.com and their special invention: ‘The patented One Clickr feature,’ Bezos calls it.”

In the aftermath of the backlash against this obvious “invention” that should never have received a patent,  Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos seemed to recognize such software patents are problematic, going so far as to propose a 3–5 year term for business method and software patents, instead of the current 17 years. (An Open Letter From Jeff Bezos On The Subject Of Patents, March 2000.)

In the meantime foreign versions of the original US patent application have apparently been percolating, and the Canadian version was just allowed, meaning it will issue pretty soon as an enforceable patent in Canada. As reported by the Canadian firm Blakes:

Amazon.com’s One-Click Patent Application Allowed in Canada
KENT DANIELS, BRETT SLANEY AND ANIL BHOLE

Following the Federal Court of Appeal decision reported in our November 2011 Blakes Bulletin, in which the Amazon.com application was remanded to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) for further consideration, we have now heard that the application has been allowed and a patent will issue with method and apparatus claims.

It would seem that the CIPO will follow the guidance given in the decision and presumably not reject business method applications on the basis that they are per se not patentable. The CIPO may also need to rescind examination guidelines recently imposed.

Share
{ 1 comment }

Set Culture Free

Good Mises Daily article by Joel Poindexter:

Set Culture Free

Mises Daily: Monday, January 02, 2012 by

Copy Cats Ahead

Recently Salon featured an interview with author Robert Levine, entitled “Does culture really want to be free?” Levine has written a new book, Free Ride, on the subject of intellectual property (IP). His subtitle is How Digital Parasites Are Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back, the thesis of which is predicated on a misunderstanding of property rights and a poor grasp of economics.

In this essay I’ll begin with a brief outline of property rights, explain how IP fails to meet the requirements of tangible property, and refute some of Levine’s other fallacies.

Over time, property rights emerged as a way of mitigating conflict over scarce goods. If there is a finite amount of something, say hammers, it’s possible that at some point conflict over the use of a tool may arise. Establishing property rights, and institutions to enforce those rights and arbitrate disputes, tends to reduce this conflict.

Economics and Ethics of Private Property - Digital BookHans Hermann-Hoppe explains this concept by using the Garden of Eden as an example, where everything is in abundance. However,

outside the Garden of Eden, in the realm of scarcity, there must be rules that regulate not only the use of [property] but also of everything scarce so that all possible conflicts can be ruled out (emphasis in original). [continue reading…]

Share
{ 3 comments }

The Legal Arbitrariness of Copyright

So much discussion of copyright in libertarian circles proceeds on pure abstractions such what can and cannot be property, can a market-based form of copyright exist within contract, what is and isn’t stealing, and so on. In reality, these discussions don’t really touch copyright as it really exists in the world. Once you look at the legal issues, you realize that what is and isn’t declared to be intellectual property is completely arbitrary and based entirely on political contingency. In a true market, this nonsense wouldn’t exist at all.

As an example, consider the retroactive copyright law that came into effect in 1978, one that wiped out accessibility to a vast range of music, literature, and film. For more this great post on the Center for the Study of the Public Domain.

Current US law extends copyright protection for 70 years after the date of the author’s death. (Corporate “works-for-hire” are copyrighted for 95 years after publication.) But prior to the 1976 Copyright Act (which became effective in 1978), the maximum copyright term was 56 years (an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years). Under those laws, works published in 1955 would be passing into the public domain on January 1, 2012.

What might you be able to read or print online, quote as much as you want, or translate, republish or make a play or a movie from? In this centennial year of the sinking of R.M.S. Titanic (April 15, 1912), how about Walter Lord’s A Night to Remember? Lord first published A Night to Remember in 1955. If we were still under the copyright laws that were in effect until 1978, A Night to Remember would be entering the public domain on January 1, 2012 (even assuming that Lord or his publisher had renewed the copyright). Under current copyright law, we’ll have to wait until 2051. This is because the copyright term for works published between 1950 and 1963 was extended to 95 years from the date of publication, so long as the works were published with a copyright notice and the term renewed (which is generally the case with famous works such as this). All of these works from 1955 won’t enter the public domain until 2051.

There’s much more at the site.

Share
{ 0 comments }

Nice resource:

pdsherpa logo

Public domain or copyrighted? Here’s how to tell.

Google

 

This site provides information on finding and using public domain material in the United States.

The US public domain is filled with creative works you can use any way you want to. No need to ask anyone’s permission. No fees necessary.

You can find photos, books, music, software — and more — that you’re free to recast, remix, and build upon. But how do you find these works? And how can you be sure they really are copyright-free?

Copyright law is complex (as complex as the tax code, some say) and there’s a lot of misinformation and hype out there about what is and what isn’t “public domain.” It can get confusing.

Share
{ 0 comments }

The Center for the Study of the Public Domain

The Center for the Study of the Public Domain:

About Us

The public domain is the realm of material—ideas, images, sounds, discoveries, facts, texts—that is unprotected by intellectual property rights and free for all to use or build upon. Our economy, culture and technology depend on a delicate balance between that which is, and is not, protected by exclusive intellectual property rights. Both the incentives provided by intellectual property and the freedom provided by the public domain are crucial to the balance. But most contemporary attention has gone to the realm of the protected.

The Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School is the first university center in the world devoted to the other side of the picture.  Founded in September of 2002, as part of the school’s wider intellectual property program, its mission is to promote research and scholarship on the contributions of the public domain to speech, culture, science and innovation, to promote debate about the balance needed in our intellectual property system and to translate academic research into public policy solutions. The Center’s Faculty Co-Directors are James Boyle, David Lange, Arti Rai and Jerome Reichman. Its Director is Jennifer Jenkins. The Center is supported in its operation by a generous founding gift and by grants from foundations.

Share
{ 0 comments }

What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2012?

From the Center for the Study of the Public Domain:

What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2012?

Under the law that existed until 1978 . . . Works from 1955

Works that could have entered the public domain on January 1, 2012
The End of Eternity, The Body Snatchers, Why Johnny Can’t Read: And What You Can Do About It, Rebel Without a Cause, Lady and the Tramp, To Catch A Thief, Picasso’s Don Quixote, Tutti Frutti, and more . . . 1

Current US law extends copyright protection for 70 years after the date of the author’s death. (Corporate “works-for-hire” are copyrighted for 95 years after publication.) But prior to the 1976 Copyright Act (which became effective in 1978), the maximum copyright term was 56 years (an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years). Under those laws, works published in 1955 would be passing into the public domain on January 1, 2012.

What might you be able to read or print online, quote as much as you want, or translate, republish or make a play or a movie from? In this centennial year of the sinking of R.M.S. Titanic (April 15, 1912), how about Walter Lord’s A Night to Remember? Lord first published A Night to Remember in 1955. If we were still under the copyright laws that were in effect until 1978, A Night to Remember would be entering the public domain on January 1, 2012 (even assuming that Lord or his publisher had renewed the copyright). Under current copyright law, we’ll have to wait until 2051. This is because the copyright term for works published between 1950 and 1963 was extended to 95 years from the date of publication, so long as the works were published with a copyright notice and the term renewed (which is generally the case with famous works such as this). All of these works from 1955 won’t enter the public domain until 2051.

Why Johnny Can’t Read New Public Domain Books . . . .

What other works would be entering the public domain if we had the pre-1978 copyright laws? You might recognize some of the titles below.

Till the End of Eternity?

1955 was also a great year for science fiction fans — it marked the publication of classics such as Isaac Asimov’s The End of Eternity, Jack Finney’s The Body Snatchers (the basis of two classic Hollywood movies), and Arthur C. Clarke’s Earthlight. Instead of seeing these enter the public domain in 2012, when you would be free to create and share your new reimaginings of or homages to these works, we will have to wait until 2051—a date that itself may seem like science fiction.

The same is true for historical resources. It has been 150 years since the beginning of the United States Civil War (1861–65); under the pre-1978 copyright law, you could edit and distribute a wealth of materials from 1955 to teach and learn about the war, including Bruce Catton’s Banners at Shenandoah: A Story of Sheridan’s Fighting Calvary, Earl Schenck Miers’ The Web of Victory: Grant at Vicksburg, Fletcher Pratt’s The Civil War and Civil War in Pictures, and Katherine M. Jones’ collection Heroines of Dixie – Confederate Women Tell Their Story of War. But these remain copyrighted until 2051.

Other pieces of history may remain off limits as well. These range from the first issue of Sports Cars Illustrated (renamed Car and Driver) and the first issue of William F. Buckley’s National Review, to the May 9, 1955, episode of I Love Lucy featuring Harpo Marx and Lucille Ball and Elvis Presley’s first television appearance (on Louisiana Hayride, March 5, 1955), to artworks such as Pablo Picasso’s Don Quixote, Rene Magritte’s Masked Apples, and Ansel Adams’ Half Dome Blowing Snow, 1955.

The (Life Plus) 70 Year Itch . . .

Think of the movies from 1955 that would have become available this year. You could have shared clips online with your friends. You could have shown the full films in your local theater. You could have spliced and remixed and made documentaries about them. Instead, here are a few of the movies that we won’t see in the public domain for another 39 years:

  • The Seven Year Itch, directed by Billy Wilder; starring Marilyn Monroe and Tom Ewell
  • Lady and the Tramp, Walt Disney Productions’ classic animation
  • Mister Roberts, directed by John Ford; starring Henry Fonda, James Cagney, and Jack Lemmon
  • Alfred Hitchcock’s To Catch a Thief, starring Cary Grant and Grace Kelly
  • The thriller The Night of the Hunter, directed by Charles Laughton; starring Robert Mitchum and Shelley Winters
  • Two of James Dean’s three major motion pictures: East of Eden, directed by Elia Kazan and co-starring Raymond Massey and Julie Harris; and Rebel Without a Cause, directed by Nicholas Ray and co-starring Natlie Woods, Sal Mineo, and Jim Backus
  • Hollywood versions of major Broadway musicals such as Oklahoma! and Guys and Dolls
  • Richard III, Laurence Olivier’s film version of the Shakespeare play, co-starring Claire Bloom, Cedric Hardwicke, Nicholas Hannen, Ralph Richardson, and John Gielgud

Chained Melodies, and Molecules . . .

If you wanted to find guitar tabs or sheet music or record your own version of some of the great music of the 1950s, January 1, 2012, could have been a productive day for you under the old copyright laws — Unchained Melody (Hy Zaret & Alex North), Ain’t That a Shame (Antoine “Fats” Domino and Dave Bartholomew), Blue Suede Shoes (Carl Perkins), Folsom Prison Blues (Johnny Cash), The Great Pretender (Buck Ram), Maybellene (Chuck Berry, Russ Fratto, & Alan Freed), and Tutti Frutti (Richard Penniman (aka Little Richard), Dorothy LaBostrie, & Joe Lubin), would have all become available.

What if you were interested in scientific developments in 1955 (the year that Tim Berners-Lee, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates were born)? Many copyrighted scientific journal articles about, for example, the synthesis of DNA- and RNA-like molecules, the effect of placebos, the experimental confirmation of the existence of the antiproton, fibre optics, or the synthesis of mendelevium remain behind paywalls (see here, here, here, here, and here.) (Not all scientific publishers work under this kind of copyright scheme. “Open Access” scientific publications, like those of the Public Library of Science, are under Creative Commons attribution licenses, meaning that they can be copied freely from the day they are published.)

The Public Domain Snatchers . . .

Most of the works highlighted here are famous — that is why we included them. And if that fame meant that the work was still being exploited commercially 28 years after its publication, the authors would probably renew the copyright. (This is true for many of the works featured on this page, though even a surprising percentage of successful works exhaust their commercial potential very quickly.) But we know from the Copyright Office that 85% of authors did not renew their copyrights (for books, the number is even higher — 93% did not renew), since most works exhaust their commercial value very quickly.

Under the law that existed until 1978 . . . Up to 85% of all copyrighted works from 1983 might have been entering the public domain on January 1, 2012.

That means that all these examples from 1955 are only the tip of the iceberg. If the pre-1978 law were still in effect, we could have seen 85% of the works created in 1983 enter the public domain on January 1, 2012. Imagine what that would mean to our archives, our libraries, our schools and our culture. Such works could be digitized, preserved, and made available for education, for research, for future creators. Instead, they will remain under copyright for decades to come, perhaps even into the next century. Think of the cultural harm that does. In addition, because most of these works are orphan works — works that are still presumably under copyright, but commercially unavailable and with no identifiable copyright holder — no one is benefiting from continued protection, while the works remain both commercially unavailable and culturally off limits. (You can read more about the current costs associated with orphan works here and here.) It seems that The Public Domain Snatchers is not the stuff of fiction.


1 Many works published in 1955 are already in the public domain because the copyright holder did not comply with notice, renewal, or other copyright formalities. However, tracking down this information can be difficult (you can read just one of many illustrative examples collected by the Copyright Office here). Therefore, users often have to presume these works are copyrighted or risk a lawsuit (only works published before 1923 are conclusively in the public domain). You can read more about copyright terms from this excellent chart and from the US Copyright Office’s guide.
It is also difficult to determine whether foreign works are in the public domain. Generally speaking, as a result of international agreements, foreign works published after 1923 are still under copyright in the US as long as one of the following is true: they were published in compliance with US formalities, they were still copyrighted in their home countries as of 1996, or they were then published in the US within 30 days of publication abroad. You can learn more about copyright terms for foreign works from the Copyright Office guide here.

 

 

Creative Commons LicenseThe Public Domain Day 2012 web pages by Duke University’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Share
{ 0 comments }

TorrentFreak: 2011: Piracy Wars and Internet Censorship

Nice post from TorrentFreak detailing the ratcheting up of censorship in 2011 in the name of copyright:

2011: Piracy Wars and Internet Censorship

Looking back at the past 12 months it’s fair to conclude that 2011 was the year that the entertainment industries focused on piracy-fueled Internet censorship. Domain seizures, DNS blockades, raids and arrests dominated the news, and the threat of the SOPA and PIPA bills in the US left millions of Internet users worried. Let’s see how events unfolded.

At the end of the year when new developments draw to a close, it’s time to take a look back and take stock. Below is our overview of some of the most interesting events we reported during the first half of 2011.

Take a deep breath…

January

After pressure from the entertainment industries, Google started to censor piracy-related keywords from its instant and autocomplete services. Keywords such as ‘torrent,’ ‘BitTorrent’ and ‘RapidShare’ were excluded from the start, and later in the year Google added a wide range of new terms including ‘The Pirate Bay.’

Google pirate bayDespite these efforts the RIAA remained dissatisfied, patronizing the search engine with a could-do-much-better “Report Card” in December.

The mass-BitTorrent lawsuits that entered the US during 2010 reached a new milestone in 2011 with the 100,000th person being sued for alleged copyright infringement. In January alone several prominent lawsuits were added. Anime distributor Funimation announced a lawsuit against 1337 alleged BitTorrent downloaders, and the rights holders of “The Expendables” and Paris Hilton sex tape did the same.

One alleged BitTorrent user paid a mysterious settlement of $250,000.

There was also positive news from the UK, when so-called Speculative Invoicing schemes there came to an end, at least for a few months. ACS:Law, the law firm that had terrorized untold thousands of alleged file-sharers in the UK, quit the anti-piracy business and went into bankruptcy a while later. ACS:Law’s Andrew Crossley was honored with the title of “Internet Villain” of the year and will now face the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in early 2012.

Two lawyers who were responsible for introducing Speculative Invoicing to the UK were fined and banned from practicing for 3 months. David Gore and former partner Brian Miller of the law firm Davenport Lyons were each told to pay a £20,000 fine and interim costs of £150,000 for their professional misconduct.

Meanwhile, RapidShare and Megaupload fought back against entertainment industry propaganda.

Read more>>

Share
{ 0 comments }

Why We Must Stop SOPA

From LewRockwell.com, regarding the hideous, evil Stop Online Piracy Act, aka SOPA. The article’s only shortcoming is its failure to identify and condemn the root cause of the steam behind SOPA: the idea of copyright, that copyright is legitimate. Once the idea of copyright is accepted as legitimate, then copying, using information–learning, emulating, remixing, competing–becomes thought of as a tort or crime. The word “piracy” is used to condemn what is a peaceful activity. This gives the state the excuse to increase the surveillance state in order to stop “crime.” The problem is not SOPA. The problem is copyright. If you accept the logic behind copyright, your only opposition to measures like SOPA is the tepid complaint that the anti-piracy measures go “too far.” You end up buying into the unprincipled, utilitarian logic of the state, where freedom of communication has to be balanced against–and sacrificed for–“security” of private property rights (copyright). The only meaningful way to oppose police state-supporting measures like SOPA is to oppose copyright, loudly and clearly.

Here’s the LRC blurbl and post:

Stop SOPA Now
The end of free speech on the internet is the dream of every tyrannical government on earth, including ours.

Why We Must Stop SOPA

End of the American Dream

Right now, there are two pieces of legislation in Congress that would change the Internet forever if they are enacted. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) would give the federal government the ability to potentially shut down millions of websites. SOPA (the version being considered in the U.S. House of Representatives) is the more dangerous of the two. It would essentially be the equivalent of a nuclear bomb being dropped on the Internet. It would give government officials unlimited power to very rapidly shut down any website that is found to “engage in, enable or facilitate” copyright infringement. That language is very broad and very vague. Many fear that it will be used to shut down any websites that even inadvertently link to “infringing material”. Can you imagine a world where there is no more Facebook, Twitter or YouTube? Sites like those would be forced to hire thousands of Internet censors to make sure that no “infringing material” is posted, and many prominent websites may simply decide that allowing users to post content is no longer profitable and is just not worth the hassle. Are you starting to get the picture? That is why we must stop SOPA. If SOPA is enacted, it could be the death of the free Internet.

But this is exactly the kind of bill that the establishment media has been waiting for. It would give them back control. SOPA is being heavily promoted by big media corporations. If they are able to shut down free speech on the Internet, then suddenly everyone would be forced to rely on them for news and entertainment once again.

That is why SOPA and PIPA must be stopped. A recent editorial in the New York Times described how these new laws would work….

The bills would empower the attorney general to create a blacklist of sites to be blocked by Internet service providers, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks, all without a court hearing or a trial. The House version goes further, allowing private companies to sue service providers for even briefly and unknowingly hosting content that infringes on copyright – a sharp change from current law, which protects the service providers from civil liability if they remove the problematic content immediately upon notification. The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar.

Everyone would be deathly scared of allowing anything to be posted on their websites in such an environment. Free speech on the Internet would be a thing of the past. 

Read more>>

 

Share
{ 2 comments }

From NewScientist: Dot-dash-diss: The gentleman hacker’s 1903 lulz. Explains how, “A century ago, one of the world’s first hackers used Morse code insults to disrupt a public demo of Marconi’s wireless telegraph”. This was “Nevil Maskelyne, a mustachioed 39-year-old British music hall magician,” whose “ambitions were frustrated by Marconi’s broad patents, leaving him embittered towards the Italian” Marconi.

[h/t Brian Martinez]

Share
{ 0 comments }

Great Overview of the Problems with SOPA by Cory Doctorow

Sci-fi author Cory Doctorow has a great summary of the problems with the hideous, evil Stop Online Piracy Act, aka SOPA, in a column on Publisher’s Weekly:

Copyrights vs. Human Rights
By Cory Doctorow
Dec 02, 2011

December 10 is Human Rights Day, as designated by the U.N. General Assembly and observed all over the world. In honor of the occasion, I want to address the human rights implications associated with something central to all of us in the publishing industry: copyright policy.

For human rights, 2011 has been a tumultuous year. It is the year of the Arab Spring and the “Occupy” movements. It’s also been a year of atrocities

and shameful exercices of power, from Tahrir Square, Syria, and Libya to UC Davis, Berkeley, and the Brooklyn Bridge. It is also the year that saw the introduction of SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act), a bill recently introduced by representatives Lamar Smith (R-Tex.); John Conyers (D-Mich.); Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.); and Howard Berman (D-Calif.).

SOPA has the support of the American Association of Publishers, along with many of its member companies, including my own publishers. And despite an outpouring of public opposition, the bill is being fast-tracked to pass before Christmas. For a Congress that can’t seem to come together to pass anything, passage of SOPA seems entirely possible. The list of those invited to testify at the bill’s recent hearing comprised, almost entirely, supporters, mostly representatives from the so-called “creative industries,” like the Motion Picture Association of America.

SOPA’s opponents, however, call the bill “the worst Internet law in American legislative history,” and it has drawn condemnation from human rights organizations across the U.S. and around the world.

If the fights of 2011 have shown us anything, it’s that the Internet and the quest for human rights are inextricably linked. The Internet is where human rights fights are rescued from obscurity and brought to the world’s attention—whether Ustreams of Occupy protestors being forcibly evicted, Lt. John Pike’s pepper-spraying of students at UC Davis, or YouTube footage of Tahrir Square or the Syrian protests. Yet even as America’s leaders chastise their foreign counterparts for censoring the Internet, with SOPA they are laying the groundwork for an expansive, copyright-based regime of domestic censorship.

Censorship

What’s wrong with SOPA? For starters, SOPA would create a new standard for “intermediary liability,” in other words, liability borne by companies and entities that are in the chain between someone accused of violating copyright and the audiences, such as Web hosts, payment processors, and operators of technical infrastructure, like the Domain Name System. Under SOPA, these intermediaries could be ordered to censor or block access to, and funding for, any site accused of copyright infringement, without due process, without a jury or the right to rebut accusations.

Such orders would emanate from the State Department, which would be vested with new power to demand Web sites be delisted from domain name servers, the millions of servers that translate human readable addresses (like www.thepiratebay.org) into machine-readable numerical ones like 194.71.107.15). It could also demand that payment processors cut off access to funds for these sites and demand that advertisers and ad brokers sever ties with the accused. And finally, these addresses would be added to a new national “firewall”—similar to the ones used in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China—a filter that would censor the Internet and prevent American citizens from accessing files that no court has found to be unlawful.

But SOPA doesn’t just arrogate these unconstitutional powers for government—it hands them over to entertainment giants. Through a misleadingly named “market-based” system, SOPA would allow private entities to produce enemies lists of sites that offend them, and to give these lists to DNS providers, ISPs, payment processors, and ad brokers, who would then be required to remove the accused sites within five days. It also encourages payment processors to engage in self-censorship, by pre-emptively severing ties with firms they believe are likely to cause a complaint, before any such complaint is received.

As bad as this is, it gets worse: SOPA would also expand the definition of copyright infringement to include hosting a single link to a site that is alleged to contain infringing material. Thus, if an author’s blog, or a book discussion group, attracts a single post that contains a single link that goes to a site that someone accuses of copyright infringement, that site becomes one with the alleged infringer, and faces all the same sanctions—without any proof required, or due process.

Read more>>

Related: my post Internet Access as a Human Right.

Share
{ 0 comments }

Great infographic explaining the hideous, evil Stop Online Piracy Act, aka SOPA, linked in a post at The Sociable.

h/t Denise Howell @ TWiL 146.

Other charts and graphics at Intellectual Property Charts, Graphs, Graphics, Diagrams.

Behind SOPA: What It Means for Business and Innovation
Share
{ 1 comment }

Updated: KOL172 | “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics: Lecture 1: History and Law” (Mises Academy, 2011)

From my Libertarian Standard post:

In late 2010 I taught my first Mises Academy course, “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics.” (Discussed on the Mises Blog in Study with Kinsella Online; Lecture 1.) I reprised the course in Spring 2011: “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics.” (Discussed in Rethinking IP; and on the Mises Blog in Study with Kinsella Online and in Rethinking Intellectual Property: Kinsella’s Mises Academy Online Course. See also “Rethinking IP,” Mises Daily (Feb. 10, 2011).)

This was a 6-week course, which provided an overview of current intellectual property law and the history and origins of IP. (In Teaching an Online Mises Academy Course, I offer my reflections on teaching the Rethinking IP class the first time.) Here is some feedback provided by past students of this course:

Read More>>

Share
{ 2 comments }

Jeff Tucker talks about SOPA on Russia Today’s Capital Account. Around 21:45 he is asked about whether there should be at least a modicum of intellectual property. “No,” is his crystal clear answer. Great interview.

Share
{ 0 comments }

Daft Idea Of The Week: Giving People Copyright In Their Faces

from Glyn Moody at Techdirt: Daft Idea Of The Week: Giving People Copyright In Their Faces. Yet another in a long line in the attempt to expand IP to new areas. Others, as I note in Types of Intellectual Property, include:

Share
{ 2 comments }