From a reader who is a Library and Information Science graduate student, currently working at several libraries:

I did not see any mention of Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) and would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on it..

I think we are all very supportive of the Creative Commons movement. It is unfortunate in a sense that it has to exist. The fact that the default is for works to be under copyright is one of the worst changes to the law in recent memory. It would be far better if copyright existed only for those that actually wished to claim it. Creative commons does an enormous service by at least providing a simple and clear way of renouncing parts of copyrights. I use it extensively for my own work. Far better of course just to get rid of copyright.

I think Open Access Journals, Institutional Repositories and Creative Commons Licensing are as innovative as the Open Source movement for software, challenging the current system and opening doors for creation and competition.. Again these topics were not covered in the book and I would be really interested in learning about your opinions on these movements. (Any chance for a second edition?)

Don't know about a second edition...the first hasn't been out that long. Professional journals are a scandal that we've discussed occasionally on this blog. The issue has somewhat limited connection to copyright - more to do with the fact that commercial publishers own the reputations of scientific journals. I'll be posting more on open source publishing shortly.

Also I'd be interested in your take on the somewhat recent events of - the HR-801 Fair Copyright Act and the AM/FM Radio Royalty Bill.

HR-801 Fair Copyright Act is a bill pushed by commercial publishers to undo NIH policy that forces scientific work paid for by government grants to be open access after a period of time. The idea that the government pays for research that is then put under lock and key is both offensive and from a policy point of view stupid.

The AM/FM Radio Royalty Bill seeks to force radio stations to pay royalties to copyright owners. Was there something here broken that needed to be fixed? This is the central reason that I oppose intellectual monopoly in all of its forms. Once you have it, there is constant lobbying to grab more and more, regardless of whether it fulfils the purpose of promoting science and the useful arts.

(via Slashdot) Fed up with the new German censorship law a member of the German Parliament resigned from the Social Democratic Party and joined the pirate party.

Those dedicated to the destruction of file sharing networks often fail to recognize (or at least admit to) the side benefits that such networks can bring towards overcoming efforts by autocratic regimes in stifling free speech.

Many free market activists often cite the nexus between free economies and free speech, yet some fail to exhibit even a glimmer of cognitive dissonance when it comes to the free flow of IP. The trouble for their position is that the current world of IP has so thoroughly fused the concepts of speech and commerce that one side of the other will now have to bend to keep the other side flowing.

I suppose it would be a bit much to try and portray the RIAA as de facto supporters of fascist Islamic regimes in their efforts to try and shut down networks such as Pirate Bay, but I'm still getting a kick out of Pirate Bay's efforts to help facilitate freedoms in Iran. ;-)

Details here.

The 'Anonymous Iran' site can be found here.

Two recent studies about copyright, differing wildly in their conclusions and in the quality of their analysis. On the high quality side (via Slashdot) an article by Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf analyzing the impact of file sharing on the music industry. While this confirms what we thought informally, it is the first study I've seen with hard numbers: musicians income up due to increased demand for their live performances; the total production of songs way up, even as the recorded sales have dropped. Basically - the internet balancing distribution cost and business model against the reduction in demand for recordings has helped musicians and increased the output of music. A really careful detailed analysis.

On the negative side - I'm really sorry to see my former employer the RAND corporation sink to this - a study entitled "Film Piracy, Organized Crime, and Terrorism". As it turns out the authors are highly confused between film piracy and counterfeiting...well perhaps just highly confused. Maybe we should send the authors out to see Be Kind Rewind - that I suppose would qualify as movie counterfeiting.

Is anybody here aware of the website, HarmfulPatents.org link here? It is a new ally in the fight against patent-based monopoly. Mike Masnick gets a hat tip for this one, in his site, link here. HarmfulPatents is run by a doctor-professor at Stanford, Dr. Robert Shafer. He had developed a database on HIV that is used to identify possible treatments. Then he and his university got sued by Advanced Biological Laboratories, a French firm which claims that its patents cover the use of computers to make diagnostic decisions. Stanford settled, but the doctor hasn't, starting the website and asking the patent office to re-examine and invalidate the patents. ABL's settlement with Stanford ends the suit against Dr Shafer and allows not-for-profit use of his database. Final irony in this outrage: the European Patent Office rejected the patents on the grounds they were obvious.

Following the opening remarks by the Right Honourable Gordon Brown, MP Prime Minister, the report declares its ambition, "To secure the UK's position as one of the world's leading digital knowledge economies (p.7)."

The scale of the report is vast; it is about much more than intellectual property rights. That said, on the subject of IP, there is one sentence which is quaintly insightful. "A recent study in Scandinavia has shown that the biggest users of unlawful peer-to-peer material are also the biggest paid-for consumers of music (p.110)."

But, the correlation is unexplored. The next sentence is, "Where there are easy, affordable and lawful routes consumers will take them."

Alistair Kelman is the man who can't exist: he's a forensic computing expert witness and barrister. I guess he and Stephan prove lawyers aren't all bad. Of course the reason for posting is that he has a review of Against Monopoly. But aside from the fact he seems to like the book, like all well done reviews, it doesn't just rehash what we did, but contains value added.

As we know... politicians don't use computers. (via Robert Levine)

At a recent Foundation for Economic Education seminar, a debate over intellectual "property" broke out spontaneously among Ivan Pongracic (second from right), Paul Cwik (second from left), and me (left).