What I see in different shades of gray, from behind my reading glasses
A reminder to be thankful that you can view this link, because in Spain, website owners can now get six years in prison for linking to copyrighted material.
The country enacted the law as a response to pressure from the US, where ironically the law is not as strict. Spain is in danger of being added to a list of countries that Washington considers to be the most egregious violators of copyright law, meaning it could be subject to trade sanctions from the US.
Warner/Chappell Music apparently owns the copyright to the popular tune, & earns millions from licensing the song. A lawsuit has been filed to prove that the tune is in the public domain. An interesting case!
The Electronic Frontier Foundation makes a case about why a “Hollywood Ambassador” is a bad idea.
An US Senator has introduced a bill in the US Senate to create a new position “Chief Innovation & Intellectual Property Negotiator”.
The USTR has negotiated dozens of agreements and official publications with no true public consultation, upholding the one-sided concerns of Big Media and its allies. The U.S. copyright system is broken, yet we are exporting and reinforcing this broken system through these misguided treaties.
In other words, an Ambassador from Hollywood, paid for by the general public.
Richard Stallman strongly advocates against lumping the three terms to mean “intellectual property”.
Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of expression of a work. Patent law was intended to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.
Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying. Legislators under the influence of the term “intellectual property”, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising.
If you post a video of your child (or grandchild) dancing to a famous song, should you be sued for copyright, because you have included the music without authorization from its creators? Apparently, Universal Music thinks so, in this case that started in 2007, & is being fought tooth & nail by the lady who was sued.
They used to be pedantic about definitions in law.
Now they just don’t bother.
& most people just won’t care either.