Our View: Copyright absurdity must come to an end; Leader-Telegram, January 4, 2022

Leader-Telegram; Our View: Copyright absurdity must come to an end

"It’s far easier to argue that today’s copyright laws are largely beneficial to corporations who don’t want the money from the merchandising spigot turned off. Those companies are the true beneficiaries of 95-year coverage.

Protecting authors and creators is one thing. Ad infinitum extensions for wealthy corporate interests are quite another. It’s time to end this nonsense. We’re not advocating a rollback of the current terms, but we do oppose further extensions.

Absurd laws create contempt for all laws, and the absurdity of the current copyright approach is clear. It should not be compounded."

How to protect algorithms as intellectual property; CSO, July 13, 2020

Stacy Collett, CSO; How to protect algorithms as intellectual property

Algorithms can now be considered trade secrets or even patent-worthy. Prevent them from being stolen by taking these security steps.

"Intellectual property theft has become a top concern of global enterprises. As of February 2020, the FBI had about 1,000 investigations involving China alone for attempted theft of US-based technology spanning just about every industry. It’s not just nation-states who look to steal IP; competitors, employees and partners are often culprits, too.

Security teams routinely take steps to protect intellectual property like software, engineering designs, and marketing plans. But how do you protect IP when it's an algorithm and not a document or database? Proprietary analytics are becoming an important differentiator as companies implement digital transformation projects. Luckily, laws are changing to include algorithms among the IP that can be legally protected."

Review of Lawrence Lessig: Decriminalizing the Remix, Time, 10/17/08

Via Time: Review of Lawrence Lessig: Decriminalizing the Remix:

"In his latest book, the Stanford professor and Wired columnist rails against the nation's copyright laws — regulations he believes are futile, costly and culturally stifling. Citing "hybrid" economies like YouTube and Wikipedia (both of which rely on user-generated "remixes" of information, images and sound), Lessig argues in favor of what he calls a "Read/Write (RW)" culture — as opposed to "Read/Only (RO)" — that allows consumers to "create art as readily as they consume it."

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1851241,00.html

Who Owns the Law? Arguments May Ensue - New York Times, 9/29/08

Who Owns the Law? Arguments May Ensue:
"To be clear, it has been established by the United States Supreme Court (no less) that the law and judicial decisions cannot be copyrighted. They are in the public domain and can be used and reused in any way possible, even resold.
Yet, in the real world, judicial decisions and laws and regulations can be exceedingly hard to find without paying for them, either in book form or online...
“The law is pretty clear that laws and judicial opinions and regulations are not protected by copyright laws,” said Pamela Samuelson, a professor at Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. “That isn’t to say that people aren’t going to try.”
A favorite method of trying, as Ms. Samuelson and other legal scholars explain, is to copyright the accoutrements surrounding the public material...
In other words: the beer is free, but you have to pay for a specially designed stein."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/business/media/29link.html