Editing 129: Content Protection
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
With the title text, [[Randall]] is referring again to {{w|Digital rights management|DRM}}. The {{w|Students for Free Culture|Free Culture}} movement ({{w|Lawrence Lessig}} being one of their activists) is fighting for free content. DRM advocates claim that their technology "protects" artists by preventing piracy, while in reality, DRM is more effective as a means of giving media companies control over devices than it is at preventing piracy. | With the title text, [[Randall]] is referring again to {{w|Digital rights management|DRM}}. The {{w|Students for Free Culture|Free Culture}} movement ({{w|Lawrence Lessig}} being one of their activists) is fighting for free content. DRM advocates claim that their technology "protects" artists by preventing piracy, while in reality, DRM is more effective as a means of giving media companies control over devices than it is at preventing piracy. | ||
| − | Chapters 13 and 14 of the {{w|Free Culture (book)#Chapter_13._Eldred|Free Culture}} | + | Chapters 13 and 14 of the {{w|Free Culture (book)#Chapter_13._Eldred|Free Culture book}} by Lawrence Lessig concern {{w|Eldred v. Ashcroft}}, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). The practical result of this was to prevent a number of works from entering the public domain in 1998 and following years, as would have occurred under the Copyright Act of 1976. Lessig was a lead council in this case. In his opinion he lost the case because his arguments were about culture instead of the economy. |
The structure of current law makes it exceedingly difficult for someone who might want to do something with an old work to find the copyright owner, because no central list exists. Because these old works no longer seem commercially viable to the copyright holder, many are deteriorating. | The structure of current law makes it exceedingly difficult for someone who might want to do something with an old work to find the copyright owner, because no central list exists. Because these old works no longer seem commercially viable to the copyright holder, many are deteriorating. | ||
