Anonymous online criticism protected.

EFF on Sun's DRM idea.

Crime-facilitating speech.

How the RIAA came to WashU.

An angry commentary on library 'lending.' Doesn't seem that terribly unreasonable to me, although one of my earliest realizations that the current models were untenable came when I realized that "lending" could be more like a simultaneous use provision in software licenses. How much time is actually spent using a library book versus it just sitting there, unavailable? If only one copy were shared among three or four people, they likely wouldn't really have much conflict in terms of time they were actually using it, and a system that 'lent' it out in such a manner would still seem to be legal.

The social aspect of P2P isn't what it used to be, or could be.

Two recent decisions cite Grokster.

Current Copyright citations. Very cool.

"The DMCA must be read in the context of the Copyright Act." Small sentence, big implications.

"Edgar Bronfman, CEO of Warner Music, said yesterday in his Aspen Summit keynote that the war between the content industry and consumers is over. And consumers won."

Upstart TV network.

Sony's Blu-Ray strategy.

Patry on shrinkwrap as pseudo-copyright.

Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing. Noting the prominent CC license up top of the press release, I wonder how much damage CC might be doing by ensuring that everything has a license. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Creative Commons, but by bringing about a transition from the free-flowing world of 'everything's available unless otherwise specified' that we had before to a world where you must explicitly give your rights away for anyone to make use of the work, the mindset shift may ultimately prove quite destructive. Granted, the removal of the registration requirement had a much greater effect on this than do CC licenses, but should a press release really have to feature a prominent license?

--Ari