This WEEK in LAW 164

This WEEK in LAW Episode 164

This Week In Law 164: The Right to Bear Fast-Forwarding

Panel

• Denise Howell
• Berin Szoka (@BerinSzoka)
  • TechFreedom
• John Bergmayer (@bergmayer)
  • Public Knowledge
• Trevor Timm (@trevortimm)
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation

Topics

• Microsoft Sidesteps Do Not Track
  • Microsoft has more to gain than lose from IE10′s default ‘Do Not Track’ option via VentureBeat
  • Microsoft's Do Not Track Browser Angers Online Ad Industry Default setting in new Windows 8 pre-empts DAA initiative via Adweek
  • Quick background on DNT via Wikipedia
  • Mozilla: Do Not Track: It’s the user’s voice that matters via Mozilla Privacy Blog
• Dish Network's Hopper Automatically Removing Commercials
  • TV Networks Say You're Breaking The Law When You Skip Commercials via Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Aereo's Retransmission Fight
  • If Video Sites Could Act Like Cable Companies (Aereo) via The New York Times
  • Next Generation Television Marketplace Act, A Free Market Defense of Retransmission Consent via OpenMarket
• Judge Alsup Delivers Ruling on Copyrighting APIs
  • Google wins crucial API ruling, Oracle's case decimated via ArsTechnica
  • Copyright Doesn't Prevent Compatibility--Some Thoughts on Oracle v. Google via Public Knowledge
  • The GPL Does Not Depend on the Copyrightability of APIs via Public Knowledge
• First Amendment Antitrust Concerns
  • Second Google-Sponsored Legal Report Argues Government Would Lose Antitrust Case via Search Engine Land
  • Volokh argues first amendment bars antitrust claims via Search Engine Land
  • Antitrust Groundhog Day, Starring Senator Kohl via TechFreedom
• The State of Unlicensed Music in Online Videos
  • Isaac's Live Lip-Dub Proposal via YouTube
  • Bruno Mars Tweets Link to Video via Twitter
  • An Open Letter to Jay Leno About Stealing My Video and Then Getting It Removed From YouTube via SplitSider

Tip of the Week

Beware Employers Bearing Mansions

• Hack weekends treat coders like monkeys in a cage via GigaOM
• Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic "Hack the Act" winners

Resource of the Week

• An Exhaustive Look at the Tax Implications of the Zombie Apocalypse
  • What are the tax implications of the zombie apocalypse? via Io9
• Rob Reid on Triangulation
  • Triangulation - Episode 55

Notable Quotes

Viewer question from Abhi Beckert

• "I'm a programmer who's been working in the industry my whole life (did my first paid programming work at 14 years old) and am following google/oracle's case closely. I have a question, if API's aren't copyrightable, then what is? As a programmer I feel this is the only piece of my craft that has any value whatsoever. 99% of programming is API design, the rest is mostly boring drivel that any highschool kid can do. Walk into our office for a day, and you'll see us debate and argue, sometimes for days, about the name of a single function. But the code inside it never gets any discussion - someone slaps it together in 45 seconds. Maybe 3 weeks later a colleague will delete the whole thing and create it again (in another 45 seconds) without even bothering to mention it to then original author, even if they're sitting next to me. But rename a function? You better get three or four people to weigh in on it first or there will be arguments. So my question is, why do so many people think the only valuable part of a programmer's work (the API) cannot be copyrighted? It took decades to design Java's API and it's undergoing constant improvement. Google probably had a few interns re-implement it with only minimal advice from the rest of the android team, who were busy with real work - designing android's API and the user interface. I don't like Oracle, and I'm a Pirate Party supporter who thinks most of IP law should be thrown out... but if anything in java deserves protection it is the API."

Sponsors

ShareFile

Production Information

• Edited by:
• Notes:

This area is for use by TWiT staff only. Please do not add or edit any content within this section.