Judicial Tech Illiteracy, Amazon and the Public Domain, and More

  • Radio Berkman podcast episode on anonymity and limits on free speech
    As I do not already listen to enough podcasts on legal matters. But I am grateful to TLF’s Adam Thierer for bringing this to my attention, especially this particular episode on an excellent subject that is very relevant to recent stories about anonymous speech circulating through the blogosphere. I will warn you that while there is an Ogg version of the podcast, the file I checked had a panning issue; sound only on the right channel.
  • New language on the JVM from Google
    The name, short for “No Operation”, sounds like a joke, but the piece I found via Hacker News appears to be legitimate. I understand the reasoning behind the laundry list of features but wonder, as I usually do, if their efforts would have been better served helping Scala or Groovy rather than creating a whole new language.
  • Amazon delaying public domain submissions for the Kindle
    Although the piece doesn’t say explicitly, I suspect that the Orwell incident is a large part of their reasoning. What they have said is suspicious, as the letter including in this article makes clear. At least they are not singling anyone out.
  • Tech illiteracy’s impact on judges’ rulings
    At Techdirt, Mike Masnick shares a good example of a case where illiteracy yielded an outcome one hundred and eighty degrees from how things would have gone if the judge were more clueful. It echoes the question I consider a while ago.
  • Big Content whines to FCC to perserve its internet filtering plans
    I really am not at all surprised by Nate Anderson’s coverage at Ars of another FCC workshop on their broadband plan in which the entertainment industry took over with flimsy rhetoric, easily debunked, intending to shore up their desire to deputize ISPs to police for infringing content.
  • An overreaching patent from Google on reading lists
    RWW supposes this may be a key patent underlying the Bundles feature in Reader. Further, they detail a response from Winer which seems to have the right of it, that at least judging from the abstract on the patent, there is a load of applicable prior art.
  • Ruling further limits interpretation of the CFAA
    According to Jacqui Cheung at Ars, in this instance the ruling on appeal was for a case around ex-employees accessing former employer’s data. It reins in another of the problematic, broadening claims brought to bear under the already overly vague and dangerous Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *