http://mattrolls.blogspot.com/ wherein is detailed Matt's experiences as he quits his job and tries to figure out what to do with his life. Right now, that means lots of thinking about copyright. daily http://mattrolls.blogspot.com/2005_07_24_mattrolls_archive.html#112234119482872875 The Electronic Frontier Foundation is having a Blog-a-thon to celebrate its 15th anniversary. They are asking for stories about "click moments," the moment of first taking action in support of freedom in the digital world. This is my contribution to the EFF15 Blog-a-thon. 2005-07-25T21:25-04:00 http://mattrolls.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_mattrolls_archive.html#112009696193838966 It's apparent from Uzbradistan's comment on my last post that my writing about Sony and MGM v. Grokster hasn't been that clear. So now that I've read the opinion on Grokster (which was the real point of my recent posts), I'll attempt to explain what the rulings in Sony and MGM v. Grokster mean. 2005-06-29T21:37-04:00 http://mattrolls.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_mattrolls_archive.html#112000694370005923 Yesterday I posted my initial thoughts while reading the Supreme Court opinion of MGM v. Grokster. Today I will post any additional thoughts on the two concurrences on the ruling. Here's a quick review of the case and the Supreme Court decision, to be followed by my comments. Grokster (and StreamCast, its co-defendant) offer products which can be used to infringe on copyright. They were sued by MGM and other copyright holders for contributory and vicarious infringement on copyright.... 2005-06-28T20:56-04:00 http://mattrolls.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_mattrolls_archive.html#111992710505964890 Today was a very big day for copyright law and the Internet. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that manufacturers of technologies which can be used to infringe on copyright are potentially liable for any infringing use of that technology by end users. The ruling in MGM v. Grokster is available as a PDF (thanks to SCOTUSblog for the link). My notes on the decision follow. 2005-06-27T22:51-04:00 http://mattrolls.blogspot.com/2005_05_22_mattrolls_archive.html#111706455826871800 I just have a quick observation following the record breaking opening of Revenge of the Sith. The original maximum term of copyright under United States law was 28 years. Coincidentally, Star Wars was originally released 28 years ago. The significance of this should be obvious to anyone who thinks the Special Edition versions of the movies were not improvements on the original theatrical versions of the movies. 2005-05-25T19:40-04:00 http://mattrolls.blogspot.com/2005_01_30_mattrolls_archive.html#110712287960987688 I've recently been playing a video game that's shockingly amoral. The striking thing is that it's not a game that's likely to get the attention of the Parents Television Council. Katamari Damacy is exceedingly weird, but it isn't violent. However, it strikes me as amoral in a way that no other videogame I've played has. 2005-01-30T17:05-05:00 http://mattrolls.blogspot.com/2005_01_23_mattrolls_archive.html#110662058371215226 Last month I posted about Jason Kottke and Jeopardy! The central idea of that post is that individuals who post material on the Internet are at risk of legal action from corporations under copyright law. However, the power of legal action isn't limited to corporations. The DMCA amplifies the power of individuals to take legal action against other individuals for what they post online, as demonstrated by a recent conflict between two LiveJournal users. 2005-01-24T21:32-05:00