For the next week, I’ll be doing a stint as the “featured blogger” on Public Knowledge’s policy blog. As regular readers will know, I’ve often applauded PK as one of the key organizations fighting against expansion of intellectual property rights at the expense of the public, and critical in working to expand the intellectual commons. I’ll still try to post here as well. But I may just point people to PK.
For example, click here to see my update on the Adelphia transaction.
Stay tuned . . . .
Knock, knock.
Whose there?
Major question.
Major question who?
WHO THE HELL KNOWS?? NOBODY CAN EVEN SAY WHAT IT MEANS!
Chevron Step -1: does this fit with the Supreme Court's policymaking agenda? https://twitter.com/haroldfeld/status/1542538877226946561
So what, exactly, makes something a "major question?" As far as I can tell, it means "5 judges don't like it and this is easier than killing Chevron outright."
So what, exactly, makes something a "major question?" As far as I can tell, it means "5 judges don't like it and this is easier than killing Chevron outright."
Holy crap! The Copyright Office did the right thing. Is that a flock of pigs I see flying outside my window.
The @CopyrightOffice has issued its study on Ancillary Copyright for Press Publishers & does not recommend creating any new right. This is a sound & correct outcome. The problems of print journalism in the digital era are not ©️ problems, so we shouldn't look for a ©️ solution.
Hoping D.C. Circuit decides pending 5.9 GHz case while Chevron still law.
