News and Commentary
The CASE Act risks dragging people to court for small-time or inadvertent copyright infringement. This policy could not affect the real problems of corporate or foreign piracy but could burden ordinary people.
This blog post nicely lays out Thomas Jefferson’s view of intellectual property: a limited incentive not a moral law.
The National Law Review summarizes the contemporary changes to essential patent’s licensing standards.
According to Quartz, the number of climate change fighting inventions is plunging (as measured by patent filings).
China’s very lenient patent system sometimes misleads international assessments of their tech industry. Their high volume of patents is not necessarily indicative of true inventiveness.
Ohio is trying to ensure patents earned at universities become commercialized.
Unsurprisingly, the Copyright Alliance wants the Trump Administration to strengthen its anti-piracy efforts.
A column in Townhall lays out the economically populist case for patent reform.
Ariana Grande is suing Forever 21 for using her image and music on their social media accounts.
The publishing industry is ganging up to sue Audible for providing computer-generated texts alongside the audiobooks they license.
The United States’ lengthy copyright protections have been exported to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand through “free trade” agreements. These extensions were often justified as incentivizing for the dissemination of older and less popular works. However, new research undermines this narrative. Works became less available in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand when exclusivity was expanded.