Here are just some among many takes on a talk about software patents and the Bilski case, courtesy of Professor Eben Moglen
Paula Rooney: Moglen: Bilski decision set back patent reform for more than a decade

They say it is piracy.

Downright stealing from other people, that’s what downloading is. You’re taking something for sale and not paying for it. Do you shoplift, or break into houses? Why should you download for free?

"Brazil has just created the best-ever implementation of WIPO Copyright Treaty. In Brazil's version of the law, you can break DRM without breaking the law, provided you're not also committing a copyright violation. And what's more, any rightsholder who adds a DRM that restricts things that are allowed by Brazilian copyright laws ("fair dealing" or "fair use") faces a fine."

In United States the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 is making colleges and universities do the entertainment industry's dirty work by having to invest time and money "to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material" or risk losing federal funding.

Simple reminder of how copyright works; pass it on

NXS has provided the relevant excerpts from the IIPA's Special 301 Report and it's clear: if a country opts to use free software, the BSA wants them labeled criminals.

«...The existing copyright system makes a few stars very rich, supports a small fraction of artists adequately, and is an abject failure for the rest. However, it is great for supporting the big business of the copyright industry—and nowadays they are extending it to forbid sharing. It is a system that attacks our freedom so it can waste our money.

A little while back, Michael Meeks published a lengthy piece about copyright assignment (not nearly as lengthy as the articles he links to on untangling Wittgenstein's net). Go on, read it (Michael's stuff, not the net). It's worth your time. When you get to the bottom, follow the link to Dave Neary's take on assignment as well.