Settlement In DRAM Case

From the Maryland Attorney General press release: “The settlement provides restitution for consumers and state and local government agencies who paid more for computers and other electronic devices because of the price-fixing scheme.”

Viacom v Google on the Interpretation of DMCA "safe harbor" provision

Here. As the U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton put it, "the critical question is whether the statutory phrases “actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing,” and “facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent” in § 512(c)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) mean a general awareness that there
are infringements (here, claimed to be widespread and common), or rather mean actual or constructive knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of individual items".
According to the judge, "if a service provider knows (from notice from the owner, or a “red flag”) of specific instances of infringement, the provider must promptly remove the infringing material. If not, the burden is on the owner to identify the infringement. General knowledge that infringement is “ubiquitous” does not impose a duty on the service provider to monitor or search its service for infringements."

WIPO SSCR/20: More on Limitations and Exceptions

WIPO's Second Analytical Document on Limitations and Exceptions. See US' Draft Consensus Instrument on needs of persons with print disabilities. See also EU's Draft Joint Recommendation concerning the improved access to works protected by copyright for persons with a print disability.
US' declaration at SSCR/20: need to keep an holistic approach on L&E; need to move forward swiftly. US' draft consensus instrument as initial step.
In the meanwhile, the US distributed a Background Paper and FAQs (submitted as an information document) on the proposed consensus instrument.
See a comparison of the four proposals presently being discussed (limited to aspects concerning persons with disabilities, the "African Proposal" covers further matters). The wording of the Conclusions was so  controversial, that no agreement could be reached. As the WIPO bravely puts it, "(D)uring a late night discussion, agreed language for final conclusions proved elusive. Member states had divergent views on the wording for future work on the scope of an international instrument relating to exceptions and limitations, and on whether and when informal consultations should take place on the protection of broadcasting organizations. Discussion on all these issues will continue at the next session of the SCCR from November 8 to 12, 2010."

Berliner Rede zum Urheberrecht

Rede der Bundesministerin der Justiz Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. Mehr zum geplanten Leistungsschutzrecht für Verlage

Three-Strike in practice

UK Ofcom, Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010: Draft Initial Obligations Code

Proposed Horizontal Merger Guidelines: "Some" Economists' Comment

Here, see also the list of all the comments received so far. Interestingly, also the Russian Competition Authority decided to express its view

Algorithms and competition

M. Vestager, here . Large friendly letters? "It's true that the idea of automated systems getting together and reaching a...