Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patry Copyright Blog Closed

Posted by kdawson on from the pecked-to-death-by-ducks dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "William Patry, noted copyright expert and Google's top copyright lawyer, has decided to close his personal blog. (For no reason that he has explained, the archives are gone too.) Ordinarily, that wouldn't be very newsworthy, but that little blog has made a lot of news, outing the ACTA treaty and discussing lots of other important pending legislation. Mr. Patry gives two reasons for the closure: his personal views were being attributed to Google, and the current trends in copyright law are too depressing. Though I am not the only one to have done so, as someone who has contributed to that misunderstanding by listing his credentials without a disclaimer, I would like to publicly apologize to him. Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do to reverse the depressing trends in copyright law that I'm not doing already."

38 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Self-censorship? by kaos07 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or a wannabe martyr?

    1. Re:Self-censorship? by BPPG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Postel's Law: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. A good networking rule to follow whether or not you're a computer scientist.

      --
      What's the value of information that you don't know?
    2. Re:Self-censorship? by kaos07 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm Australian. Our conservative party is called "The Liberal Party". I have no idea what that quote means.

    3. Re:Self-censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm Australian. Our conservative party is called "The Liberal Party". I have no idea what that quote means.

      That's normal in politics. In Soviet Russia (don't even think it) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was popularly known as "Four words, four lies."

    4. Re:Self-censorship? by kaos07 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Two seconds of Googling:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party#Etymology

    5. Re:Self-censorship? by jamesswift · · Score: 4, Funny

      As a European who has seen Fox News I think Liberal means believing Stalin was The MAN! and Conservative means being persecuted for driving.

      *shrugs*

      --
      i wish i could stop
    6. Re:Self-censorship? by bolo1729 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Same with the states having "Democratic" in their names. I'd prefer to live in the Republic of Korea rather than in Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and in Federal Republic of Germany rather than in German Democratic Republic.

    7. Re:Self-censorship? by Ahnteis · · Score: 2, Funny

      I see adjective and noun... but no verb form.

      "Why don't you just liberal yourself man!"

      "I was walking down the hallway and all of a sudden I liberalled right in front of her. I've never been so embarrassed!"

      "I liberal; therefore I am."

      ??

  2. Might Wanna Put Some Ice On That by strelitsa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mr. Patry gives two reasons for the closure: his personal views were being attributed to Google, and the current trends in copyright law are too depressing .

    The first reason is probably valid, and Patry is correct in wanting to clearly differentiate his views from Google's. (While most people would just slap "The views expressed here are my own and do not represent my employer's ..." boilerplate on their blog and call it a day, its a free Intertubes.)

    The second reason reads more like pure frustration and petulance than anything else. His pulling the archived material is likely a part of this martyrdom.

    I do wish that Mr. Patry would come on down off that cross - we need the wood.

    --
    No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
    1. Re:Might Wanna Put Some Ice On That by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Informative

      He also said

      On top of this there are the crazies, whom it is impossible to reason with, who do not have a life of their own and so insist on ruining the lives of others, and preferably as many as possible. I asked myself last week after having to deal with the craziest of the crazies yet, "why subject yourself to this?" I could come up with no reason why I should: My grandfather chose to be a psychiatrist, but I chose a different professional path, one that doesn't obligate me to put up with such nonsense.

      Funny how slashdot misses that part out.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Might Wanna Put Some Ice On That by yar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd hardly call it petulance, although working with copyright today is incredibly frustrating. I wouldn't call him a martyr. Read the comments on that entry.

  3. Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This whole copyright business is depressing alright, mainly because those who are allegedly "our" politicians are working against us as a result of corporate $$$-based lobbying, which would be known as bribery in more enlightened societies.

    Well fine, if that's how the system works then why don't *WE* bribe our politicians too? Dozens of millions of citizens are affected by this media-led crap, hundreds of millions of people worldwide, so surely we can afford the bribes?

    It shouldn't be necessary to bribe those who in theory should be representing us, but if that's the only way to make them work for the people, then we should do it. If we don't, then the next step will be to employ contract hit men to make the politicians "see sense", and that's not a step to be taken lightly. But bribery appears to be acceptable in current society. So how about it?

    1. Re:Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians? by Glasyalabolis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't understand why you've been moded Offtopic because you are clearly Ontopic. It's common knowledge that our politicians are bribed by all manner of corporations, and corporations certainly don't have our best interests at heart.

      I would love to see communities, counties or even whole states banding together to raise money for bribery of "their" representatives in congress.

      And it's probably way too soon to be talking about assassination.

    2. Re:Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians? by jlarocco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well fine, if that's how the system works then why don't *WE* bribe our politicians too?

      We don't have to bribe our politicians because they are our employees. We pay their salary with our tax money. We, the citizens, are supposed to "bribe" them with their jobs. If they want to keep their job, they protect our rights and look out for our interests.

      The sad fact of the matter is, if enough people actually cared enough to implement a plan like yours, we wouldn't need it anyway because scumbag politicians would rarely get elected in the first place. As the saying goes, we're getting the democracy we deserve.

      --
      Maybe not
    3. Re:Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      that depends. what are you going to ask for? abolition of copyright? (a popular theme here). And then when all of you are unemployed because the companies you work for no longer produce anything of value (increasingly US companies produce IP or goods that can be encoded digitally), are you then going to whine to the same politicians about why you are unemployed?

  4. Real reason: conflict with Google by Steve1952 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Although I'm sure that Patry had an excellent Blog, the cynic in me thinks that there is only one real reason why the archives are now off line. This is probably fear that some of his earlier statements are now inconsistent with his high level legal position at Google. That is, he is concerned that an opponent might try to twist his words in the Blog against him.

  5. That's it - I've had enough! by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm shutting down my blog about the finer points of the GNU GPL in protest of Mr. Patry's shutting down of his blog about copyright.

    I'm sorry it had to come to this. And to all my readers: I WONT be back.

  6. Not to worry by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just read it here. Thanks, Wayback Machine!

  7. Backwards and upside-down by johndmartiniii · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's sort of like the drains going the opposite way and Summer being cold, right?

    --
    If you don't know what you're doing, you can't make mistakes.
    1. Re:Backwards and upside-down by kaos07 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is so insanely off-topic, but it is hardly "liberal" on social issues. If by "liberal" you mean either the liberalist philosophy of personal freedom. Anti-terror laws? Mandatory detention? The official party stance on stem cells and abortion? Attitudes towards people of an NESB? Attitudes towards the arts?

    2. Re:Backwards and upside-down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, the Australian Liberal Party is "liberal" on social issues: they like to lock people up for years without trial, they're against gays marrying, they don't mind a bit of racial brawling on Sydney beaches, and they think Aborigines can't raise their own kids.

    3. Re:Backwards and upside-down by n3tcat · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's sort of like the drains going the opposite way and Summer being cold, right?

      I just had a mental image of a bunch of republicans holding hands and dancing in circles.

    4. Re:Backwards and upside-down by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Liberal Party is conservative on economic issues but liberal on social issues.

      You have that back to front. The Libs are "Liberal" in their economic policies (ie: pro-free-market, free trade, anti-union, etc).

      They _are_ conservative in their social policies, but I'm pretty sure that (originally, at least) has more to do with the type of people their primary beliefs attract, rather than any specific attempt at being so.

    5. Re:Backwards and upside-down by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Funny

      I just had a mental image of a bunch of republicans holding hands and dancing in circles.

      I always picture them doing that anyway. In the backrooms of the Whitehouse. At midnight. In Robes. Around a pentagram.

      You mean they don't?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    6. Re:Backwards and upside-down by lilomar · · Score: 3, Funny

      You have that back to front.

      Duh. He said he was in Australia!
      /ducks

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
  8. I don't think so. by yar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He's made it clear that Google, the company, is not directly involved with the closing of his blog. I've read and respect Patry enough to believe that if something along those cynical lines was the case, he'd pretty much say so.

  9. Re:I believe him. by yar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Patry has made it clear that he did not receive pressure from Google to close his blog.

  10. Not really. by yar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I do a number of things related to copyright law. IMHO, Patry's blog was one of the greatest free Web resources for anything interested in following copyright.

    If you read the comments on Patry's closing blog entry, you'll find a number of names you'd recognize if you follow copyright law at all- almost a who's who of the copyright world. And most of them, while they wish he would continue, completely agree with his reasons for leaving, including his second premise. Copyright law has gotten depressing, and it does bring the crazies out. And he's not the first person who works in copyright law that I've heard say pretty much the same thing.

    It's not like he's leaving the copyright world- he is still the author of the definitive legal treatise on copyright, and he's still a copyright attorney.

  11. Letter of the Law by Nymz · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Patry's warnings and frustration with the current fusillade on fair-use protections appears to me as a piece of a larger picture. A theme not uncommon in contemporary sciencefiction stories is of a planet where lawyers rule and litigation is omnipresent. Anyone who has read the US Constitution can tell you how short and succinct it is, and while some of the contributors were lawyers they certainly weren't 'slip n fall' lawyers that spelled out every little eventuality. Perhaps they felt that if men would not honor the 'Spirit of the Law' then they wouldn't honor the 'Letter of the Law' either. Here are a few examples off the top of my head:
    • Richard Stallman's defense of the idea of 'free software' which stresses freedom of use, versus its 'redefining' as 'open source' which Microsoft appears to be all too comfortable with embracing to the 'Letter of the Law'.
    • The 2cd Amendment right to bear arms in the 'Spirt of the Law' defines your right to protect your self, your family, and your home. But is slowly being 'redefined' to include restrictions like it must be unloaded, and must be trigger locked, etc. which makes one virtually useless but is keeping with the 'Letter of the Law'.
    • In many places, judges are 'redefining' marriage from Husband & Wife, to Partner A & Partner B. If you just felt a knee-jerk reaction on this one, take a second to think about it. If you really cared about homosexual marriage, then you should go about it in the correct manner. The same is true of a law you don't like, where you work to eliminate that law from the books, with education, proposals, and finally a vote of the people. Too many people just want to get their 'gang' in power, and grab the reigns, and 'make' things happen in spite of the will of the people.

    We shouldn't let 'fair use' be 'redefined' either, but you don't get to be a hypocrite. You have to consistently vote in officials that will respect laws, and not try to 'muscle' and 'redefine' them to your side's political position. That's not a government of the people, but a regime of a single party.

    1. Re:Letter of the Law by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In many places, judges are 'redefining' marriage from Husband & Wife, to Partner A & Partner B. If you just felt a knee-jerk reaction on this one, take a second to think about it. If you really cared about homosexual marriage, then you should go about it in the correct manner.

      The thing is, most such laws originally on the books don't explicitly specify man and woman to begin with - note the bazillion local movements to pass new laws that do explicitly specify one man and one woman. Those new laws would not be necessary if the original laws had been explicit to begin with.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  12. Seconded by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm no lawyer, but I know a little about law anyhow. Mr. Patry is one of the heavyweight scholars of copyright law, not some random nobody on Slashdot like me.

    His blog was very important. Like TFS says, it broke the news on the ACTA treaty, which would still be secret if not for him. Lawyers read his books to learn about copyright law. His blog was incredibly useful to find out all the latest happenings in copyright law, which is only getting crazier now that it's being rewritten to appease Disney and to try to deal with the internet, which most politicians don't understand on a deeper level than "it's not a big truck, it's a series of tubes."

    So losing him is a big deal and it sucks. There simply aren't many people who could ever hope to replace him. Groklaw, Ars Technica and NYCL are all great, don't get me wrong.

    But they simply lack the authority someone like Mr. Patry can bring to the table. He will be missed.

  13. This sucks. by Larryish · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am really sorry to see the archives go. If he doesn't want to continue writing, the man has his reasons. But the archives were full of good material.

    Fortunately the Wayback Machine is on the case :)

    http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://williampatry.blogspot.com

  14. Sounds like... by rasteri · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... The patry's over. (I'm sorry)

  15. Why are IP laws getting stricter? by Raisey-raison · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wish someone could explain how it is that countries everywhere are moving towards stricter and stricter IP laws when at this level there is plenty of evidence that they are having a deleterious economic impact. Even in countries in Europe where campaign contributions are not influential as in the USA. It seems that left wing politicians who supposedly abhor big business are just as pro IP as everyone else.

    It also seems that whatever level of IP protection exists its never enough. Recently the EU considered extending copyright term lengths from 50 to 95 years. http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2008/07/17/eu-proposes-extending-copyright-term-length-95-years
    If anyone has some insight I would appreciate it.

    1. Re:Why are IP laws getting stricter? by earthforce_1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is going to end up, (already ending up really) like prohibition in the 1930, where certain narrow interests managed to get laws in place that the silent majority refused to follow.

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    2. Re:Why are IP laws getting stricter? by lilomar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems that left wing politicians who supposedly abhor big business are just as pro IP as everyone else.

      Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!

      Are you going to vote for a Republican, or a Democrat? Also, would you prefer to be raped anally, or in the butt?

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    3. Re:Why are IP laws getting stricter? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wish someone could explain how it is that countries everywhere are moving towards stricter and stricter IP laws

      Well, let's clarify: It's Western nations that are moving toward stricter and stricter IP laws.

      Why? Because we can't compete with cheap labor from other countries, at least not while maintaining anything near the standard of living we're accustomed to. For better or worse, we didn't really try to (though likely couldn't even if we did); we were content to let those "old economy" jobs go away in favor of "new economy" jobs, like computer programming and our content creators.

      Many of these things don't work at all without IP laws, but even those that do work much better--from a western perspective--the stronger the laws are and the more rigorously they are enforced.

      In short, countries keep pushing for stricter and stricter laws, and try to force similar laws on other countries via trade agreements and such, because they're the underpinnings of our economy these days. It's one of the few things we export.

  16. Re:trolls by renegadesx · · Score: 2

    Slashdot is used to ignoring trolls
    Considering how many responses you got, obviously not

    --
    Make SELinux enforcing again!