Patry Copyright Blog Closed

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."

Comments

Re:Self-censorship?

[BPPG]

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.

Re:Self-censorship?

[kaos07]

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

Might Wanna Put Some Ice On That

[strelitsa]

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.

Re:Might Wanna Put Some Ice On That

[Hal_Porter]

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.

Re:Might Wanna Put Some Ice On That

[yar]

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.

Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Can't millions of us *BUY* some politicians?

[jlarocco]

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.

Real reason: conflict with Google

[Steve1952]

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.

Not to worry

[martin-boundary]

Just read it here. Thanks, Wayback Machine!

Backwards and upside-down

[johndmartiniii]

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

Re:Backwards and upside-down

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Backwards and upside-down

[drsmithy]

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.

Re:Backwards and upside-down

[h4rm0ny]

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?

Re:Backwards and upside-down

[lilomar]

You have that back to front.

Duh. He said he was in Australia!
/ducks

Re:I believe him.

[yar]

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

Not really.

[yar]

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.

Re:Self-censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:Self-censorship?

[kaos07]

Two seconds of Googling:

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

Re:Self-censorship?

[jamesswift]

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*

Seconded

[Xenographic]

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.

Re:Self-censorship?

[bolo1729]

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.

Sounds like...

[rasteri]

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

Why are IP laws getting stricter?

[Raisey-raison]

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.

Re:Why are IP laws getting stricter?

[earthforce_1]

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.