I noticed that his opinions on the site often went against Google policy and it was pretty obvious to me, as well as most others I think, that this was something personal to him and not related to his company. It's sad that certain people didn't understand.

You make an excellent point about the job of attorneys to examine different viewpoints, but it is also worth noting that attorneys represent their clients, not themselves (unless we're talking a pro se matter but that's another conversation). This practically forces them to wear even more different hats.

it is safe to say that Patry is well traveled in the copyright landscape and his blog was where he came home, took off all the hats he has to wear and write about what he thinks and sees in the world. It was enlightening that way.

Unfortunately, it appears that it shall be no more…

Professor Fred Schauer once said in lecture that the process of thinking like a lawyer requires a lawyer to actually adopt contrary points of view: to understand and evaluate them, it's necessary to try them on like coats and shoes and walk around living in them for a while, genuinely experiencing them. It's unfortunate that many in the media and the public fail to recognize that a lawyer's intellectual detachment from agenda and ability to engage in debate about the direction of the law is critical to serving clients and the public well. Patry's blog stood out among other quality efforts in copyright scholarship precisely because it represented his intellectual work product from the standpoint of private practice experience rather than an academic or media perspective.

I'm in agreement with Patry's view that copyright has moved down the sliding scale towards the structure and philosophy of patent protection. The original balance between stimulating creation and innovation and protecting rights for limited times has been altered in favor of stifling creativity and innovation in the service of locking down exclusive rights to data for as long as possible. Patry is right: this is depressing. Particularly for bright and creative culture-makers who feel it's their cultural heritage to incorporate elements of their experience into new pastiches. Fair use should allow that, but the system has been gerrymandered via the DMCA to place public domain materials behind access restriction devices and to make incorporation of any amount of copyrighted materials an illegal act.

Carol Shepherd, Arborlaw PLC
arborlaw.biz

I noticed that his opinions on the site often went against Google policy and it was pretty obvious to me, as well as most others I think, that this was something personal to him and not related to his company. It's sad that certain people didn't understand.

You make an excellent point about the job of attorneys to examine different viewpoints, but it is also worth noting that attorneys represent their clients, not themselves (unless we're talking a pro se matter but that's another conversation). This practically forces them to wear even more different hats.

it is safe to say that Patry is well traveled in the copyright landscape and his blog was where he came home, took off all the hats he has to wear and write about what he thinks and sees in the world. It was enlightening that way.

Unfortunately, it appears that it shall be no more…

Professor Fred Schauer once said in lecture that the process of thinking like a lawyer requires a lawyer to actually adopt contrary points of view: to understand and evaluate them, it's necessary to try them on like coats and shoes and walk around living in them for a while, genuinely experiencing them. It's unfortunate that many in the media and the public fail to recognize that a lawyer's intellectual detachment from agenda and ability to engage in debate about the direction of the law is critical to serving clients and the public well. Patry's blog stood out among other quality efforts in copyright scholarship precisely because it represented his intellectual work product from the standpoint of private practice experience rather than an academic or media perspective.

I'm in agreement with Patry's view that copyright has moved down the sliding scale towards the structure and philosophy of patent protection. The original balance between stimulating creation and innovation and protecting rights for limited times has been altered in favor of stifling creativity and innovation in the service of locking down exclusive rights to data for as long as possible. Patry is right: this is depressing. Particularly for bright and creative culture-makers who feel it's their cultural heritage to incorporate elements of their experience into new pastiches. Fair use should allow that, but the system has been gerrymandered via the DMCA to place public domain materials behind access restriction devices and to make incorporation of any amount of copyrighted materials an illegal act.

Carol Shepherd, Arborlaw PLC
arborlaw.biz

I noticed that his opinions on the site often went against Google policy and it was pretty obvious to me, as well as most others I think, that this was something personal to him and not related to his company. It’s sad that certain people didn’t understand.

You make an excellent point about the job of attorneys to examine different viewpoints, but it is also worth noting that attorneys represent their clients, not themselves (unless we’re talking a pro se matter but that’s another conversation). This practically forces them to wear even more different hats.

it is safe to say that Patry is well traveled in the copyright landscape and his blog was where he came home, took off all the hats he has to wear and write about what he thinks and sees in the world. It was enlightening that way.

Unfortunately, it appears that it shall be no more…

Professor Fred Schauer once said in lecture that the process of thinking like a lawyer requires a lawyer to actually adopt contrary points of view: to understand and evaluate them, it’s necessary to try them on like coats and shoes and walk around living in them for a while, genuinely experiencing them. It’s unfortunate that many in the media and the public fail to recognize that a lawyer’s intellectual detachment from agenda and ability to engage in debate about the direction of the law is critical to serving clients and the public well. Patry’s blog stood out among other quality efforts in copyright scholarship precisely because it represented his intellectual work product from the standpoint of private practice experience rather than an academic or media perspective.

I’m in agreement with Patry’s view that copyright has moved down the sliding scale towards the structure and philosophy of patent protection. The original balance between stimulating creation and innovation and protecting rights for limited times has been altered in favor of stifling creativity and innovation in the service of locking down exclusive rights to data for as long as possible. Patry is right: this is depressing. Particularly for bright and creative culture-makers who feel it’s their cultural heritage to incorporate elements of their experience into new pastiches. Fair use should allow that, but the system has been gerrymandered via the DMCA to place public domain materials behind access restriction devices and to make incorporation of any amount of copyrighted materials an illegal act.

Carol Shepherd, Arborlaw PLC
arborlaw.biz

I would file a DMCA notice with copyright at theplanet dot com to file a notice against their host, as always, you’re free to use the stock letters on my site if they’ll help you.

As for Patry, I can understand and relate to that feeling. I guess I Just hope to get others to help hold back the ocean as well..

Let me know if I can help with your problem!

http://performancing.com/blog/joan-reeves

reprinted in its entirety this morning on http://zurza.com/be-a-happy-hooker/. Of course my name didn’t appear anywhere. I complained in Zurza’s comments, which is of course moderated. Complained to Performancing and Technorati too.