I guess this situation is indeed a public performance. But since headphones are prohibited while driving, this is pretty much a sentence to ackward silences in finnish taxis:
Finland’s Supreme Court has ruled taxi drivers must pay royalty fees if they play music in their car while a customer is in the backseat.
[Via Ananova’s quirkies]
Law Meme has coverage of an decision that will be reviewed by the Supreme court of the US.
Why do I really care? The decision is about builing codes. Ok, I don’t care, but Fleecy might! The decision is about web publication. Bonus points, but not really that much of a big deal for me (or for the court I think). It deals with copyrights on public texts, law and judicial decisions. Getting closer, and Pseudo will most certainly be interested
The deal for me is that it shows a different aspect of the practice of law making using private norms than the ones I focus on in my thesis. It is also reminiscent of the W3C and ITU patent policies problems.
Anyways, hopefully this is a good test case to get a sound policy conscious copyright decision from the US Supreme Court.
Bon, vous connaissez la saga Yahoo! La contestation de la décision française a réussie l’an dernier à la cour fédérale en Californie. Hier, la Cour d’appel du 9ème circuit a commencé à se pencher sur la question. La question à cette étape est fort intéressante. Les juges s’interrogent sur la possibilité pour Yahoo de s’opposer à une ordonnance française en Californie.
Tout ça pour dire, La saga continue!