Diving right in before the caffeine hits:
- "Not my problem" is a grand tradition. It long predates the digital age, and becomes particularly annoying at times when monopolists — or others with whom we have no choice but to deal — persist in proclaiming that a problem is not theirs. Rampant fraud on Zelle, which is both offered by and owned by major banks? Not their problem. Rampant insensitivity and outright inaccuracy emanating from publishing's… nondiverse power structure? Not their problem (as a further demonstration of that, compare the demographics now to the demographics of 2003). Theft of IP by subcontractors in the fashion industry? Not their problem (and the jurisdictional split could not have been fashioned more efficiently to itself act as a liability shield while maintaining local facilities).
- Which beats spilled "milk" in one's coffee. Ms Uteyova's analysis does not go nearly far enough, and skirts the edge of another alternative food pricing problem: The premium for so-called (and mislabelled) "organic" food. Not so long ago, I glanced at a prospectus for a mid-sized organic-food entity that was full of high-falutin' raised-consciousness language and included a captioned picture of the board — an entirely white board with entirely Northwest European surnames. Given the historical land ownership patterns in the major almond-growing regions, one suspects that's even worse. The population may be getting more diverse, but there's little or no sign of that in Big Ag (even specialty Big Ag) for ownership or management. And that circles back to the price of oat milk at Starbuck's, with a little extra steam…
- Quite a bit of miscellaneous copyright-related news of late. In no particular order:
State-actor copyright infringers may get further scrutiny under a takings analysis, since — in a 1998 opinion that was wrong when decided and is even more wrong now — the Supreme Court has held that the states are immune from copyright suits, as Congress hadn't made sufficient "findings" to support taking away their immunity from suit in federal court. What this analysis masks, though, is that there are no penalties or statutory damages or attorney's fee reimbursements available in a takings suit. In practice, that would limit a "taking of a copyright" to either the most egregious circumstances with easily proven actual damages, or independently wealthy plaintiffs with other agendas. <SARCASM> That's exactly what IP litigation needs more of. </SARCASM>
It appears that IP litigation definitely is going to get more Left Shark and less attention to the process/product problem in the arts (PDF). Although the length of the "ostinatos" (a rather grandiose term considering the context!) isn't specified, one can infer that it's more than three notes — leading, yet again, to the question of when a new composition has too many notes. <SARCASM> Oh, joy. Another opportunity for the nondiverse bench and clerks in DC to screw up the arts and terminology relating to the arts — especially creative process as distinct from creative product — like in 2Live Crew, leading inevitably to a big hairy 'pinion. </SARCASM>
Which is less intellectually dishonest than fake libraries. Or outright theft just beyond the border of "copyright" (unless you'd like some lion meat tonight, and you should pay careful attention to the year — for once, Disney didn't start it).