<div>I can think of a few cases and issues to consider here:</div><div> </div><ul><li>It's worth re-reading an email on this list from 11 November. I've pasted this below (end of this email) and attached the PDF report from the original. Very interesting because of its source. </li>
<li>The link in that page: "Infringement Nation" (Tehranian 2007) <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1029151" target="_blank">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1029151</a><br>
<br><strong><em>These two are very good background to have in mind.</em></strong><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></li><li>The Hargreaves Report in the UK (2010): <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hargreaves_Review_of_Intellectual_Property_and_Growth" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hargreaves_Review_of_Intellectual_Property_and_Growth</a><br>
and report page: <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm</a><br> </li><li>A recent article on "torrentfreak" (a file sharing news site) linked on the ComCom mailing list on 4 Dec, looking at takedown requests that have gone on: <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/movie-studios-ask-google-to-censor-their-own-films-facebook-and-wikipedia-121203" target="_blank">http://torrentfreak.com/movie-studios-ask-google-to-censor-their-own-films-facebook-and-wikipedia-121203</a> </li>
<li>The prior abuse of process in the ACS Law case (UK): <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law</a></li><li>The logic behind the "ruling" in Flava Works v Gunter (US): <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flava_Works_Inc._v._Gunter" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flava_Works_Inc._v._Gunter</a></li>
</ul><div>Hope these help with some ideas. None (except Hargreaves) are especially long. </div><div> </div><div>FT2.</div><div> </div><div><br><br> </div><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com" target="_blank">dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">Hello all,<br><br>Yesterday the commission published the long expected press release (attached) announcing the launch of stakeholder dialogue to reform copyright legislation. <br>
<br>(SNIP)</blockquote></div><div><br> </div><div> </div><div><strong><u>COPY OF LIST EMAIL FROM 11 NOV 2012 FOR INFO</u></strong></div><div> <br><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Stephen LaPorte <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:slaporte@wikimedia.org" target="_blank">slaporte@wikimedia.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote"><div>Hello all,</div><div><br></div><div>On Friday, the Republican Study Committee released a policy brief on "Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it". The paper discusses four potential policy solutions: (1) reform statutory damages; (2) expand fair use; (3) punish false copyright claims; and, (4) limit copyright terms and have heavy disincentives for renewal. </div>
<div><br></div><div>A copy of the report is attached, and "Infringement Nation" (Tehranian 2007) is available here: <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1029151" target="_blank">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1029151</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>On Saturday, the executive director of the RSC sent out a letter withdrawing the brief:</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;padding:0px;border:currentColor"><div>From: Teller, Paul</div>
<div>Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 04:11 PM</div><div>Subject: RSC Copyright PB </div><div><br></div><div>We at the RSC take pride in providing informative analysis of major policy issues and pending legislation that accounts for the range of perspectives held by RSC Members and within the conservative community. Yesterday you received a Policy Brief on copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard. Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand. As the RSC’s Executive Director, I apologize and take full responsibility for this oversight. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and a meaningful Thanksgiving holiday.... </div>
<div><br></div><div>Paul S. Teller</div><div>Executive Director</div><div>U.S. House Republican Study Committee</div><div><a href="mailto:Paul.Teller@mail.house.gov" target="_blank">Paul.Teller@mail.house.gov</a></div><div>
<a href="http://republicanstudycommittee.com/" target="_blank">http://republicanstudycommittee.com</a></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>More coverage: </div><div><br></div><div>* <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84018.html?hp=r5" target="_blank">http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84018.html?hp=r5</a></div>
<div>* <a href="http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/16/republicans-repudiate-40-years-of-tougher-copyright-laws/" target="_blank">http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/16/republicans-repudiate-40-years-of-tougher-copyright-laws/</a></div>
<div>* <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/16481921080/house-republicans-copyright-law-destroys-markets-its-time-real-reform.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/16481921080/house-republicans-copyright-law-destroys-markets-its-time-real-reform.shtml</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Stephen</div><div><br></div><div>--</div><div><span><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><i>For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.</i></font></div>
</span></div><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Advocacy_Advisors mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>