Floyd Abrams Quotes

Certainly the interest in asserting copyright is a justified one.

All over the world copyright holders are trying to limit consumers' rights. We cannot have that.

Up until the final decade of the nineteenth century, the United States and the United Kingdom did not recognize copyright in each other's creative works.

… the pursuit of civil rights by copyright.

Taking legal action against pirates is a headache for artists like me.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act indemnifies Internet Service Providers (ISP) such as Harvard from copyright abuses committed over their computer networks.

Vigorous enforcement of copyrights themselves is an important part of the picture. But I don't think that expanding the legal definition of copyright outside of actual copyright infringement is the right move.

If you create something, you don't want someone else to go and profit from it; you have your right to make a living and everything. So I respect copyright. What I don't respect is copyright extremism. And I what I don't respect is a business model that encourages piracy.

The marketplace can handle this. The laws are there. The courts have shown a consistent ability to find a balance between copyright owners and copyright users.

We need an unambiguous rule - a law - that nobody will step between the publisher and the consumer, full stop.

If you don't move to protect copyright, if you don't move to protect our children, it's not going to sit well.

When you have a group of engineers and designers, they are not exactly the best to deal with copyright law.

Anything illegal under Chinese law is, of course, not protected by copyright.

I got the copyright for love!

The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it.

It's my mission to sue the MPAA and take them down. I don't know how to go about doing that. But to me, it seems like it's something that has to be taken care of.

SOPA has been described as hitting a carpet tack with a sledgehammer. But technology was a sledgehammer to the music industry, one that allowed digital distributors like Apple to grow rich.

The rights of copyright holders need to be protected, but some draconian remedies that have been suggested would create more problems than they would solve.

The Constitution wanted artists to have control over their works because they knew it would create incentive to create more works. That is clearly still the goal.

In practice, the copyright system does a bad job of supporting authors, aside from the most popular ones. Other authors' principal interest is to be better known, so sharing their work benefits them as well as readers.

A hundred years ago, when Richard Strauss, who has already been quoted and already been heard today, and other creative people, laid the foundation stone for the joint assertion of their rights and interests, they had pioneering work ahead of them in Germany.

There is a note in the front of the volume saying that no public reading may be given without first getting the author's permission. It ought to be made much more difficult to do than that.

It's just hard. I wish the studios felt there was more value in these themes and these pieces of material - that they're worth protecting more. Because then it just wouldn't happen. If the studios cared, the stuff would be stopped in a second.

Compliance with the Stop Online Piracy Act would require huge overhead spending by Internet companies for staff and technologies dedicated to monitoring users and censoring any infringing material from being posted or transmitted.

Big Tech's nonchalance about copyright violation tramples over people like my wife and me, who strive to make a living in the great tradition of the creative realm.