"All Rights Reserved" has its limits

Watch a pro football game in the past few years? Recall the phrase "Any rebroadcast, retransmission or other use of this telecast without the written consent of the National Football League is prohibited."

In the world of copyright, digital technology has enabled information sharing - and piracy - on a new level. But the reaction of many rights holders in this environment has been to overstep their legal rights and assert total control over their content. Not only does the NFL assert total authority over their broadcast, they even asked a university professor to take down a YouTube video of the copyright notice.

The truth is, the Fair Use clause of the copyright act provides several venues for rebroadcast or other use of copy-protected content. From the Wikipedia article:

The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Some companies, Microsoft and Google among them, are banding together to help defend Fair Use, arguing that legal overreaching on copyright is harmful to innovation. Check out their website, Defend Fair Use, here to see some examples of copyright abuse.

Do corporations have more right to a patent than universities?

Slashdot asks if universities should be able to hold patents and intellectual property if they get grants and donations (and taxpayer funds) as an educational institution.

I have another perspective? Why not?

If taxpayers funded the studies through an educational institution, shouldn't it be able to reap some of the benefits? In some cases, corporations can sponsor university research and obtain the intellectual property rights. Shouldn't a taxpayer-funded institution have the same rights?

If the concern is letting universities profit from research funded by third parties, then call me confused. Most universities have a wide range of funding sources for their research, from public money (state and federal), alumni donations, and corporate sponsorships. Is the variety of funding sources somehow more repugnant than a corporation who receives money from consumers?

If the concern is freedom of information, then it seems that patent law generally would be the source for concern. Are patents too broad in scope? Too long? Should certain things not be patented? The constitutional source of patents (Article I, Section 8) is a good start:

The Congress shall have power to...promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;