Search results

In 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a landmark piece of legislation aimed at protecting copyright holders from those who might manufacture or traffic technology capable of allowing users to evade piracy protections on the underlying work. At its core, the DMCA flatly prohibits the circumvention of "technological protection measures" in order to gain access to copyrighted works, but provides no safety valve for any traditionally protected uses. While hailed as a victory by the software and entertainment industries, the academic and scientific communities ties have been far less enthusiastic. The DMCA's goal of combating piracy is a noble one, but lurking is the danger that it comes at the expense of public access to protected works and future innovation. Despite America's long history of "fair use" protections in copyright law, commentators have warned that consumers now find themselves unable to do many of the same things with copyrighted works that they previously could—anyone who might sell them the technology to access a protected work and enable fair use would find themselves in violation of the DMCA. Worse, early litigation dramatically expanded the definition of what constitutes a "technological protection measure" deserving of the law's respect. As the definition broadened, scholars feared that even modest innovations—ones that would never qualify for a patent under existing law—could wind up receiving perpetual patent-like protection through the backdoor of the DMCA. Despite the experts' dire predictions, however, subsequent common law interpretation of the DMCA has reined in many of its potential dangers. The judiciary's focus has rightly shifted to the need to balance innovators' interests with the equally important goals of public access and enhancing overall social welfare. Nonetheless, coherent and uniform protection of fair use under the DMCA is likely best achieved through congressional action. This Article serves as an overview of the judicial and legislative ...

The aim of this paper is to contribute to building a framework for reflexive governance of the information society. The hypothesis is that new institutional economics as an interdisciplinary research program can provide some of the necessary tools for this framework and help us to understand how the reflexive feedback of actors and users on the social challenges of the new technologies can be embedded in the institutions of regulation. To test this hypothesis, we develop a specific case study on the building of the microbiological commons. This case study is chosen because of the leading role of this field in the development of institutions procedures for reflexive involvement of actors and users in the institutional design, such as in the case of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility or GENBANK. As our analysis attempts to show, the success of these initiatives in building both efficient and legitimate means of information sharing is dependent on a double reflexive mechanism embedded in the institutional rules : (1) organizing feedback of the actors and users on the institutional rules and (2) the building of common understanding amongst different stakeholder communities.

The dawning of the digital age has brought the Supreme Court's Sony "staple article of commerce" doctrine to center stage in legal and policy discussions about the proper role and scope of copyright protection. To technology companies, it represents a vital safe harbor for product design; to the content industries, this doctrine remains an Achilles heel. The origins of this doctrine have always been somewhat obscure. With nary a peak at the text or the legislative history of the then-recently enacted overhaul of the copyright system, the Supreme Court adverted to patent law to determine the scope of indirect liability – a fundamental issue that would loom large in the shift from the analog to the digital distribution platform for content. A slim majority of the Supreme Court justified this interpretation of the Copyright Act of 1976 on the basis of a vague assertion of "historic kinship" between patent and copyright. This article scrutinizes this critical logical premise. Part I exhaustively reviews the litigation and correspondence of the justices to understand why the Court paid so little attention to the legislative materials and so much to the patent law. It finds that gaps in the information provided to the Court, in conjunction with the justices' lack of familiarity with copyright law generally and the Copyright Act of 1976 in particular, led the Court astray. Part II tests the "historic kinship" premise, finding that it cannot withstand scrutiny. Had the Court traced the origins of copyright and patent back to their source, it would have seen that they both derive from a common wellspring: tort principles. Concerns about patent misuse and improper leveraging of monopoly power led the courts, and later Congress, to carve out an express safe harbor in patent law for those selling "staple articles of commerce" – products suitable for substantial non-infringing uses. Part III demonstrates that the 1976 Copyright Act envisioned that courts would continue to use the traditional tort wellspring, informed by the distinctive challenges of copyright enforcement. This would have brought the reasonable alternative design framework of products liability law into play. The article shows that this approach would almost certainly have resulted in the same outcome that the Sony Court reached, but of critical importance, it would have provided a more sound and dynamic jurisprudential framework for calibrating liability as new technologies develop. Part IV examines Sony's legacy, showing that subsequent legislative activity, court decisions, and the marketplace reflect a practical reality that lies closer to the reasonable alternative design standard than a broad "staple article of commerce" safe harbor. In reality, Sony's "staple article of commerce" doctrine has proven largely symbolic and unworkable, as Congress, the courts, and businesses in the marketplace have sought to promote product innovation without unduly jeopardizing copyright protection. The failure to recognize that reality, however, breeds doctrinal confusion, distorts case law evolution, and stultifies the larger policy debate over copyright protection in the digital age.

This report begins with an inventory of basic information: definitions and guides to histories of the growth of open access publishing and citation archives and descriptions of selected major open access activities. It moves on to summarize major points of difference between proponents and opponents of nongovernmental open access publishing and databases, and then highlights federal, including National Institutes of Health (NIH), open access activities and contentious issues surrounding these developments. The report also briefly describes open access developments in the United Kingdom (where a number of governmental and nongovernmental initiatives have occurred) and in the international arena. Finally, controversial issues which could receive attention the 110th Congress are summarized.

This report begins with an inventory of basic information: definitions and guides to histories of the growth of open access publishing and citation archives and descriptions of selected major open access activities. It moves on to summarize major points of difference between proponents and opponents of nongovernmental open access publishing and databases, and then highlights federal, including National Institutes of Health (NIH), open access activities and contentious issues surrounding these developments. The report also briefly describes open access developments in the United Kingdom (where a number of governmental and nongovernmental initiatives have occurred) and in the international arena. Finally, controversial issues which could receive attention in the 109th Congress are summarized.

The Honorable Marybeth Peters, who has served since 1994 as the Register of Copyrights for the United States Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, presented a post-election report on the legislative agenda in Washington, D.C. regarding rejected, pending and future amendments to the copyright law of the United States. Register Peters also discussed the current policy role of the United States Copyright Office and several court actions that contest the constitutionality of various provisions of the copyright law.

What legal tools do privacy advocates have available to defend an individual's right to privacy? How far does this right go? How should these rights be defended—or if necessary—curtailed? What is the role of Government, of the practicing bar and of academics?

Veteran beltway players discuss the politics of P2P technology and Privacy. How far can or should Congress go? Can the United States export its values or its laws in this area? Are content owners in a losing Luddite struggle? What is the role of litigators, lobbyists and legislators in this war?

This report begins with an inventory of basic information: definitions and guides to histories of the growth of open access publishing and citation archives and descriptions of selected major open access activities. It moves on to summarize major points of difference between proponents and opponents of nongovernmental open access publishing and databases, and then highlights federal, including National Institutes of Health (NIH), open access activities and contentious issues surrounding these developments. The report also briefly describes open access developments in the United Kingdom (where a number of governmental and nongovernmental initiatives have occurred) and in the international arena. Finally, controversial issues which could receive attention in the 109th Congress are summarized.

This report begins with an inventory of basic information: definitions and guides to histories of the growth of open access publishing and citation archives and descriptions of selected major open access activities. It moves on to summarize major points of difference between proponents and opponents of nongovernmental open access publishing and databases, and then highlights federal, including National Institutes of Health (NIH), open access activities and contentious issues surrounding these developments. The report also briefly describes open access developments in the United Kingdom (where a number of governmental and nongovernmental initiatives have occurred) and in the international arena. Finally, controversial issues which could receive attention in the 109th Congress are summarized.

The Honorable Marybeth Peters, who has served since 1994 as the Register of Copyrights for the United States Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, presented a post-election report on the legislative agenda in Washington, D.C. regarding rejected, pending and future amendments to the copyright law of the United States. Register Peters also discussed the current policy role of the United States Copyright Office and several court actions that contest the constitutionality of various provisions of the copyright law.

What legal tools do privacy advocates have available to defend an individual's right to privacy? How far does this right go? How should these rights be defended—or if necessary—curtailed? What is the role of Government, of the practicing bar and of academics?