COPYRIGHT: LEGAL AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES* INF 390N.2 Unique Number 24995 Dr. Philip Doty School of Information University of Texas at Austin Spring 2005 Class time: Thursday 9:00 AM – 12:00 N Place: SZB 464 Office: SZB 570 Office hrs: Thursday 1:00 – 2:00 PM By appointment other times Telephone: (512) 471-3746 (Direct line) (512) 471-3821 (Main iSchool office) Internet: pdoty@ischool.utexas.edu http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm Class URL: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~i390n2pd/sp2005 TA: Cheryl Beaver jcherylbeaver@yahoo.com * Georgia Harper is chief of the intellectual property division of the University of Texas General System Counsel’s office. She and I first taught this course in spring 2004. Although Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 1 the course has evolved, many of its strengths are the result of Georgia’s creativity and hard work. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Expectations of students’ performance 4 Standards for written work 5 Some editing conventions for students’ papers 9 Grading 10 Texts and other tools 11 List of assignments 12 Outline of course 13 Schedule 15 Assignments 19 Suggestions for writing policy analysis 22 References 25 Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 3 INTRODUCTION Copyright: Legal and Cultural Perspectives (INF 390N.2) examines legal, cultural, historical, literary, anthropological, public policy, and other perspectives on copyright. We will use multiple disciplines and their literatures to investigate how copyright in the United States developed and has evolved. The cultural commons, ideologies of property and protection, shared cultural production, and identifying and protecting the public interest in information will be major themes of the semester’s work. The course has no prerequisites and is available to graduate students from all departments and schools. The course will closely examine long-standing as well as current controversies in the ownership of so-called intellectual property, aiming to prepare students to be competent practitioners in their professions, to be informed citizens, and to be well-read in the field. Students will also develop strategies for professional and personal political action. The course, as its title indicates, aims to help weave together the study of the law of copyright with the study of cultural categories such as the “author,” “the work,” and “creation.” More specifically, the course will: Review important court cases in copyright Investigate the history of the concepts of the personal author and the “unitary work” Examine appropriate statutes domestically and internationally, as well as major international copyright conventions Explore the replacement of public law (copyright) by private law (contract and licensing) Examine the replacement of first sale and ownership by licensing and leasing Consider how copyright, privacy, and free speech implicate each other Investigate how the international context for copyright figures into its evolution; organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization will be especially important here Explore the implications of the European Union’s moves to copyright databases of “facts” Consider Enlightenment assumptions about creation, knowledge, and social life Help students engage papers in law reviews, legal journals, and other sources Theorize the public domain as a major source of creativity and (shared) cultural expression Explore ideologies of property, especially “intellectual property” Consider how those ideologies can conflict with the protection of indigenous people’s interests Give students practice in the application of the law to particular circumstances Consider the strengths and weaknesses of various disciplinary perspectives on copyright, cultural production, and property Demonstrate how law evolves and is different across jurisdictions Explore the concept of vicarious liability Make clear that well-informed people may disagree about what reasonable behaviors related to copyright and what reasonable interpretations of the law may be. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 4 EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE Students are expected to be involved, creative, and vigorous participants in class discussions and in the overall conduct of the class. In addition, students are expected to: • Attend all class sessions; if a student misses a class, it is his or her responsibility to arrange with another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets. The assignments presume that students are familiar with all material discussed in class. • Read all material prior to class; students are expected to use the course readings to inform their classroom participation and their writing assignments. Students must learn to integrate what they read with what they say and write. This last imperative is essential to the development of professional expertise. • Educate themselves and their peers. Your successful completion of this program and your participation in the information professions depend upon your willingness to demonstrate initiative, creativity, and responsibility. Your participation in the professional and personal growth of your colleagues is essential to their success and your own. Such collegiality is at the heart of professional practice. Some assignments in this course are designed explicitly to encourage collaboration. • Spend at least 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour of classroom instruction, i.e., about 1012 hours per week for the course. • Participate in all class discussions. • Hand in all assignments fully and on time -- late assignments will not be accepted except in the particular circumstances noted below. • Be responsible with collective property, especially books and other material on reserve. • Ask for any explanation and help from the instructor or the Teaching Assistant, either in class, during office hours, on the telephone, through email, or in any other appropriate way. Email is especially appropriate for information questions, but please recall that I do not have access to email at home. It may be several days after you send email before I see it. It is always wise to send a copy of any email intended for the instructor to the TA as well; she has access to email more regularly. Academic or scholastic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, will not be tolerated and will incur the most severe penalties, including failure for the course. If there is any concern about behavior that may be academically dishonest, please consult the instructor. Students are also encouraged to refer to the UT General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and the brochure Texas is the Best . . . HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students. The instructor is happy to provide all appropriate accommodations for qualified students with documented disabilities, and the University’s Office of the Dean of Students at 471.6259, 471.4641 TTY, can provide further information and referrals as necessary. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 5 STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK Review these standards both before and after writing; they are used to evaluate your work. You will be expected to meet professional standards of maturity, clarity, grammar, spelling, and organization in your written work for this class, and, to that end, I offer the following remarks. Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what his or her audience knows about the topic at hand; therefore, effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity. As Wolcott reminds us in Writing Up Qualitative Research (1990, p. 47): "Address . . . the many who do not know, not the few who do." It is also important to remember that clarity of ideas, clarity of language, and clarity of syntax are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Remember that writing is a form of inquiry, a way to think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind. All written work for the class must be done on a word-processor and double-spaced, with 1" margins all the way around and in either 10 or 12 pt. font. Certain writing assignments will demand the use of notes (either footnotes or endnotes) and references. It is particularly important in professional schools such as the School of Information that notes and references are impeccably done. Please use APA (American Psychological Association) standards. There are other standard bibliographic and note formats, for example, in engineering and law, but social scientists and a growing number of humanists use APA. Familiarity with standard formats is essential for understanding others' work and for preparing submissions to journals, funding agencies, professional conferences, and the like. You may also consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.) and http://webster.commnet.edu/apa/apa_index.htm (a useful if non-canonical source). Do not use a general dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms in graduate school or in professional writing. If you want to use a reference source to define a term, a better choice would be a specialized dictionary such as The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy or subject-specific encyclopedia, e.g., the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. The best alternative, however, is having an understanding of the literature related to the term sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that literature. Use the spell checker in your word processing package to review your documents, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries: do not include most proper nouns, including personal and place names; omit most technical terms; include very few foreign words and phrases; and cannot identify the error in using homophones, e.g., writing "there" instead of "their," or in writing "the" instead of "them." It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise in editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read your writing, to eliminate errors and to increase clarity. Finally, each assignment should be handed in with a title page containing your full name, the date, the title of the assignment, and the class number (INF 390.2). If you have any questions about these standards, I will be pleased to discuss them with you at any time. Remember, every assignment must include a title page with • The title of the assignment • Your name Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 6 • The date • The class number – INF 390.2. CONTINUED Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 7 STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED) Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, I will read and edit your work as the editor of a professional journal or the moderator of a technical session at a professional conference would. The reminders below will help you prepare professionallevel written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 25 (some have more than one error): 1. Staple all papers for this class in the upper left-hand corner. Do not use covers, binders, or other means of keeping the pages together. 2. Number all pages after the title page. Ordinarily, notes and references do NOT count against page limits. 3. Use formal, academic prose. Avoid colloquial language, *you know?* It is essential in graduate work and in professional communication to avoid failures in diction -- be serious and academic when called for, be informal and relaxed when called for, and be everything in between as necessary. For this course, avoid words and phrases such as "agenda," "problem with," "deal with," "handle," "window of," "goes into," "broken down into," "viable," and "option." 4. Avoid clichés. They are vague, *fail to "push the envelope," and do not provide "relevant input."* 5. Avoid computer technospeak like "input," "feedback," or "processing information" except when using such terms in specific technical ways; similarly avoid using “content” as a noun. 6. Do not use the term "relevant" except in its information retrieval sense. Ordinarily, it is a colloquial cliché, but it also has a strict technical meaning in information studies. 7. Do not use "quality" as an adjective; it is vague, cliché, and colloquial. Instead use "highquality," "excellent," "superior," or whatever more formal phrase you deem appropriate. 8. Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .* 9. Avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms entail major philosophical, epistemological controversy. Avoid terms such as "facts," "factual," "proven," and related constructions for similar reasons. 10. Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing. 11. Be circumspect in using the term "this," especially in the beginning of a sentence. *THIS* is often a problem because the referent is unclear. Pay strict attention to providing clear referents for all pronouns. Especially ensure that pronouns and their referents agree in number; e.g., "each person went to their home" is a poor construction because "each" is a singular form, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the referent or the pronoun must change in number. 12. “If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were [not "was"] only taller." 13. Put "only" in its appropriate place, near the word it modifies. For example, it is appropriate in spoken English to say that "he only goes to Antone's" when you mean that "the only place Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 8 he frequents is Antone's." In written English, however, the sentence should read "he goes only to Antone's." CONTINUED Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 9 STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED) 14. Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad. 15. Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers will not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them. 16. Avoid misplaced modifiers; e.g., it is inappropriate to write the following sentence: As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, it was important for me to attend the lecture. The sentence is inappropriate because the phrase "As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica" is meant to modify the next immediate word, which should then, obviously, be both a person and the subject of the sentence. It should modify the word "I" by preceding it immediately. One good alternative for the sentence is: As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, I was especially eager to attend the lecture. 17. Avoid use of "valid," "parameter," "bias," "reliability," and "paradigm," except in limited technical ways. These are important research terms and should be used with precision. 18. Remember that the words "data," "media," "criteria," "strata," and "phenomena" are all PLURAL forms. They *TAKES* plural verbs. If you use any of these plural forms in a singular construction, e.g., "the data is," you will make the instructor very unhappy :-(. 19. "Number," "many," and "fewer" are used with plural nouns (a number of horses, many horses, and fewer horses). “Amount," "much," and "less" are used with singular nouns (an amount of hydrogen, much hydrogen, and less hydrogen). Another useful way to make this distinction is to recall that "many" is used for countable nouns, while "much" is used for uncountable nouns. 20. *The passive voice should generally not be used.* 21. "Between" is used with two alternatives, while "among" is used with three or more. 22. Generally avoid the use of honorifics such as Mister, Doctor, Ms., and so on when referring to persons in your writing, especially when citing their written work. Use last names and dates as appropriate in APA. 23. There is no generally accepted standard for citing electronic resources. If you cite them, give an indication, as specifically as possible, of: - responsibility title date of creation date viewed place to find the source (who?) (what?) (when?) (when?) (where? how?). See the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed., pp. 213-214, 231, and 268-281) for a discussion of citing electronic material and useful examples. Also see Web Extension to American Psychological Association Style (WEAPAS) at http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE 24. "Cite" is a verb, "citation" is a noun; similarly, "quote" is a verb, "quotation" is a noun. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 10 25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!* CONTINUED Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 11 STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED) 26. Use double quotation marks (“abc.”), not single quotation marks (‘xyz.’), as a matter of course. Single quotation marks are to be used to indicate quotations within quotations. 27. Provide a specific page number for all direct quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page or other digital source, provide at least the paragraph number and/or other directional cues, e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).” 28. In ordinary American English, as ≠ because. 29. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to." 30. In much of social science and humanistic study, the term "issue" is used in a technical way to identify sources of public controversy or dissensus. Please use the term to refer to topics about which there is substantial public disagreement, NOT synonymously with general terms such as "area," "topic," or the like. 31. “Impact” is a noun; so is “research.” 32. Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.” 33. Avoid the use of “etc.” – it is awkward, colloquial, and vague. 34. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,” “participants,” and “informants” are preferred and have been for decades. 35. Do not use notes unless absolutely necessary, but, if you must use them, use endnotes not footnotes. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 12 SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS Symbol Meaning # number OR insert a space; context will help you decipher its meaning AWK awkward; and usually compromises clarity as well block make into a block quotation without external quotation marks; do so with quotations ≥ 4 lines caps capitalize COLLOQ colloquial and to be avoided dB database FRAG sentence fragment; often that means that the verb and/or subject of the sentence is missing j journal lc make into lower case lib'ship librarianship org, org’l organization, organizational PL plural Q question Q’naire questionnaire REF? what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer? RQ research question sp spelling SING singular w/ with w.c.? word choice? Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 13 I also use check marks to indicate that the writer has made an especially good point and wavy lines under or next to a term to indicate that the usage is suspect. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 14 GRADING The grading system for this class includes the following grades: A+ A AB+ B BC+ C CD F Extraordinarily high achievement Superior Excellent Good Satisfactory Barely satisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable and failing. See the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in the School of Information student orientation packets for explanations of this system. Students should consult the iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/index.html) and the Graduate School Catalogue (e.g., http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad0305/ch1/ch1a.html#nature and http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad0305/ch1/ch1b.html#student) for more on standards of work. The University of Texas does not yet use the +/- grading system that we do at the iSchool; UT accepts only full letter grades. Therefore, for example, a B- and B+ final grade at the iSchool both translate to a final grade of B at the University level. A grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. In this class, the grade of A is reserved for students who demonstrate not only a command of the concepts and techniques discussed but also an ability to synthesize and integrate them in a professional manner and communicate them effectively. The grade of incomplete (X) is reserved for students in extraordinary circumstances and must be negotiated with the instructor before the end of the semester. See the former Dean's memorandum of August 13, 1991, available from the main iSchool office. I use points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. Points on any assignment are determined using an arithmetic not a proportional algorithm. For example, 14/20 points on an assignment does NOT translate to 70% of the credit, or a D. Instead 14/20 points is very roughly equivalent to a B. If any student's semester point total > 90 (is equal to or greater than 90), then s/he will have earned an A of some kind. If the semester point total > 80, then s/he will have earned at least a B of some kind. Whether these are A+, A, A-, B+, B, or B- depends upon the comparison of point totals for all students. For example, if a student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 98, the student would earn an A-. If, on the other hand, a student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 91, then the student would earn an A. This system will be further explained throughout the semester. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 15 TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS There are four required texts for this class; all four can be purchased at the Co-op on Guadalupe: Boyle, James. (1996). Shamans, software, & spleens: Law and the construction of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goldstein, Paul. (2003). Copyright’s highway: From Gutenberg to the celestial jukebox (rev. ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Lessig, Lawrence. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York: Random House. Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2004). The anarchist in the library: How the clash between freedom and control is hacking the real world and crashing the system. New York: Basic Books. There are four recommended texts as well: Lessig, Lawrence. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses [sic] technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin. Litman, Jessica. (2001). Digital copyright. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Russell, Carrie. (2004). Complete copyright: An everyday guide for librarians. Washington, DC: American Library Association, Office for Information Technology Policy. Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press. Additional readings will be available online and/or on reserve at PCL. The course Web site, including Blackboard, as well as direct email messages, will be used to inform students of changes in the course schedule, discuss assignments, and so on. Both means can be used by all course participants to communicate with each other, pass along information regarding interesting events and resources, and the like. By the second class, please subscribe to two lists that feature discussions about copyright: Coalition for Networked Information copyright list: http://www.cni.org/forums/cnicopyright/cni-copyright.html [send subscription message to cni-copyright-subscribe@cni.org -- see the Web site] Politech -- http://politechbot.com/mailman/listinfo/politech Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 16 LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS The instructors will provide additional information about each assignment. Written assignments are to be word-processed and double-spaced in 10- or 12-point font, with 1" margins. Assignments are due in class except for the online assignments. Assignment Date Due In-class preparation and participation ----- 10% Leading in-class discussion GROUP FEB 10 FEB 24 MAR 31 25 Analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (3-5 pp.) FEB 17 10 Review of Vaidhyanathan (2004) (5-7 pp.) MAR 24 15 Identification and approval of topic for final paper MAR 24 --- Choice of classmate’s paper to review APR 14 --- Draft of final paper (≥10 pp.) APR 21 --- Peer review of classmate’s draft (3-4 pp.) APR 28 10 Final paper (20-25 pp.) MAY 5 30 APR 21, 28 MAY 5 --- In-class presentation Percent of Grade All assignments must be handed in on time, and the instructors reserves the right to issue a course grade of F if any assignment is not completed. Late assignments will not be accepted unless three criteria are met: 1. At least 24 hours before the date due, the instructors gives explicit permission to the student to hand the assignment in late. 2. At the same time, a specific date and time are agreed upon for the late submission. 3. The assignment is then submitted on or before the agreed-upon date and time. The first criterion can be met only in the most serious of health, family, or personal situations. All of your assignments should adhere to the standards for written work; should be clear, succinct, and specific; and should be explicitly grounded in the readings, class discussions, and Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 17 other sources as appropriate. You will find it particularly useful to write multiple drafts of your papers. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 18 OUTLINE OF COURSE Meeting Date Topics and assignments 1 JAN 20 Introduction to the course and review of the syllabus Introduction to the concept of “intellectual property” The exclusive rights of rightsholders Exceptions to these exclusive rights 2 JAN 27 Origins of U.S. copyright law How to find, read, and summarize a copyright case How to find, read, and summarize a copyright statute 3 FEB 3 Invention of the author and the idea of the unitary work 4 FEB 10 Student-led discussion – International copyright treaties and organizations GRP 5 FEB 17 Fair use Four-factor fair use test: Guidelines and application to different media Will fair use survive? • 6 FEB 24 Due: Analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (10%; 3-5 pp.) Student-led discussion – The public domain and its enclosure GRP Discussion of students’ papers 7 MAR 3 First sale What does it mean? What have been its origin and its purpose? 8 MAR 10 The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Provisions Anti-circumvention Threats to fair use and other statutory exemptions Legislative history Mar 17 Spring Break: No class MAR 24 Copyleft and the creative commons 9 Discussion of students’ papers • Due: Review of Vaidhyanathan (2004) (15%) (5-7 pp.) Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 19 • Due: Identification and approval of topic for final paper Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 20 10 MAR 31 Student-led discussion: Indigenous people’s interests GRP 11 APR 7 Copyright and privacy Copyright and free speech 12 APR 14 Uniform Commercial Code Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) Contracts and licenses replacing copyright law and first sale Vicarious liability • 13 APR 21 Paper presentations • 14 APR 28 MAY 5 Due: Draft of final paper (≥10 pp.) Paper presentations • 15 Due: Choice of classmate’s paper to review Due: Peer review of classmate’s draft (10%) (3-4 pp.) Course evaluation Summary and trends Paper presentations • Due: Final paper (30%) (20-25 pp.) Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 21 SCHEDULE This schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as the class progresses. GRP indicates a group assignment, and AS indicates additional sources. The various court cases and portions of the U.S. Code can be found online. DATE TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND READINGS JAN 20 Introduction to the course and review of the syllabus Introduction to the concept of “intellectual property” The exclusive rights of rightsholders Exceptions to these exclusive rights READ: Copyright Act (see U.S. Copyright Office, 2004) online Pyle (1989) online Copyright Act §§ 106, 106A, 107, 108, 109, 110, 121 (skim) Miller & Davis (1990, pp. 323-339) AS: GartnerG2 & Berkman Center (2003, pp. 1-30) SUBSCRIBE: JAN 27 CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest@cni.org Politech Origins of U.S. copyright law How to find, read, and summarize a copyright case How to find, read, and summarize a copyright statute READ: Copyright Act §§ 104, 104A (see U.S. Copyright Office, 2004) online Copyright Act, Sections §§106, 106A online Copyright: Section 16.3, National Copyright Traditions (Goldstein) Association of Research Libraries (ARL) (2002) [Timeline . . .] online Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1994) MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. (pending) AS: FEB 3 Kimber, 2003 online Martin (2003) online Mohr (2002) online Greenwich Workshop, Inc. v. Tinker Creations (1996) Lee v. A.R.T. Co. 1997) Invention of the author and the idea of the unitary work READ: Boyle (1996), Chapters 6, 10, and 11 Woodmansee (1994) OTA (1986), Summary online Barthes (1977) online Foucault (1979) Klages (2001) online FEB 10 Student-led discussion – International copyright treaties and organizations GRP Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 22 READ: Carroll (2004) online Goldstein (2003), Chapter 5 Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 23 FEB 17 Fair use Four-factor fair use test: Guidelines and application to different media Will fair use survive? READ: Boyle (1996), Chapters 3, 4, and 5 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 (2003) [read majority + both dissents] Miller & Davis (1990, pp. 354-375) Copyright Act, § 107 Harper (2002) online ARL/ALA et al. (2003) online Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, Inc. (1985) Princeton University Press, v. Michigan Document Services (1996) American Geophysical Union v. Texaco (1994) Duke Law Center for the Public Domain (2004) online Illegal Art (2003) online Slater (2003) online • AS: FEB 24 Due: Analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (10%; 3-5 pp.) Ad Hoc Committee (1976) Crews (1996) Student-led discussion – The public domain and its enclosure GRP [copyrighting databases] Discussion of students’ papers READ: Lessig (2001a), Preface and Chapters 1-8 Rose (2002) online Boyle (2003b) online Copyright Act §§ 101, 102, 103, 302, 303, 304, 305 Feist v. Rural Telephone (1991) Miller & Davis (1990, pp. 285-310) AS: MAR 3 Lange (2003) National Research Council (1999) Nimmer & Krauthaus (1992) Satava v. Lowry (2003) Clifford (2003) First sale What does it mean? What was its origin? What have its purposes been? READ: Copyright Act §§ 108 and 109 Minow (1996-2003) online Mayfield (2004) Hedstrom (n.d.) online Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 24 Interlibrary loan guidelines (1976) online Gasaway (1999) online American Association of Law Libraries (2002) online Palmedo (2001) online Hyde (2001) online Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 25 MAR 10 The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Provisions Anti-circumvention Threats to fair use and other statutory exemptions Legislative history READ: Goldstein (2003), Chapters 4 and 6 Copyright Act, §§ 1201 and 1202 Legislative history of the anti-circumvention provisions (n.d.) online Electronic Frontier Foundation (2003) online Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984) Universal Studios v. Corley (2001) U.S. v. Elcom, Ltd. (2002) Lessig (2001b) AS: Molina (2003) online Mar 17 Spring Break: No class MAR 24 Copyleft and the creative commons Discussion of students’ papers READ: Lessig (2001a), Chapters 9-15 Free Software Foundation (2004) online Creative Commons (2004) online, passim AS: MAR 31 Fisher (2004) passim • Due: Review of Vaidhyanathan (2004) (15%) (5-7 pp.) • Due: Identification and approval of topic for final paper Student-led discussion: Indigenous people’s interests GRP READ: Wardrop (2002) online World Intellectual Property Organization (c. 2004) online AS: APR 7 Caslon Analytics (2004) online Austrailan Attorney-General (1994) online Copyright and privacy Copyright and free speech READ: Lemley & Volokh (1998) online Rubenfeld (2002) online Lessig (1999a) Netanel (2001) online Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 26 Stefik (1996a) Stefik (1996b) AS: Lessig (1999b) Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. (1999) Recording Industry Association of America v. Verizon Internet Services (2003) Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 27 APR 14 Uniform Commercial Code Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) Contracts and licenses replacing copyright law and first sale Vicarious liability READ: ALA (2001a) UCITA site online, passim ALA (2001b) online ALA (2001c) online Lochner v. New York 98 U.S. 45 (1905) Lemley & Reese (2004) online APR 21 AS: McGowan (2004) Baystate v. Bowers Discussion (2003) • Due: Choice of classmate’s paper to review Paper presentations • APR 28 Paper presentations • MAY 5 Due: Draft of final paper (≥10 pp.) Due: Peer review of classmate’s draft (10%) (3-4 pp.) Course evaluation Summary and trends Paper presentations READ: Boyle (1996), Chapter 13, Conclusion, and Appendix A Goldstein (2003), Chapter 7 Oberholzer & Strumpf (2004) online Lemley (2004) online Stallman (1996) online Boyle (1997) online AS: Negativland (2004) online Litman (1992) online GartnerG2 & Berkman Center (2003, pp. 31-45) online Copyright Clearance Center (2005) online • Due: Final paper (30%) (20-25 pp.) Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 28 ASSIGNMENTS Leading in-class discussion GROUP (25%) – due FEB 10 (8), FEB 24 (22), MAR 31 (29) Each student will self-select into one group of 4-5 students to lead class discussions on these dates: February 10 International copyright treaties and organizations February 24 The public domain and its enclosure March 31 Indigenous people’s interests. There are four elements of this assignment: Each team will prepare three or four questions to help facilitate the classroom discussion, and these questions should be posted to the BlackBoard site in the appropriate forum no later than 12:00 N the Tuesday before class, i.e., February 8, February 22, and March 29. Each team should work as a group to develop these questions, and the other members of the class should check the forum before class to prepare for the discussion. The discussion leaders may want to prepare a handout with the questions to distribute in class. The instructor will make a few comments (perhaps 10-15 minutes’ worth) before turning the class over to each team to lead the discussion for the rest of the class. Each member of the team should assume roughly the same amount of leadership in the class; no one should dominate the conversation. Be prepared to run class for two hours – for about an hour up to the break and then for another hour after the break. Each team should also distribute in class an annotated bibliography of ten (10) items germane to the day’s discussion. The annotations should be about 3-4 sentences long and should be very specific about the sources’ value to the day’s topic. The team should distribute a paper copy of the annotated bibliography to each member of the class and give two paper copies to the instructor. The team should post the annotated bibliography in the appropriate BlackBoard forum no later than 9:00 AM the day of class. The discussion questions and facilitating the discussion will be worth 10% of your grade, while the annotated bibliography will be worth 15% of your grade. All members of the group will receive the same grade for both elements of the assignment. The most important word of advice I can offer is to remind you to facilitate the discussion, not monopolize it – get your classmates involved. Analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (10%) – due FEB 17 Each student will write an analysis of Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), emphasizing the strengths of the respondent’s (the federal government’s) case. Another way to think of the assignment is to consider the question: what are the public benefits of stronger copyright protections for longer Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 29 terms? Use the specifics of the government’s argument and those of supporting parties, and you may find it helpful to include arguments from other proponents of strong copyright in this assignment, e.g., Goldstein (1992 and 2003), U.S. Department of Justice (2004), Ashcroft (2004), and Information Infrastructure Task Force (1995; also known as the Lehman Report or the White Paper). The analysis should be 3-5 double-spaced pp. long and posted to Blackboard in the appropriate forum. This analysis is due no later than 8:00 AM, Thursday, February 10. Also hand in a paper copy of your analysis in class. Review of Vaidhyanathan (2004) (15%) – due MAR 24 For this assignment, students will write a well-integrated review of Vaidhyanathan (2004), The Anarchist in the Library. The review should be 5 - 7 double-spaced pages long. Write for the non-specialist with an interest in copyright, e.g., a professional colleague with no specialized legal, historical, or technical knowledge. Remember to review the book written, not a book you think should have been written. Be sure to explain and clarify all important concepts, acronyms, organizations, and so on. You may want to look at a few models of formal, academic book reviews, and I expect that the reviews will meet the standards of the best general interest and academic journals. Your review should include specific consideration of sources we have read, class discussions, and other material from the course you regard as appropriate. Be especially careful to avoid plagiarism. Final paper and peer review of classmate’s draft (40%) – due APR 21, APR 28, MAY 5 Each student will choose one aspect of the copyright regime in the U.S. to write about at length, but you may find it helpful to remember our legal and cultural emphases this semester. Your final paper should be 20-25 double-spaced pp. There are six deadlines for this assignment, the last of which is variable: Identification and approval of topic – due MAR 24 Each student must submit a topic for the final paper for approval of the instructor no later than March 24. Post a note to the appropriate forum in BlackBoard so that the class can review them as well. The topic can be related to the texts we have read, cases we have reviewed, or material we have not explicitly covered in our semester’s work. Useful sources for ideas include class readings and additional sources in the syllabus, your own knowledge of copyright, discussion with the instructor and your colleagues (both inside and outside of the class), reading ahead in the syllabus to identify upcoming topics, the mass media, Web and other Internet sources, and the bibliographies of what you read. Do not limit your consideration of topics to those in the early part of the semester – the more initiative you take in identifying a topic of interest to you, the better the final product will be. Choice of classmate’s paper to review – due APR 14 Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 30 No later than April 14, each student will choose to be a peer reviewer for another student’s final paper. While the choices will generally be on a first-come-first-served basis, the instructor reserves the right to assign partners for appropriate reasons. Students will notify the instructor by private email about their choices and will receive replies about them. Draft of final paper – due APR 21 -- ≥ 10 pp. Each student will turn in two copies of a draft of the final paper for the course on April 21. One copy will be for the peer reviewer, while the other will be for the instructor. This draft should be a minimum of 10 double-spaced pp., containing all the elements of the final paper, including a one-page abstract. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 31 Peer review of classmate’s draft (10%) – due APR 28 – 3-4 pp. Each individual student will review another student’s draft and submit two copies of a threeto four-page, double-spaced critique of the paper: one to the student who wrote the draft and one to the instructor. Be specific in your critique -- what works in the draft? What does not? Why or why not? What specific suggestions can you offer for improvement to the paper, whether about the topic, the argument, definitions, organization, sources, composition, citations, lay-out, and so on? Help your classmates improve their work – this kind of review is one of the primary characteristics of professional life. In-class presentation – (APR 1) APR 21, APR 28, or MAY 5 Each student will make a 20-minute oral presentation about the final paper. While the presentation will be informal and ungraded, you should plan to use visuals and handouts as appropriate; both Wintel and Mac computers will be available, as will an Internet connection and a LitePro. Each peer editor will act as first respondent to the presentation. The dates for the presentations are April 21, April 28, and May 5. Please notify me of your preference for presentation dates no later than Wednesday, April 1. Final paper (30%) – due MAY 5 – 20-25 pp. This is a final paper of 20-25 double-spaced pages that considers any approved topic in copyright. Your paper should be both analytic and holistic and include a one-page abstract. Remember to look at three sections in the syllabus: (1) Analysis in Reading, Writing, and Presenting, (2) Standards for Written Work, and (3) Suggestions for Writing Policy Analysis. Although your paper need not follow the policy analytic models fully, it should be informed by the systematic consideration of public conflicts that policy analysis provides. Pertinent policy instruments, stake holders, and recommendations to resolve conflicts are of particular interest. Hand in two copies of your paper in the last class, May 5. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 32 SUGGESTIONS FOR WRITING POLICY ANALYSIS This section of the syllabus offers three general, interrelated models for doing policy analysis and then writing policy reports, beyond that offered in Majchrzak (1984). You can use these to guide your own writing as your study of copyright and policy analysis progresses beyond this semester, but they are also useful for evaluating the work of others. Such evaluations are common in policy studies, whether for critique, literature review, or formal peer review. Policy analysts constantly review each others’ work in a collegial but rigorous way. The first model is based on one offered by Charles R. McClure, with my own modifications added. Particular analysts and topics may demand different approaches: • Abstract • Introduction Importance of specific topic Definition of key terms Key stakeholders Key policy areas needing analysis and resolution • Overview of current knowledge Evaluative review of the literature about the topic, including print and electronic sources • Existing policy related to the topic The most important legislative, judicial, and regulatory policy instruments Ambiguities, conflicts, problems, and contradictions related to the instruments • Key issues Underlying assumptions Effects on and roles of key stakeholders Conflicts among key values Implications of issues • Conclusions and recommendations Recommendations Rationale for recommendations Implications and possible outcomes of specific courses of action • References APA style All sources cited in the paper. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 33 Bardach (2000) is the source for the second approach to doing policy analysis. His book is entitled A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving. As such, the first two thirds of his book focuses on this “eightfold path,” in a way reminiscent of Majchrzak (1984). Bardach identifies eight steps in policy analysis (using his words): Define the problem Assemble some evidence Construct the alternatives (for action) Select the criteria Project the outcomes Confront the trade-offs Decide! Tell your story. Despite his somewhat misplaced emphasis on problem solving (see, e.g., Schön, 1993) and an implicit linearity he uses to characterize policy analysis, his book is very useful for understanding the overwhelming importance of (1) narrative in the process of policy analysis, (2) iteration in analysis, and (3) clarity in argumentation. Bardach also gives some important insights into the contributions of econometric analysis to policy studies. The third model is based primarily on the work of William Dunn, with contributions from the work of Ray Rist on qualitative policy research methods, Emery Roe on narrative policy analysis, and Donald Schön on generative metaphor. I avoid the rhetoric of problems and problem solving deliberately; see, e.g., Doty (2001b). Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 34 Elements of the policy issue paper (adapted from Dunn, 1994, with material from Rist, 1994; Roe, 1994; and Schön, 1993) Element Examples of Evaluative Criteria Executive summary Are recommendations highlighted? Background of the issue or dilemma Are all the important terms clearly defined? Description of the social dilemma Outcomes of earlier efforts to address the dilemma Are all appropriate dimensions described? Are prior efforts clearly assessed? Scope and severity of the conflict Assessment of past policy efforts Significance of the conflict Need for analysis Why is the social conflict important? What are the major assumptions and questions to be considered? Issue statement Definition of the issue Major stakeholders Goals and objectives Measures of effectiveness Potential “solutions” or new understandings Is the issue clearly stated? Are all major stakeholders identified and prioritized? Is the approach to analysis clearly specified? Are goals and objectives clearly specified? Are major value conflicts identified and described? Policy alternatives Description of alternatives Comparison of future outcomes Externalities Constraints and political feasibility Are alternatives compared in terms of costs and effectiveness? Are alternatives systematically compared in terms of political feasibility? Policy recommendations Criteria for recommending alternatives Descriptions of preferred alternative(s) Outline of implementation strategy Limitations and possible unanticipated outcomes Are all relevant criteria clearly specified? Is a strategy for implementation clearly specified? Are there adequate provisions for monitoring and evaluating policies, particularly unintended consequences? References Appendices Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 35 REFERENCES I. References in the schedule and assignments American Association of Law Libraries. (2002). First sale: The basics. http://www.aallnet.org/committee/copyright/pages/issues/firstsale.html American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994) http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/60_F3d_913.htm American Library Association. (2001a). UCITA (the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act): Concerns for libraries and the public. http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/index.html American Library Association. (2001b). UCITA 101: What you should know about the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act. http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/ucita101.html American Library Association. (2001c). Problems with a non-negotiated contract. http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/contract.html ARL/ALA et al. (2003). Fair use and the development of e-reserve systems. http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/fairusereserves.htm Ashcroft, John. (2004, October 12). Prepared remarks: Release of the report of the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property. http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2004/agremarksprip.htm Association of Research Libraries. (2002). Timeline: A history of copyright in the United States. http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html Bardach, Eugene. (2000). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. New York: Chatham House. Barthes, Roland. (1977). Death of the author (Trans. Stephen Heath). In Stephen Heath (Ed.), Image music text (pp. 142-148). New York: Hill and Wang. http://faculty.smu.edu/dfoster/theory/Barthes.htm Boyle, James. (1996). Shamans, software, & spleens: Law and the construction of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Boyle, James. (1997). A politics of intellectual property: Environmentalism for the net? http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/intprop.htm Boyle, James. (2003b). Foreword: The opposite of property? In James Boyle (Ed.), Collected papers: Duke conference on the public domain (pp. 1-32). Durham, NC: Center for the Public Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 36 Domain. [This monograph also appeared as a special issue of Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1-2), 1-483.] Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/921292.ZS.html Carroll, Terry. (2004). Copyright law FAQ (4/6): International aspects. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part4/ Creative Commons. (2004). http://creativecommons.org/ Doty, Philip. (2001). Policy analysis and networked information: “There are eight million stories . . . .” In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo ?Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 213-253). Medford, NJ: Information Today. Duke Law Center for the Public Domain. (2004). Arts Project Moving Image Contest http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/contest/finalists/ Dunn, William N. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S.______ (2003) [read majority + both dissents] http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2003, September 24). Unintended consequences: Five years under the DMCA (version 3). http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php Feist v. Rural Telephone, 499 U.S. 340 (1991) http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm Foucault, Michel. (1984), What is an author? In Paul Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 101120). New York: Pantheon Books. Free Software Foundation. (2004). GNU's not Unix. http://www.gnu.org/home.html Gasaway, Laura N. (1999). Copyright considerations for fee-based document delivery services. http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/fee-based.htm Goldstein, Paul. (1992). Copyright. Law & Contemporary Problems, 55(2), 79-92. http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=lcpcf&handle=hein.journals/lcp55&id=417& size=2&rot=0&type=image Goldstein, Paul. (2003). Copyright’s highway: From Gutenberg to the celestial jukebox (rev. ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Harper, Georgia. (2002). Fair use of copyrighted materials. http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, Inc., 471 US 539 (1985) http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/harperandrow.html Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 37 Hedstrom, Margaret. (n.d.). Digital preservation: A time bomb for digital libraries. http://www.uky.edu/~kiernan/DL/hedstrom.html Hyde, Bob. (2001).The first sale doctrine and digital phonorecords. Duke Law & Technology Review, 18. http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0018.html Illegal art. (2003) http://www.illegal-art.org/ Information Infrastructure Task Force. Information Policy Working Committee. Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights. (1995, September). Intellectual property and the National Information Infrastructure: The report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights. http://www.uspto.gov/web/ipnii/ [Lehman Report, also known as the White Paper] Interlibrary Loan Guidelines [CONTU Guidelines]. (1976). Published in U.S. Congress Conference Report, H.R. 94-1733. http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/ILL-guidelines.htm Klages, Mary. (2001). Michel Foucault: “What is an author?” http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/foucault.html Legislative history of anti-circumvention provisions. (n.d.). http://www2.ari.net/hrrc/html/_black_box__legislative_histor.html Lemley, Mark A. (2004). Property, intellectual property, and free riding. John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Working Paper No. 291, Stanford Law School. [log in through the Social Science Research Network -- http://www.ssrn.com/index_sf.html] http://ssrn.com/abstract=582602 Lemley, Mark, & Reese, R. Anthony. (2004). Reducing copyright infringement without restricting innovation. Stanford Law Review, 56(6), 1345-1434. [log in through the Social Science Research Network -- http://www.ssrn.com/index_sf.html] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=525662 Lemley, Mark A., & Volokh, Eugene. (1998). Freedom of speech and injunctions in intellectual property cases. Duke Law Journal, 48(2), 147-242. [log in through the Social Science Research Network -- http://www.ssrn.com/index_sf.html] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=85608 Lessig, Lawrence. (1999a). Privacy. Chapter 11 in Code and other laws of cyberspace (pp. 142-163, 271-275). New York: Basic Books. Lessig, Lawrence. (1999b). Free speech. Chapter 12 in Code and other laws of cyberspace (pp. 164185, 275-281). New York: Basic Books. Lessig, Lawrence. (2001a). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York: Random House. Lessig, Lawrence. (2001b). Jail time in the digital age. First published as an editorial in the New York Times (2001, July 30). http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/20010730_lessig_oped.html Lessig, Lawrence. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses [sic] technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 38 Litman, Jessica. (2001). Digital copyright. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Lochner v. New York 98 U.S. 45 (1905) http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgibin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5BGroup+198+U.S.+45:%5D(%5BLevel+Case+Citation:%5D% 7C%5BGroup+citemenu:%5D)/doc/%7B@1%7D/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only Majchrzak, Ann. (1984). Methods for policy research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mayfield, Kendra. (2004). Digitizing archives not so easy. http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,42842,00.html MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/ Miller, Arthur, & Davis, Michael H. (1990). Intellectual property: Patents, trademarks, and copyright in a nutshell (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West. Minow, Mary. (1996-2003). Library digitization projects and copyright. http://www.llrx.com/features/digitization3.htm Netanel, Neil Weinstock. (2001). Locating copyright within the First Amendment skein. Stanford Law Review, 54(1), 1-86. [log in through the Social Science Research Network -http://www.ssrn.com/index_sf.html] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=267848 Oberholzer, Felix, & Strumpf, Koleman. (2004). The effect of file sharing on record sales: An empirical analysis. http://www.nber.org/~confer/2004/URCs04/felix.pdf Palmedo, Michael. (2001). Letter to Maneesha Mithal, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission. http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/ftc-hague12072001.html Pyle, Christopher. (1989). How to brief a case. http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html (Original published 1982) Princeton University Press, v. Michigan Document Services, 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/nov96/96a0357p.06.html Rist, Ray C. (2000). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1001-1017). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Roe, Emery. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University. Rose, Mark. (2002). Copyright and its metaphors. UCLA Law Review, 50(1), 1-15. http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/uclalr50&id=15&collection=journals Rubenfeld, Jed. (2002). The freedom of imagination: Copyright’s constitutionality. Yale Law Journal, 112 (1), 1-60. Also available at http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/112-1ab1.html Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 39 Russell, Carrie. (2004). Complete copyright: An everyday guide for librarians. Washington, DC: American Library Association, Office for Information Technology Policy. Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003), cert den. http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/323_F3d_805.htm Schön, Donald A. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 137-163). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Slater, Derek. (2003). Take another little piece of my art [review of Illegal Art]. http://creativecommons.org/getcontent/features/illegalart Sony v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/sony_v_universal_decision.html Stallman, Richard. (1997). The right to read. Communications of the ACM, 40(2), 85-87. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=253726&jmp=cit&dl=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=://www.li b.utexas.edu:9003/sfx_local?&CFTOKEN=www.lib.utexas.edu:9003/sfx_local?#CIT Stefik, Mark. (1999a). The bit and the pendulum: Balancing the interests of stakeholders in digital publishing. Chapter 4 in The Internet edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked world (pp. 79-106 and 302-303). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stefik, Mark. (1999b). The digital keyhole: Privacy rights and trusted systems. Chapter 9 in The Internet edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked world (pp. 197-231 and 305307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Universal Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001) http://www.nd.edu/~pbellia/corley.pdf U. S. Congress. Copyright Office. (2004). Copyright of the United States. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1986). Summary. In Intellectual property rights in an age of electronics and information (pp. 3-15). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. http://www.wws.Princeton.EDU/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). Report of the Department of Justice’s task force on intellectual property. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/IPTaskForceReport.pdf [see Ashcroft (2004)] U.S. v. Elcom, Ltd., 203 F.Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002) http://www.digital-lawonline.com/cases/62PQ2D1736.htm Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press. Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2004). The anarchist in the library: How the clash between freedom and control is hacking the real world and crashing the system. New York: Basic Books. Wardrop, Martin. (2002). Copyright and intellectual property protection for indigenous heritage. In Aboriginal Art Online. http://www.aboriginalartonline.com/forum/debate.php Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 40 Woodmansee, Martha. (1994). On the author effect: Recovering collectivity. In Martha Woodmansee & Peter Jaszi (Eds.), The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature (pp. 15-28). Durham, NC: Duke University. World Intellectual Property Organization. (c. 2004). Intellectual property and traditional knowledge. http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/publications/index.html II. Selected Additional Readings Ad hoc committee on copyright law revision. (1976). Agreement on guidelines for classroom copying in not-for-profit educational institutions with respect to books and periodicals [classroom guidelines]. Published in House Report 94-1476. http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/classroom-guidelines.htm Aufderheide, Patricia. (1999). Communications policy and the public interest: The Telecommunications Act of 1996. New York: Guilford. Australian Attorney-General. (1994). Stopping the rip-offs: Intellectual property protection for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/viewasattachmentPersonal/(CFD7369FCAE 9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~stopping+the+rip-offs-no+frame.pdf/$file/stopping+the+rip-offsno+frame.pdf Baystate v. Bowers Discussion. (2003). http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/baystatevbowersdiscussion.htm Benkler, Yochai. (1999). Free as the air to common use: First Amendment constraint on enclosure of the public domain. New York Law Review, 74(354-446). [log in through the Social Science Research Network -- http://www.ssrn.com/index_sf.html] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=168609 Bettig, Ronald V. (1997). The enclosure of cyberspace. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14(2), 138-157. Black's law dictionary (7th ed.) (1999). St. Paul, MN: West. http://www.palkauf.com/tools/black's_law_dictionary.htm Boisseau, D.L. (1993). Anatomy of a small step forward: The electronic reserve book room at San Diego State University. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 18(6), 366-368. Bowrey, Kathy, & Rimmer, Matthew. (2002). Rip, mix, burn: The politics of peer to peer and copyright law. First Monday, 7(8). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_8/bowrey/index.html Boyle, James. (2003). Collected papers: Duke conference on the public domain. Durham, NC: Center for the Public Domain. [This monograph also appeared as a special issue of Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1-2), 1-483.] Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 41 Branscomb, Anne Wells. (1994). Who owns information? From privacy to public access. New York: BasicBooks. Braunstein, Yale M. (1981). The functioning of information markets. In Jane H. Yurow and Helen A. Shaw (Eds.), Issues in information policy (pp. 57-74). Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce. Brush, Stephen B. (1993). Indigenous knowledge of biological resources and intellectual property rights: The role of anthropology. American Anthropologist, 95(3), pp. 653-686. Caslon Analytics. (2004). Intellectual property guide. http://www.caslon.com.au/ipguide.htm Clifford, Ralph D. (2003). Amicus brief supporting Satava. http://www.snesl.edu/clifford/satava/brief.pdf Ciffolilli, Andrea. (2004). The economics of open source hijacking and the declining quality of digital information resources: A case for copyright. First Monday, 9(9). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_9/ciffolilli/index.html Colwin, Jane. (2002). Getting started: Legal and ethical resources. In Tomas Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal Issues and ethical challenges in the new information era (pp. 295-302). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Copyright Clearance Center. (2005). http://www.copyright.com/ Crews, Kenneth D. (1993). Copyright, fair use and the challenge for universities: Promoting the progress of higher education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Crews, Kenneth D. (1995). Copyright law and information policy planning: Public rights of use in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Government Information, 22(2), 87-99. Crews, Kenneth D. (2000). Copyright essentials for librarians and educators. Chicago: American Library Association. Crews, Kenneth D. (2001). The law of fair use and the illusion of fair-use guidelines. Ohio State Law Journal, 62(2), 599-702. Dervin, Brenda. (1994). Information <---> democracy: An examination of underlying assumptions. In Leah A. Lievrouw (Ed.), Information resources and democracy [Special issue] (pp. 369-385). Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6). Douzinas, Costas, & Nead, Lynda. (Eds.). (1999). Law and the image: The authority of art and the aesthetics of law. Chicago: University of Chicago. Ferullo, Donna L. (2002, summer). The challenge of e-reserves. Net connect, 33-35. Fisher, William W. II. (2004). Promises to keep: Technology, law, and the future of entertainment. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. GartnerG2 & the Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. (2003). Copyright and digital media in a post-Napster world. Publication No. 2003-05. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/2003-05 Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 42 Gasaway, Laura N. (1995). White Paper – A mixed bag. Tech Trends, 40(6), 6-8. Gasaway, Laura N. (2000). Values conflict in the digital environment: Librarians versus copyright holders. http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/Columbia-article3.htm Gasaway, Laura N., & Wiant, Sarah K. (1994). Copyright: A guide to copyright law in the 1990s. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association. Ginsburg, Jane C. (1993). Copyright without walls?: Speculations on literary property in the library of the future. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future libraries (pp. 53-73). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Glendon, Mary Ann. (1991). Rights talk: The impoverishment of political discourse. New York: The Free Press. Greenwich Workshop, Inc. v. Tinker Creations, Inc. 932 F. Supp. 1210, C. D. Cal. 1996 http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/greenwichvtimber.htm Harper, Georgia. (2001). Copyright in the library: Licensing. http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/licrsrcs.htm Hawke, Constance S. (2001). Computer and Internet use on campus: A legal guide to issues of intellectual property, free speech, and privacy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Henderson, Carol C. (1998). Libraries as creatures of copyright: Why librarians care about intellectual property law and policy. Available at http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Association/Offices/ALA_Washington/I ssues2/Copyright1/Copyright.htm Hoffman, Gretchen McCord. (2002a). What every librarian should know about copyright. Part I: The basics. Texas Library Journal, 78(2), 56-63. Hoffman, Gretchen McCord. (2002b). What every librarian should know about copyright. Part II: Copyright in cyberspace. Texas Library Journal, 78(3), 15-18. Hoffman, Gretchen McCord. (2002c). What every librarian should know about copyright. Part III: Frequently asked questions. Texas Library Journal, 78(4), 148-151. Hoffman, Gretchen McCord. (2003). What every librarian should know about copyright. Part IV: Writing a copyright policy. Texas Library Journal, 79(1), 12-15. Hollingsworth, Dana. (2001). General procedures contract checklist. http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/smallcontracts/sccklist.html Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Ut. Central Division 1999) http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/release10/IntRes.html Jaszi, Peter. (1991). Toward a theory of copyright: The metamorphoses of “authorship.” Duke Law Journal, 1991, 455-502. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 43 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/duklr1991&size=2&rot=0&collection=j ournals&id=463 Jaszi, Peter. (1994). On the author effect: Contemporary copyright and collective creativity. In Martha Woodmansee & Peter Jaszi (Eds.), The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature (pp. 29-56). Durham, NC: Duke University. Jaszi, Peter, & Woodmansee, Martha. (1994). Introduction. In Martha Woodmansee & Peter Jaszi (Eds.), The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature (pp. 1-13). Durham, NC: Duke University. Kimber, Karen. (2003). Introduction to legal research. http://www.libraries.wright.edu/services/researchguides/law/ Landow, George P. (1992). Access to the text and the author's right (copyright). In Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology (pp. 196-201). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lange, David. (1981). Recognizing the public domain. Law & Contemporary Problems, 44(4), 147181. http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lcp44&size=2&rot=0&collection =lcpcf&id=813 Lange, David. (2003). Reimagining the public domain. In James Boyle (Ed.), Collected papers: Duke conference on the public domain (pp. 463-483). Durham, NC: Center for the Public Domain. [This monograph also appeared as a special issue of Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1-2), 1483.] Lange, David, & Anderson, Jennifer. (2004???). Reading the public domain. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Lee v. A.R.T. Co., 125 F. 3d 580 CA 7 (Ill.) 1997 http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm Lievrouw, Leah A. (Ed.). (1994a). Information resources and democracy [Special issue]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6). Lievrouw, Leah A. (1994b). Information resources and democracy: Understanding the paradox. In Leah A. Lievrouw (Ed.), Information resources and democracy [Special issue] (pp. 350-357). Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6). Lipinski, Tomas A. (1998). Information ownership and control. In Martha E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 33, pp. 3-38). Medford, NJ: Information Today. Lipinski, Tomas A. (2002a). Librarian's guide to copyright for shared and networked resources [Special issue]. Library Technology Reports, 38(1), 7-111. Lipinski, Tomas A. (Ed.). (2002b). Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal Issues and ethical challenges in the new information era. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 44 Litman, Jessica. (1990). The public domain. Emory Law Journal, 39(4), 965-1023. http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/emlj39&size=2&rot=0&collection=jour nals&id=979 Litman, Jessica. (1992). Copyright and information policy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 55(2), 185-209. http://www.jstor.org/view/00239186/ap040221/04a00110/0?frame=noframe&userID=8053f82b @utexas.edu/01cce44037005015df025&dpi=3&config=jstor Litman, Jessica. (2000a). The demonization of piracy. Presented at the Tenth Conference on Computers, Freedom, & Privacy, Toronto. http://www.law.wayne.edu/litman/papers/demon.pdf Litman, Jessica. (2000b). Information privacy/information property. Stanford Law Review, 52, 1283-1313. http://www.law.wayne.edu/litman/papers/infoprivacy.pdf Loring, Christopher B. (2000). Reserve, technology, and copyright. In Allen Kent (Ed.), Encyclopedia of library and information science (Vol. 66, Supp. 29, pp. 281-299). New York: Marcel Dekker. Madison, James. (1961). Federalist paper 43. In Clinton Rossiter (Ed.), The federalist papers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay (pp. 271-280). New York: Penguin. Martin, Peter W. (2003). Introduction to basic legal citation. http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/index.htm McGowan. (2004). Copyright nonconsequentialism. Missouri Law review, 69(1), 1-71. McLeod, Kembrew. (2001). Owning culture: Authorship, ownership, and intellectual property law. New York: Peter Lang. Miller, Steven. (1995). Civilizing cyberspace: Policy, power, and the information superhighway. New York: ACM Press. Minow, Mary, & Lipinski, Tomas A. (2003). The library’s legal answer book (pp. 13-84). Chicago: American Library Association. Mohr, Kevin E. (2002). How to brief a case. http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html http://www.wsulaw.edu/pdf/K1_F2003_How-To-Brief-A-Case_MOHR.pdf Molina, J. Carlos Fernández-Molina. (2003). Laws against the circumvention of copyright technological protection. Journal of Documentation, 59(1), 41-68. Mosco, Vincent. (1996). The political economy of communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mosco, Vincent, & Wasko, Janet. (Eds.). (1988). The political economy of information. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Murray, Laura J. (2004). Protecting ourselves to death: Canada, copyright, and the Internet. First Monday, 9(10). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_10/murray/ Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 45 National Research Council. Committee for a Study on Promoting Access to Scientific and Technical Data for the Public Interest. (1999). A question of balance: Private rights and the public interest in scientific and technical databases. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging Information Infrastructure. (2000). The digital dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Also available at http://www.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/ Negativland [Colin Berry]. (1995). Fair use: The story of the letter u and the numeral 2. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.01/negativland_pr.html Negativland. (2004a). http://www.negativland.com/ Negativland. (2004b). Intellectual property issues. http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html Netanel, Neil W. (1996). Copyright and democratic civil society. Yale Law Journal, 106(2), 283-387. New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001a) [majority opinion] http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-201.ZS.html New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001b) [dissent] http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZD Nimmer, Raymond T., & Krauthaus, Patricia Ann. (1992). Information as a commodity: New imperatives of commercial law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 55(3), 103-130. http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lcp55&id=821&collection=lcpcf Ostrom, Elinor. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Overman, E. Sam, & Cahill, Anthony G. (1990). Information policy: A study of values in the policy process. Policy Studies Review, 9(4), 803-818. Patterson, Lyman Ray. (1968). Copyright in historical perspective. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Patterson, Lyman Ray, & Lindberg, Stanley W. (1991). The nature of copyright: A law of users' rights. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Radin, Margaret. (1993). Reinterpreting property. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Raymond, Eric S. (1999). The cathedral & the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly. Recording Industry Association of America v. Verizon Internet Services (2003). www.eff.org/legal/cases/ RIAA_v_Verizon/opinion-20031219.pdf Reichman, J.H, & Franklin, Jonathan A. (1999). Privately legislated intellectual property rights: Reconciling freedom of contract with public good uses of information. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 147(4), 875-970. Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 46 http://weblinks2.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ua=bt+ID++UPL+shn+1+db+aphjnh+bo+B%5F +5D2C&_ug=sid+C02AA866%2D6FD7%2D4390%2D869D%2DDE452EEAE00F%40sessionmgr2+ dbs+aph+8263&_us=dstb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00194252+fcl+Aut+sm+ES+sl+%2D1+or+Date+B4 85&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22University++of++Pennsylvania++Law++Re view%22++and++DT++19990401+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+63 A9&cf=1&fn=1&rn=2& Reichman, J.H., & Uhlir, Paul F. (1999). Database protection at the crossroads: Recent developments and their impact on science and technology. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 14(2), 799-821. Richards, Donald G. (2002). The ideology of intellectual property rights in the international economy. Review of Social Economy, LX(4), 521-541. Rose, Mark. (1993). Authors and owners: The invention of copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Samuelson, Pamela. (1996, January). The copyright grab. Wired, 4(1), 135-138. Samuelson, Pamela. (2003). Mapping the public domain: Threats and opportunities. In James Boyle (Ed.), Collected papers: Duke conference on the public domain (pp. 147-171). Durham, NC: Center for the Public Domain. [This monograph also appeared as a special issue of Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1-2), 1-483.] Samuelson, Pamela. (2004). Intellectual property arbitrage: How foreign rules can affect domestic protections. Chicago Law Review, 71, 223. Schmidt, C. James. (1989). Rights for users of information: Conflicts and balances among privacy, professional ethics, law, national security. In Filomena Simora (Ed.), The Bowker annual: Library and book trade almanac (pp. 83-90). New Providence, NJ: R.R. Bowker. Slack, Jennifer Daryl, & Fejes, Fred. (Eds.). (1987). Ideology of the information age. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tannen, Deborah. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken. 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975). United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948). U.S. Congress. (1976). Agreement on guidelines for classroom copying in not-for-profit educational institutions. Agreed to by the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision, the AuthorPublisher Group and Authors League of America, and the Association of American Publishers, Inc. http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org/Copyright/guidebks.htm U.S. Congress. Congressional Research Service. (2001). Federal statutes: What they are and where to find them. http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/information/info-16.pdf Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 47 U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1986b). Intellectual property rights in an age of electronics and information. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. http://www.wws.Princeton.EDU/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1989). Copyright & home copying: Technology challenges the law. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1990a). Critical connections: Communication for the future. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1990b). Helping America compete: The role of federal scientific and technical information. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1993). Making government work : Electronic delivery of federal services. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1994). Electronic enterprises: Looking to the future. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1994). Information security and privacy in network environments. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (1993). The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for action. Washington, DC: GPO. U.S. General Accounting Office [Government Accountability Office as of 2004]. (1994). Information superhighway: Issues affecting development. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Walterscheid, Edward C. (1994). To promote the progress of science and useful arts: The background and origin of the intellectual property clause of the United States Constitution. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 2(1). http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/~jipl/vol2/waltersc.html Warwick, Shelly. (2002). Copyright for libraries, museums, and archives: The basics and beyond. In Tomas Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal Issues and ethical challenges in the new information era (pp. 235-255). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Weber, Claire. (2002). Designing, drafting, and implementing new policies. In Tomas Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal Issues and ethical challenges in the new information era (pp. 303-319). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Woodmansee, Martha. (1984). The genius and the copyright: Economic and legal conditions of the emergence of the “author.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, 17(4), 425-448. Selected law reviews and journals of special interest to copyright Berkeley Technology Law Journal http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/ Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/aelj/ Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 48 Duke Law & Technology Review http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/ Harvard Journal of Law & Technology http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/ Intellectual Property Law Review http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/form/academic/s_lawrev.html?_m=0cd7a31f47f9114a4483775c1cafe6e4&wc hp=dGLbVtz-zSkVb&_md5=592d0d3acbc667e6898e441696cad113[a more general source] Journal of Intellectual Property Law http://www.law.uga.edu/jipl/ Journal of the Copyright Society http://www.csusa.org/html/publications/journal/journal.htm Law and Contemporary Problems http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/ Richmond Journal of Law & Technology http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/index.asp Stanford Technology Law Review http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Core_Page/index.htm Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 49 Governmental and Commercial Serial Sources of Government Information Code of Federal Regulations Congressional Digest Congressional Information Service Congressional Quarterly Congressional Record C[ongressional] Q[uarterly] Weekly Reports Federal Register Supreme Court Reporter U.S. Code U.S. Code and Congressional and Administrative News U.S. Code Annotated United States Supreme Court Reports Journals and Other Serial Sources on Information Policy and Government Information Annual Review of Information Science and Technology Atlantic Monthly The Bowker Annual: Library and Book Trade Almanac Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science Communications Yearbook Electronic Public Information Newsletter EPIC [Electronic Privacy Information Center] Alert ERIC EDUCAUSE Review Federal Computer Week Government Computer News Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 50 Government Information Quarterly Government Technology Harpers Information, Communication, and Society Information Management Review Information Processing and Management The Information Society Internet Research: Electronic Networks Applications and Policy (formerly Electronic Networking: Research, Applications, and Policy) Internet World Journal of Academic Librarianship (especially its Information Policy column) Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (formerly the Journal of the American Society for Information Science) Journal of Communication Journal of Government Information: An International Review of Policy, Issues and Resources (formerly Government Publications Review) Journal of Information Science Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Journal of Policy Research The Journal of Politics Knowledge Knowledge in Society Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy Philosophy and Public Affairs Policy Sciences Policy Studies Journal Policy Studies Review Privacy Journal Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 51 Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting Public Administration Review Public Affairs Information Service Research Policy Sage Yearbook of Politics and Public Policy Science Scientific American Science and Public Policy Serials Review Technology Review Telecommunications Policy Utne Reader Wired Newspapers Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/ New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/ Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/ Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com Other online sources (Barry Kite’s) Aberrant Art http://www.aberrantart.com/ American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) http://www.ascap.com/index.html Legislation http://www.ascap.com/legislation/ Association of American Publishers (AAP) http://www.publishers.org/ Government Affairs http://www.publishers.org/govt/index.cfm (University of California) Berkeley Center for Law & Technology http://www.law.berkeley.edu:80/institutes/bclt/ Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 52 Chilling Effects http://www.chillingeffects.org/ Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) http://www.cni.org/ (United States) Code http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ (Compiler Press’) Compleat World copyright Website [sic] http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/journal.htm Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) http://www.cpsr.org/dox/home.html (U.S.) Congressional Research Service (CRS) http://www.cnie.org/nle/crs_main.html Copyright and Fair Use (Stanford U.) http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ Copyright Clearance Center http://www.copyright.com/ Copyright Crash Course (Georgia Harper's home page on copyright and other “IP” topics) http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/gkhbio2.htm Copyright Management Center http://www.iupui.edu/~copyinfo (U.S. Library of Congress) Copyright Office http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ Copyright Society of the U.S.A. http://www.csusa.org/ Cornell University, Computer Policy & Law Program http://www.cornell.edu/CPL/ Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI): http://www.cnri.reston.va.us (U.S.) Department of Commerce (DoC) http://www.doc.gov (U.S.) Department of Justice (DoJ) http://www.usdoj.gov/ Digital Future Coalition http://www.dfc.org// EDUCAUSE (formerly EDUCOM and CAUSE) http://www.educause.edu Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) http://www.eff.org Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC): http://www.epic.org/ (Terry Carroll’s 2002) FAQs about Copyright http://www.tjc.com/copyright/FAQ/ (U.S.) Federal Communication Commission (FCC) http://www.fcc.gov (U.S.) Federal Register http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html Findlaw http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/ First Monday http://www.firstmonday.org/ Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 53 (U.S.) General Accounting Office (GAO) http://www.gao.gov/ (Harvard University) Information Infrastructure Project http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/ Illinois Institute of Technology Institute for Science, Law, and Technology http://www.kentlaw.edu/islt/ Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) http://iitf.doc.gov “Intellectual property” http://infeng.pira.co.uk/IE/top007.htm http://www.ipmag.com/archive.html Institute for Technology Assessment (ITA) http://www.mtppi.org/ita/index.htm Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) http://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us Internet Society http://info.isoc.org/ (Cornell University Law School) Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/ Copyright law http://fatty.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html LexisNexis Academic Search Form (Guided [advanced] Search) http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/form/academic/s_lawrev_more.html?_m=6e07cc386066f3f56cade6326e14af 9c&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkVA&_md5=bc11b79f6023e54a9faa1849a8b3a3e7 Library of Congress Marvel (Machine-Assisted Realization of the Virtual Electronic Library) http://lcweb.loc.gov/homepage/lchp.html U.S. Congress Thomas system for full text of selected bills http://thomas.loc.gov/ Library of Congress LOCIS (Library of Congress Information System): http://moondog.usask.ca/hytelnet/us3/us373.html National Academy of Sciences (NAS) http://www.nas.edu/ National Academy Press (NAP) http://www.nap.edu/ National Information Infrastructure: Servers with comprehensive sources http://www.cuny.edu/links/nii.html (U.S.) National Information Infrastructure Virtual Library http://nii.nist.gov/ National Science Foundation (NSF) http://www.nsf.gov National Security Agency (NSA) http://www.nsa.gov:8080 National Technical Information Service (NTIS) FedWorld http://www.fedworld.gov National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) http://www.ntia.doc.gov Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 54 (U.S.) Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) http://www.ota.nap.edu -- see Institute for Technology Assessment -- and Princeton University archive of OTA reports http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ Public Knowledge http://www.publicknowledge.org/ Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) http://www.riaa.com/default.asp Anti-piracy http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/default.asp (Esther Dyson’s) Release 1.0 http://www.edventure.com/ Software & Information Industry Association http://www.siia.net/ SIIA Anti-Piracy Division http://www.siia.net/piracy/ Telecommunications and Information Policy Institute http://www.utexas.edu/research/tipi/ (University of California) UCCopyright http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/copyright/ especially see Additional Resources http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/copyright/resources.html University of Texas Libraries http://www.lib.utexas.edu/ Government information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/ More Gov’t Information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/us.html International Gov’t Information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/world.html Texas Government Information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/texas.html (Laura “Lolly” Gasaway) When U.S. Works Pass into the Public Domain http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/public-d.htm World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) http://www.wipo.int/ Copyright and Related Rights http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/copyright.html [full Web site] http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ FAQs About Copyright http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/index.htm Berne Convention http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/index.html WIPO Copyright Treaty http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/diplconf/distrib/treaty01.htm Intellectual Property Digital Library http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/ Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin December 2004 55