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:
[email protected]
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm
Class URL:
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~i390n2pd/sp2005
TA:
Cheryl Beaver
[email protected]
*
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 [email protected] -- 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
[email protected]
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/%[email protected]%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
Download

here - School of Information