COPYRIGHT: LEGAL AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
INF 390N.2
Unique Number 27575
Dr. Philip Doty
School of Information
University of Texas at Austin
Spring 2009
Class time: Thursday 1:00 – 4:00 PM
Place:
SZB 464
Office:
SZB 570
Office hrs: Wednesday 1:00 – 2:00 PM
By appointment other times
Telephone: 512.471.3746 – direct line
512.471.2742 – iSchool receptionist
512.471.3821 – main iSchool office
Internet:
pdoty@ischool.utexas.edu
http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm
Class URL: http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Doty_Philip/2009/spring/INF390N2/
TA:
Sarah Kim
srhkim@gmail.com
Office hours Tuesday 10:00 AM – 12:00 N
FAC (Flawn Academic Center) 325
By appointment other times
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
3
Expectations of students’ performance
4
Analysis and holism
5
Standards for written work
6
Some editing conventions for students’ papers
10
Grading
11
Texts and other tools
12
List of assignments
13
Schedule
14
Assignments
17
Suggestions for writing policy analysis
20
References
23
References in the schedule and assignments
Selected other court cases
Selected additional readings [papers, chapters, monographs]
Selected law reviews and journals of special interest to copyright
Governmental and commercial serial sources of government
information
Journals and other serial sources on information policy and
government information
Newspapers
Other online sources
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
23
26
27
38
39
39
41
41
2
INTRODUCTION
Copyright: Legal and Cultural Perspectives (INF 390N.2) examines copyright from a number of
disciplinary points of view. These include legal studies, cultural history, information studies,
political and social history, literary studies, anthropology, cultural studies, public policy, science
and technology studies, and other disciplines. We will use these multiple disciplines and their
literatures to investigate how copyright in the United States has evolved. The cultural commons,
ideologies of property and protection, shared cultural production, considering natural rights
“vs.” social bargain/statutory arguments for copyright, 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, weaves together the study of the law of copyright with the study
of cultural categories such as the “author,” “the work,” “property,” and “creation.” More
specifically, the course will:

















Consider Enlightenment assumptions about creation, knowledge, and social life
Review important court cases in copyright
Investigate the history of the concepts of the personal author and the “unitary work”
Examine appropriate statutes and 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 are related
Investigate how the international context for copyright figures into its evolution;
organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade
Organization are especially important here
Explore the implications of the European Union’s moves to copyright databases of “facts”
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 identity, cultural creation, and property are intermingled in both the creation
and use of copyrighted works
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.
Among our goals this semester will be to make it clear that well-informed people often disagree
about copyright in a number of ways, e.g., what the public interest in copyrighted works may be,
what reasonable behaviors related to copyright might be, how best to encourage the creation and
distribution of creative works, what the breadth and character of the public domain are, and
what reasonable interpretations of the law may be.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
3
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 her responsibility to arrange with
another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets.
•
Read all material prior to class; students are expected to use the course readings to inform
their classroom participation and their writing. 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 and to the development of a collegial professional persona.
•
Educate themselves and their peers. Successful completion of graduate academic programs
and participation in professional life depend upon a willingness to demonstrate initiative and
creativity. Participation in the professional and personal growth of colleagues is essential to
one’s own success as well as theirs. Such collegiality is at the heart of scholarship, so some
assignments are designed to encourage collaboration.

Spend at least 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour in the classroom; therefore, a 3-credit
graduate hour course requires a minimum of 10-12 hours per week of work outside the
classroom.
•
Participate in all class discussions.
•
Complete all assignments on time; late assignments will not be accepted except in the
particular circumstances noted below. Failure to complete any assignment on time will result
in a failing grade for the course.
•
Be responsible with collective property, especially books and other material on reserve.
•
Ask for 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 the instructor limits access to email outside the
office. Unless there are compelling privacy concerns, 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 dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, will not be tolerated and
will incur severe penalties, including failure for the course. If there is concern about behavior
that may be academically dishonest, consult the instructor. Students should refer to the UT
General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and 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 students with
documented disabilities. 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 2008
4
ANALYSIS AND HOLISM IN READING, WRITING, AND PRESENTING
Students in this class must be analytic in their reading of others' work, in their own writing, and
in their presentations. What follows are suggestions for developing analytic and critical methods
of thinking and communication. These suggestions are also indications of what you should
expect from the writing and speaking of others.
Please remember that a holistic, integrative understanding of context must always complement
depth of analysis.

First and foremost, maximize clarity – be clear, but not simplistic or patronizing.

Remember that writing is a form of thinking, not just a medium to "display" the results of
thinking; make your thinking engaging, reflective, and clear.

Provide enough context for your remarks that your audience can understand them but not so
much that your audience's attention or comprehension is lost.

Be specific.

Avoid jargon, undefined terms, undefined acronyms, colloquialisms, clichés, and vague
language.

Give examples.

Be critical, not dismissive, of others' work; be skeptical, not cynical.

Answer the difficult but important "how?," "why?," and “so what?” questions.

Support assertions with evidence.

Make explicit why evidence used to support an assertion does so.

Identify and explore the specific practical, social, and intellectual implications of courses of
action.

Be evaluative. Synthesize and internalize existing knowledge without losing your own
critical point of view.

Identify the specific criteria against which others' work and options for action will be
assessed.
See the Standards for Written Work and the assignment descriptions in this syllabus for further
explanations and examples.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
5
STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN 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.
Review these standards both before and after writing; I use them to evaluate your work.
Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what 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 mutually reinforcing.
Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Recall that writing is a form of inquiry, a
way to think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind. Theodore Dreiser’s
Sister Carrie shows how this process of composition and thought works (1994, p. 144):
Hurstwood surprised himself with his fluency. By the natural law which governs all effort,
what he wrote reacted upon him. He began to feel those subtleties which he could find
words to express. With every word came increased conception. Those inmost breathings
which thus found words took hold upon him.
We need not adopt Dreiser’s breathless metaphysics or naturalism to understand the point.
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.
Some 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
want to consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.).
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, use 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 a standard spell checker, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries have systematic
weaknesses: they exclude most proper nouns, e.g., personal and place names; they omit most
technical terms; they omit most foreign words and phrases; and they 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 390N.2). If you have
any questions about these standards, I will be pleased to discuss them with you at any time.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
6
Remember, every assignment must include a title page with:
•
•
•
•
The title of the assignment
Your name
The date
The class number – INF 390N.2.
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 professional
written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16,
19, 21, 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. 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.
6. Avoid using “content” as a noun.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .*
10. 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.
11. Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing.
12. 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
singular, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the referent
or the pronoun must change in number.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
7
13. "If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were [not "was"] only taller."
CONTINUED
14. 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
he frequents is Antone's." In written English, however, the sentence should read "he goes
only to Antone's."
15. Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad.
16. Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers will
not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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 :-(.
20. "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.
21. *The passive voice should generally not be used.*
22. "Between" is used with two alternatives, while "among" is used with three or more.
23. 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.
24. 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?).
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
8
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 for more guidance.
25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*
26. Citation, quotation, and reference are nouns; cite, quote, and refer to are verbs.
CONTINUED
27. 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.
28. 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).”
29. In ordinary American English, as ≠ because.
30. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to."
31. 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.
32. On a related note, avoid the locution of “public debate.” Such a locution makes a series of
faulty assumptions:
- It presumes that a public policy issue has only two “sides.” There are usually three or four
or more perspectives on any topic of public dissensus that merit consideration. “Debate”
hides this complexity.
- “Debate” implies that one “side” and only one “side” can be correct; that presumption
ignores the fact that the many perspectives on a public policy issue have contributions to
make to its resolution.
- “Debate” implies that there can be and will be one and only one “winner.” This
presumption naively ignores the fact that some public policy issues are intractable, that
these issues are often emergent as are their resolutions, and that compromise is success
rather than failure or “surrender.”
33. Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.”
34. Avoid the use of “etc.” – it is awkward, colloquial, and vague.
35. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,”
“participants,” and “informants” are preferred and have been for decades.
36. 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 2008
9
37. Please adhere to these orthographic (spelling) conventions:
- Web with a capital “W.”
- Web site, two words, with a capital “W.”
- Internet with a capital “I” to indicate the TCP/IP-compliant computer network with a
shared address convention. Otherwise, internet with a lower-case “i” simply means any of
the many millions of networks of networks.
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
ITAL
italicize
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
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
10
w/
with
w.c.?
word choice?
I also use check marks to indicate that the writer has made an especially good point. Wavy lines
indicate that usage or reasoning is suspect.
GRADING
Grades for this class include:
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CF
Extraordinarily high achievement
Superior
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Barely satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unacceptable and failing.
not recognized by the University
4.00
3.67
3.33
3.00
2.67
2.33
2.00
1.67
0.00.
See the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in
the School of Information student orientation packet for explanations of this system. Consult the
iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/general_info.php) and the Graduate
School Catalogue (e.g., http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad0709/ch01/ch01a.grad.html#The-Nature-and-Purpose-of-Graduate-Work and
http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad07-09/ch01/ch01b.grad.html#Student-Responsibility)
for more on standards of work. While the University does not accept the grade of A+, the
instructor may assign the grade to students whose work is extraordinary.
The grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. The instructor
reserves the grade of A 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, successfully informing the work of other students.
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 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
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
11
comparison of point totals for all students. For example, if a student earns a total of 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.
TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS
There are five required texts for this class, and they are available 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.
Boyle, James. (2008). The public domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind. New Haven, CT:
Yale University.
Goldstein, Paul. (2003). Copyright’s highway: From Gutenberg to the celestial jukebox (rev. ed.).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Gillespie, Tarleton. (2007). Wired shut: Copyright and the shape of digital culture. Cambridge,
MA: MIT.
Litman, Jessica. (2001). Digital copyright. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
There are seven recommended texts:
Boyle, James. (Ed.) (2003a). Collected papers: Duke conference on the public domain. Durham,
NC: Center for the Public Domain. [A special issue of Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(12), 1-483.] Also available at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/
Hess, Charlotte, & Ostrom, Elinor. (Eds.). (2007b). Understanding knowledge as a commons:
From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lessig, Lawrence. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New
York: Random House.
Lessig, Lawrence. (2004b). Free culture: How big media uses [sic] technology and the law to lock
down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin.
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.
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.
The course Web site, Blackboard, and direct email messages will inform students of changes in
the schedule and assignments. By the second class, please subscribe to three lists:
Coalition for Networked Information copyright list, now owned by Peter Jaszi:
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
12
http://roster.wcl.american.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A0=PIJIPCOPYRIGHT&X=5D71B90996102E1081&Y=mpalmedo%40wcl.american.edu
The archives through February 2007 live at http://www3.wcl.american.edu/cni/
Politech: http://politechbot.com/mailman/listinfo/politech
Digital Copyright Digest: http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/listserv.html
[send subscription message to digital-copyright-digest-subscribe@lists.umuc.edu]
LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS
The instructor 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 unless otherwise specified.
Assignment
Date Due
Percent of Grade
In-class preparation and participation
-----
15%
Paper on Boyle (1996 and 2008) (3-4 pp.)
FEB 12
10
Case “brief” and discussion questions (4-5 pp.)
MAR 5
10
Paper on Feist and fair use (3-5 pp.)
MAR 12
15
Leading in-class discussion GROUP
MAR 26,
APR 2
15
Identification and approval of topic for final paper
MAR 26
---
Choice of classmate’s paper to review
APR 16
---
Draft of final paper (≥10 pp.)
APR 23
---
Peer review of classmate’s draft (3-4 pp.)
APR 30
10
In-class presentation
APR 23, 30
---
Final paper (15-20 pp.)
THU, MAY 14
12:00 N in SZB 564
25
All assignments must be handed in on time, and the instructor reserves the right to issue a course
grade of F if any assignment is not completed. Late assignments will be accepted only if:
1.
At least 24 hours before the date due, the instructor 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.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
13
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
other sources as appropriate. You will find it particularly useful to write multiple drafts of your
papers.
SCHEDULE
This schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as the class progresses. GRP indicates a group
assignment, and AS indicates additional sources. CD indicates that a document can be found in
the Course Documents section of the class Blackboard site. The various court cases and portions
of the U.S. Code can be found online.
DATE
TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND READINGS
JAN 22
Introduction to the course and review of the syllabus
Introduction to the concept of “intellectual property”
The exclusive rights of rights holders
Exceptions to these exclusive rights
ALISE
READ: Boyle (2008), Chapters 1-5
Litman (2001), Introduction, Chapters 1 and 2
Copyright Act (see U.S. Copyright Office, 2004) online
Copyright Act §§ 106, 106A, 107, 108, 109, 110, 121 (skim)
AS:
Miller & Davis (1990, pp. 323-339)
SUBSCRIBE:
JAN 29
CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest@cni.org
Politech
Digital Copyright Digest
READ: Boyle (2008), 6-10
Litman (2001), 3, 4, and 5
Rose (2002a) CD
Copyright Act §§ 104, 104A (see U.S. Copyright Office, 2004) online
AS:
Association of Research Libraries (ARL) (2002) [Timeline . . .] online
(U.S. Congress) OTA (1986), Summary online
FEB 5
READ: Boyle (1996), Preface, 1, 6, 10, 11
FEB 12
READ: Boyle (1996), 3, 4, 5, 13, Conclusion, Appendix A
Litman (2001), 3, 4, 5
•
Due: Paper comparing Boyle (1996) and Boyle (2008) (10%; 3-5 pp.)
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
14
FEB 19
READ: Litman (2001), 6, 7, 8
Goldstein (2003), 1, 4, 5
FEB 26
Margaret Radin on property and personhood
READ: Radin (1982) online
Radin (1987) online
Radin (1993) CD
Ford (1995) online
Pyle (1989) online
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 (2003) [read majority opinion + both dissents]
•
MAR 5
In-class exercise: informal case “brief”
Selected cases – fair use
READ: American Geophysical Union v. Texaco (1994)
Feist v. Rural Telephone (1991)
Kelly v. Arriba Corp. (2003)
Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984)
•
MAR 12
DUE:
Case “brief” and discussion questions (10%; 4-5 pp.)
Selected cases – vicarious liability?
Considering the commons
READ: A&M Records v. Napster (2001)
MGM v. Grokster (2005)
Bollier (2007) CD
Hardin (1968) online
Lessig (2004c) online
Lougee (2007) CD
AS:
•
Creative Commons (2004) online
Carroll (2006) online
Hess & Ostrom (2007a)
Due: Paper on Feist and fair use (15%; 3-5 pp.)
Mar 19
Spring Break: No class
MAR 26
Student-led discussion – the construction of authorship (15%) GRP
READ: Barthes (1977) online
Foucault (1984) CD
Jaszi (1994) CD
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
15
Jaszi & Woodmansee (1994) CD
Rose (1988) online
Woodmansee (1994) CD
•
APR 2
Due: Identification and approval of topic for final paper
Student-led discussion – the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (15%) GRP
READ: review Boyle (2008), 5
Goldstein (2003), 6
Litman (2001), 9, 10, 11
Copyright Act, §§ 1201 and 1202
17 USC 1201(2) – chart summarizing prohibitions of 1201 and 1202 CD
Legislative history of the anti-circumvention provisions (n.d.) online
Electronic Frontier Foundation (2003) online
APR 9
READ: Gillespie (2007), 1, 2, 3
Litman (2007) online
APR 16
READ: Gillespie (2007), 4, 5, 6
•
APR 23
Paper presentations
•
APR 30
Due: Draft of final paper (≥10 pp.)
Paper presentations
•
MAY 7
Due: Choice of classmate’s paper to review
Due: Peer review of classmate’s draft (10%; 3-4 pp.)
Course evaluation
Summary
READ: Gillespie (2007), 8, 9
Goldstein (2003), 7
Litman (2001), 12, 13
AS:
Gillespie (2007), 7
THURSDAY, MAY 14, 12:00 N in Doty’s mailbox in SZB 564
•
Due: Final paper (25%; 15-20 pp.)
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
16
ASSIGNMENTS
Paper comparing Boyle (1996) and Boyle (2008) (10%) – due FEB 12
This paper will allow you to compare Jamie Boyle’s books: Shamans, Software, & Spleens: Law
and the Construction of the Information Society (1996) and The Public Domain: Enclosing the
Commons of the Mind (2008). Please answer these questions in 3-4 double-spaced pages:


The two books are decidedly different in tone and “scholarliness.” Which do you think is
more successful in explaining the complexities of the environments in which we allow
“intellectual property” claims? Why? Be as specific as possible. (1½ - 2 pp.)
Other than tone and date, in your opinion, what is the major difference between the two
books? (1½ - 2 pp.)
Address the two questions as specifically as possible and use any sources that help you make
your argument.
Case “brief” and discussion questions (10%) – due MAR 5
We will be reading a number of legal opinions this semester. Three of them are particularly
important to the concept of fair use: American Geophysical Union v. Texaco (1994), Kelly v. Arriba
Corp. (2003), and Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984).
In preparation for class on Thursday, March 5, each student will prepare a very informal brief
related to one of the three cases and at least one discussion question for the class based on any of
the three cases. The instructor will assign the cases by lot and inform the students about the
choices no later than February 19, two weeks before the assignment is due.
Each brief will be 4-5 double-spaced pp. and will have the following components often found in
students’ legal briefs:







Title
Citation
Facts of the case
Issue
Holding
Reasoning
Analysis.
The Title, Citation, Facts of the Case, the Issue, and Holding should take 2 double-spaced pp. or
less, the Reasoning 1 double-spaced p., and your analysis 1-2 double-spaced pp. You may want
to see the assignment on Feist and fair use below for more ideas for this brief.
We will use the briefs and your discussion questions, along with the texts of the cases and
additional material from our readings, to structure our discussion in class.
Paper on Feist (1991) and fair use (15%) – due MAR 12
Each student will analyze what Feist v. Rural Telephone, 499 U.S. 340 (1991) says and implies for
the concept of fair use, particularly in the context of what we might broadly call the conflict
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
17
between conceptualizing copyright as a statutory right (a utilitarian argument) and
conceptualizing copyright as a natural right (a property or sweat-of-the-brow argument).
What does the case say? How and why is the case important for fair use? What does the case
imply, if anything, for the conflict between statutory and natural rights arguments for copyright,
including questions related to originality, “sweat of the brow” analysis, and the distinction
between ideas and expression? Use any and all of the course readings, class discussion, and
other materials you find appropriate to engage these and other questions you regard as
important.
The analysis should be 3-5 double-spaced pp. long. Hand in two paper copies in class, and post
a copy of the analysis to the appropriate Blackboard forum by 8:00 AM, Thursday, March 12.
Leading in-class discussion GROUP (15%) – due MAR 26 (24), APR 2 (MAR 31)
Each student will self-select into one group to lead class discussions on these dates:


March 26
April 2
The construction of authorship
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
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., March 24 and March 31. 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 should 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 90 minutes. 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 an hour and a half – for about an hour up to
the break and then for another 30 minutes after the break. The instructor will use the last 30
minutes to expand on the day’s topic and/or introduce new material.

Each team should also distribute in class an annotated bibliography of ten (10) items that we
have NOT read as a class and that are 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 in class.

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 5% of your grade, while the
annotated bibliography will be worth 10% 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.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
18
Final paper and peer review of classmate’s draft (35%) – due APR 23, APR 30, MAY 14
Each student will choose one aspect of the copyright regime in the U.S. to write about at length,
especially keeping in mind our legal and cultural emphases this semester. The final paper should
be 15-20 double-spaced pp.
There are six deadlines for this assignment, one of which is variable:

Identification and approval of topic – due MAR 26
Each student must submit a topic for the final paper for approval of the instructor no later
than March 26. 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 16
No later than April 16, 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 23 – ≥ 10 pp.
Each student will turn in two copies of a draft of the final paper on April 23. One copy will
be for the peer reviewer, one for the instructor. This draft should be a minimum of 10
double-spaced pp., with all the elements of the final paper, including a one-page abstract.

Peer review of classmate’s draft (10%) – due APR 30 – 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 a primary responsibility of professional life. You might find useful the
evaluative criteria specified in Dunn (1994) on p. 22 of this syllabus.

In-class presentation – (APR 2) APR 23 or APR 30
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 Windows 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.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
19
The dates for the presentations are April 23 or April 30. Please notify me of your preference
for presentation dates no later than Thursday, April 2.

Final paper (25%) – due MAY 14, 12:00 N in Doty’s mailbox, SZB 564 – 15-20 pp.
This final paper of 15-20 double-spaced pp. should consider any approved topic in
copyright. The 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 the paper need not follow the policy analytic models, it should be informed by the
systematic consideration of public conflicts that policy analysis provides. Pertinent policy
instruments, stakeholders, and recommendations to resolve conflicts are of particular import.
Post your final paper to the appropriate forum in Blackboard no later than 12:00 N, May 14.
AND
Put two paper copies of your final paper in Doty’s mailbox in SZB 564 by 12:00 N, May 14.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
20
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 other’s work in a collegial but rigorous way.
The first model is based on one developed 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 2008
21
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 (2001).
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
22
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 2008
23
REFERENCES
Many required readings are available online, as indicated below and in the class schedule. Some of the
course readings are in the Course Documents section of Blackboard (CD).
Some of the readings, on the other hand, require you to be logged in with your UT EID through the UT
libraries. Those journals are usually available online for only part of their publication run; further, UT
often has more than one arrangement through which to get these journals online, so there may be more
than one URL for each journal. Feel free to explore the various online journal packages – the more
familiar you are with such arrangements, the better researcher you will be.
I. References in the schedule and assignments
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. 239 F. 3rd 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm
American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/60_F3d_913.htm
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
Bollier, David. (2007). The growth of the commons paradigm. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor
Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 27-40).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CD
Boyle, James. (1996). Shamans, software, & spleens: Law and the construction of the information
society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Boyle, James. (Ed.) (2003a). Collected papers: Duke conference on the public domain. Durham, NC:
Center for the Public Domain. [Also a special issue of Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1-2), 1483.] Also available at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/
Boyle, James. (2008). The public domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale
University.
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.
Dunn, William N. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (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
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
24
Feist v. Rural Telephone, 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm
Ford, Richard Thompson. (1995). Facts and values in pragmatism and personhood [Review of
the book Reinterpreting property (by Margaret Radin)]. Stanford Law Review, 18(1), 217-246. Also
available at http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/journals/00389765.html?cookieSet=1
Foucault, Michel. (1984), What is an author? In Paul Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 101120). New York: Pantheon Books. CD
Gillespie, Tarleton. (2007). Wired shut: Copyright and the shape of digital culture. Cambridge, MA:
MIT.
Goldstein, Paul. (2003). Copyright’s highway: From Gutenberg to the celestial jukebox (rev. ed.).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Hardin, Garrett. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248. Also
available at http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/stable/i299458
Hess, Charlotte, & Ostrom, Elinor. (Eds.). (2007b). Understanding knowledge as a commons: From
theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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. CD
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. CD
Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. (2003), 336 F. 3d 811, 9th circuit
http://images.chillingeffects.org/cases/Kelly_v_Arriba.html
Legislative history of anti-circumvention provisions. (n.d.).
http://www2.ari.net/hrrc/html/_black_box__legislative_histor.html
Lessig, Lawrence. (2001a). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New
York: Random House.
Lessig, Lawrence. (2004b). Free culture: How big media uses [sic] technology and the law to lock down
culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin.
Lessig, Lawrence. (2004c). The creative commons. Montana Law Review, 65(1), 1-4. Also
available at
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.d
o?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T5460971488&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&
resultsUrlKey=29_T5460971491&cisb=22_T5460971490&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=222557
&docNo=3
Litman, Jessica. (2001). Digital copyright. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
25
Litman, Jessica. (2007). Creative reading. Law & Contemporary Problems, 70(2), 175-183. Also
available at
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?70+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+175+(spring+2007)
Lougee, Wendy Pradt. (2007). Scholarly communication and libraries unbound: The
opportunity of the commons. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge
as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 311-332). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CD
Majchrzak, Ann. (1984). Methods for policy research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. 545 US 1913 (2005)
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/
Pyle, Christopher. (1989). How to brief a case.
http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html (Original published 1982)
Radin, Margaret. (1982). Property and personhood. Stanford Law Review, 34(5), 957-1015. Also
available at
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/browse/00389765/ap040173?frame=noframe&user
ID=80533f15@utexas.edu/01c0a8487400504f6f1&dpi=3&config=jstor
Radin, Margaret. (1987). Market-inalienability. Harvard Law Review, 100(8), 1849-1937. Also
available at http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/stable/i257571
Radin, Margaret. (1993). Introduction: Property and pragmatism. In Reinterpreting property (pp.
1-34 and 203-205). Chicago: University of Chicago. CD
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. (1988). The author as proprietor: Donaldson v. Becket and the geneology of modern
authorship. Representations, 23, 51-85. Also available at
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/browse/07346018/dm990292?frame=noframe&use
rID=80533f15@utexas.edu/01c0a8487400504f6f1&dpi=3&config=jstor
Rose, Mark. (2002a). Copyright and its metaphors. UCLA Law Review, 50(1), 1-15.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/uclalr50&id=15&collection=journals
Russell, Carrie. (2004). Complete copyright: An everyday guide for librarians. Washington, DC:
American Library Association, Office for Information Technology Policy.
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.
Sony v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/sony_v_universal_decision.html
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
26
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
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.
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. CD
II. Selected Other Court Cases
Baystate v. Bowers Discussion. (2003).
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/baystatevbowersdiscussion.htm
Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Jung (2005), 8th Cir., No. 04-3654, September 1
Folsom v. Marsh, 9 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841)
Greenwich Workshop, Inc. v. Tinker Creations, Inc. 932 F. Supp. 1210, C. D.
Cal. 1996 http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/greenwichvtimber.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
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
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
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
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
Princeton University Press, v. Michigan Document Services, 99 F.3d 1381 (6th
Cir. 1996)
http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/nov96/96a0357p.06.html
ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F. 3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
27
Recording Industry Association of America v. Verizon Internet Services (2003).
www.eff.org/legal/cases/ RIAA_v_Verizon/opinion-20031219.pdf
Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003), cert denied
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/323_F3d_805.htm
Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken. 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975).
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948).
United States v. Elcom, Ltd., 203 F.Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002) http://www.digital-lawonline.com/cases/62PQ2D1736.htm
Universal City Studios Inc. v. Eric Corley et al., 273 F.2d 429 (2d Cir. 2001)
http://www.nd.edu/~pbellia/corley.pdf
III. 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
American Association of Law Libraries. (2002). First sale: The basics.
http://www.aallnet.org/committee/copyright/pages/issues/firstsale.html
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). Copyright timeline: A history of copyright in the United
States. http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/copyresources/copytimeline.shtml
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.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
28
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
Band, Jonathan. (2004). A new day for the DMCA: The Chamberlain and Lexmark decisions.
Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Journal [Bureau of National Affairs], 69(1697), 78-82. CD
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
Bennett, Tony. (2003). The political rationality of the museum. In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller
(Eds.), Critical cultural policy studies: A reader (pp. 180-187). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
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.
Bollier, David, Bradford, Gigi, Racine, Laurie, & Sohn, Gigi B. (2006). So what. . . about copyright?
What artists need to know about copyright and trademark. Available at
http://www.publicknowledge.org/resources/artists/so-what-about-copyright
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. (1997). A politics of intellectual property: Environmentalism for the net?
http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/intprop.htm
Boyle, James. (2002). Fencing off ideas: Enclosure & the disappearance of the public
domain. Daedalus, 131(2), 13-25.
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
Domain. [This monograph also appeared as a special issue of Law and Contemporary Problems,
66(1-2), 1-483.]
Boyle, James. (2007a). Cultural environmentalism and beyond. Law & Contemporary Problems,
70(2), 5-21. Also available at
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?70+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+5+(spring+2007)
Boyle, James. (2007b). Mertonianism unbound? Imagining free, decentralized access to most
cultural and scientific material. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding
knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 123-144). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Braman, Sandra. (2003). Trade and information policy. In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller (Eds.),
Critical cultural policy studies: A reader (pp. 282-301). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
29
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.
Carroll, Michael W. (2006). Creative commons and the new intermediaries. Michigan State Law
Review, 45(1), 45-65. Also available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=782405
Carroll, Terry. (2004). Copyright law FAQ (4/6): International aspects.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part4/
Caslon Analytics. (2004). Intellectual property guide. http://www.caslon.com.au/ipguide.htm
Chartier, Roger. (2002). Property & privilege in the republic of letters (trans. Arthur
Goldhammer). Daedalus, 131(2), 60-66.
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
Cohen, Julie E. (1996). A right to read anonymously: A closer look at “copyright management”
in cyberspace. Connecticut Law Review, 28(4), 981-1040. Also available at
http://www.heinonline.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/conlr28&i
d=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/conlr
Cohen, Julie E. (2005). The place of the user in copyright law. Fordham Law Review, 74, 347374. Also available at http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/document?_m=afadc327936917bd72fff08bd6d5d45a&_docnum=1&wch
p=dGLbVtb-zSkVb&_md5=a1799c13cbf60e112489faabe8e06f11 and
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=814664
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/
Cox, James C., & Swarthout, J. Todd. (2007). EconPort: Creating and maintaining a knowledge
commons. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From
theory to practice (pp. 333-347). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Creative Commons. (2004). http://creativecommons.org/
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
30
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.
Cummins, Eric. (2005, August 2.). Who owns pictures of the past? Historic photo dispute pits
copyright act against contract law. San Francisco Daily Journal. Available online
Damich, Edward J. (1988). The right of personality: A common law basis for the protection of
the moral rights of authors. Georgia Law Review, 23, 1-96. Also available at
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.d
o
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).
Digital Media Consumer Rights Act. (2005). Available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/z?c109:H.R.1201:
Douzinas, Costas, & Nead, Lynda. (Eds.). (1999). Law and the image: The authority of art and the
aesthetics of law. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Duke Law Center for the Public Domain. (2004). Arts Project Moving Image Contest
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/contest/finalists/
Elkin-Koren, Niva. (2000). The privatization of information policy. Ethics and Information
Technology, 2(4), 201-209. Also available at
http://www.springerlink.com/content/3lugryckutjl/?p=9ed7fd02ace24e7c958a892c69b44039&p
i=27
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.
Free Software Foundation. (2004). GNU's not Unix. http://www.gnu.org/home.html
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
Gasaway, Laura N. (1995). White Paper – A mixed bag. Tech Trends, 40(6), 6-8.
Gasaway, Laura N. (1999). Copyright considerations for fee-based document delivery services.
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/fee-based.htm
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
31
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.
Ghosh, Shubha. (2007). How to build a commons: Is intellectual property constrictive,
facilitating, or irrelevant? In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a
commons: From theory to practice (pp. 209-246). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ginsburg, Faye. (2003). Embedded aesthetics: Creating a discursive space for indigenous media.
In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller (Eds.), Critical cultural policy studies: A reader (pp. 88-99). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Ginsburg, Jane C. (1990). Creation and commercial value: Copyright protection of works of
information. Columbia Law Review, 90(7), 1865-1938. Also available at
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/browse/00101958/ap030711?frame=noframe&user
ID=80533f15@utexas.edu/01c0a8487400504f6f1&dpi=3&config=jstor
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.
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
Gordon, Wendy J. (1982). Fair use as market failure: A structural economic analysis of the
Betamax case and its predecessors. Columbia Law Review, 82(8), 1600-1657. Also available at
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/browse/00101958/ap030648?frame=noframe&user
ID=80533f15@utexas.edu/01c0a8487400504f6f1&dpi=3&config=jstor
Gordon, Wendy J. (1992). Reality as artifact: From Feist to fair use. Law & Contemporary
Problems, 55(2), 93-106.
Graham, Neil E., & Mumford, Christine. (2005). Copyright office holds first roundtable on
uncertainties surrounding orphan works. Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Journal [Bureau of
National Affairs], 70(1731), 407-412. CD
Harper, Georgia. (2001). Copyright in the library: Licensing.
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/licrsrcs.htm
Harper, Georgia. (2005a). Fair use of copyrighted materials.
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm
Harper, Georgia. (2005b). Google this.
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/googlethis.htm
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
32
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.
Hedstrom, Margaret. (n.d.). Digital preservation: A time bomb for digital libraries.
http://www.uky.edu/~kiernan/DL/hedstrom.html
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
Hess, Charlotte, & Ostrom, Elinor. (2007a). Introduction: An overview of the knowledge
commons. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From
theory to practice (pp. 1-26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hesse, Carla. (2002). The rise of intellectual property, 700 B.C. – A.D. 2000: An idea in the
balance. Daedalus, 131(2), 26-45.
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
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
Jaszi, Peter. (1991). Toward a theory of copyright: The metamorphoses of “authorship.” Duke
Law Journal, 1991, 455-502.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/duklr1991&size=2&rot=0&collection=j
ournals&id=463
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
33
Karlaja, Dennis S. (1997). Preemption of shrinkwrap and on-line licenses. University of Dayton
Law Review, 22, 511-543. Also available at
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/%7Edkarjala/Articles/DaytonLRev1997.html
Kimber, Karen. (2003). Introduction to legal research.
http://www.libraries.wright.edu/services/researchguides/law/
Klages, Mary. (2001). Michel Foucault: “What is an author?”
http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/foucault.html
Kranich, Nancy. (2007). Countering enclosure: Reclaiming the knowledge commons. In
Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to
practice (pp. 85-122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
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 A. (2005). Property, intellectual property, and free riding.
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.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
34
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. (2007). Foreword. Law & Contemporary Problems, 70(2), 1-3. Also available at
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?70+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+1+(spring+2007)
Levine, Peter. (2007). Collective action, civic engagement, and the knowledge commons. In
Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to
practice (pp. 247-276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lewis, Justin, & Miller, Toby. (Ed.). (2003). Introduction. In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller (Eds.),
Critical cultural policy studies: A reader (pp. 1-9). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
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.
Litman, Jessica. (1989). Copyright legislation and technological change. Oregon Law Review, 68,
275ff.
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
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
35
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.
Mannheimer, Katherine. (2007). Personhood, poethood, and Pope: Johnson’s life of Pope and
the search for the man behind the author. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 40(4), 631-649.
Marlotta-Wurgler, Florencia. (2007). What’s in a standard form contract? An empirical analysis
of software license agreements. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(4), 677-713.
Maxwell, Richard. (2003). The marketplace citizen and the political economy of data trade in the
European Union. In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller (Eds.), Critical cultural policy studies: A reader (pp.
149-160). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Martin, Peter W. (2003). Introduction to basic legal citation.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/index.htm
Mayfield, Kendra. (2004). Digitizing archives not so easy.
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,42842,00.html
McGowan. (2004). Copyright nonconsequentialism. Missouri Law Review, 69(1), 1-71.
McGuigan, Jim. (2003). Cultural policy studies. In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller (Eds.), Critical
cultural policy studies: A reader (pp. 23-42). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
McLeod, Kembrew. (2001). Owning culture: Authorship, ownership, and intellectual property law.
New York: Peter Lang.
McLeod, Kembrew. (2003). Musical production, copyright, and the private ownership of culture.
In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller (Eds.), Critical cultural policy studies: A reader (pp. 240-252). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Miller, Arthur, & Davis, Michael H. (1990). Intellectual property: Patents, trademarks, and copyright
in a nutshell (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
Miller, Steven. (1995). Civilizing cyberspace: Policy, power, and the information superhighway. New
York: ACM Press.
Minow, Mary. (1996-2003). Library digitization projects and copyright.
http://www.llrx.com/features/digitization3.htm
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.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
36
Morrow, Thomas M., & Sullivan, Jeffrey D. (2004). Lexmark v. Static Control: Another circuit
court reads limitations into DMCA’s sweeping statutory anti-circumvention strictures. Patent,
Trademark, and Copyright Journal [Bureau of National Affairs], 69(1696), 49-53. CD
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/
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.
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
Netanel, Neil [Weinstock]. (2008). Why has copyright expanded? Analysis and critique. In
Fiona Macmillan (Ed.), New directions in copyright laws (vol. 6). Also available at SSRN
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1066241
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
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
Okediji, Ruth. (1999). Perspectives on globalization from developing states: Copyright and
public welfare in global perspective. CD
Ostrom, Elinor. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
37
Ostrom, Elinor, & Hess, Charlotte. (2007). A framework for analyzing the knowledge commons.
In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to
practice (pp. 41-81). Cambridge, MA: MIT 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.
Palmedo, Michael. (2001). Letter to Maneesha Mithal, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal
Trade Commission. http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/ftc-hague12072001.html
Patterson, Lyman Ray. (1968). Copyright in historical perspective. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt
University.
Patterson, Lyman Ray. (1992). Understanding fair use. Law & Contemporary Problems, 55(2), 249266. Also available at
http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lcp55&id=1&size=2&collection=l
cpcf&index=lcpcf
Patterson, Lyman Ray. (1993). Copyright and the “exclusive right” of authors. Journal of
Intellectual Property, 1(1), 37ff.
Patterson, L. Ray. (2003). What’s wrong with Eldred? An essay on copyright jurisprudence.
Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 10, 345ff. Also available at
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docvie
w.do?risb=21_T2818532101&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKe
y=29_T2818532106&cisb=22_T2818532105&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=146214&docNo=1
0
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.
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.
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.
Rice, David A. (2002). Copyright as talisman: Expanding “property” in digital works.
International Review of Law, Computers, & Technology, 16(2), 113-132. Also available at
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
38
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=109&sid=a202e99d491d-4feb-a517-fc5b7ce080af%40sessionmgr107
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.
Rose, Mark. (2002b). Nine-tenths of the law: The English copyright debates and the rhetoric of
the public domain. Law & Contemporary Problems, 66(75), 75-87.
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?66+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+75+(WinterSpring+200)
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
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.
Saporita, Christopher. (2003). Reconciling human rights and sovereignty: A framework for
global property law. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 10(2), 255-281. Also available at
http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/journals/indiana_journal_of_global_legal_studies/t
oc/gls10.2.html
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.
Schweik, Charles M. (2007). Free/open-source software as a framework for establishing
commons in science. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a
commons: From theory to practice (pp. 277-310). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Slack, Jennifer Daryl, & Fejes, Fred. (Eds.). (1987). Ideology of the information age. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Slater, Derek. (2003). Take another little piece of my art [review of Illegal Art].
http://creativecommons.org/getcontent/features/illegalart
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.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
39
Stefik, Mark. (1999b). The digital keyhole: Privacy rights and trusted systems. Chapter 8 in The
Internet edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked world (pp. 197-231 and 305307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Suber, Peter. (2007). Creating an intellectual commons through open access. In Charlotte Hess &
Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 171-208).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tannen, Deborah. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York:
Random House.
Taylor, George H., & Madison, Michael J. (2006). Metaphor, objects, and commodities. Cleveland
Sate Law Review, 54(1&2), 141-174.
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
U. S. Congress. Library of Congress. Copyright Office. (2004). Copyright of the United States.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
U.S. Congress. Library of Congress. Copyright Office. (2005b). Orphan works. Available at
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/
U.S. Congress. Library of Congress. Copyright Office. (2005a). Roundtable discussion on orphan
works. Transcript. Available online
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.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
40
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
(1993). The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for action. Washington, DC: GPO.
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. 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
Wardrop, Martin. (2002). Copyright and intellectual property protection for indigenous heritage.
In Aboriginal Art Online. http://www.aboriginalartonline.com/forum/debate.php
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.
Waters, Donald J. (2007). Preserving the knowledge commons. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor
Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 145-167).
Cambridge, MA: MIT 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.
Winner, Langdon. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136.
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.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (c. 2004). Intellectual property and traditional knowledge.
http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/publications/index.html
Young, Edward. (1759). Conjectures on original composition. Dublin.
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/
Duke Law & Technology Review http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
41
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
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
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
42
Electronic Public Information Newsletter
EPIC [Electronic Privacy Information Center] Alert
ERIC
EDUCAUSE Review
Federal Computer Week
Government Computer News
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) now combined with Government Information Quarterly
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
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
43
Philosophy and Public Affairs
Policy Sciences
Policy Studies Journal
Policy Studies Review
Privacy Journal
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/
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
44
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/
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/
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
45
(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/
(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
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2008
46
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
(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
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 2008
47