COPYRIGHT AND INFORMATION: LEGAL AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES INF 385T Unique Number 24195 Georgia Harper and Philip Doty School of Information University of Texas at Austin Spring 2004 Class time: Thursday 9:00 AM – 12:00 N The class will meet face-to-face eight times in the semester: January 22, February 5, February 26, March 4, April 1, April 22, April 29, and May 6. The other seven class meetings will take place online: January 29, February 12, February 19, March 11, March 25, April 8, and April 15. Place: SZB 464 Office: SZB 570 Office hrs: Tuesday 2:00 – 3:00 PM By appointment other times Telephone: (512) 471-3746 (Direct line) (512) 471-3821 (Main iSchool office) Internet: pdoty@ischool.utexas.edu http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm Class URL: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~inf385pdgh/sp2004 TA: Jennifer Shakespear jshake@mail.utexas.edu Office hours Place: MON 1:00 – 2:00 PM in the IT lab or outside by the mail boxes Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Expectations of students’ performance 4 Standards for written work 5 Some editing conventions for student papers 9 Grading 10 Texts and other tools 11 List of assignments 12 Outline of course 13 Schedule 15 Assignments 20 References 23 Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 2 INTRODUCTION Copyright and Information: Legal and Cultural Perspectives (INF 385T) examines legal, historical, cultural, literary, anthropological, public policy, and other perspectives on copyright. We will use multiple disciplines and their literatures to investigate how copyright in the United States developed and has evolved. Identifying and protecting the public interest in information, the cultural commons, and shared cultural production will be a particular focus of the semester’s work. The course has no prerequisites and is available to graduate students from all departments and schools. The class will meet face-to-face eight (8) times at the regular Thursday morning time: January 22, February 5, February 26, March 4, April 1, April 22, April 29, and May 6. Seven (7) classes will be held online: January 29, February 12, February 19, March 11, March 25, April 8, and April 15.. See the attached schedule. 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 whatever profession they choose, to be informed citizens, and to be well-read in the field. We will also aim to help students develop strategies for both professional and personal political action. The course, as its tile indicates, aims to help weave together the study of the law of copyright with the study of cultural categories such as the “author,” “the work,” and “creation.” More specifically, the course will: Review important court cases in copyright Investigate the history of the concept of the personal author Examine appropriate statutes Consider Enlightenment assumptions about creation, knowledge, and social life Help students engage papers in legal journals and other sources Theorize the public domain as a major source of creativity and (shared) cultural expression 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 Make clear that well-informed people may disagree about what reasonable behaviors related to copyright and what reasonable interpretations of the law may be. Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 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 his or her responsibility to arrange with another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets. The assignments presume that students are familiar with all material discussed in class. • Read all material prior to class; students are expected to use the course readings to inform their classroom participation and their writing assignments. Students must learn to integrate what they read with what they say and write. This last imperative is essential to the development of professional expertise. • Educate themselves and their peers. Your successful completion of this program and your participation in the information professions depend upon your willingness to demonstrate initiative, creativity, and responsibility. Your participation in the professional and personal growth of your colleagues is essential to their success and your own. Such collegiality is at the heart of professional practice. Some assignments in this course are designed explicitly to encourage collaboration (the presentation and annotated bibliography on user communities). • Spend at least 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour of classroom instruction, i.e., about 1012 hours per week for the course. • Participate in all class discussions, whether face-to-face or online. • Hand in all assignments fully and on time -- late assignments will not be accepted except in the particular circumstances noted below. • Be responsible with collective property, especially books and other material on reserve. • Ask for any explanation and help from the instructors or the Teaching Assistant, either in class, during office hours, on the telephone, through email, or in any other appropriate way. Email is especially appropriate for information questions, but please recall that Doty tries to stay home two days a week and that he does not have access to email at home. It may be several days after you send email before he sees it. It is always wise to send a copy of any email intended for the instructors to both instructors and to the TA (Jennifer Shakespear, jshake@mail.utexas.edu) as well; she reviews email more regularly. Academic or scholastic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, will not be tolerated and will incur the most severe penalties, including failure for the course. If there is any concern about behavior that may be academically dishonest, please consult the instructors. Students are also encouraged to refer to the UT General Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and the brochure Texas is the Best . . . HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students. Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 4 STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK Review the standards for written work both before and after writing; they are used to evaluate your work. You will be expected to meet professional standards of maturity, clarity, grammar, spelling, and organization in your written work for this class, and, to that end, we offer the following remarks. Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what his or her audience knows about the topic at hand; therefore, effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity. As Wolcott reminds us in Writing Up Qualitative Research (1990, p. 47): "Address . . . the many who do not know, not the few who do." It is also important to remember that clarity of ideas, clarity of language, and clarity of syntax are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. All written work for the class must be done on a word-processor and double-spaced, with 1" margins all the way around and in either 10 or 12 pt. font. Certain assignments will demand the use of notes (either footnotes or endnotes) and references. It is particularly important in professional schools such as iSchool 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, professional conferences, and the like. You may also consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed.) and http://webster.commnet.edu/apa/apa_index.htm (a useful if non-canonical source). Never use a general dictionary or encyclopedia for defining terms in graduate school or in professional writing. If you want to use a reference source to define a term, a better choice would be a specialized dictionary or subject-specific encyclopedia. The best alternative, however, is having an understanding of the literature related to the term sufficient to provide a definition in the context of that literature. Use the spell checker in your word processing package to review your documents, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries: do not include most proper nouns, including personal and place names; omit most technical terms; include very few foreign words and phrases; and cannot identify the error in using homophones, e.g., writing "there" instead of "their," or in writing "the" instead of "them." It is imperative that you proofread your work thoroughly and be precise in editing it. It is often helpful to have someone else read your writing, to eliminate errors and to increase clarity. Finally, each assignment should be handed in with a title page containing your full name, the date, the title of the assignment, and the class number (INF 380K). If you have any questions about these standards, I will be pleased to discuss them with you at any time. Remember, every assignment must include a title page with: • The title of the assignment Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 5 • Your name • The date • The class number. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 6 STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED) Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, we 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-level written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 25 (some have more than one error): 1. Staple all papers for this class in the upper left-hand corner. Do not use covers, binders, or other means of keeping the pages together. 2. Number all pages after the title page. Ordinarily, notes and references do NOT count against page limits. 3. Use formal, academic prose. Avoid colloquial language, *you know?* It is essential in graduate work and in professional communication to avoid failures in diction -- be serious and academic when called for, be informal and relaxed when called for, and be everything in between as necessary. For this course, avoid words and phrases such as "agenda," "problem with," "deal with," "handle," "window of," "goes into," "broken down into," "viable," and "option." 4. Avoid clichés. They are vague, *fail to "push the envelope," and do not provide "relevant input."* 5. Avoid computer technospeak like "input," "feedback," or "processing information" except when using such terms in specific technical ways; similarly avoid using “content” as a noun. 6. Do not use the term "relevant" except in its information retrieval sense. Ordinarily, it is a colloquial cliché, but it also has a strict technical meaning in Information Studies. 7. Do not use "quality" as an adjective; it is vague, cliché, and colloquial. Instead use "highquality," "excellent," "superior," or whatever more formal phrase you deem appropriate. 8. Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .* 9. Avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in their evidentiary senses; these terms entail major philosophical, epistemological controversy. Avoid terms such as "facts," "factual," "proven," and related constructions for similar reasons. 10. Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing. 11. Be circumspect in using the term "this," especially in the beginning of a sentence. *THIS* is often a problem because the referent is unclear. Pay strict attention to providing clear referents for all pronouns. Especially ensure that pronouns and their referents agree in number; i.e., "each person went to their home" is a poor construction because "each" is a singular form, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the referent or the pronoun must change in number. 12. “If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were [not "was"] only taller." Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 7 13. Put "only" in its appropriate place, near the word it modifies. For example, it is appropriate in spoken English to say that "he only goes to Antone's" when you mean that "the only place he frequents is Antone's." In written English, however, the sentence should read "he goes only to Antone's." CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 8 STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED) 14. Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad. 15. Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers will not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them. 16. Avoid misplaced modifiers; e.g., it is inappropriate to write the following sentence: As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, it was important for me to attend the lecture. The sentence is inappropriate because the phrase "As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica" is meant to modify the next immediate word, which should then, obviously, be both a person and the subject of the sentence. It should modify the word "I" by preceding it immediately. One good alternative for the sentence is: As someone interested in the history of Mesoamerica, I was especially eager to attend the lecture. 17. Avoid use of "valid," "parameter," "bias," "reliability," and "paradigm," except in limited technical ways. These are important terms and should be used with care and precision. 18. Remember that the words "data," "media," "criteria," "strata," and "phenomena" are all PLURAL forms. They *TAKES* plural verbs. If you use any of these plural forms in a singular construction, e.g., "the data is," you will make the instructors very unhappy :-(. 19. "Number," "many," and "fewer" are used with plural nouns (a number of horses, many horses, and fewer horses). “Amount," "much," and "less" are used with singular nouns (an amount of hydrogen, much hydrogen, and less hydrogen). Another useful way to make this distinction is to recall that "many" is used for countable nouns, while "much" is used for uncountable nouns. 20. *The passive voice should generally not be used.* 21. "Between" is used with two alternatives, while "among" is used with three or more. 22. Generally avoid the use of honorifics such as Mister, Doctor, Ms., and so on when referring to persons in your writing, especially when citing their written work. Use last names and dates as appropriate. 23. There is no generally accepted standard for citing electronic resources. If you cite them, give an indication, as specifically as possible, of: - responsibility title date of creation date viewed place to find the source (who?) (what?) (when?) (when?) (where? how?). See the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001, 5th ed., pp. 213-214, 231, and 268-281) for a discussion of citing electronic material and useful examples. Also see Web Extension to American Psychological Association Style (WEAPAS) at http://www.beadsland.com/weapas/#SCRIBE 24. "Cite" is a verb, "citation" is a noun; similarly, "quote" is a verb, "quotation" is a noun. Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 9 25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!* CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 10 STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK (CONTINUED) 26. Use double quotation marks (“abc.”), not single quotation marks (‘xyz.’), as a matter of course. Single quotation marks are to be used only to indicate quotations within quotations. 27. Provide a specific page number for all direct quotations. If the quotation is from a Web page or other digital source, provide at least the paragraph number, section number, and/or other directional cues, e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).” 28. As ≠ because. 29. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to." 30. In much of social science and humanistic study, the term "issue" is used in a technical way to identify sources of public controversy or dissensus. Please use the term to refer to topics about which there is substantial public disagreement, NOT synonymously with general terms such as "area," "topic," or the like. 31. “Impact” is a noun. 32. Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.” Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 11 SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENT PAPERS Symbol Meaning # number OR insert a space; context will help you decipher its meaning AWK awkward; and usually compromises clarity as well block make into a block quotation without external quotation marks; do so with quotations ≥ 4 lines caps capitalize COLLOQ colloquial and to be avoided dB database FRAG sentence fragment; often that means that the verb and/or subject of the sentence is missing j journal lc make into lower case lib'ship librarianship org, org’l organization, organizational Q question PL plural REF? what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer? SING singular sp spelling w/ with w.c.? word choice? Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 12 GRADING The grading system for this class includes the grades of: A B C F Superior Good Unsatisfactory Unacceptable and failing. Please see the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in the student orientation packets for explanations of this system. Students should consult the iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/information.html) and the Graduate School Catalogue (e.g., http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad0103/ch1/ch1a.html#nature and http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/grad0103/ch1/ch1b.html#student) for more on standards of work. A grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. In this class, the grade of A is reserved for students who demonstrate not only a command of the concepts and techniques discussed but also an ability to synthesize and integrate them in a professional manner and communicate them effectively. The grade of incomplete (X) is reserved for students in extraordinary circumstances and must be negotiated with the instructors before the end of the semester. See the former Dean's memorandum of August 13, 1991, available from the main iSchool office. We will use points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. Points on any assignment are determined using an arithmetic not a proportional algorithm. For example, 14/20 points on an assignment does NOT translate to 70% of the credit, or a D. Instead 14/20 points is very roughly equivalent to a B. If any student's semester point total > 90 (is equal to or greater than 90), then s/he will have earned an A. If the semester point total > 80, then s/he will have earned at least a B. This system will be further explained throughout the semester. Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 13 TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS There are three required texts for this class; all three can be purchased at the Co-op on Guadalupe: Boyle, James. (1996). Shamans, software, & spleens: Law and the construction of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lessig, Lawrence. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York: Random House. Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press. Additional readings will be available online and/or on reserve at PCL. The course Web site, including Blackboard, as well as direct email messages, will be used to inform students of changes in the course schedule, discuss assignments, and so on. Both means can be used by all course participants to communicate with each other, pass along information regarding interesting events and resources, and the like. By the second class, please subscribe to two lists that feature discussions about copyright, using the links in the online class schedule: Coalition for Networked Information copyright list -- CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest@cni.org Politech -- http://politechbot.com/mailman/listinfo/politech Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 14 LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS The instructors will provide additional information about each assignment. Written assignments are to be word-processed and double-spaced in 10- or 12-point font, with 1" margins. Assignments are due in class except for the online assignments. Assignment Date Due Percent of Grade In-class preparation and participation ----- 10% Online study questions JAN 29 FEB 12 FEB 19 MAR 11 MAR 25 APR 8 10 Analysis of Greenwich Workshop (3-5 pp.) FEB 12 15 “Amicus” brief in Eldred (5-7 pp.) MAR 25 15 Mid-term on Boyle (1996) (7 pp.) MAR 11 20 Take-home final (10 pp.) MAY 6 30 Short online writing assignments All assignments must be handed in on time, and the instructors reserves the right to issue a course grade of F if any assignment is not completed. Late assignments will not be accepted unless three criteria are met: 1. At least 24 hours before the date due, the instructors gives explicit permission to the student to hand the assignment in late. 2. At the same time, a specific date and time are agreed upon for the late submission. 3. The assignment is then submitted on or before the agreed-upon date and time. The first criterion can be met only in the most serious of health, family, or personal situations. Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 15 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. Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 16 OUTLINE OF COURSE F = face-to-face O = online Meeting Date Site Topics and assignments 1 JAN 22 F Introduction to the course and review of the syllabus Introduction to course methods Sources of copyright information Legal materials & authority IRAC (issue, rule, apply, conclude) How to brief a case 2 JAN 29 O Roots of U.S. copyright law Roots of U.S. law Alternative conceptions Treaties and "international law" • Due: Study questions 3 FEB 5 F Invention of the author and the idea of the unitary work 4 FEB 12 O Rightsholders' interests Reproduce Create derivatives Public distribution Public display Public performance Moral rights 5 FEB 19 O • Due: Study questions • Due: Analysis of Greenwich Workshop (15%; 3-5 pp.) Achieving balance Rights for authors and owners Rights of public to see and use others' works How cases utilize, refine, and at times, skew the balance • Due: Study questions 6 FEB 26 F The public domain and the cultural commons Conceptualizing the public domain What is protected How long: terms of protection and the public domain 7 MAR 4 F Fair use Four-factor fair use test Guidelines Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 17 Application to different media Text Images Music Audiovisuals The role of fair use in the future 8 MAR 11 O Mar 18 9 MAR 25 Library privileges and the first sale doctrine Archiving and preservation Serving patron's needs Interlibrary loan Other sub-provisions of §108 Historical function of first sale (§109) Will first sale survive in the “digital age”? • Due: Study questions • Due: Mid-term on Boyle (1996) (20%; 7 pp.) Spring Break: No class O The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Provisions Anti-circumvention Threats to fair use and other statutory exemptions Legislative history • Due: Study questions • Due: “Amicus” brief in Eldred (15%; 5-7 pp.) 10 APR 1 F Copyleft and the creative commons 11 APR 8 O Licensing Good practice; licensing and fair use Checklists Contracts replacing copyright law • Due: Study questions 12 APR 15 O Copyright and privacy Copyright and free speech 13 APR 22 F Paper presentations 14 APR 29 F Paper presentations 15 MAY 6 F Where do we go from here? Are we developing a politics of Intellectual Property? Changing the law Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 18 Changing business models Using licenses to secure ambiguous rights • Due: Take-home final (30%; 10 pp.) Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 19 SCHEDULE F = face-to-face class O = online class DATE SITE TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND READINGS JAN 22 Introduction to the course and review of the syllabus Introduction to course methods Sources of copyright information Legal materials & authority IRAC (issue, rule, apply, conclude) How to brief a case F READ: Kimber, 2003 online Copyright Act (see U.S. Copyright Office, 2004) online Pyle (1989) online Mohr (2002) online SUBSCRIBE: CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest@cni.org Politech RECO: Martin (2003) online JAN 29 O Roots of U.S. copyright law Roots of U.S. law Alternative conceptions Treaties and "international law" READ: Boyle (1996), Preface and Chapter 1 Vaidhyanathan (2001), Introduction, Chapters 1 and 2 Goldstein (2003), Chapter 1 Copyright Act §§ 104, 104A (see U.S. Copyright Office, 2004) online Copyright: Section 16.3, National Copyright Traditions (Goldstein) Carroll (2004) online RECO: Association of Research Libraries (ARL) (2002) online • FEB 5 F Due: Study questions Invention of the author and the idea of the unitary work READ: Boyle (1996), Chapters 6, 10, and 11 Woodmansee (1994) Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 20 OTA (1986), Summary online Barthes (1977) online Foucault (1979) Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 21 FEB 12 O Rightsholders' interests Reproduce Create derivatives Public distribution Public display Public performance Moral rights READ: Vaidhyanathan (2001), Chapters 3 and 4 Intellectual Property in a Nutshell, pp. 323-339 Copyright Act, Sections §§106, 106A online Greenwich Workshop, Inc. v. Tinker Creations (1996) online Lee v. A.R.T. Co. 1997) online FEB 19 O • Due: Study questions • Due: Analysis of Greenwich Workshop (15%; 3-5 pp.) Achieving balance Rights for authors and owners Rights of public to see and use others' works How cases utilize, refine, and at times, skew the balance READ: Vaidhyanathan (2001), Chapter 5 and Epilogue Copyright Act §§ 106, 106A, 107, 108, 109, 110, 121 (skim) Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984) Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, Inc. (1985) Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1994) MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. (xxxx) GartnerG2 & Berkman Center (2003, pp. 1-30) • FEB 26 F Due: Study questions The public domain and the cultural commons Conceptualizing the public domain What is protected How long: terms of protection and the public domain READ: Lessig (2001a), Preface and Chapters 1-8 Intellectual Property in a Nutshell, pp. 285-310 Copyright Act §§ 101, 102, 103, 302, 303, 304, 305 Feist v. Rural Telephone (1991) Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 (2003) [read majority + both dissents] Satava v. Lowry (2003) Clifford (2003) Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 22 MAR 4 F Fair use Four-factor fair use test Guidelines Application to different media Text Images Music Audiovisuals The role of fair use in the future READ: Boyle (1996), Chapters 3, 4, and 5 Intellectual Property in a Nutshell, pp. 354-375 Copyright Act, § 107 Harper (2002) ARL/ALA et al. (2003) Princeton University Press, v. Michigan Document Services (1996) American Geophysical Union v. Texaco (1994) Illegal Art (2003) Slater (2003) RECO: Copyright Clearance Center (2003) MAR 11 O Library privileges and the first sale doctrine Archiving and preservation Serving patron's needs Interlibrary loan Other sub-provisions of §108 Historical function of first sale (§109) Will first sale survive in the “digital age”? READ: Copyright Act §§ 108 and 109 Minow (1996-2003) Mayfield (2004) Hedstrom () Interlibrary loan guidelines (19xx) Gasaway (1999) American Association of Law Libraries (2002) Palmedo (2001) Hyde (2001) Mar 18 • Due: Study questions • Due: Mid-term on Boyle (1996) (20%; 7 pp.) Spring Break: No class Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 23 MAR 25 O The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Provisions Anti-circumvention Threats to fair use and other statutory exemptions Legislative history READ: Copyright Act, §§ 1201 and 1202 Legislative history of the anti-circumvention provisions (n.d.) Electronic Frontier Foundation (2003) Universal Studios v. Corley (2001) U.S. v. Elcom, Ltd. (2002) Lessig (2001b) APR 1 F • Due: Study questions • Due: “Amicus” brief in Eldred (15%; 5-7 pp.) Copyleft and the creative commons READ: Lessig (2001a), Chapters 9-15 Free Software Foundation (2004) Creative Commons (2004) APR 8 O Licensing Good practice; licensing and fair use Checklists Contracts replacing copyright law READ: Goldstein (2002), Chapter 1 Harper (2001) Software and Database Checklist Hollingsworth (2001) Baystate v. Bowers Discussion • APR 15 O Due: Study questions Copyright and privacy Copyright and free speech READ: Lessig (1999a) Netanel (2001) Stefik (1996a) Stefik (1996b) Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. (1999) In re Verizon RECO: Lessig (1999b) Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 24 APR 22 F Paper presentations APR 29 F Paper presentations MAY 6 Where do we go from here? Are we developing a politics of intellectual property? Changing the law Changing business models Using licenses to secure ambiguous rights F READ: Boyle (1996), Chapter 13, Conclusion, and Appendix A Vaidhyanathan (2001), Chapters xx (pp. 243-254) Stallman (1996) Boyle (1997) GartnerG2 & Berkman Center (2003, pp. 31-45) Negativeland (2004) • Due: Take-home final (30%; 10 pp.) Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 25 ASSIGNMENTS Online study questions (10%) – due throughout semester Each student will use the appropriate folder in the class Blackboard site to respond to the study questions specified in the class schedule: JAN 29 FEB 12 FEB 19 MAR 11 MAR 25 APR 8. The quality of each student’s responses will determine what percentage of the 10% s/he will have earned. Analysis of Greenwich Workshop (15%) – due FEB 12 Each student will write an analysis of Greenwich Workshop, Inc. v. Tinker Creations, Inc. (1996), adopting the perspective of Vaidhyanathan (2001). The analysis will be 3-5 double-spaced pp. long and will be posted on the class Blackboard space in the appropriate file. This analysis is due no later than 8:00 AM, Thursday, February 12. Every student will also read the essays of the other members of the class and post a response to those essays in Blackboard; the response will be 1-2 double-spaced pp. This response is due on Wednesday, February 18, no later than 12:00 N. Take-home mid-term on Boyle (1996) – due MAR 11 This assignment gives each student the opportunity to consider James Boyle’s argument in Shamans, Software, & Spleens (1996) in a more considered way and in the general context of the course. This assignment will be turned into the digital drop box in Blackboard no later than Thursday, March 11, 8:00 AM. The mid-term is to be 7 double-spaced pp. long. Please respond to the questions below in a focused and succinct way, using Boyle’s book, other readings for the course, class discussions both face-to-face and online, and other sources you regard as appropriate: 1. Boyle characterizes his book as “a social theory of the information society [sic]” (1996, x). 2. Do you agree or disagree? Why? If you agree, how does Boyle construct this theory? What are its important elements? If you disagree, why is his argument insufficient to construct such a theory? What is missing? What should be eliminated? (3 pp.) In your opinion, why does Boyle see the invention of authorship, especially as outlined in Chapter 6, as essential to his theory? (2 pp.) Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 26 3. In your opinion, what is the most significant contribution or mistake that Boyle makes in the context of the general conversation about copyright and cultural production? Why? (2 pp.) Be certain to document all the sources you use, including Boyle (1996), in APA format. “Amicus” brief in Eldred on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (15%) – due MAR 25 Each student will write an abbreviated amicus curiae brief in Eldred v. Ashcroft. The brief will be 5-7 double-spaced pp. long and can support either plaintiff or respondent. The paper is to be posted to the class Blackboard site no later than 8:00 AM, Thursday, March 25. All students are also expected to read each other’s papers online. Take-home final (30%) – due May 6 Choose a problematic feature of copyright law or a problematic aspect of our so-called “information society” affected by copyright law. Analyze that feature or problem from the perspectives laid out by Boyle (1996), Lessig (2001a), and Goldstein (2003). Each student’s response should be 10 double-spaced pp. long. In addressing your concern, please be certain to answer these questions: 1. Do the three authors’ differing characterizations of the tensions that copyright must mediate, between romantic authorship and corporate authorship, between individual creativity and collective creation, between old and new, between a natural right and a limited statutory monopoly, suggest different resolutions for your problematic feature or aspect? 2. Is it possible to integrate their perspectives into a single satisfactory resolution of your concern? Why or why not? Please take into account how we go about making changes to the law, the direction of such change over the last hundred years, and the relationship of technologies and copyright law. This assignment should be handed in at the last class meeting and posted to the appropriate file in Blackboard. Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 27 REFERENCES I. References in the schedule and assignments 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 Geophysical Union v. Texaco, 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994) http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/60_F3d_913.htm ARL/ALA et al. (2003). Fair use and the development of e-reserve systems. http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/fairusereserves.htm Association of Research Libraries. (2002). Timeline: A history of copyright in the United States. http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html Barthes, Roland. (1977). Death of the author (Trans. Stephen Heath). In Stephen Heath (Ed.), Image music text (pp. 142-148). http://faculty.smu.edu/dfoster/theory/Barthes.htm Boyle, James. (1996). Shamans, software, & spleens: Law and the construction of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Boyle, James. (1997). A politics of intellectual property: Environmentalism for the net? http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/intprop.htm Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/921292.ZS.html Carroll, Terry. (2004). Copyright law FAQ (4/6): International aspects. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part4/ Clifford, Ralph D. (2003). Amicus brief supporting Satava. Copyright Clearance Center. (2003). http://www.copyright.com/ Creative Commons. (2004). http://creativecommons.org/ Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S.______ (2003) [read majority + both dissents] http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2003, September 24). Unintended consequences: Five years under the DMCA (version 3). http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 28 Feist v. Rural Telephone, 499 U.S. 340 (1991) http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm Foucault, Michel. (19xx), What is an author? . . . Josué Harari's Textual Strategies (Cornell, 1979) . . . 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. (1999). Copyright considerations for fee-based document delivery services. http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/fee-based.htm Greenwich Workshop, Inc. v. Tinker Creations, Inc. 932 F. Supp. 1210, C. D. Cal. 1996 http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/greenwichvtimber.htm Harper, Georgia. (2001). Copyright in the library: Licensing. http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/licrsrcs.htm Harper, Georgia. (2002). Fair use of copyrighted materials. http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, Inc., 471 US 539 (1985) http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/harperandrow.html 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/ Hedstrom, Margaret. (n.d.). Digital preservation: A time bomb for digital libraries. http://www.uky.edu/~kiernan/DL/hedstrom.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 Interlibrary Loan Guidelines [CONTU Guidelines]. (19xx). Published in U.S. Congress Conference Report, H.R. 94-1733. http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/ILL-guidelines.htm Kimber, Karen. (2003). Introduction to legal research. http://www.libraries.wright.edu/services/researchguides/law/ 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 Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 29 Legislative history of anti-circumvention provisions. (n.d.). http://www2.ari.net/hrrc/html/_black_box__legislative_histor.html Lessig, Lawrence. (1999a). Privacy. Chapter 11 in Code and other laws of cyberspace (pp. 142-163, 271-275). New York: Basic Books. Lessig, Lawrence. (1999b). Free speech. Chapter 12 in Code and other laws of cyberspace (pp. 164185, 275-281). New York: Basic Books. Lessig, Lawrence. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York: Random House. Lessig, Lawrence. (2001b). Jail time in the digital age. First published as an editorial in the New York Times (2001, July 30). http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/20010730_lessig_oped.html 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 MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. Minow, Mary. (1996-2003). Library digitization projects and http://www.llrx.com/features/digitization3.htm copyright. 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 Negativeland. (2004). Intellectual property issues. http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html Netanel, Neil Weinstock. (2001). Locating copyright within the First Amendment skein. Palmedo, Michael. (2001). Letter to Maneesha Mithal, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission. http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/ftc-hague12072001.html Pyle, Christopher. (1989). How to brief a case. http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html (Original published 1982) Princeton University Press, v. Michigan Document Services, 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/nov96/96a0357p.06.html Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003), cert den. http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/323_F3d_805.htm Slater, Derek. (2003). Take another little piece of my art [review of Illegal Art]. http://creativecommons.org/getcontent/features/illegalart Sony v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/sony_v_universal_decision.html Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 30 Stallman, Richard. (1996). The right to read. http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/cyber-rt.htm (Published in 1997 in Communications of the ACM, 40(2)) Stefik, Mark. (1999a). The bit and the pendulum: Balancing the interests of stakeholders in digital publishing. Chapter 4 in The Internet edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked world (pp. 79-106 and 302-303). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stefik, Mark. (1999b). The digital keyhole: Privacy rights and trusted systems. Chapter 9 in The Internet edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked world (pp. 197-231 and 305307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Universal Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001) U. S. Congress. Copyright Office. (2003). Copyright of the United States. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1986). Summary. In Intellectual property rights in an age of electronics and information (pp. 3-15). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. http://www.wws.Princeton.EDU/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html U.S. v. Elcom, Ltd., 203 F.Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002) http://www.digital-lawonline.com/cases/62PQ2D1736.htm 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. Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press. Copyright – Georgia Harper and Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin January 2004 31