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