#27116
Legally Speaking: Did MGM Really Win the Grokster Case? 
MGM's media blitz has given the impression that the entertainment industry won an overwhelming and broad victory against peer to peer (p2p) file sharing and file sharing technologies when the Supreme Court announced its decision in the MGM v. Grokster case on June 27, 2005. MGM can, of course, point to the 9-0 vote that vacated the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that Grokster could not be charged with contributory infringement because it qualified for a safe harbor established by the Supreme Court in 1984 in its Sony v. Universal decision (see my Legally Speaking column of June 2005). The safe harbor protects technology developers who know, or have reason to know, that their products are being widely used for infringing purposes, as long as the technologies have, or are capable of, substantial noninfringing uses (SNIUs). The Court in Grokster saw no need to revisit the Sony safe harbor. However, it directed the lower courts to consider whether Grokster actively induced users to infringe copyrights, a different legal theory.
Samuelson, Pamela. University of California Berkeley (2006). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>History
#18744
Algunas de las prácticas tan normales y simples como las explicadas en este artículo, pueden llevar a infringir el Derecho de Autor.
Hassan Montero, Yusef. Nosolousabilidad.com (2002). (Spanish) Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#25989
MGM v. Grokster: Implications for Educators and Writing Teachers
What are the implications of the MGM v. Grokster case for institutions of higher education in general, for research, for rhetoric and writing, and for writing teachers?
Porter, James E. and Martine Courant Rife. Michigan State University (2005). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#29574
New Media Economy: Intellectual Property and Cultural Insurrection 
The new media landscape has created tensions between content producers (scholars, computer programmers, and even the general public) and copyright holders (institutional publishers and entertainment corporations) who are increasingly engaged in a form of culture war over access to and dissemination of information. This paper explores the emerging culture war as a struggle over definitions of culture and rights. On the one hand there are those who accept the traditional bargain between creators and society (sharing information, publicity, and reputation) and on the other hand are those who seek proprietary rights (ownership of material and all accompanying rights). Further, the battle over the definitions of intellectual property and copyright is taking place in a number of separate arenas including the music industry, academic publishing and the software industry. In each of these arenas the challenge of intellectual property in the digital age is manifested in similar yet distinct ways.
Downes, Daniel M. Journal of Electronic Publishing (2006). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#21851
To catch a thief, use the Web to track down plagiarism.
Fleishman, Glenn. Adobe Magazine (1999). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Plagiarism
#25269
On Author's Rights in Cyberspace: Are New International Rules Needed?
How will the availability of information over the Internet affect authors and their readers and publishers? Decisions over access to electronic information are being made on national and international levels with little regard for new technologies and their impact on new markets. New regulations may indeed only restrict access to information and impede the application of new technologies by authors and their audiences. Additionally, these legal solutions may only retard the development of more appropriate models for cyberspace.
Samuelson, Pamela. First Monday. Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#10600
Ownership Issues in Copyright Law
Among the most commonly litigated issues in U.S. copyright law are those related to copyright ownership. When more than one person or entity is involved in the creative process, questions often arise about who owns the copyright in an original work, and the answers can have significant consequences. This article explains the importance of the 'work for hire' doctrine as well as the rules governing 'joint' copyright ownership.
Landau, Michael. GigaLaw.com (2000). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#12937
Placing Copyright Notices In Documentation 
There's no legal reason not to include a copyright notice on every page of a printed manual, every slide of a PowerPoint presentation, or every page of a Web site. But, of course, too many copyright notices can become unruly and unattractive, so the practical question is whether there is a legal reason why copyright notices should be printed on every page of a document.
Isenberg, Doug. TECHWR-L (2000). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#27118
Preserving the Positive Functions of the Public Domain In Science
Science has advanced in part because data and scientific methodologies have traditionally not been subject to intellectual property protection. In recent years, intellectual property has played a greater role in scientific work. While intellectual property rights may have a positive role to play in some fields of science, so does the public domain. This paper will discuss some of the positive functions of the public domain and ways in which certain legal developments may negatively impact the public domain. It suggests some steps that scientists can take to preserve the positive functions of the public domain for science.
Samuelson, Pamela. Data Science Journal (2003). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Scientific Communication
#28831
Remix as "Fair Use": Grateful Dead Posters' Re-Publication Held to Be a Transformative, Fair Use
On May 9, 2006, in Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the lower court, finding the use of several Grateful Dead Poster images appearing in a band biography was a 'fair use' under section 107 of the US copyright statute. In the case, the publisher Dorling Kindersley used without permission seven images of Grateful Dead concert posters or tickets in the book Grateful Dead: The Illustrated Trip (2003). Prior to the book's publication, the publisher had unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate permissions with the copyright holder, Bill Graham Archives. Due to what the publisher perceived as an unreasonable licensing fee, permission agreements were never reached. Nonetheless, the publisher used the seven images in the book, incorporating them into remixed compositions, consisting of collages mixed with graphic art and textual explanations and commentary. Over 2000 images were used in the book. After the book's publication, Bill Graham Archives brought suit for copyright infringement, and requested an injunction blocking further publication.
Rife, Martine Courant. NCTE (2007). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Case Studies
#31798
Rendezvous with KnowGenesis: Mark Neely 
Master Strategist in discussion with the KnowGenesis editor-in-chief about the range of opportunities and challenges that lay ahead for the digital media industry.
Kudesia, Saurabh. International Journal for Technical Communication (2008). Journals>Interviews>Copyright
#25270
Revising Copyright Law for the Information Age
Our current copyright law is based on a model devised for print media, and expanded with some difficulty to embrace a world that includes live, filmed and taped performances, broadcast media, and, most recently, digital media. That much is uncontroversial. The suitability of that model for new media is much more controversial.
Litman, Jessica. Oregon Law Review (1996). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#22254
Safeguarding Intellectual Property
This 'best practices' note collects tips and techniques for preserving your investment in e-learning and other digital media, whether you are a buyer or producer.
William Horton Consulting (2001). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#25268
The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain
We are in the middle of a second enclosure movement. It sounds grandiloquent to call it 'the enclosure of the intangible commons of the mind,' but in a very real sense that is just what it is. True, the new state-created property rights may be 'intellectual' rather than 'real,' but once again things that were formerly thought of as either common property or uncommodifiable are being covered with new, or newly extended, property rights. In this article, I try to develop the vocabulary and the analytic tools necessary to turn the tide of enclosure. I offer an historical sketch of various types of skepticism about intellectual property, from the antimonopolist criticisms of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, through the emergence of affirmative arguments for the public domain, to the use of the language of the commons to defend the possibility of distributed methods of non-proprietary production. In many ways, it turns out, concepts of the public domain show the same variation in assumptions, and the same analytic differences, as the concept of property itself. I conclude by arguing that, for a number of reasons, the appropriate model for the change in thinking which I argue for comes from the history of the environmental movement. The invention of the concept of 'the environment' pulls together a string of otherwise disconnected issues, offers analytical insight into the blindness implicit in prior ways of thinking, and leads to perception of common interest where none was seen before. Like the environment, the public domain must be 'invented' before it is saved. Like the environment, like 'nature,' the public domain turns out to be a concept that is considerably more slippery than many of us realize. And, like the environment, the public domain nevertheless turns out to be useful, perhaps even necessary.
Boyle, James. Law and Contemporary Problems (2003). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#18859
The following set of links provide information on issues of copyright intellectual property, and fair use.
Galin, Jeffrey R. Kairos (1998). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#14480
Copyright protection for software can be a valuable tool. But how do you get that protection, how long does it last, and do you need a registration?
Hollander, Jay. GigaLaw.com (2000). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Software
#18658
Statement of Principles for the Management of Copyright in the Digital Environment
As the twin technologies of computing and telecommunications revolutionize the way in which knowledge and information is recorded, accessed, disseminated and stored, the modes of communication among scholars and researchers are changing rapidly. But just as these technologies can make possible the wide dissemination of copyright material that may violate the rights of the owner, so the technology can be used to prevent reasonable and necessary access to knowledge. Such access is essential to the generation of new knowledge. If access to information for research, teaching and study purposes is constrained, Canada's long-term economic and cultural growth will be hobbled.
University of Ottawa (2000). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Canada
#27094
What kind of textual evidence do courts now look at in light of the recent Grokster decision? What place does technical communication have in recent P2P court decisions? After examining the evidence courts have used from the Sony case to the Grokster case, the author argues that since texts generated and researched by technical communication have surfaced in P2P contexts as important evidentiary objects in court rulings (Napster, Aimster, Grokster), the field and its allies would do well to take notice. Using a lens of activity theory, the author argues that technical communication as a field can control its own future and ability to innovate by reseeing the texts that it creates, texts that are collected by courts as objects influencing determinations of the presence of intent to infringe (the current standard of liability in P2P contexts). With respect to legal liability, the best technical writing might be writing that stays invisible.
Rife, Martine Courant. Social Science Research Network (2006). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Technical Writing
#22272
The Technology of Rights: Digital Rights Management
Very briefly, thin copyright usually refers to a minimalist approach to copyright, giving works only as much protection as is needed to encourage creativity but with a goal of making works readily available to the public. Thick copyright is a more maximalist approach, and crudely put the goal of thick copyright is generally to maximize profits. We appear to be moving toward thick copyright, not only in this county but around the world in general. This movement is being spearheaded, as you might expect, by companies whose main product is in the form of intellectual property, such as books, movies and music. But there is yet another trend relating to the protection of intellectual property and that is the creation of technological controls to protect digital works. This is referred to as Digital Rights Management, or DRM. DRM is not a single technology and it is not even a single philosophy. It refers to a broad range of technologies and standards, many of which are still in the planning and development stage. DRM is not thin copyright, and it isn't even thick copyright; DRM is potentially a nearly absolute protection of works.
Coyle, Karen. Karen Coyle (2003). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#27121
Review: Toward a "New Deal" for Copyright for an Information Age
A century of Congressional deference to industry-negotiated compromises has produced, Litman argues, a copyright law that is both incomprehensible and unfair. This incomprehensibility might be tolerable if copyright law governed only commercial relations among industry participants, all of whom can have copyright counsel. To the extent that copyright law applies to the conduct of ordinary persons, its incomprehensibility presents serious difficulties. Moreover, to the extent that copyright law makes illegal many ordinary activities of individuals--for example, making private copies of music for oneself or to share with a friend or forwarding articles to friends via the Internet--it has become unfair as well. In Digital Copyright, she outlines a framework for a copyright law that would be a new and better deal for the public and would be short, comprehensible, and normative in character.
Samuelson, Pamela. University of California Berkeley (2002). Articles>Reviews>Copyright
#27123
Toward a New Politics of Intellectual Property
Until very recently, copyright has been on the periphery of law and public policy concerns because it provided highly technical rules to regulate a specialized industry. The politics of copyright largely focused on intra-industry bickering. The typical response of the legislature to such intra-industry struggles has been to propose that affected parties meet behind closed doors and hammer out compromise language that would thereafter become enacted into law. It didn’t matter much if the language negotiated in the heat of the night was incomprehensible (as has so often been the case) because the affected parties understood it, and that was all that mattered. Copyright law has, as a consequence, become highly complex and effectively unreadable. One reason why a new politics of intellectual property is necessary is that copyright now affects everyone.
Samuelson, Pamela. University of California Berkeley (2002). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#21666
This panel discussion is designed to help independent contractors understand some basic concepts of copyright protection. The panel will discuss the legal fundamentals of the copyright law and practical applications of the law. The panel will provide different perspectives from three points of view: an independent contractor, a technical writer who works for a large corporation, and a lawyer.
Costanzo, Louis C., Richard H. Weiss and Terry S. Dick. STC Proceedings (1996). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#12938
Using Parts of Another Company's Documentation to Supplement Your Company's Documentation
Although in some parts of life, as the saying goes, 'it's easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission,' that's certainly not true in copyright law. It's very important to ask permission, because if you don't, you could be committing copyright infringement. In some instances, you may be able to use small portions of the other company's documentation without asking permission, under the 'fair use' doctrine of copyright law. However, this doctrine is highly fact-specific and often confusing; in other words, it's impossible to provide a blanket rule about how many paragraphs or words you can copy without violating the law.
Isenberg, Doug. TECHWR-L (2000). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
#20577
Walking the Labyrinth of Multimedia Law
Recommends discovering and documenting the origins of each work used in our products to ensure that we hold the appropriate rights. Advises working with counsel and contract negotiators to ensure that all requisite licenses, releases, and other documents are obtained.
Helyar, Pamela S. and Gregory M. Doudnikoff. Technical Communication Online (2003). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright>Multimedia
#30407
Web Design and the DMCA: Giving and Getting Take Down Notices
If you find yourself in the position of sending or receiving a Digital Millenium Copyright Act take-down notice, this informal checklist will help you get it right the first time.
Rutchik, Gregory. Digital Web Magazine (2007). Articles>Intellectual Property>Copyright
