Copyright in Cyberspace: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
* [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle] (read the page, the full report is optional) | * [http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/recut_reframe_recycle/ Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle] (read the page, the full report is optional) | ||
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155&q=545+U.S.+913&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)] (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937) | * [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155&q=545+U.S.+913&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)] (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937) | ||
* [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2589269115679339204&q=410+F.3d+792&hl=en&as_sdt=2002 Bridgeport v. Dimension, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005)] (Secs. I and II, pp. 795 - 805) | |||
== Class Resources == | == Class Resources == | ||
Revision as of 19:44, 25 March 2010
The Internet has enabled individuals to become involved in the production of media and to distribute these contributions widely at a very low cost. The former bastion of the entertainment industry is opening up to what many are calling a democratization of culture. The copyright doctrine of fair use seemingly bolsters the right to "recut, reframe, and recycle" previous works, but the protection fair use gives to those re-purposing copyrighted material is notoriously uncertain.
Digital and file-sharing technologies also spawned the proliferation of sharing of media and music, threatening to turn the copyright regime on its head. This has led to a number of controversial legal and technological strategies to put the genie back in the bottle. The "notice-and-takedown" provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allow internet service providers to limit their liability for the copyright infringements of their users if they expeditiously remove material in response to complaints from copyright owners. The DMCA provides for counter-notice and "put-back" of removed material, but many argue that the statutory mechanism is biased in favor of copyright owners and chills innovative, constitutionally protected speech.
This class takes up some of the issues swirling around copyright in cyberspace.
Required Readings
- U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Basics
- 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ("Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users")
- 17 U.S.C. § 107 ("Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use")
- Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture (pp. 1-20)
- "Viacom Says YouTube Ignored Copyrights" (M. Helft, NY Times, 3/18/2010)
Additional Readings (Optional)
- Chilling Effects Clearinghouse
- Jamie Boyle, Beyond Broadcast Conference (video)
- Wendy Seltzer, Sacked By Copyright
- Tim Wu, J.K. Rowling Should Lose Her Copyright Lawsuit Against the Harry Potter Lexicon
- New York Times Bits Blog: Mixing It Up Over Remixes and Fair Use
- EFF, Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands
- Wendy's Blog, NFL Saga
- Center for the Study of the Public Domain, Tales from the Public Domain: Bound By Law? (comic)
- CNET, Did Slate Violate Copyright Law (watch linked-to video too)
- Creative Commons: A Spectrum of Rights (comic)
- Amen Break Video
- Grey Album
- Girl Talk
- Douglas Lichtman, The Case Against YouTube
- Center for Social Media, Recut, Reframe, Recyle (read the page, the full report is optional)
- MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (Sec. II, pp. 928 - 937)
- Bridgeport v. Dimension, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005) (Secs. I and II, pp. 795 - 805)