---

Last updated: February 28, 2000

As we enter the "Information Economy", intellectual property is fast becoming one of the most important exchangeable commodities of our society.  Accordingly, as the Internet is considered to be the most efficient means for facilitating the use, storage, transfer and exchange of intellectual property seen to date, there has been a flurry of activity - a virtual "gold rush" - as many businesses have sought to establish an online presence.  Moreover, as more and more people have started to go online, more and more valuable content is being made accessible to people via the Internet and the World Wide Web, a fact most dramatically illustrated by the recent AOL, Time-Warner merger.

Accordingly, those who are Net-savvy are able to obtain vast amounts of material on the Internet.  As we saw last week for instance, the development of MP3 technology has enabled people to listen to, download, transfer and exchange audio files whilst online.  Similarly, a broad range of cultural and educational materials can be found on the Internet ranging from television shows and news items through to esoteric academic and professional journals.  Nevertheless, despite these developments, a number of content providers have shown a certain apprehension or reluctance to using the Internet as a means for distributing their works.  Primarily, this nervousness stems from the uncertainty that traditional intellectual property doctrines offer them as a means of protecting their investments online.

In the first place, as Andy Johnson-Laird has argued, the technical nature of the Internet has essentially transformed it into a global copying machine.  Indeed, with the advent of digital technology people are readily able to make copies of works and disseminate them not to one, but many other persons, at virtually no cost.  Significantly though, these copies are perfect copies of the original and, in some cases, may be even better than the original.  Furthermore, there is the fact that Cyberspace makes it increasingly difficult to monitor and enforce compliance with the intellectual property laws.   As Lawrence Lessig has asserted then: 'The threat posed by technology is maximal, while the protection promised by law is minimal.'

Resulting in what some commentators have dubbed as an "Era of Promiscuous Publication", a number of publishers have started to become concerned at the loss of control over their online works, and hence loss of income.  Accordingly, due to its seeming ineffectiveness in preventing this, these publishers have started to question the utility of the current intellectual property regime, at least in so far as it applies to Cyberspace.  Moreover, they have also begun to explore several alternatives to the traditional intellectual property laws as a means of protecting their online works.  At the heart of these alternatives lie contractual and technological solutions which seek to place limits on the permissable uses of online material.  Closely related to this in practice, although ideologically distinct, is the Open Source Movement which seeks to capture the value of intellectual property by freely distributing it and then relying on network effects and ethics to support their position.  Finally, there have also been some attempts to create entirely new forms of intellectual property protection to deal with the unique problems raised by the Internet.  It is these alternatives that we shall be examining in some detail in this week's module.

The  Martindale-Hubbell® Law Directory is the flagship product of Martindale-Hubbell, a member of the Reed Elsevier Publishing Group.  Starting as a one volume publication in 1868, the Martindale-Hubbell® Law Directory has evolved into a 26 volume publication profiling approximately 900,000 lawyers internationally.  Considered as 'the primary research source for information about attorneys and law firms around the world', each entry in the Directory typically consists of short biographical information about the lawyer (e.g. law school attended, areas of specialization) and their contact details.  Considering its size and popularity, therefore, the compilation and maintenance of the Directory is not only costly and time-consuming but also extremely valuable to Martindale-Hubbell.

In addition to making its directory available in print format, the Martindale-Hubbell® Law Directory is also available on CD-ROM, from LEXIS-NEXIS and most recently on the Internet via the Martindale-Hubbell Lawyer Locator™.  Users of the Internet version of the Directory are able to access the site and search the database for lawyers by name, firm, location, practice and a number of other different criteria.

At the bottom of each search page is a copyright notice.  After the copyright notice, the following statement appears:

'ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE LAWYER LOCATOR SERVICE IS PROVIDED SUBJECT TO  TERMS AND CONDITIONS.  YOUR USE OF THIS SERVICE CONSTITUTES YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.'

'You are hereby granted a nonexclusive, nontransferable, limited license to view, reproduce, print, and distribute insignificant portions of materials retrieved from this Site provided (a) it is used only for informational, non-commercial purposes, (b) you do not remove or obscure the copyright notice or other notices. Except as expressly provided above, no part of this Site, including but not limited to materials retrieved therefrom and the underlying code, may be reproduced, republished, copied, transmitted, or distributed in any form or by any means. In no event shall materials from this Site be stored in any information storage and retrieval system without prior written permission from Martindale-Hubbell.'

Assume that rather than providing the Directory for free, Martindale-Hubbell decides to charge for access.  It develops some software which requires you to pay a fee every time that you access the database.  Furthermore, it charges additional fees for every entry that you copy from the Directory, and for every person that you send that entry to. A poor Harvard law student (who happens to be a computer whiz) who is trying to find the name of a partner to send their resume to, but can’t afford the access charges, manages to hack into the Directory and search it for free.  Do you think that this student should be punished in some way (e.g. damages, criminal liability) for their actions?

(There are many links in this week's readings.  You are only required to read those links which are expressly marked as a "required reading" in order to fully comprehend the issues raised this week.  All of the other links are optional.  Please feel free to read these links if you are interested or have the time)

1.  Contract

As the deficiencies of traditional intellectual property protection are becoming perceived in the online environment, contract is becoming an increasingly pervasive means of protecting intellectual works.  Indeed, anyone who has spent some time surfing the Net will inevitably have come across web pages which look suspiciously like a contract.  Frequently, these pages will require the user to agree to the terms of an online license by clicking on an "ACCEPT" icon before they can proceed any further.  Known as "clickwrap" licenses, these agreements are thought to be highly useful in mass-market industries such as the software industry, and hence justifiable on utilitarian grounds.  This extract from    Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, “The License Is The Product: Comments on the Promise of Article 2B for Software and Information Licensing" 13 Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 891 (1999) (extract only - required reading) seeks to make such an argument.  Please read this extract or click here (optional) to read the full version if you have time.

The legal position as to the enforceability of such licenses is, however, uncertain at the present.  Early case law (optional) in the analogous field of "shrinkwrap" licenses generally suggested that such agreements were unenforceable.  In ProCD v. Zeidenberg 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (optional), however, the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the validity of a shrinkwrap license.  Importantly, the court enforced a license agreement which granted protections analogous to copyright on a CD-ROM database that was otherwise non-copyrightable (optional).  Accordingly, no clear approach as to the enforceability of shrinkwrap licenses has emerged from the courts as yet, with some courts enforcing them and others not.  Despite this uncertainty however, in Hotmail Corporation v. Van$ Money Pie, Inc. 1998 WL 388389, 1 (N.D. Cal.) (optional), the first case to consider clickwrap agreements, the District Court granted a preliminary injunction against a "spammer", noting that the plaintiff’s contractual claim based on a clickwrap license was likely to succeed.

Most recently, there has been an attempt to clarify the position regarding clickwrap licenses through the proposed Article 2B (optional) of the Uniform Commercial Code (a version of which was recently passed by the Virginia legislature).  In its present form, Article 2B would make clickwrap licenses binding and enforceable against those who "agree" to them.  This has prompted some strong criticism from legal scholars who point out, amongst other things, the lack of any semblance of a bargain and hence the unilateral nature of the terms in clickwrap licenses.  In Niva Elkin-Koren,"Copyright Policy and the Limits of Freedom of Contract" 12 Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 111 (1997) (extract only - required reading), the arguments against the unchecked application of freedom of contract as a de facto means of obtaining copyright protection are rehearsed.  Please read this extract or click here (optional) to read the full version if you have time.

2. Technological Protections

'We have never had to choose whether authors should be permitted perfectly to control the use of their intellectual property independent of the law, for such control could only be achieved through law.  The balance struck by the law was the best that authors could get.  But now the code gives authors a better deal.  And thus we must now decide whether this better deal makes public sense.'

Faced with the possibility of such a world, a number of authors have started to question our uncritical acceptance of such technological measures.  Julie Cohen (optional), for instance, has argued that there should be a right to "hack" trusted systems to the extent that they infringe upon traditional intellectual property rights such as fair use.  Other commentators such as Esther C. Roditti (optional), have suggested that the use of trusted systems, particularly when they interfere with the contents of your hard drive (e.g. deleting certain system files upon a failure to pay a registration fee after a trial period), may themselves be unlawful.  At the very least, therefore, the introduction of technological protection measures can hardly be described as a non-controversial step,a fact which is well illustrated by the recent debates over DVD encryption (optional).

3.  Open Source and Ethics

The rationale behind the proprietary method of software development is to keep source code confidential so that only the owner can realize its value.  By releasing its source code, the Open Source Movement is thus rejecting this economic model in favour of an alternative one.  Perhaps the most famous advocate of this new model is Esther Dyson (optional) who has argued that the Information Age has ushered in a new economic order in which content will essentially be free, serving as advertising for services and relationships from which income will ultimately be derived.  Whilst the viability of this alternative economic model has yet to be seriously tested, the recent success of Linux (optional) based companies such as Red Hat (optional), and the decision by Netscape Communications (optional) to release the source code of its Internet browser may suggest that it is a workeable model.

It is worth noting that, contrary to initial impressions, the Open Source Movement does not represent an abandonment of intellectual property or contractual protections.  Rather, as the article "What Does Free Mean? or What Do You Mean By Open Software"(optional) points out, intellectual property and contract are central to the movement for in 'order to stay free, software must be copyrighted and licensed.'  Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, a senior corporate attorney for Microsoft Corporation, has provided a detailed analysis of this in “How Copyleft Uses License Rights to Succeed in the Open Source Software Revolution and the Implications for Article 2B” 36 Houston Law Review, 179 (1999) (optional).  You are not required to read either of these articles.

In addition to the Open Source Movement, ethics might also provide an alternative means of protecting intellectual property in Cyberspace.  Netiquette  (optional), for instance, which proscribes the rules of accetable conduct is taken very seriously on the Internet.  Accordingly, certain organizations such as eBay (optional) have sought to rely on self-policing and "neighborhood watch" groups to prevent abuses of its facilities.  Nevertheless, the fundamental problem remains as John Perry Barlow has argued in his article "The Economy of Ideas" (optional), that piracy has become so socially acceptable that only a thin minority appear to be compelled to obey the intellectual property laws.  In this regard then, certain groups such as the Software and Information Industry Association (optional) have sought to establish educational campaigns (optional) to teach people about the responsible and legal use of intellecutual property products.

4.  New Forms of Intellectual Property Protection

Jerome H. Reichman and Paul F. Uhlir, "Database Protection at the Crossroads: Recent Developments and Their Impact on Science and Technology" 14 Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 793 (1999) (extract only - required reading) provides an a good general overview of the European Union’s Database Directive and the current legislative proposals before the United States Congress for a sui generis database right.  The authors then go on to criticize these rights, arguing that they provide over-extensive and unnecessary protection which may ultimate stifle scientific research, development and innovation.  Please read this extract or click here (optional) to read the full version if you have time.

This week's assignment relates to the case study described above.  Please review the case study and then choose one of the options below and write a short response as to the legal liability of the person's actions and whether you think such liability is appropriate.

(a)  You are approached by the person who cut and paste the relevant extracts from the Martindale-Hubbell Lawyer Locator™ and emailed them to their friend.  They have been served by a writ from Martindale-Hubbell alleging breach of contract and want your advice as to their potential liability.  Please advise them in relation to the scenario where:

(i) they simply cut and paste the extracts without including the relevant notices; and
(ii) the person is a professional "person locator" who charged a fee for their activities.

Assume that before the person could use the Martindale-Hubbell Lawyer Locator™ they had to download some software and agree to the license that came with it.  Since sending the email, this software has been disabled and a substantial research document which contained some material from the Directory has also been deleted from their hard drive.  This document had taken months to compile and was part of a commission (worth $5000) which they had been working on.  There is no way that this person can finish their work on time now and they fear that they will lost all or a substantial part of their commission as a result.  They want to know if they have any liability to Martindale-Hubbell and, if so, whether they could recover any of their lost commission.

(b)  You are approached by the person who compiled the list of specialist Internet/IP lawyers and sold it over the Internet.  They have been served by a writ from Martindale-Hubbell alleging breach of contract and claiming damages.  Please advice them as to their liability where:

(i)  They simply cut and paste the information from the Martindale-Hubbell Lawyer Locator™ onto their own computer;
(ii)  They actually wrote down the information on a piece of paper and then physically entered it onto their computer;
(iii)  They used several different databases to compile the information such that it is impossible to determine exactly which database an individual entry was taken from;
(iv)  They independently verified the accuracy of each entry by firstly consulting their lawyer friends and, secondly, directly contacting the individual lawyers concerned; and
(v)  The whole scenario occured in a member state of the European Union.

If you are a member of group A, you should submit your assignment answer at the time and in the manner specified on the home page for your section.          CLE  | Section A1  |  Section A2  |  Section A3  |  Section A4  |  Section A5  |  Section A6  |  Section A7  | Section A8

If you are a member of group B, you are not required to submit an answer to the assignment but should feel free to discuss the issue in the Plenary Conference.

1. What is the validity of "clickwrap" agreements?  What are the arguments for and against such agreements being legally binding?
2. Should the providers of online content be entitled to use contract as a means of gaining protection over and above that provided by traditional intellectual property doctrines?
3. Do you think that trusted systems represent a threat to the existing balance struck by the intellectual property laws?
4. In you opinion, do you think that trusted systems are a good or a bad development?
5. How should the legal system respond to the widespread introduction of trusted systems?  Should it remain passive, and allow market forces to determine the optimal allocation of usage rights?  Or should it intervene and place limits on the types of code that intellectual property holders are entitled to write in order to protect their works?
6. Do you agree with the claims made by the Open Source Movement that its software is superior, it discovers and fixes bugs quicker, and that it is cheaper than traditionally developed software?
7. Do you think that the economic model which the Open Source Movement is based on is a viable one?
8. How are contract and intellectual property central to the success of the Open Source Movement?
9. Are ethics a realistic alternative to intellectual property laws as a means of protecting works in Cyberspace?
10. In the case study described above, how would your answer differ if the European Database Directive was in force in your country?
11. What do you think about the sui generis right in the European Database Directive and currently proposed before the United States Congress?  Does such a right strike you as over or under protective?
12. What competing interests appear to be at odds with one another in the European Union’s Database Directive?
13. Should the United States adopt a similar law?
14. Do you agree with Reichman and Uhlir's account of the sui generis database right as being too extensive, potentially stifling scientific research and development thereby threatening innovation.
15. What are the various considerations which need to be balanced against one another in determining the appropriate level of intellectual property protection?  Should any of these considerations be given greater weight than any other?
16. Who should determine the extent of permissible intellectual property protection?  Should it be left to the market through such things as online contracts or technological protection, or does the government have a role here?
17. Is the Internet sufficiently different from real space to justify the creation of new intellectual property laws?
18. What is your reaction to the possibility of paying for everything that you do online, including paying for activities that you previously didn’t have to pay for (e.g. lending your book to a friend)?
19. What is your preferred vision for intellectual property protection in cyberspace?

1.  Materials on Contract

    (i)  General Information on Contract

Contract Basics (from the Cyberspace Law Institute's Cyberspace for Non-Lawyers)

• Basic Framework
• How Do You Accept Offers
• Contracts of Adhesion
• Terms of the Contract
• Requirement of a Signed Contract

• Robert Merges, "The End of Friction? Property Rights and Contract in the Newtonian World of On-line Commerce," 12 Berkeley Technology Law Journal (1997) : Merges argues that property rights are necessary in cyberspace, and that we should remain faithful to the redistributive roots of the fair use doctrine.
• Trotter Hardy, "Contracts, Copyright and Preemption in a Digital World," 1 Rich. J.L. & Tech. 2 (1995): on copyright preemption of state contract law in cyberspace.
• Maureen A. O'Rourke, "Copyright Preemption After the ProCD Case: A Market-Based Approach," 12 Berkeley Technology Law Journal (1997): article discussing the ProCD case in detail and comparing the different philosophies of the district and appellate courts.
• Paul Goldstein, "Copyright and its Substitutes," 1997 Wisconsin L. Rev. 865 (1997): a good general discussion of both contract law and encryption as substitutes for copyright.
• Mark Lemley, Intellectual Property and Shrinkwrap Licenses, 68 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1239 (1995): a good overview of issues involved in shrinkwrap licenses.
• Mark Lemley, Shrinkwraps in Cyberspace, 35 Jurimetrics J. 311 (1995): a discussion of on-line shrinkwrap licenses.
• Apik Misassian, Comment, "The Death of Copyright: Enforceability of Shrinkwrap Licensing Agreements," 45 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 569 (1997): overview of issues surrounding shrinkwrap licenses.
• Maureen A. O'Rourke, "Drawing the Boundary Between Copyright and Contract: Copyright Preemption of Software License Terms," 45 Duke L.J. 479 (1995).
• Brandon L. Grusd, "Contracting Beyond Copyright: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg" 10 Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 353 (1997): Useful summary and  critique of the the decision in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg.

 

• Draft of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 2B: A much-discussed proposal to adapt the Uniform Commercal Code to account for shrinkwrap licenses.
• The 2BGuide: Online guide to UCC Article 2B.
• Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
• David Nimmer, Elliot Brown, Gary N. Frischling, "The Matemorphosis of Contract Into Expand" 87 California Law Review, 17 (1999): Criticizing the increasing prominance of contract in intellectual property matters and the support that Article 2B would give to such contracts.
• Joel Rothstein Wolfson, "Contract and Copyright Are Not at War: A Reply to "The Metamorphosis of Contract into Expand"" 87 California Law Review, 79 (1999) : A reply to Nimmer, et al's "Metamorphosis" article.
• Zachary M. Harrison, "Just Click Here: Article 2B's Failure to Guarantee Adequate Manifestation of Assent in Click-Wrap Contracts" 8 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 907 (1998): Looks at the law concerning shrinkwrap licenses before and after the ProCD decision and then criticizes the provisions of the UCC.

• Hotmail Corporation v. Van$ Money Pie, Inc. 1998 WL 388389, 1 (N.D. Cal.): First case to consider the validity of "clickwrap licenses" suggesting that such licenses may be valid and enforceable.
• Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc. 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997): Shrinkwrap case involving sale of computer and the enforceability of an arbitration clause.
• ProCD v. Zeidenberg 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996): A prominent recent case involving "shrinkwrap licenses" in the context of a database taken from a CD and posted on the web.
• Arizona Retail Systems v. Software Link, Inc. 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz. 1993):  Shrinkwrap case involving the disclaimer of implied warranties and alleged oral representations.
• Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech. 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991): Shrinkwrap case involving warranty for computer equipment sold over the phone.
• Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, Ltd. 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988): interesting shrinkwrap case on reverse engineering of software.

• Copyright Clearance Center: interesting restrictions on the use of information on the site. Also contains restrictions on linking.
• Visio: interesting restrictions on use of documents found on site.
• West Publishing: restrictions on use of information in a legal directory.
• Dell Computer: restricting use to personal, noncommercial use.
• Amazon.com: restricting use of site to use as a shopping resource.
• Ticketmaster: stating that "visitors to this site are hereby granted a single copy license to download (on a single computer only) or print one copy of any of the information found on this site for personal, non-commercial use only."
• CNN: restricting use of content to personal use.

2.  Materials on Technological Protection

    (i)  Articles

• Tom W. Bell, "Fair Use vs. Fared Use: The Impact of Automated Rights Management on Copyright's Fair Use Doctrine", North Carlonina Law Review, January, (1998):  In this thorough law review article, Professor Bell examines the impact of new technologies on copyright's fair use doctrine, predicting a restriction on fair use and urging a "wait and see" policy. .
• James Boyle, "Foucault in Cyberspace: Surveillance, Sovereignty, and Hard-Wired Censors":  Like Shapiro, Boyle argues for a more reflective policy that offers an alternative to what he argues is an infelicitous choice between oppressive state regulation and locked-up technological domination.
• Andrew Shapiro, "Street Corners in Cyberspace," The Nation, July 3, (1995): Many commentators fear that technological protection in cyberspace goes so far that public discourse is stifled -- cyberspace becomes "cyberbia." Shapiro argues that we should make conscious efforts to encourage public spaces in cyberspace.
• Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Copyright, Atlantic Unbound roundtable, September (1998): Organized by The Atlantic Monthy, this online debate between John Perry Barlow, Charles Mann, Mark Stefik, and Lawrence Lessig covers the isses without too much depth, and provides a number of interesting links. An online companion to the article
• Mark Stefik, "Shifting the Possible: How Trusted Systems and Digital Property Rights Challenge us to Rethink Digital Publishing," 12 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 137 (1997): A more comprehensive summary of various trusted systems and their likely impact.
• Terry Fisher, "Property and Contract on the Internet," Draft Paper of June 10, 1998: In this draft paper, our own Professor Fisher predicts that contract and technological protections will supplant intellectual property protection on the internet, and he argues that "courts and legislatures should facilitate and reinforce that shift, but should require that creators (and consumers) when setting up such "private" arrangements abide by restrictions designed to protect the public interest."
• Lawrence Lessig, "The Constitution of Code: Limitations on Choice-Based Critiques of Cyberspace Regulation" 5 CommLaw Conspectus 181:  Professor Lessig argues that code -- the specifications of the software or technology that creates cyberspace -- is as significant a constraint as law or social norms.
• Julie Cohen, "Some Reflections on Copyright Management Systems and Laws Designed to Protect Them," 12 Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 161 (1997): Reflections on the implications of copyright management systems.
• Eric Schlacter, "The Intellectual Property Renaissance in Cyberspace: Why Copyright Law Could Be Unimportant on the Internet," 12 Berkeley Tech. L.J. (1997): A discussion of technological protection measures.
• Coalition for Networked Information, Technological Strategies for Protecting Intellectual Property in the Networked Multimedia Environment: Numerous working papers on copy protection.
• Brad Cox, "Superdistribution," Wired September (1994): Arguing in support of metered use.
• Paul Goldstein, "Copyright and its Substitutes," Wisconsin L. Rev. 865 (1997): A good general discussion of both contract law and encryption as substitutes for copyright.
• Pamela Samuelson, "Legally Speaking: Regulation of Technologies to Protect Copyrighted Works," 39 Communications of the ACM 17-22 (July 1996): Discussing two of the White Paper's legislative proposals - protecting the integrity of copyright management information that will soon be attached to all digital copies of copyrighted works and proscribing technologies or services useful for circumventing technological protection for copyrighted works - and arguing that "both proposals need significant refinement before they are suitable for adoption as either national or international legal norms."
• Julie Cohen, "A Right to Read Anonymously: A Closer Look at 'copyright management' in Cyberspace", 28 Conn. L. Rev. 981 (1996): Examining privacy implications of copyright management information.
• Pamela Samuelson, "Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy: Why the Anti-Circumvention Regulations Need to Be Revised" 14 Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 519 (1999):  Exploring the reasons why technological protection should not be allowed to create greater interests than that granted by copyright.
• Julie E. Cohen, “Copyright and the Jurisprudence of Self-Help” 13 Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 1089 (1998):  Suggesting the possibility of a right to "hack" in order to preserve fair use rights which technological protections are destroying.

• Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
• Jonathan Band, Digital Millennium Copyright Act Analysis (especially Title I).
• 17 USC ch. 10, Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media (browse online)
• HR 3048 (Digital Era Enhancement Act): a proposed alternative to the above bills.
• Digital Future Coalition: page generally tracking pending copyright legislation

• Intertrust, Inc.: trusted systems technology.
• Folio: same.
• Wave Systems Corp.: same.
• Digimarc, Corp.: providing digital watermarking and search services.
• RSA Data Security: a primer on cryptography technology.
• First Use: providing digital "fingerprinting" service.

• MIT Media Lab: site explaining the science of "electronic paper."
• SoftBook: electronic book technology
• NuvoMedia: same.
• Everybook: same.

3.  Materials on Open Source and Ethics

    (i)  Articles on Open Source

• Eric S. Raymond, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar": The research paper by Eric Raymond which, in part, persuaded Netscape to go open-source with its popular browser.
• Eric S. Raymond, "Homesteading the Noosphere": A follow up paper to "The Cathedral and the Bazaar in which Eric Raymond exams in detail the property and ownership customs of the Open Source Movement.
• Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman and Mark Stone (eds) Open Sources: Voices From the Open Source Revolution, Sebastopol (CA): O'Reilly and Associates, Inc. (1999): Collection of articles from various figures in the Open Source Movement describing and analyzing its characteristics, successes and future.
• The Free Software Story: Collection of articles about the Open Source Movement.
• Software Returns to Its' Source: Collection of articles in the March 1999 edition of PC Magazine about the Open Source Movement.
• Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, "How Copyleft Uses License Rights to Succeed in the Open Source Software Uses License Rights to Succeed in the Open Source Software Revolution and the Implications for Article 2B" 36 Houston Law Review, 179 (1999):  Describing how copyright and contract are central to the Open Source Movement.

• Electronic Frontier Foundation:  A non-profit organization dedicated to protecting civil liberties in cyberspace. (It is not formally a part of the Open Source movement.) Here's their mission statement.
• The Free Software Foundation pioneered the concept of free software and is "dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, understanding, and modification of computer programs."
• The Linux Documentation Project is a good way to learn about the most popular open-source operating system.
• Netscape Communications:  Last year, Netscape released its source code to the general public.
• Opensource.org: Organization devoted to promoting open-sourced software.

• Classifieds2000: An online auction house and classified advertisement network.
• eBay: Online auction house.

4.  Materials on New Forms of Intellectual Property Protection

    (i)  Articles

• Reichman, J.H. and Pamela Samuelson, "Intellectual Property Rights in Data?" 50 Vanderbillt Law Review, 51 (1997): Criticism of the various sui generis rights on the basis that they amount to intellectual property rights in data.

• Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11th March 1996 on the Legal Protection of Databases, 1996 OJ (L 77) 20: Diretive creating a sui generis right of protection in otherwise non-copyrightable databases.
• Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, HR 354 106th Cong. (1999): Current proposal before the United States Congress amending HR 2652.
• Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, HR 2652 105th Cong (1998): Amended form of the sui generis right created in HR 3531.
• Database Investment and Intellectual Property Antipiracy Act, HR 3531 104th Cong. (1996):  Initial response of the United States Congress to the European Database Directive which created a similar, although not identical, sui generis right.

There is no special even this week.