Docstoc

COPYRIGHT LEGAL AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES

Document Sample
COPYRIGHT LEGAL AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES Powered By Docstoc
					                     COPYRIGHT: LEGAL AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES

                                                   INF 390C

                                           Unique Number 28753


                                              Dr. Philip Doty
                                           School of Information
                                        University of Texas at Austin

                                                  Spring 2011




Class time: Tuesday 9:00 AM – 12:00 N

Place:        UTA 1.502

Office:       UTA 5.448

Office hrs: Tuesday 1:00 – 2:00 PM

              By appointment other times

Telephone: 512.471.3746 – direct line
           512.471.2742 – iSchool receptionist
           512.471.3821 – main iSchool office

Internet:     pdoty@ischool.utexas.edu
              http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~pdoty/index.htm

Class URL: http://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Doty_Philip/2011/spring/INF390C/

TA:           Amy Nurnberger
              anurnber@ischool.utexas.edu

              Virtually: Wed 9-10am (Skype: ut-ischool-ta)

              By appointment other times




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010           1
                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS


Introduction                                                              3


Expectations of students‟ performance                                     4


Analysis and holism                                                       5


Standards for written work                                                6


Some editing conventions for students‟ papers                            10


Grading                                                                  11


Texts and other tools                                                    12


List of assignments                                                      13


Course outline                                                           14


Schedule                                                                 16


Assignments                                                              19


Suggestions for writing policy analysis                                  22


References                                                               25

  References in the schedule and assignments
  Selected other court cases
  Selected additional readings [papers, chapters, monographs]
    Selected law reviews and journals of special interest to copyright
    Governmental and commercial serial sources of government
      information
    Journals and other serial sources on information policy and
        government information
    Newspapers
    Other online sources


Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010         2
                                              INTRODUCTION


Copyright: Legal and Cultural Perspectives (INF 390C) examines copyright from a number of
disciplinary points of view. These include legal studies, cultural history, information studies,
political and social history, literary studies, anthropology, cultural studies, public policy, science
and technology studies, and other disciplines. We will use these multiple disciplines and their
literatures to investigate how copyright in the United States has evolved. The cultural commons,
ideologies of property and protection, shared cultural production, considering natural rights
“vs.” social bargain/statutory arguments for copyright, and identifying and protecting the public
interest in information will be major themes of the semester‟s work.

The course has no prerequisites and is available to graduate students from all departments and
schools.

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
their professions, to be informed citizens, and to be well read in the field. Students will also
develop strategies for professional and personal political action.

The course, as its title indicates, weaves together the study of the law of copyright with the study
of cultural categories such as the “author,” “the work,” “property,” and “creation.” More
specifically, the course will:

   Consider Enlightenment assumptions about creation, knowledge, and social life
   Review important court cases in copyright
   Investigate the history of the concepts of the personal author and the “unitary work”
   Explore concepts of “print culture” and its relations to copyright and cultural expression
    generally
   Examine appropriate statutes and major international copyright conventions
   Consider some questions related to indigenous people‟s interests and how they conflict with
    or are supported by copyright regimes
   Explore the replacement of public law (copyright) by private law (contract and licensing)
   Examine the replacement of first sale and ownership by licensing and leasing
   Consider how copyright, privacy, and free speech are related
   Investigate how the international context for copyright figures into its evolution;
    organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade
    Organization are especially important here
   Explore the implications of the European Union‟s moves to copyright databases of “facts”
   Help students engage papers in law reviews, legal journals, and other sources
   Theorize the public domain as a major source of creativity and (shared) cultural expression
   Examine the Creative Commons and other alternatives to copyright regimes
   Explore ideologies of property, especially “intellectual property”
   Consider how identity, cultural creation, and property are intermingled in both the creation
    and use of copyrighted works
   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
   Explore the concept of vicarious liability.



Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                3
Among our goals this semester will be to make it clear that well-informed people often disagree
about copyright in a number of ways, e.g., what the public interest in copyrighted works may be,
what reasonable behaviors related to copyright might be, how best to encourage the creation and
distribution of creative works, what the breadth and character of the public domain are, and
what reasonable interpretations of the law may be.




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                          4
                         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 her responsibility to arrange with
    another student to obtain all notes, handouts, and assignment sheets.

•   Read all material prior to class. Students are expected to use the course readings to inform
    their classroom participation and their writing. Students must integrate what they read with
    what they say and write. This imperative is essential to the development of professional
    expertise and to the development of a collegial professional persona.

•   Educate themselves and their peers. Successful completion of graduate programs and
    participation in professional life depend upon a willingness to demonstrate initiative and
    creativity. Participation in the professional and personal growth of colleagues is essential to
    one‟s own success as well as theirs. Such collegiality is at the heart of scholarship, so some
    assignments are designed to encourage collaboration.

   Spend 3-4 hours in preparation for each hour in the classroom; therefore, a 3-credit graduate
    hour course requires a minimum of 10-12 hours per week of work outside the classroom.

•   Participate in all class discussions.

•   Complete all assignments on time. Late assignments will not be accepted except in the
    limited circumstances noted below. Failure to complete any assignment on time will result in
    a failing grade for the course.

•   Be responsible with collective property, especially books and other material on reserve.

•   Ask for help from the instructor 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 the instructor limits access to email outside the
    office. Unless there are compelling privacy concerns, it is always wise to send an additional
    copy of any email intended for the instructor to the TA who has access to email more
    regularly.


Academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, cheating, or academic fraud, is intolerable and will
incur severe penalties, including failure for the course. If there is concern about behavior that
may be academically dishonest, consult the instructor. Students should refer to the UT General
Information Bulletin, Appendix C, Sections 11-304 and 11-802 and Texas is the Best . . .
HONESTLY! (1988) by the Cabinet of College Councils and the Office of the Dean of Students.

The instructor is happy to provide all appropriate accommodations for students with
documented disabilities. The University‟s Office of the Dean of Students at 471.6259, 471.4641
TTY, can provide further information and referrals as necessary.




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                   5
           ANALYSIS AND HOLISM IN READING, WRITING, AND PRESENTING


Students in this class must be analytic in their reading of others' work, in their own writing, and
in their presentations. What follows are suggestions for developing analytic and critical methods
of thinking and communication. These suggestions are also indications of what you should
expect from the writing and speaking of others.

Please remember that a holistic, integrative understanding of context must always complement
depth of analysis.

   First and foremost, maximize clarity – be clear, but not simplistic or patronizing.

   Remember that writing is a form of thinking, not just a medium to "display" the results of
    thinking; make your thinking engaging, reflective, and clear.

   Provide enough context for your remarks that your audience can understand them but not so
    much that your audience's attention or comprehension is lost.

   Be specific.

   Avoid jargon, undefined terms, undefined acronyms, colloquialisms, clichés, and vague
    language.

   Give examples.

   Be critical, not dismissive, of others' work; be skeptical, not cynical.

   Answer the difficult but important "how?," "why?," and “so what?” questions.

   Support assertions with evidence.

   Make explicit why evidence used to support an assertion does so.

   Identify and explore the specific practical, social, and intellectual implications of courses of
    action.

   Be evaluative. Synthesize and internalize existing knowledge without losing your own
    critical point of view.

   Identify the specific criteria against which others' work and recommendations for action will
    be assessed.

See the Standards for Written Work and the assignment descriptions in this syllabus for further
explanations and examples.




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                  6
                                 STANDARDS FOR WRITTEN WORK

You will meet professional standards of clarity, grammar, spelling, and organization in writing.
Review these standards before and after writing; I use them to evaluate your work.

Every writer is faced with the problem of not knowing what her audience knows; therefore,
effective communication depends upon maximizing clarity. Wolcott in Writing Up Qualitative
Research (1990, p. 47) reminds us: "Address . . . the many who do not know, not the few who do."
Remember that clarity of ideas, of language, and of syntax are mutually reinforcing.

Good writing makes for good thinking and vice versa. Recall that writing is a form of inquiry, a
way to think, not a reflection of some supposed static thought “in” the mind. Theodore Dreiser‟s
Sister Carrie shows how this process of composition and thought works (1994, p. 144):

    Hurstwood surprised himself with his fluency. By the natural law which governs all
    effort, what he wrote reacted upon him. He began to feel those subtleties which he could
    find words to express. With every word came increased conception. Those inmost
    breathings which thus found words took hold upon him.

We need not adopt Dreiser‟s breathless metaphysics or naturalism to understand the point.

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, in one of three font styles: Times,
Times New Roman, or Palatino.

Some writing assignments will demand the use of notes (either footnotes or endnotes) and
references. It is particularly important in professional schools such as the School of Information
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, funding agencies, professional conferences, and the like. You may also
want to consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2010, 6th ed.).

Do not 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, use a specialized dictionary such as The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy or
subject-specific encyclopedia, e.g., the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
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 a standard spell checker, but be aware that spell checking dictionaries have systematic
weaknesses: they exclude most proper nouns, e.g., personal and place names; they omit most
technical terms; they omit most foreign words and phrases; and they 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 390C). 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:

Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                    7
•   The title of the assignment
•   Your name
•   The date
•   The class number – INF 390C.




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010   8
Since the production of professional-level written work is one of the aims of the class, I 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
written work appropriate to any situation. Note the asterisked errors in #'s 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16,
19, 21, 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. 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.

 6. Avoid using “content” as a noun.

 7. 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.

 8. Do not use "quality" as an adjective; it is vague, cliché, and colloquial. Instead use "high-
    quality," "excellent," "superior," or whatever more formal phrase you deem appropriate.

 9. Study the APA style convention for the proper use of ellipsis*. . . .*

10. 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.

11. Avoid contractions. *Don't* use them in formal writing.

12. 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; e.g., "each person went to their home" is a poor construction because "each" is
    singular, as is the noun "person," while "their" is a plural form. Therefore, either the referent
    or the pronoun must change in number.

13. "If" ordinarily takes the subjunctive mood, e.g., "If he were [not "was"] only taller."

14. 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."
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                   9
15. Do not confuse possessive, plural, or contracted forms, especially of pronouns. *Its* bad.

16. Do not confuse affect/effect, compliment/complement, or principle/principal. Readers will
    not *complement* your work or *it's* *principle* *affect* on them.

17. 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.

18. Avoid use of "valid," "parameter," "bias," "reliability," and "paradigm," except in limited
    technical ways. These are important research terms and should be used with precision.

19. 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 instructor very unhappy :-(.

20. "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.

21. *The passive voice should generally not be used.*

22. "Between" is used with two alternatives, while "among" is used with three or more.

23. 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 in APA.

24. There is no generally accepted standard for citing electronic resources. If you cite them, give
    an indication, as specifically as possible, of:

    -   responsibility                         (who?)
    -   title                                  (what?)
    -   date of creation                       (when?)
    -   date viewed                            (when?)
    -   place to find the source               (where? how?).

    See the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2010, 6th ed., chapters 6
    and 7) for a discussion of citing electronic material and useful examples.

25. *PROFREAD! PROOFREED! PROOOFREAD!*

26. Citation, quotation, and reference are nouns; cite, quote, and refer to are verbs.

27. Use double quotation marks (“abc.”), not single quotation marks („xyz.‟), as a matter of
    course. Single quotation marks are to be used to indicate quotations within quotations.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                 10
28. 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 and/or other directional cues,
    e.g., “(Davis, 1993, section II, ¶ 4).”

29. In ordinary American English, as ≠ because.

30. Use "about" instead of the tortured locution "as to."




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                          11
31. 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.

32. On a related note, avoid the locution of “public debate.” Such a locution makes a series of
    faulty assumptions:

    - It presumes that a public policy issue has only two “sides.” There are usually three or four
      or more perspectives on any topic of public dissensus that merit consideration. “Debate”
      hides this complexity.
    - “Debate” implies that one “side” and only one “side” can be correct; that presumption
      ignores the fact that the many perspectives on a public policy issue have contributions to
      make to its resolution.
    - “Debate” implies that there can be and will be one and only one “winner.” This
      presumption naively ignores the fact that some public policy issues are intractable, that
      these issues are often emergent as are their resolutions, and that compromise is oftentimes
      a mark of success rather than of failure or “surrender.”

33. Please do not start a sentence or any independent clause with “however.”

34. Avoid the use of “etc.” – it is awkward, colloquial, and vague.

35. Do not use the term “subjects” to describe research participants. “Respondents,”
    “participants,” and “informants” are preferred terms and have been for decades.

36. Do not use notes unless absolutely necessary, but, if you must use them, use endnotes not
    footnotes.

37. Please adhere to these orthographic (spelling) conventions:

    - Web with a capital “W.”
    - Web site, two words, with a capital “W.”
    - Internet with a capital “I” to indicate the TCP/IP-compliant computer network with a
      shared address convention. Otherwise, internet with a lower-case “i” simply means any of
      the many millions of networks of networks.




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                             12
                   SOME EDITING CONVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS’ PAPERS


Symbol             Meaning

#                  number OR insert a space; the 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 means that the verb or subject of the sentence is missing

ITAL               italicize

j                  journal

lc                 make into lower case

lib'ship           librarianship

org, org‟l         organization, organizational

PL                 plural

Q                  question

Q‟naire            questionnaire

REF?               what is the referent of this pronoun? to what or whom does it refer?

RQ                 research question

sp                 spelling

SING               singular

w/                 with

w.c.?              word choice?


The instructor also uses check marks to indicate that the writer has made an especially good
point. Wavy lines indicate that usage or reasoning is suspect.


Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                              13
                                                  GRADING


Grades for this class include:

A+       Extraordinarily high achievement                not recognized by the University
A        Superior                                        4.00
A-       Excellent                                       3.67
B+       Good                                            3.33
B        Satisfactory                                    3.00
B-       Barely satisfactory                             2.67
C+       Unsatisfactory                                  2.33
C        Unsatisfactory                                  2.00
C-       Unsatisfactory                                  1.67
F        Unacceptable and failing.                       0.00.


See the memorandum from former Dean Brooke Sheldon dated August 13, 1991, and the notice in
the School of Information student orientation packet for explanations of this system. Consult the
iSchool Web site (http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/programs/general_info.php) and the Graduate
School Catalog (e.g., http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad09-11/ch01/grad09.ch01a.html
and http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad09-11/ch01/grad09.ch01b.html#Student-
Responsibility) for more on standards of work. While the University does not accept the grade of
A+, the instructor may assign the grade to students whose work is extraordinary.

The grade of B signals acceptable, satisfactory performance in graduate school. The instructor
reserves the grade of A 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, successfully informing the work of other students.

The grade of incomplete (X) is reserved for students in extraordinary circumstances and must be
negotiated with the instructor before the end of the semester. See the former Dean's
memorandum of August 13, 1991, available from the main iSchool office.

The instructor uses points to evaluate assignments, not letter grades. He uses an arithmetic – not
a proportional – algorithm to determine points on any assignment. For example, 14/20 points on
an assignment does NOT translate to 70% of the credit, or a D. Instead 14/20 points is 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 of some kind. If the semester point total ≥ 80, then s/he will have
earned at least a B of some kind. Whether these are A+, A, A-, B+, B, or B- depends upon the
comparison of point totals for all students. For example, if a student earns a total of 90 points and
the highest point total in the class is 98, the student would earn an A-. If, on the other hand, a
student earns 90 points and the highest point total in the class is 91, then the student would earn
an A. The instructor will explain this system throughout the semester.




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                             14
                                       TEXTS AND OTHER TOOLS

There are five required texts for this class, and they are available 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.

    Boyle, James. (2008). The public domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind. New Haven, CT:
    Yale University.

    Goldstein, Paul. (2003). Copyright’s highway: From Gutenberg to the celestial jukebox (rev. ed.).
    Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

    Gillespie, Tarleton. (2007). Wired shut: Copyright and the shape of digital culture. Cambridge,
    MA: MIT.

    Litman, Jessica. (2001). Digital copyright. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

There are seven recommended texts:

    Boyle, James. (Ed.) (2003a). Collected papers: Duke conference on the public domain. Durham,
    NC: Center for the Public Domain. [A special issue of Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1-
    2), 1-483.] Also available at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/

    Hemmungs Wirtén, Eva. (2008). Terms of use: Negotiating the jungle of the information
    commons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Hess, Charlotte, & Ostrom, Elinor. (Eds.). (2007b). Understanding knowledge as a commons:
    From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Lessig, Lawrence. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New
    York: Random House.

    Lessig, Lawrence. (2004b). Free culture: How big media uses [sic] technology and the law to lock
    down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin.

    Russell, Carrie. (2004). Complete copyright: An everyday guide for librarians. Washington, DC:
    American Library Association, Office for Information Technology Policy.

    Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and
    how it threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press.


The course Web site, Blackboard, and direct email messages will inform students of changes in
the schedule and assignments. By the second class, please subscribe to three lists:

    Coalition for Networked Information copyright list, now owned by Peter Jaszi:
    http://roster.wcl.american.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A0=PIJIP-
    COPYRIGHT&X=5D71B90996102E1081&Y=mpalmedo%40wcl.american.edu
    The archives through February 2007 live at http://www3.wcl.american.edu/cni/

Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                 15
    Politech: http://politechbot.com/mailman/listinfo/politech

    Digital Copyright Digest: http://www.umuc.edu/distance/odell/cip/listserv.html




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                16
                                         LIST OF ASSIGNMENTS

The instructor will provide additional information about each assignment. Written assignments
are to be word-processed and double-spaced in 10- or 12-point font, using Times, Times New
Roman, or Palatino font, with 1" margins. Assignments are due in class unless otherwise
specified.



Assignment                                                        Date Due         Percent of Grade


In-class preparation and participation                            -----                   15%

     Informal case “brief” in class                               FEB 15

Elkin-Koren (2000) and privatizing information                    FEB 8                   10
policy (5 pp.)

Case “brief” and discussion questions (4-5 pp.)                   FEB 22                  15

Leading in-class discussion and annotated                         MAR 8, 22, 29           20
bibliography GROUP

Identification and approval of topic for final paper              MAR 22                  ---

Choice of classmate‟s paper to review                             APR 5                   ---

Draft of final paper (≥10 pp.)                                    APR 19                  ---

Peer review of classmate‟s draft (3-4 pp.)                        APR 26                  10

In-class presentation                                             APR 19, 26              ---

Final paper (15-20 pp.)                                           FRI, MAY 6              30
                                                                  12:00 N in UTA
                                                                  mailroom


All assignments must be handed in on time, and the instructor reserves the right to issue a course
grade of F if any assignment is not completed. Late assignments will be accepted only if:

1.   At least 24 hours before the date due, the instructor 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 – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                 17
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 – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                             18
                                          OUTLINE OF COURSE


Meeting      Date           Topics and assignments


 1           JAN 18         Introduction to the course and review of the syllabus
                            Introduction to the concept of “intellectual property”
                            The exclusive rights of rights holders
                            Exceptions to these exclusive rights

                            SUBSCRIBE:         CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest@cni.org
                                               Politech
                                               Digital Copyright Digest

 2           JAN 25         Origins of U.S. copyright law

 3           FEB 1          Begin Boyle (1996)

 4           FEB 8          Continue Boyle (1996) and Litman (2001)

                            •    Due: Paper on Elkin-Koren (2000) and privatizing information
                                      policy (10%) (5 pp.)

 5           FEB 15         Continue Litman (2001) and Goldstein (2003)
                            Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)

                            •    In-class exercise: informal case “brief”

 6           FEB 22         Selected cases – fair use

                            •    Due: Case “brief” and discussion questions (15%; 4-5 pp.)

 7           MAR 1          Selected cases – vicarious liability?
                            Considering the commons

 8           MAR 8          Student-led discussion and annotated bibliography – the construction
                               of authorship (20%) GRP


Mar 15              Spring Break: No class


 9           MAR 22         Student-led discussion and annotated bibliography – international
                               copyright treaties and conventions/indigenous people‟s interests
                               (20%) GRP

                            •    Due: Identification and approval of topic for final paper

10           MAR 29         Student-led discussion and annotated bibliography – the public
                               domain and its enclosure (20%) GRP


Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                             19
11           APR 5          Begin Gillespie (2007)

                            •    Due: Choice of classmate’s paper to review




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010         20
12           APR 12         The Digital Millennium Copyright Act – anti-circumvention as threat to
                            fair use and other statutory exemptions, surveillance, and legislative
                            history

13           APR 19         Paper presentations

                            •       Due: Draft of final paper (≥10 pp.)

14           APR 26         Paper presentations

                            •       Due: Peer review of classmate’s draft (10%; 3-4 pp.)

15           MAY 3          Course evaluation
                            Summary


FRIDAY, MAY 6, 12:00 N                 in Doty’s mailbox in fifth floor workroom of UTA

                                •           Due: Final paper (30%; 15-20 pp.)




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                            21
                                                 SCHEDULE

This schedule is tentative and may be adjusted as the class progresses. GRP indicates a group
assignment, and AS indicates additional sources. CD indicates that a document can be found in
the Course Documents section of the class Blackboard site. The various court cases and portions
of the U.S. Code can be found online.


DATE               TOPICS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND READINGS


JAN 18             Introduction to the course and review of the syllabus
                   Introduction to the concept of “intellectual property”
                   The exclusive rights of rights holders
                   Exceptions to these exclusive rights

                   READ: Boyle (2008), Chapters 1-5
                         Litman (2001), Introduction, Chapters 1 and 2
                         Copyright Act (see U.S. Copyright Office, 2009) §§ 106, 106A, 107, 108,
                             109, 110, 121 (skim) online

                   AS:      Miller & Davis (1990, pp. 323-339)

                   SUBSCRIBE:         CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest@cni.org
                                      Politech
                                      Digital Copyright Digest


JAN 25             Origins of U.S. copyright law

                   READ: Boyle (2008), 6-10
                         Litman (2001), 3, 4, and 5
                         Rose (2002a) CD
                         Copyright Act §§ 104, 104A (see U.S. Copyright Office, 2009) online

                   AS:      Association of Research Libraries (ARL) (2002) [Timeline . . .] online
                            (U.S. Congress) OTA (1986), Summary online


FEB 1              READ: Boyle (1996), Preface, 1, 6, 10, 11


FEB 8              READ: Boyle (1996), 3, 4, 5, 13, Conclusion, Appendix A
                         Litman (2001), 3, 4, 5

                   •     Due: Paper on Elkin-Koren (2000) and privatizing information policy
                              (10%) (5 pp.)


FEB 15             READ: Litman (2001), 6, 7, and 8
                         Goldstein (2003), 1, 4, and 5
                         Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 (2003) [read majority opinion + both dissents]


Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                22
                   •   In-class exercise: informal case “brief”




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010   23
FEB 22             Selected cases – fair use

                   READ: American Geophysical Union v. Texaco (1994)
                         Feist v. Rural Telephone (1991)
                         Kelly v. Arriba Corp. (2003)
                         Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984)

                   •     DUE: Case “brief” and discussion questions (15%; 4-5 pp.)


MAR 1              Selected cases – vicarious liability?
                   Considering the commons

                   READ: A&M Records v. Napster (2001)
                         MGM v. Grokster (2005)
                         Bollier (2007) CD
                         Hardin (1968) online
                         Lessig (2004c) online
                         Lougee (2007) CD

                   AS:      Creative Commons (2004) online
                            Carroll (2006) online
                            Hess & Ostrom (2007a)


MAR 8              Student-led discussion and annotated bibliography – the construction of
                      authorship (20%) GRP

                   READ: Barthes (1977) online
                         Foucault (1984) CD
                         Jaszi (1994) CD
                         Jaszi & Woodmansee (1994) CD
                         Kamuf (1988) CD
                         Lury (1993b) CD
                         Rose (1988) online
                         Woodmansee (1994) CD


Mar 15             Spring Break: No class


MAR 22             Student-led discussion and annotated bibliography – international copyright
                      treaties and conventions/indigenous people‟s interests (20%) GRP

                   READ: Brown (2003a) CD
                         Brown (2003b) CD
                         Brown (2003c) CD
                         Carroll (2004) online
                         Garrity (1999) online
                         Goldstein (2003), 5
                         Okediji (1999) CD
                         Warren (1999) CD

Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                            24
                   AS:      Braman (2003)
                            Ginsburg (2003)

                   •     Due: Identification and approval of topic for final paper




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                25
MAR 29             Student-led discussion and annotated bibliography – the public domain and its
                      enclosure (20%) GRP

                   READ: Kranich (2007) CD
                         Review Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)
                         Boyle (2003b) online
                         Rose (2002b) online
                         Copyright Act §§ 101, 102, 103, 302, 303, 304, 305
                         Review Feist v. Rural Telephone (1991)

                   AS:       Kranich & Schement (2008)
                             Lange (2003)
                             Lessig (2001a), Preface and 1-8
                             National Research Council (1999)


APR 5              READ: Gillespie (2007), 1, 2, and 3
                         Litman (2007) online

                   •     Due: Choice of classmate’s paper to review


APR 12             The Digital Millennium Copyright Act – anti-circumvention as threat to
                          fair use and other statutory exemptions, surveillance, and legislative
                          history

                   READ: Gillespie (2007), 4, 5, and 6
                         review Boyle (2008), 5
                         Doty (2011, forthcoming) CD
                         Goldstein (2003), 6
                         Litman (2001), 9, 10, 11
                         Copyright Act, §§ 1201 and 1202
                         17 USC 1201(2) – chart summarizing prohibitions of 1201 and 1202 CD
                         Electronic Frontier Foundation (2003) online


APR 19             Paper presentations

                   •     Due: Draft of final paper (≥10 pp.)

APR 26             Paper presentations

                   •     Due: Peer review of classmate’s draft (10%; 3-4 pp.)


MAY 3              Course evaluation
                   Summary

                   READ: Doty (2001) CD
                         Gillespie (2007), 8, 9
                         Goldstein (2003), 7
                         Litman (2001), 12, 13
                         Lury (1993a) CD

Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                              26
                   AS:      Gillespie (2007), 7

FRIDAY, MAY 6, 12:00 N                in Doty’s mailbox in fifth floor workroom of UTA

                   •     Due: Final paper (30%; 15-20 pp.)




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                    27
                                               ASSIGNMENTS

Elkin-Koren (2000) and privatizing information policy (10%) – due FEB 8

Niva Elkin-Koren (2000) writes about the privatization of information policy in the United
States. Using her analysis, Boyle (1996), Boyle (2008), Litman (2000), and any other sources
you find useful, please answer these three questions in 5 double-spaced pp.:

1.   In your opinion, what are the major elements of Elkin-Koren‟s argument? (2 pp.)

2.   What implications does her work on the privatization of information policy have for
     copyright and cultural production in the United States? How does her argument support
     or undermine those of Boyle (1996), Boyle (2008), or Litman (2000)? (3 pp.)

Be specific and clarify to the fullest extent you can what privatization of information policy
means generally and in the context of copyright.


Case “brief” and discussion questions (15%) – due FEB 22

We will be reading a number of legal opinions this semester. Four of them are particularly
important to the concept of fair use: American Geophysical Union v. Texaco (1994), Feist v. Rural
Telephone (1991), Kelly v. Arriba Corp. (2003), and Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984).

In preparation for class on Tuesday, March 1, each student will prepare a very informal brief
related to one of the four cases and at least one discussion question for the class based on any of
the four cases. The instructor will assign the cases by lot and inform the students about the
choices no later than February 8, two weeks before the assignment is due.

Each brief will be 4-5 double-spaced pp. and will have the following seven components often
found in students‟ legal briefs:

    Title
    Citation
    Facts of the case
    Issue
    Holding

[a total of two double-spaced pp. for these five components]

    Reasoning [one double-spaced page]

    Analysis [one or two double-spaced pages].

We will use the briefs and your discussion questions, along with the texts of the cases and
additional material from our readings, to structure our discussion in class.


Leading in-class discussion and annotated bibliography GROUP (20%) – due MAR 8 (6), MAR
22 (20), and MAR 29 (27)

Each student will self-select into one group to lead class discussions on these dates:
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                               28
   March 8        The construction of authorship
   March 22       International copyright treaties and conventions/Indigenous people‟s interests
   March 29       The public domain and its enclosure.




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                               29
There are four elements of this assignment:

   Each team will prepare three or four questions to help facilitate the classroom discussion, and
    these questions should be posted to the Blackboard site in the appropriate forum no later
    than 12:00 N the Sunday before class, i.e., March 6, March 20, and March 27. Each team
    should work as a group to develop these questions, and the other members of the class
    should check the forum before class to prepare for the discussion. The discussion leaders
    should prepare a handout with the questions to distribute in class.

   The instructor will make a few comments (perhaps 10-15 minutes‟ worth) before turning the
    class over to each team to lead the discussion for 90 minutes. Each member of the team
    should assume roughly the same amount of leadership in the class; no one should dominate
    the conversation. Be prepared to run class for an hour and a half – for about an hour up to
    the break and then for another 30 minutes after the break. The instructor will use the last 30
    minutes to expand on the day‟s topic and/or introduce new material.

   Each team should also distribute in class an annotated bibliography of ten (10) items that we
    have NOT read as a class and that are germane to the day‟s discussion. The annotations
    should be about 3-4 sentences long and should be very specific about the sources‟ value to
    the day‟s topic. The team should distribute a paper copy of the annotated bibliography to
    each member of the class and give two paper copies to the instructor in class.

   The team should post the annotated bibliography in the appropriate Blackboard forum no
    later than 9:00 AM the day of class.

The discussion questions and facilitating the discussion will be worth 5% of your grade, while the
annotated bibliography will be worth 15% of your grade. All members of the group will receive
the same grade for both elements of the assignment. The most important word of advice I can
offer is to remind you to facilitate the discussion, not monopolize it – get your classmates
involved.


Final paper and peer review of classmate’s draft (30%) – due APR 19, APR 26, MAY 6

Each student will choose one aspect of the copyright regime in the U.S. to write about at length,
especially keeping in mind our legal and cultural emphases this semester. The final paper should
be 15-20 double-spaced pp.

There are six deadlines for this assignment, one of which is variable:

   Identification and approval of topic – due MAR 22

    Each student must submit a topic for the final paper for approval of the instructor no later
    than March 22. Post a note to the appropriate forum in Blackboard so that the class can
    review them as well. The topic can be related to the texts we have read, cases we have
    reviewed, or material we have not explicitly covered in our semester‟s work. Useful sources
    for ideas include class readings and additional sources in the syllabus, your own knowledge
    of copyright, discussion with the instructor and your colleagues (both inside and outside of
    the class), reading ahead in the syllabus to identify upcoming topics, the mass media, Web
    and other Internet sources, and the bibliographies of what you read.



Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                            30
    Do not limit your consideration of topics to those in the early part of the semester – the more
    initiative you take in identifying a topic of interest to you, the better the final product will be.




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                 31
   Choice of classmate‟s paper to review – due APR 5

    No later than April 5, each student will choose to be a peer reviewer for another student‟s
    final paper. While the choices will generally be on a first-come-first-served basis, the
    instructor reserves the right to assign partners for appropriate reasons. Students will notify
    the instructor by private email about their preferences and will receive replies about them.

   Draft of final paper – due APR 19 – ≥ 10 pp.

    Each student will turn in two copies of a draft of the final paper on April 19. One copy will
    be for the peer reviewer, one for the instructor. This draft should be a minimum of 10
    double-spaced pp., with all the elements of the final paper, including a one-page abstract.

   Peer review of classmate‟s draft (10%) – due APR 26 – 3-4 pp.

    Each individual student will review another student‟s draft and submit two copies of a three-
    to four-page, double-spaced critique of the paper: one to the student who wrote the draft
    and one to the instructor. Be specific in your critique -- what works in the draft? What does
    not? Why or why not? What specific suggestions can you offer for improvement to the
    paper, whether about the topic, the argument, definitions, organization, sources,
    composition, citations, lay-out, and so on? Help your classmates improve their work – this
    kind of review is a primary responsibility of professional life. You might find useful the
    evaluative criteria specified in Dunn (1994) on p. 24 of this syllabus.

   In-class presentation – (APR 5) APR 19 or APR 26

    Each student will make a 20-minute oral presentation about her final paper. While the
    presentation will be informal and ungraded, you should plan to use visuals and handouts as
    appropriate; both Windows and Mac computers are available, as are an Internet connection
    and projector. Each peer editor will act as first respondent to the presentation. The dates for
    the presentations are April 19 or April 26. Please notify me of your preference for
    presentation dates no later than Tuesday, April 5.

   Final paper (30%) – due Friday, MAY 6, 12:00 N in Doty‟s mailbox, fifth floor of UTA – 15-20
    pp.

    This final paper of 15-20 double-spaced pp. should consider any approved topic in
    copyright. The paper should be both analytic and holistic and include a one-page abstract.
    Remember to look at three sections in the syllabus: (1) Analysis in Reading, Writing, and
    Presenting, (2) Standards for Written Work, and (3) Suggestions for Writing Policy Analysis.

    Although the paper need not follow the policy analytic models, it should be informed by the
    systematic consideration of public conflicts that policy analysis provides. Pertinent policy
    instruments, stakeholders, and recommendations to resolve conflicts are of particular import.

    Post your final paper to the appropriate forum in Blackboard no later than 12:00 N, Friday,
    May 6.

                                                      AND

    Put two paper copies of your final paper in Doty‟s mailbox in the fifth floor workroom of
    UTA by 12:00 N, Friday, May 6.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                               32
                        SUGGESTIONS FOR WRITING POLICY ANALYSIS

This section of the syllabus offers three general, interrelated models for doing policy analysis and
then writing policy reports, beyond that offered in Majchrzak‟s Methods for Policy Research (1984).
You can use these to guide your own writing as your study of copyright and policy analysis
progresses beyond this semester, but they are also useful for evaluating the work of others. Such
evaluations are common in policy studies, whether for critique, literature review, or formal peer
review. Policy analysts constantly review each other‟s work in a collegial but rigorous way.

The first model is based on one developed by Charles R. McClure, with my own modifications
added. Particular analysts and topics may demand different approaches:

•   Abstract

•   Introduction

    Importance of specific topic
    Definition of key terms
    Key stakeholders
    Key policy areas needing analysis and resolution

•   Overview of current knowledge

    Evaluative review of the literature about the topic, including print and electronic sources

•   Existing policy related to the topic

    The most important legislative, judicial, and regulatory policy instruments
    Ambiguities, conflicts, problems, and contradictions related to the instruments

•   Key issues

    Underlying assumptions
    Effects on and roles of key stakeholders
    Conflicts among key values
    Implications of issues

•   Conclusions and recommendations

    Recommendations
    Rationale for recommendations
    Implications and possible outcomes of specific courses of action

•   References

    APA style
    All sources cited in the paper.




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                             33
Bardach (2000) is the source for the second approach to doing policy analysis. His book is
entitled A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving.
As such, the first two thirds of his book focuses on this “eightfold path,” in a way reminiscent of
Majchrzak (1984). Bardach identifies eight steps in policy analysis (using his words):

   “Define the problem

   Assemble some evidence

   Construct the alternatives (for action)

   Select the criteria

   Project the outcomes

   Confront the trade-offs

   Decide!

   Tell your story.”

Despite his somewhat misplaced emphasis on problem solving (see, e.g., Schön, 1993, on
generative metaphor) and an implicit linearity he uses to characterize policy analysis, Bardach‟s
book is very useful for understanding the overwhelming importance of (1) narrative in the
process of policy analysis, (2) iteration in analysis, and (3) clarity in argumentation. Bardach also
gives some important insights into the contributions of econometric analysis to policy studies.

The third model is based primarily on the work of William Dunn, with contributions from the
work of Ray Rist on qualitative policy research methods, Emery Roe on narrative policy analysis,
and Donald Schön on generative metaphor. I avoid the rhetoric of problems and problem
solving deliberately; see, e.g., Doty (2001b).




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                               34
Elements of the policy issue paper (adapted from Dunn, 1994, with material from Rist, 1994;
Roe, 1994; and Schön, 1993)


                          Element                                       Examples of Evaluative Criteria


 Executive summary                                              Are recommendations highlighted?

 Background of the issue or dilemma                             Are all the important terms clearly defined?

    Description of the social dilemma                           Are all appropriate dimensions described?
    Outcomes of earlier efforts to address the                  Are prior efforts clearly assessed?
     dilemma

 Scope and severity of the conflict

    Assessment of past policy efforts                           Why is the social conflict important?
    Significance of the conflict                                What are the major assumptions and questions
    Need for analysis                                             to be considered?

 Issue statement
                                                                Is the issue clearly stated?
    Definition of the issue                                     Are all major stakeholders identified and
    Major stakeholders                                               prioritized?
    Goals and objectives                                        Is the approach to analysis clearly specified?
    Measures of effectiveness                                   Are goals and objectives clearly specified?
    Potential “solutions” or new understandings                 Are major value conflicts identified and
                                                                     described?
 Policy alternatives

    Description of alternatives                                 Are alternatives compared in terms of costs and
    Comparison of future outcomes                                  effectiveness?
    Externalities                                               Are alternatives systematically compared in
    Constraints and political feasibility                          terms of political feasibility?

 Policy recommendations

    Criteria for recommending alternatives                      Are all relevant criteria clearly specified?
    Descriptions of preferred alternative(s)                    Is a strategy for implementation clearly
    Outline of implementation strategy                               specified?
    Limitations and possible unanticipated                      Are there adequate provisions for monitoring
      outcomes                                                       and evaluating policies, particularly
                                                                     unintended consequences?

 References

 Appendices




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                    35
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010   36
                                                  REFERENCES

    Many required readings are available online. Some of the course readings are in the Course Documents
    section of Blackboard (CD), while some others require you to be logged in with your UT EID through
    the UT libraries. Those journals are usually available online for only part of their publication run, and
    UT often has more than one arrangement through which to get these journals online, so there may be
    more than one URL for each journal. Explore the various online journal packages; the more familiar
    you are with such arrangements, the better.

I. References in the schedule and assignments

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. 239 F. 3rd 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm

American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/60_F3d_913.htm

Bardach, Eugene. (2000). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective
problem solving. New York: Chatham House.

Barthes, Roland. (1977). Death of the author (Trans. Stephen Heath). In Stephen Heath (Ed.),
Image music text (pp. 142-148). New York: Hill and Wang.
http://faculty.smu.edu/dfoster/theory/Barthes.htm

Bollier, David. (2007). The growth of the commons paradigm. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor
Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 27-40).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CD

Boyle, James. (1996). Shamans, software, & spleens: Law and the construction of the information
society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Boyle, James. (Ed.) (2003a). Collected papers: Duke conference on the public domain. Durham, NC:
Center for the Public Domain. [Also a special issue of Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1-2), 1-
483.] Also available at http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/

Boyle, James. (2003b). Foreword: The opposite of property? In James Boyle (Ed.), Collected
papers: Duke conference on the public domain (pp. 1-32). Durham, NC: Center for the Public
Domain. [This monograph also appeared as a special issue of Law and Contemporary Problems,
66(1-2), 1-483.]

Boyle, James. (2008). The public domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale
University.

Brown, Michael F. (2003a). Introduction. In Who owns native culture? (pp. 1-10 and 255-256).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. CD

Brown, Michael F. (2003b). Cultures and copyrights. In Who owns native culture? (pp. 43-69 and
261-265). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. CD

Brown, Michael F. (2003c). sources on indigenous cultural rights. In Who owns native culture?
(pp. 299-301). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. CD


Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                           37
Carroll, Terry. (2004). Copyright law FAQ (4/6): International aspects.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part4/

Doty, P. (2001a). Digital privacy: Toward a new politics and discursive practice. In Martha E.
Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 36, pp. 115-245). Medford,
NJ: Information Today.

Doty, Philip. (2001b). Policy analysis and networked information: “There are eight million
stories . . . .” In Charles R. McClure & John Carlo ?Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating networked information
services: Techniques, policy, and issues (pp. 213-253). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

Doty, Philip. (Forthcoming 2011). Privacy, reading, and trying out identity: The Digital
Millennium Copyright Act and technological determinism. In William Aspray & Philip Doty
(Eds.), Creating privacy: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Dunn, William N. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) [read majority + both dissents]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html

Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2010, March). Unintended consequences: Twelve years under
the DMCA. https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca

Elkin-Koren, Niva. (2000). The privatization of information policy. Ethics and Information
Technology, 2(4), 201-209. Also available at
http://www.springerlink.com/content/3lugryckutjl/?p=9ed7fd02ace24e7c958a892c69b44039&p
i=27

Feist v. Rural Telephone, 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm

Ford, Richard Thompson. (1995). Facts and values in pragmatism and personhood [Review of
the book Reinterpreting property (by Margaret Radin)]. Stanford Law Review, 18(1), 217-246. Also
available at http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/journals/00389765.html?cookieSet=1

Foucault, Michel. (1984), What is an author? In Paul Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 101-
120). New York: Pantheon Books. CD

Garrity, Brian. (1999). Conflict between Maori and western concepts of intellectual property.
Auckland University Law Review, 8(4), 1193-1210. Also available at
http://www.heinonline.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/auck8&id
=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/auck

Gillespie, Tarleton. (2007). Wired shut: Copyright and the shape of digital culture. Cambridge, MA:
MIT.

Goldstein, Paul. (2003). Copyright’s highway: From Gutenberg to the celestial jukebox (rev. ed.).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Hardin, Garrett. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248. Also
available at http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/stable/i299458


Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                               38
Hess, Charlotte, & Ostrom, Elinor. (Eds.). (2007b). Understanding knowledge as a commons: From
theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jaszi, Peter. (1994). On the author effect: Contemporary copyright and collective creativity. In
Martha Woodmansee & Peter Jaszi (Eds.), The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in
law and literature (pp. 29-56). Durham, NC: Duke University. CD

Jaszi, Peter, & Woodmansee, Martha. (1994). Introduction. In Martha Woodmansee & Peter Jaszi
(Eds.), The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature (pp. 1-13). Durham,
NC: Duke University. CD

Kamuf, Peggy. (1988). On literary property. In Signature pieces: On the institution of authorship
(pp. 59-67). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. CD

Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. (2003), 336 F. 3d 811, 9th circuit
http://images.chillingeffects.org/cases/Kelly_v_Arriba.html

Kranich, Nancy. (2007). Countering enclosure: Reclaiming the knowledge commons. In
Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to
practice (pp. 85-122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CD

Legislative history of anti-circumvention provisions. (n.d.).
http://www2.ari.net/hrrc/html/_black_box__legislative_histor.html

Lessig, Lawrence. (2001a). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New
York: Random House.

Lessig, Lawrence. (2004b). Free culture: How big media uses [sic] technology and the law to lock down
culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin.

Lessig, Lawrence. (2004c). The creative commons. Montana Law Review, 65(1), 1-4. Also
available at
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.d
o?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T5460971488&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&
resultsUrlKey=29_T5460971491&cisb=22_T5460971490&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=222557
&docNo=3

Litman, Jessica. (2001). Digital copyright. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Litman, Jessica. (2007). Creative reading. Law & Contemporary Problems, 70(2), 175-183. Also
available at
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?70+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+175+(spring+2007)

Lougee, Wendy Pradt. (2007). Scholarly communication and libraries unbound: The
opportunity of the commons. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge
as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 311-332). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CD

Lury, Celia. (1993a). From repetition to replication. In Cultural rights: Technology, legality and
personality (pp. 13-38). London: Routledge. CD

Lury, Celia. (1993b). Mechanical reproduction: Print, literacy and the public sphere. In Cultural
rights: Technology, legality and personality (pp. 97-120). London: Routledge. CD


Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                39
Majchrzak, Ann. (1984). Methods for policy research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. 545 US 1913 (2005)
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/

Netanel, Neil [Weinstock]. (2008). Why has copyright expanded? Analysis and critique. In
Fiona Macmillan (Ed.), New directions in copyright laws (vol. 6). Also available at SSRN
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1066241

Okediji, Ruth. (1999). Perspectives on globalization from developing states: Copyright and
public welfare in global perspective. CD

Pyle, Christopher. (1989). How to brief a case.
http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/brief.html (Original published 1982)

Radin, Margaret. (1982). Property and personhood. Stanford Law Review, 34(5), 957-1015. Also
available at
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/browse/00389765/ap040173?frame=noframe&user
ID=80533f15@utexas.edu/01c0a8487400504f6f1&dpi=3&config=jstor

Radin, Margaret. (1987). Market-inalienability. Harvard Law Review, 100(8), 1849-1937. Also
available at http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/stable/i257571

Radin, Margaret. (1993). Introduction: Property and pragmatism. In Reinterpreting property (pp.
1-34 and 203-205). Chicago: University of Chicago. CD

Rice, David A. (2002). Copyright as talisman: Expanding “property” in digital works.
International Review of Law, Computers, & Technology, 16(2), 113-132. Also available at
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=109&sid=a202e99d-
491d-4feb-a517-fc5b7ce080af%40sessionmgr107

Rist, Ray C. (2000). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In Norman K.
Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1001-1017).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Roe, Emery. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University.

Rose, Mark. (1988). The author as proprietor: Donaldson v. Becket and the geneology of modern
authorship. Representations, 23, 51-85. Also available at
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/browse/07346018/dm990292?frame=noframe&use
rID=80533f15@utexas.edu/01c0a8487400504f6f1&dpi=3&config=jstor

Rose, Mark. (2002a). Copyright and its metaphors. UCLA Law Review, 50(1), 1-15.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/uclalr50&id=15&collection=journals

Rose, Mark. (2002b). Nine-tenths of the law: The English copyright debates and the rhetoric of
the public domain. Law & Contemporary Problems, 66(75), 75-87.
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?66+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+75+(WinterSpring+200)

Russell, Carrie. (2004). Complete copyright: An everyday guide for librarians. Washington, DC:
American Library Association, Office for Information Technology Policy.



Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                            40
Schön, Donald A. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social
policy. In Andrew Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 137-163). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

Sony v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/sony_v_universal_decision.html

U. S. Congress. Library of Congress. Copyright Office. (2009). 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

Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2001). Copyrights and copywrongs: The rise of intellectual property and how it
threatens creativity. New York: New York University Press.

Vaidhyanathan, Siva. (2004). The anarchist in the library: How the clash between freedom and control
is hacking the real world and crashing the system. New York: Basic Books.

Warren, Karen J. (1999). Introduction: A philosophical perspective on the ethics and resolution
of cultural property issues. In Phyllis Mauch Messenger (Ed.), The ethics of collecting cultural
property: Whose culture? Whose property? (2nd ed., pp. 1-25). Albuquerque, NM: University of
New Mexico. CD

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. CD




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                               41
II. Selected Other Court Cases

Baystate v. Bowers Discussion. (2003).
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/baystatevbowersdiscussion.htm

Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Jung (2005), 8th Cir., No. 04-3654, September 1

Folsom v. Marsh, 9 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841)

Greenwich Workshop, Inc. v. Tinker Creations, Inc. 932 F. Supp. 1210, C. D.
Cal. 1996 http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/greenwichvtimber.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

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

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

Lochner v. New York 98 U.S. 45 (1905)
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-
bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5BGroup+198+U.S.+45:%5D(%5BLevel+Case+Citation:%5D%
7C%5BGroup+citemenu:%5D)/doc/%7B@1%7D/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only

New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001a) [majority opinion]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-201.ZS.html

New York Times et al. v. Tasini et al. No. 00-201 (2001b) [dissent]
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZD

Princeton University Press, v. Michigan Document Services, 99 F.3d 1381 (6th
Cir. 1996)
http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/nov96/96a0357p.06.html

ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F. 3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)

Recording Industry Association of America v. Verizon Internet Services (2003).
www.eff.org/legal/cases/ RIAA_v_Verizon/opinion-20031219.pdf

Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003), cert denied
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/323_F3d_805.htm

Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken. 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975).

United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948).

United States v. Elcom, Ltd., 203 F.Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002) http://www.digital-law-
online.com/cases/62PQ2D1736.htm


Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                        42
Universal City Studios Inc. v. Eric Corley et al., 273 F.2d 429 (2d Cir. 2001)
http://www.nd.edu/~pbellia/corley.pdf




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010            43
III. Selected Additional Readings

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 Library Association. (2001a). UCITA (the Uniform Computer Information
Transactions Act): Concerns for libraries and the public.
http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/index.html

American Library Association. (2001b). UCITA 101: What you should know about the Uniform
Computer Information Transactions Act. http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/ucita101.html

American Library Association. (2001c). Problems with a non-negotiated contract.
http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/contract.html

ARL/ALA et al. (2003). Fair use and the development of e-reserve systems.
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/fairusereserves.htm

Ashcroft, John. (2004, October 12). Prepared remarks: Release of the report of the Department of
Justice‟s Task Force on Intellectual Property.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2004/agremarksprip.htm

Association of Research Libraries. (2002). Copyright timeline: A history of copyright in the United
States. http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/copyresources/copytimeline.shtml

Aufderheide, Patricia. (1999). Communications policy and the public interest: The Telecommunications
Act of 1996. New York: Guilford.

Australian Attorney-General. (1994). Stopping the rip-offs: Intellectual property protection for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/viewasattachmentPersonal/(CFD7369FCAE
9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~stopping+the+rip-offs-no+frame.pdf/$file/stopping+the+rip-offs-
no+frame.pdf

Band, Jonathan. (2004). A new day for the DMCA: The Chamberlain and Lexmark decisions.
Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Journal [Bureau of National Affairs], 69(1697), 78-82. CD

Benkler, Yochai. (1999). Free as the air to common use: First Amendment constraint on
enclosure of the public domain. New York Law Review, 74(354-446). [log in through the Social
Science Research Network -- http://www.ssrn.com/index_sf.html]
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=168609

Bennett, Tony. (2003). The political rationality of the museum. In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller
(Eds.), Critical cultural policy studies: A reader (pp. 180-187). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Bettig, Ronald V. (1997). The enclosure of cyberspace. Critical Studies in Mass Communication,
14(2), 138-157.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                 44
Black's law dictionary (7th ed.) (1999). St. Paul, MN: West.
http://www.palkauf.com/tools/black's_law_dictionary.htm

Boisseau, D.L. (1993). Anatomy of a small step forward: The electronic reserve book room at
San Diego State University. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 18(6), 366-368.

Bollier, David, Bradford, Gigi, Racine, Laurie, & Sohn, Gigi B. (2006). So what. . . about copyright?
What artists need to know about copyright and trademark. Available at
http://www.publicknowledge.org/resources/artists/so-what-about-copyright

Bowrey, Kathy, & Rimmer, Matthew. (2002). Rip, mix, burn: The politics of peer to peer and
copyright law. First Monday, 7(8).
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_8/bowrey/index.html

Boyle, James. (1997). A politics of intellectual property: Environmentalism for the net?
http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/intprop.htm

Boyle, James. (2002). Fencing off ideas: Enclosure & the disappearance of the public
domain. Daedalus, 131(2), 13-25.

Boyle, James. (2007a). Cultural environmentalism and beyond. Law & Contemporary Problems,
70(2), 5-21. Also available at
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?70+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+5+(spring+2007)

Boyle, James. (2007b). Mertonianism unbound? Imagining free, decentralized access to most
cultural and scientific material. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding
knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 123-144). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Braman, Sandra. (2003). Trade and information policy. In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller (Eds.),
Critical cultural policy studies: A reader (pp. 282-301). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Branscomb, Anne Wells. (1994). Who owns information? From privacy to public access. New York:
BasicBooks.

Braunstein, Yale M. (1981). The functioning of information markets. In Jane H. Yurow and
Helen A. Shaw (Eds.), Issues in information policy (pp. 57-74). Washington, DC: National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce.

Brush, Stephen B. (1993). Indigenous knowledge of biological resources and intellectual
property rights: The role of anthropology. American Anthropologist, 95(3), pp. 653-686.

Carroll, Michael W. (2006). Creative commons and the new intermediaries. Michigan State Law
Review, 45(1), 45-65. Also available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=782405

Caslon Analytics. (2004). Intellectual property guide. http://www.caslon.com.au/ipguide.htm

Chartier, Roger. (2002). Property & privilege in the republic of letters (trans. Arthur
Goldhammer). Daedalus, 131(2), 60-66.

Clifford, Ralph D. (2003). Amicus brief supporting Satava.
http://www.snesl.edu/clifford/satava/brief.pdf
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                              45
Ciffolilli, Andrea. (2004). The economics of open source hijacking and the declining quality of
digital information resources: A case for copyright. First Monday, 9(9).
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_9/ciffolilli/index.html

Cohen, Julie E. (1996). A right to read anonymously: A closer look at “copyright management”
in cyberspace. Connecticut Law Review, 28(4), 981-1040. Also available at
http://www.heinonline.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/conlr28&i
d=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/conlr

Cohen, Julie E. (2005). The place of the user in copyright law. Fordham Law Review, 74, 347-
374. Also available at http://web.lexis-
nexis.com/universe/document?_m=afadc327936917bd72fff08bd6d5d45a&_docnum=1&wch
p=dGLbVtb-zSkVb&_md5=a1799c13cbf60e112489faabe8e06f11 and
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=814664

Colwin, Jane. (2002). Getting started: Legal and ethical resources. In Tomas Lipinski (Ed.),
Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal Issues and ethical challenges in the new information era (pp.
295-302). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Copyright Clearance Center. (2005). http://www.copyright.com/

Cox, James C., & Swarthout, J. Todd. (2007). EconPort: Creating and maintaining a knowledge
commons. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From
theory to practice (pp. 333-347). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Creative Commons. (2004). http://creativecommons.org/

Crews, Kenneth D. (1993). Copyright, fair use and the challenge for universities: Promoting the
progress of higher education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Crews, Kenneth D. (1995). Copyright law and information policy planning: Public rights of use
in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Government Information, 22(2), 87-99.

Crews, Kenneth D. (2000). Copyright essentials for librarians and educators. Chicago: American
Library Association.

Crews, Kenneth D. (2001). The law of fair use and the illusion of fair-use guidelines. Ohio State
Law Journal, 62(2), 599-702.

Cummins, Eric. (2005, August 2.). Who owns pictures of the past? Historic photo dispute pits
copyright act against contract law. San Francisco Daily Journal. Available online

Damich, Edward J. (1988). The right of personality: A common law basis for the protection of
the moral rights of authors. Georgia Law Review, 23, 1-96. Also available at
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.d
o

Dervin, Brenda. (1994). Information <---> democracy: An examination of underlying
assumptions. In Leah A. Lievrouw (Ed.), Information resources and democracy [Special issue]
(pp. 369-385). Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6).



Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                   46
Digital Media Consumer Rights Act. (2005). Available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1201:

Douzinas, Costas, & Nead, Lynda. (Eds.). (1999). Law and the image: The authority of art and the
aesthetics of law. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Duke Law Center for the Public Domain. (2004). Arts Project Moving Image Contest
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/contest/finalists/

Ferullo, Donna L. (2002, summer). The challenge of e-reserves. Net connect, 33-35.

Fisher, William W. II. (2004). Promises to keep: Technology, law, and the future of entertainment.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

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. (1995). White Paper – A mixed bag. Tech Trends, 40(6), 6-8.

Gasaway, Laura N. (1999). Copyright considerations for fee-based document delivery services.
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/fee-based.htm

Gasaway, Laura N. (2000). Values conflict in the digital environment: Librarians versus
copyright holders. http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/Columbia-article3.htm

Gasaway, Laura N., & Wiant, Sarah K. (1994). Copyright: A guide to copyright law in the 1990s.
Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association.

Ghosh, Shubha. (2007). How to build a commons: Is intellectual property constrictive,
facilitating, or irrelevant? In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a
commons: From theory to practice (pp. 209-246). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ginsburg, Faye. (2003). Embedded aesthetics: Creating a discursive space for indigenous media.
In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller (Eds.), Critical cultural policy studies: A reader (pp. 88-99). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.

Ginsburg, Jane C. (1990). Creation and commercial value: Copyright protection of works of
information. Columbia Law Review, 90(7), 1865-1938. Also available at
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/browse/00101958/ap030711?frame=noframe&user
ID=80533f15@utexas.edu/01c0a8487400504f6f1&dpi=3&config=jstor

Ginsburg, Jane C. (1993). Copyright without walls?: Speculations on literary property in the
library of the future. In R. Howard Bloch & Carla Hesse (Eds.), Future libraries (pp. 53-73).
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Glendon, Mary Ann. (1991). Rights talk: The impoverishment of political discourse. New York: The
Free Press.




Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                47
Goldstein, Paul. (1992). Copyright. Law & Contemporary Problems, 55(2), 79-92.
http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=lcpcf&handle=hein.journals/lcp55&id=417&
size=2&rot=0&type=image

Gordon, Wendy J. (1982). Fair use as market failure: A structural economic analysis of the
Betamax case and its predecessors. Columbia Law Review, 82(8), 1600-1657. Also available at
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/browse/00101958/ap030648?frame=noframe&user
ID=80533f15@utexas.edu/01c0a8487400504f6f1&dpi=3&config=jstor

Gordon, Wendy J. (1992). Reality as artifact: From Feist to fair use. Law & Contemporary
Problems, 55(2), 93-106.

Graham, Neil E., & Mumford, Christine. (2005). Copyright office holds first roundtable on
uncertainties surrounding orphan works. Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Journal [Bureau of
National Affairs], 70(1731), 407-412. CD

Harper, Georgia. (2001). Copyright in the library: Licensing.
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/licrsrcs.htm

Harper, Georgia. (2005a). Fair use of copyrighted materials.
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm

Harper, Georgia. (2005b). Google this.
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/googlethis.htm

Hawke, Constance S. (2001). Computer and Internet use on campus: A legal guide to issues of
intellectual property, free speech, and privacy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hedstrom, Margaret. (n.d.). Digital preservation: A time bomb for digital libraries.
http://www.uky.edu/~kiernan/DL/hedstrom.html

Henderson, Carol C. (1998). Libraries as creatures of copyright: Why librarians care about
intellectual property law and policy. Available at
http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Association/Offices/ALA_Washington/I
ssues2/Copyright1/Copyright.htm

Hess, Charlotte, & Ostrom, Elinor. (2007a). Introduction: An overview of the knowledge
commons. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From
theory to practice (pp. 1-26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hesse, Carla. (2002). The rise of intellectual property, 700 B.C. – A.D. 2000: An idea in the
balance. Daedalus, 131(2), 26-45.

Hoffman, Gretchen McCord. (2002a). What every librarian should know about copyright. Part I:
The basics. Texas Library Journal, 78(2), 56-63.

Hoffman, Gretchen McCord. (2002b). What every librarian should know about copyright. Part
II: Copyright in cyberspace. Texas Library Journal, 78(3), 15-18.

Hoffman, Gretchen McCord. (2002c). What every librarian should know about copyright. Part
III: Frequently asked questions. Texas Library Journal, 78(4), 148-151.



Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                           48
Hoffman, Gretchen McCord. (2003). What every librarian should know about copyright. Part
IV: Writing a copyright policy. Texas Library Journal, 79(1), 12-15.

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/

Information Infrastructure Task Force. Information Policy Working Committee. Working Group
on Intellectual Property Rights. (1995, September). Intellectual property and the National
Information Infrastructure: The report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/ipnii/ [Lehman Report, also known as the White Paper]

Interlibrary Loan Guidelines [CONTU Guidelines]. (1976). Published in U.S. Congress
Conference Report, H.R. 94-1733. http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/ILL-guidelines.htm

Jaszi, Peter. (1991). Toward a theory of copyright: The metamorphoses of “authorship.” Duke
Law Journal, 1991, 455-502.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/duklr1991&size=2&rot=0&collection=j
ournals&id=463

Karlaja, Dennis S. (1997). Preemption of shrinkwrap and on-line licenses. University of Dayton
Law Review, 22, 511-543. Also available at
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/%7Edkarjala/Articles/DaytonLRev1997.html

Kimber, Karen. (2003). Introduction to legal research.
http://www.libraries.wright.edu/services/researchguides/law/

Klages, Mary. (2001). Michel Foucault: “What is an author?”
http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/foucault.html

Landow, George P. (1992). Access to the text and the author's right (copyright). In Hypertext:
The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology (pp. 196-201). Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Lange, David. (1981). Recognizing the public domain. Law & Contemporary Problems, 44(4), 147-
181.
http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lcp44&size=2&rot=0&collection
=lcpcf&id=813

Lange, David. (2003). Reimagining the public domain. In James Boyle (Ed.), Collected papers:
Duke conference on the public domain (pp. 463-483). Durham, NC: Center for the Public Domain.
[This monograph also appeared as a special issue of Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1-2), 1-
483.]

Lange, David, & Anderson, Jennifer. (2004???). Reading the public domain. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University.

Lemley, Mark A. (2004). Property, intellectual property, and free riding. John M. Olin Program
in Law and Economics, Working Paper No. 291, Stanford Law School. [log in through the Social
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                49
Science Research Network -- http://www.ssrn.com/index_sf.html]
http://ssrn.com/abstract=582602

Lemley, Mark A. (2005). Property, intellectual property, and free riding.

Lemley, Mark, & Reese, R. Anthony. (2004). Reducing copyright infringement without
restricting innovation. Stanford Law Review, 56(6), 1345-1434. [log in through the Social Science
Research Network -- http://www.ssrn.com/index_sf.html]
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=525662

Lemley, Mark A., & Volokh, Eugene. (1998). Freedom of speech and injunctions in intellectual
property cases. Duke Law Journal, 48(2), 147-242. [log in through the Social Science Research
Network -- http://www.ssrn.com/index_sf.html]
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=85608

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. 164-
185, 275-281). New York: Basic Books.

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

Lessig, Lawrence. (2007). Foreword. Law & Contemporary Problems, 70(2), 1-3. Also available at
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?70+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+1+(spring+2007)

Levine, Peter. (2007). Collective action, civic engagement, and the knowledge commons. In
Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to
practice (pp. 247-276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lewis, Justin, & Miller, Toby. (Ed.). (2003). Introduction. In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller (Eds.),
Critical cultural policy studies: A reader (pp. 1-9). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Lievrouw, Leah A. (Ed.). (1994a). Information resources and democracy [Special issue]. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6).

Lievrouw, Leah A. (1994b). Information resources and democracy: Understanding the paradox.
In Leah A. Lievrouw (Ed.), Information resources and democracy [Special issue] (pp. 350-357).
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6).

Lipinski, Tomas A. (1998). Information ownership and control. In Martha E. Williams (Ed.),
Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 33, pp. 3-38). Medford, NJ: Information
Today.

Lipinski, Tomas A. (2002a). Librarian's guide to copyright for shared and networked resources [Special
issue]. Library Technology Reports, 38(1), 7-111.

Lipinski, Tomas A. (Ed.). (2002b). Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal Issues and ethical
challenges in the new information era. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.



Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                 50
Litman, Jessica. (1989). Copyright legislation and technological change. Oregon Law Review, 68,
275ff.

Litman, Jessica. (1990). The public domain. Emory Law Journal, 39(4), 965-1023.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/emlj39&size=2&rot=0&collection=jour
nals&id=979

Litman, Jessica. (1992). Copyright and information policy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 55(2),
185-209.
http://www.jstor.org/view/00239186/ap040221/04a00110/0?frame=noframe&userID=8053f82b
@utexas.edu/01cce44037005015df025&dpi=3&config=jstor

Litman, Jessica. (2000a). The demonization of piracy. Presented at the Tenth Conference on
Computers, Freedom, & Privacy, Toronto.
http://www.law.wayne.edu/litman/papers/demon.pdf

Litman, Jessica. (2000b). Information privacy/information property. Stanford Law Review, 52,
1283-1313. http://www.law.wayne.edu/litman/papers/infoprivacy.pdf

Loring, Christopher B. (2000). Reserve, technology, and copyright. In Allen Kent (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of library and information science (Vol. 66, Supp. 29, pp. 281-299). New York: Marcel
Dekker.

Madison, James. (1961). Federalist paper 43. In Clinton Rossiter (Ed.), The federalist papers:
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay (pp. 271-280). New York: Penguin.

Mannheimer, Katherine. (2007). Personhood, poethood, and Pope: Johnson‟s life of Pope and
the search for the man behind the author. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 40(4), 631-649.

Marlotta-Wurgler, Florencia. (2007). What‟s in a standard form contract? An empirical analysis
of software license agreements. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(4), 677-713.

Maxwell, Richard. (2003). The marketplace citizen and the political economy of data trade in the
European Union. In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller (Eds.), Critical cultural policy studies: A reader (pp.
149-160). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

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

McGowan. (2004). Copyright nonconsequentialism. Missouri Law Review, 69(1), 1-71.

McGuigan, Jim. (2003). Cultural policy studies. In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller (Eds.), Critical
cultural policy studies: A reader (pp. 23-42). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

McLeod, Kembrew. (2001). Owning culture: Authorship, ownership, and intellectual property law.
New York: Peter Lang.

McLeod, Kembrew. (2003). Musical production, copyright, and the private ownership of culture.
In Justin Lewis & Toby Miller (Eds.), Critical cultural policy studies: A reader (pp. 240-252). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                51
Miller, Arthur, & Davis, Michael H. (1990). Intellectual property: Patents, trademarks, and copyright
in a nutshell (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.

Miller, Steven. (1995). Civilizing cyberspace: Policy, power, and the information superhighway. New
York: ACM Press.

Minow, Mary. (1996-2003). Library digitization projects and copyright.
http://www.llrx.com/features/digitization3.htm

Minow, Mary, & Lipinski, Tomas A. (2003). The library’s legal answer book (pp. 13-84). Chicago:
American Library Association.

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

Molina, J. Carlos Fernández-Molina. (2003). Laws against the circumvention of copyright
technological protection. Journal of Documentation, 59(1), 41-68.

Morrow, Thomas M., & Sullivan, Jeffrey D. (2004). Lexmark v. Static Control: Another circuit
court reads limitations into DMCA‟s sweeping statutory anti-circumvention strictures. Patent,
Trademark, and Copyright Journal [Bureau of National Affairs], 69(1696), 49-53. CD

Mosco, Vincent. (1996). The political economy of communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mosco, Vincent, & Wasko, Janet. (Eds.). (1988). The political economy of information. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press.

Murray, Laura J. (2004). Protecting ourselves to death: Canada, copyright, and the Internet.
First Monday, 9(10). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_10/murray/

National Research Council. Committee for a Study on Promoting Access to Scientific and
Technical Data for the Public Interest. (1999). A question of balance: Private rights and the public
interest in scientific and technical databases. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging
Information Infrastructure. (2000). The digital dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Also available at
http://www.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/

Negativland [Colin Berry]. (1995). Fair use: The story of the letter u and the numeral 2.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.01/negativland_pr.html

Negativland. (2004a). http://www.negativland.com/

Negativland. (2004b). Intellectual property issues. http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html

Netanel, Neil W. (1996). Copyright and democratic civil society. Yale Law Journal, 106(2),
283-387.

Netanel, Neil Weinstock. (2001). Locating copyright within the First Amendment skein. Stanford
Law Review, 54(1), 1-86. [log in through the Social Science Research Network --


Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                    52
http://www.ssrn.com/index_sf.html]
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=267848

Nimmer, Raymond T., & Krauthaus, Patricia Ann. (1992). Information as a commodity: New
imperatives of commercial law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 55(3), 103-130.
http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lcp55&id=821&collection=lcpcf

Oberholzer, Felix, & Strumpf, Koleman. (2004). The effect of file sharing on record sales: An
empirical analysis. http://www.nber.org/~confer/2004/URCs04/felix.pdf

Okediji, Ruth. (1999). Perspectives on globalization from developing states: Copyright and
public welfare in global perspective. CD

Ostrom, Elinor. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, Elinor, & Hess, Charlotte. (2007). A framework for analyzing the knowledge commons.
In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to
practice (pp. 41-81). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Overman, E. Sam, & Cahill, Anthony G. (1990). Information policy: A study of values in the
policy process. Policy Studies Review, 9(4), 803-818.

Palmedo, Michael. (2001). Letter to Maneesha Mithal, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal
Trade Commission. http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/ftc-hague12072001.html

Patterson, Lyman Ray. (1968). Copyright in historical perspective. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt
University.

Patterson, Lyman Ray. (1992). Understanding fair use. Law & Contemporary Problems, 55(2), 249-
266. Also available at
http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lcp55&id=1&size=2&collection=l
cpcf&index=lcpcf

Patterson, Lyman Ray. (1993). Copyright and the “exclusive right” of authors. Journal of
Intellectual Property, 1(1), 37ff.

Patterson, L. Ray. (2003). What‟s wrong with Eldred? An essay on copyright jurisprudence.
Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 10, 345ff. Also available at
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docvie
w.do?risb=21_T2818532101&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKe
y=29_T2818532106&cisb=22_T2818532105&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=146214&docNo=1
0

Patterson, Lyman Ray, & Lindberg, Stanley W. (1991). The nature of copyright: A law of users'
rights. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Radin, Margaret. (1993). Reinterpreting property. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Raymond, Eric S. (1999). The cathedral & the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by an
accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O‟Reilly.



Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                 53
Reichman, J.H, & Franklin, Jonathan A. (1999). Privately legislated intellectual property rights:
Reconciling freedom of contract with public good uses of information. University of Pennsylvania
Law Review, 147(4), 875-970.
http://weblinks2.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ua=bt+ID++UPL+shn+1+db+aphjnh+bo+B%5F
+5D2C&_ug=sid+C02AA866%2D6FD7%2D4390%2D869D%2DDE452EEAE00F%40sessionmgr2+
dbs+aph+8263&_us=dstb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00194252+fcl+Aut+sm+ES+sl+%2D1+or+Date+B4
85&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22University++of++Pennsylvania++Law++Re
view%22++and++DT++19990401+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+63
A9&cf=1&fn=1&rn=2&

Reichman, J.H., & Uhlir, Paul F. (1999). Database protection at the crossroads: Recent
developments and their impact on science and technology. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 14(2),
799-821.

Richards, Donald G. (2002). The ideology of intellectual property rights in the international
economy. Review of Social Economy, LX(4), 521-541.

Rose, Mark. (1993). Authors and owners: The invention of copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University.

Rubenfeld, Jed. (2002). The freedom of imagination: Copyright‟s constitutionality. Yale Law
Journal, 112 (1), 1-60. Also available at http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/112-1ab1.html

Samuelson, Pamela. (1996, January). The copyright grab. Wired, 4(1), 135-138.

Samuelson, Pamela. (2003). Mapping the public domain: Threats and opportunities. In James
Boyle (Ed.), Collected papers: Duke conference on the public domain (pp. 147-171). Durham, NC:
Center for the Public Domain. [This monograph also appeared as a special issue of Law and
Contemporary Problems, 66(1-2), 1-483.]

Samuelson, Pamela. (2004). Intellectual property arbitrage: How foreign rules can affect
domestic protections. Chicago Law Review, 71, 223.

Saporita, Christopher. (2003). Reconciling human rights and sovereignty: A framework for
global property law. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 10(2), 255-281. Also available at
http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/journals/indiana_journal_of_global_legal_studies/t
oc/gls10.2.html

Schmidt, C. James. (1989). Rights for users of information: Conflicts and balances among
privacy, professional ethics, law, national security. In Filomena Simora (Ed.), The Bowker annual:
Library and book trade almanac (pp. 83-90). New Providence, NJ: R.R. Bowker.

Schweik, Charles M. (2007). Free/open-source software as a framework for establishing
commons in science. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a
commons: From theory to practice (pp. 277-310). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Slack, Jennifer Daryl, & Fejes, Fred. (Eds.). (1987). Ideology of the information age. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.

Slater, Derek. (2003). Take another little piece of my art [review of Illegal Art].
http://creativecommons.org/getcontent/features/illegalart



Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                 54
Stallman, Richard. (1997). The right to read. Communications of the ACM, 40(2), 85-87.
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=253726&jmp=cit&dl=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=://www.li
b.utexas.edu:9003/sfx_local?&CFTOKEN=www.lib.utexas.edu:9003/sfx_local?#CIT

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 8 in The
Internet edge: Social, legal, and technological challenges for a networked world (pp. 197-231 and 305-
307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Suber, Peter. (2007). Creating an intellectual commons through open access. In Charlotte Hess &
Elinor Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 171-208).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Tannen, Deborah. (1998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York:
Random House.

Taylor, George H., & Madison, Michael J. (2006). Metaphor, objects, and commodities. Cleveland
Sate Law Review, 54(1&2), 141-174.

U.S. Congress. (1976). Agreement on guidelines for classroom copying in not-for-profit educational
institutions. Agreed to by the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision, the Author-
Publisher Group and Authors League of America, and the Association of American Publishers,
Inc. http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org/Copyright/guidebks.htm

U.S. Congress. Congressional Research Service. (2001). Federal statutes: What they are and where
to find them. http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/information/info-16.pdf

U. S. Congress. Library of Congress. Copyright Office. (2009). Copyright of the United States.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

U.S. Congress. Library of Congress. Copyright Office. (2005b). Orphan works. Available at
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

U.S. Congress. Library of Congress. Copyright Office. (2005a). Roundtable discussion on orphan
works. Transcript. Available online

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1986b). Intellectual property rights in an age of
electronics and information. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
http://www.wws.Princeton.EDU/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1989). Copyright & home copying: Technology
challenges the law. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1990a). Critical connections: Communication for
the future. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1990b). Helping America compete: The role of
federal scientific and technical information. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.



Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                   55
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1993). Making government work : Electronic
delivery of federal services. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1994). Electronic enterprises: Looking to the
future. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1994). Information security and privacy in
network environments. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
(1993). The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for action. Washington, DC: GPO.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). Report of the Department of Justice‟s task force on
intellectual property. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/IPTaskForceReport.pdf [see
Ashcroft (2004)]

U.S. General Accounting Office [Government Accountability Office as of 2004]. (1994).
Information superhighway: Issues affecting development. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.

Walterscheid, Edward C. (1994). To promote the progress of science and useful arts: The
background and origin of the intellectual property clause of the United States Constitution.
Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 2(1). http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/~jipl/vol2/waltersc.html

Wardrop, Martin. (2002). Copyright and intellectual property protection for indigenous heritage.
In Aboriginal Art Online. http://www.aboriginalartonline.com/forum/debate.php

Warwick, Shelly. (2002). Copyright for libraries, museums, and archives: The basics and
beyond. In Tomas Lipinski (Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal Issues and ethical challenges
in the new information era (pp. 235-255). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Waters, Donald J. (2007). Preserving the knowledge commons. In Charlotte Hess & Elinor
Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 145-167).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Weber, Claire. (2002). Designing, drafting, and implementing new policies. In Tomas Lipinski
(Ed.), Libraries, museums, and archives: Legal Issues and ethical challenges in the new information era
(pp. 303-319). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Winner, Langdon. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136.

Woodmansee, Martha. (1984). The genius and the copyright: Economic and legal conditions of
the emergence of the “author.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, 17(4), 425-448.

World Intellectual Property Organization. (c. 2004). Intellectual property and traditional knowledge.
http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/publications/index.html

Young, Edward. (1759). Conjectures on original composition. Dublin.


         Selected law reviews and journals of special interest to copyright

Berkeley Technology Law Journal http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                     56
Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/aelj/

Duke Law & Technology Review http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/

Harvard Journal of Law & Technology http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/

Intellectual Property Law Review http://web.lexis-
nexis.com/universe/form/academic/s_lawrev.html?_m=0cd7a31f47f9114a4483775c1cafe6e4&wc
hp=dGLbVtz-zSkVb&_md5=592d0d3acbc667e6898e441696cad113[a more general source]

Journal of Intellectual Property Law http://www.law.uga.edu/jipl/

Journal of the Copyright Society http://www.csusa.org/html/publications/journal/journal.htm

Law and Contemporary Problems http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/lcp/

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/index.asp

Stanford Technology Law Review http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Core_Page/index.htm


         Governmental and Commercial Serial Sources of Government Information

Code of Federal Regulations

Congressional Digest

Congressional Information Service

Congressional Quarterly

Congressional Record

C[ongressional] Q[uarterly] Weekly Reports

Federal Register

Supreme Court Reporter

U.S. Code

U.S. Code and Congressional and Administrative News

U.S. Code Annotated

United States Supreme Court Reports


         Journals and Other Serial Sources on Information Policy and Government Information

Annual Review of Information Science and Technology


Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                         57
Atlantic Monthly

The Bowker Annual: Library and Book Trade Almanac

Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science

Communications Yearbook

Electronic Public Information Newsletter

EPIC [Electronic Privacy Information Center] Alert

ERIC

EDUCAUSE Review

Federal Computer Week

Government Computer News

Government Information Quarterly

Government Technology

Harpers

Information, Communication, and Society

Information Management Review

Information Processing and Management

The Information Society

Internet Research: Electronic Networks Applications and Policy (formerly Electronic Networking:
Research, Applications, and Policy)

Internet World

Journal of Academic Librarianship (especially its Information Policy column)

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (formerly the Journal of the
American Society for Information Science)

Journal of Communication

Journal of Government Information: An International Review of Policy, Issues and Resources (formerly
Government Publications Review) now combined with Government Information Quarterly

Journal of Information Science

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Journal of Policy Research

Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                                 58
The Journal of Politics

Knowledge

Knowledge in Society

Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy

Philosophy and Public Affairs

Policy Sciences

Policy Studies Journal

Policy Studies Review

Privacy Journal

Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting

Public Administration Review

Public Affairs Information Service

Research Policy

Sage Yearbook of Politics and Public Policy

Science

Scientific American

Science and Public Policy

Serials Review

Technology Review

Telecommunications Policy

Utne Reader

Wired


          Newspapers

Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/

New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/

Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/


Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010   59
Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com



         Other online sources

(Barry Kite‟s) Aberrant Art http://www.aberrantart.com/

American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP)
http://www.ascap.com/index.html
       Legislation http://www.ascap.com/legislation/

Association of American Publishers (AAP) http://www.publishers.org/
        Government Affairs http://www.publishers.org/govt/index.cfm

(University of California) Berkeley Center for Law & Technology
http://www.law.berkeley.edu:80/institutes/bclt/

Chilling Effects http://www.chillingeffects.org/

Coalition for Networked Information (CNI) http://www.cni.org/

(United States) Code http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

(Compiler Press‟) Compleat World copyright Website [sic]
http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/journal.htm

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) http://www.cpsr.org/dox/home.html

(U.S.) Congressional Research Service (CRS) http://www.cnie.org/nle/crs_main.html

Copyright and Fair Use (Stanford U.) http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

Copyright Clearance Center http://www.copyright.com/

Copyright Crash Course (Georgia Harper's home page on copyright and other “IP” topics)
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/gkhbio2.htm

Copyright Management Center http://www.iupui.edu/~copyinfo

(U.S. Library of Congress) Copyright Office http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/

Copyright Society of the U.S.A. http://www.csusa.org/

Cornell University, Computer Policy & Law Program http://www.cornell.edu/CPL/

Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI): http://www.cnri.reston.va.us

(U.S.) Department of Commerce (DoC) http://www.doc.gov

(U.S.) Department of Justice (DoJ) http://www.usdoj.gov/

Digital Future Coalition http://www.dfc.org//
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                    60
EDUCAUSE (formerly EDUCOM and CAUSE) http://www.educause.edu

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) http://www.eff.org

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC): http://www.epic.org/

(Terry Carroll‟s 2002) FAQs about Copyright http://www.tjc.com/copyright/FAQ/

(U.S.) Federal Communication Commission (FCC) http://www.fcc.gov

(U.S.) Federal Register http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html

Findlaw http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/

First Monday http://www.firstmonday.org/

(U.S.) General Accounting Office (GAO) http://www.gao.gov/

(Harvard University) Information Infrastructure Project http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/

Illinois Institute of Technology Institute for Science, Law, and Technology
http://www.kentlaw.edu/islt/

Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) http://iitf.doc.gov

“Intellectual property” http://infeng.pira.co.uk/IE/top007.htm
http://www.ipmag.com/archive.html

Institute for Technology Assessment (ITA) http://www.mtppi.org/ita/index.htm

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) http://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us

Internet Society http://info.isoc.org/

(Cornell University Law School) Legal Information Institute http://www.law.cornell.edu/

         Copyright law http://fatty.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html

LexisNexis Academic Search Form (Guided [advanced] Search) http://web.lexis-
nexis.com/universe/form/academic/s_lawrev_more.html?_m=6e07cc386066f3f56cade6326e14af
9c&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkVA&_md5=bc11b79f6023e54a9faa1849a8b3a3e7

Library of Congress Marvel (Machine-Assisted Realization of the Virtual Electronic Library)
http://lcweb.loc.gov/homepage/lchp.html

         U.S. Congress Thomas system for full text of selected bills http://thomas.loc.gov/

Library of Congress LOCIS (Library of Congress Information System):
http://moondog.usask.ca/hytelnet/us3/us373.html

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) http://www.nas.edu/


Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                         61
National Academy Press (NAP) http://www.nap.edu/

National Information Infrastructure: Servers with comprehensive sources
http://www.cuny.edu/links/nii.html

(U.S.) National Information Infrastructure Virtual Library http://nii.nist.gov/

National Science Foundation (NSF) http://www.nsf.gov

National Security Agency (NSA) http://www.nsa.gov:8080

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) FedWorld http://www.fedworld.gov

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
http://www.ntia.doc.gov

(U.S.) Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) http://www.ota.nap.edu -- see Institute for
Technology Assessment -- and Princeton University archive of OTA reports
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/

Public Knowledge http://www.publicknowledge.org/

Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) http://www.riaa.com/default.asp
       Anti-piracy http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/default.asp

Software & Information Industry Association http://www.siia.net/
       SIIA Anti-Piracy Division http://www.siia.net/piracy/

Telecommunications and Information Policy Institute http://www.utexas.edu/research/tipi/

(University of California) UCCopyright http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/copyright/
       especially see Additional Resources
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/copyright/resources.html

University of Texas Libraries http://www.lib.utexas.edu/

         Government information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/
         More Gov‟t Information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/us.html
         International Gov‟t Information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/world.html
         Texas Government Information http://www.lib.utexas.edu/government/texas.html

(Laura “Lolly” Gasaway) When U.S. Works Pass into the Public Domain
http://www.unc.edu/%7Eunclng/public-d.htm

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) http://www.wipo.int/

         Copyright and Related Rights http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/copyright.html
                  [full Web site] http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/
                  FAQs About Copyright http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/index.htm
         Berne Convention http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/index.html
         WIPO Copyright Treaty
                  http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/diplconf/distrib/treaty01.htm
         Intellectual Property Digital Library http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010                      62
Copyright – Philip Doty, University of Texas at Austin, December 2010   63

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:10/27/2011
language:English
pages:63
xiaohuicaicai xiaohuicaicai
About