Ginsburg, Jane C. “Copyright and Control over New Technology of Dissemination.” Columbia Law Review 101 (2001): 1613- 1647.

Ginsburg discusses the implications of new technology and copyright law, mainly outlining her argument in three parts. She contends that the relationship between copyright and culture is nuanced as the shift of balance and control is consistently in flux. She focuses on control under copyright (and in this aspect, among other examples cites court rulings either in or out of favor for copyright owners) as well as discussing the availability of new technology. She discovers a pattern that is important to understanding the relationship between copyright and culture. Her main contention is that when copyright owners want to eliminate a new type of mass distribution by means of technology courts rule out of favor of copyright owners. Contrastingly when owners want to participate in the new dissemination courts lean towards more copyright control. This article serves as one case study in helping us understand this relationship between Copyright and Culture by specifically pointing to previous court decisions and laws passed as well to new technology and its influence. This article reveals an irony of thought when it comes to the courts and that original intentions when it comes to copyright owners somehow have worked in their favor.

 

 

Hendrix, Dean. “Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Knowledge, Use, and Attitudes of Academic Librarians.” Libraries and the Academy 7.2 (2007): 191-212.

While this article comes up with similar findings as in previous researched articles it does so by a different method. Through statistical analysis and polling of individuals a common consensus was determined. P2P file sharing was an ironic revolution in the academic circle that was as both potentally beneficial and harmful at the same time. Furthermore, Hendrix provides an elaborate analysis by means of a mailed in questionnaire. Other findings include; an active participation from the librarians to harness this new technology, a more than half percentage ignorance of the significance of this technology, positive responses from users, among others. This article is uniquely researched as compared to previous articles. It was not merely a numerical evaluation but in addition anecdotal evidence found in empty boxes for participants to comment. With this said, the significance does lay in the evaluation of numerical evidence. Revising an earlier statement in which I said the results should speak for themselves, I revise that by saying that the numbers should not speak for themselves because an evaluation of these numbers would of course lead to diverse reactions and opinions of the evaluator. These reactions and opinions are a mixed baggage of subjective and objective frameworks of the mind.

 

 

 

Palank, Jacqueline. “ Content Makers Are Accused Of Exaggerating Copyright.” The New York Times (2007): 2.

This article touches on the same issues that Jane Ginsburg talks about namely, the shifting balance of power and control over copyright. One group (the Computer and Communications Industry Association) representing the consumers accuses different television and sports networks of inaccurately warning copyright use. Their contention is that such tactics intimidates consumers from using the legal rights they do have but, because of these overstated warnings, may not use.

This article provides a mainstream example of the more scholarly research previously. In addition this example acts has further proof that copyright is indeed not immutable even when it seems that technological advance may not be happening at the spur of the moment.

 

 

Limber, Timm, Rehm, Georg, Witt, Andreas, Zimmermann, Felix. “Digital Text Collections, Linguistic Research Data, and Mashups: Notes on the Legal Situation.” Library Trends 57 (2008): 52 67.

These authors are noteworthy research assistants whom have extensively contributed to their field. Unlike the previous article this article looks at the complications of the digital library from a legal standpoint, in particular from a standpoint of linguistic research and resources that they state can be compared to linguistic mashups. To achieve this analysis they look at three case studies and the complications of obtaining licenses and rights to distribute their work (usually free of charge). To clarify about mashups (linguistic) as opposed to audio or video mashups, what is meant is the application feature that allows for creating, analyzing, and exchanging spoken language between researchers and technological environments. To put it simply, linguistic mashups aim is to integrate the best of the web and this includes an array of features.

Probably the most complex article encountered nevertheless gives an insightful analysis again of the uncertain environment of the information structure, which you may call Web 2.0.

 

 

Horan, Elizabeth R. “Technically Outside the Law: Who Permits, Who Profits, and Why.” The Emily Dickinson Journal 10.1 (2001): 34-54.

Offering what seems to be significantly an economic outlook on Copyright intentions, Horan claims that incentive is the motivating reason and concern for creators to create and for that creation to serve the public good after a limited time (28 years). Similar to Carol Ou and her article on control over new technology, Horan presents us with examples to make her point about the increasing difficulty of controlling content. In this case she offers the example of Emily Dickinson’s writings to moot the point even recalling radio programs as an earlier obstruction to copyright control.

In describing Copyright incentive a new perspective was given me. Writers and artists of all kinds create because of the knowledge they of copyright protection. This may not be their primary reasoning, but perhaps at times it could be especially when their main motive is to gain monetary success.

 

 

Ou, Carol. “Technology and Copyright Issues in the Academic library: First Sale, Fair Use and the Electronic Document.” The Johns Hopkins University Press 3.1 (2003): 89-98.

Much like with previous authors such as Nadan, Ou criticizes copyright principles, namely fair use and first sale. It is not a general criticism but one focused on these principles as it pertains to its usage in academic libraries accustom to new technologies such as the electronic document. The heart of her argument is that new technology has made it increasingly difficult to distinguish between the public and private spheres. This in turn leads to an array of other complications. Briefly, using the first sale doctrine as an example, the patron has needed to already make duplications of a work, access it, then distribute it to the public. There are other examples given. Ou points to digital libraries and the fact that they are not extensions of classroom material and therefore the same copyright rules cannot apply. A characteristic of digital libraries is that they are much easier to duplicate and thus much harder to control. This new trend has indeed upset the balance between copyright control and legal usage.

This article offers many noteworthy arguments about the complications of technology in digital academia and the need to revise copyright laws in these sectors. In other words control needs to be complementary with usage in a way that pragmatic research and copyright integrity are both maintained.

 

 

Nadan, Christian H. “A Proposal to Recognize Component Works: How a Teddy Bears on the Competing Ends of Copyright Law.” California Law Review 78 (1990): 1633-1673.

In this article Nadan attempts to introduce component works as a way to negotiate copyright infringement for replacement works. The idea of component works serves as sort of a middle ground between two opposing intentions of the copyright statute, that is (1) by granting authors exclusive rights to their works and (2) promoting creative growth by allowing access to these works. In so doing, component works retain the second criteria but slightly modifies the first. Instead of replacing the original, component works merely build off of the original even perhaps enhancing it (which is ultimately the goal). The methodology of his argument takes on three phases and ends with a plea for the courts to provide exemption for components works as infringing uses. What seems particularly interesting in this article is an attempt by the author to redefine the existing infringement doctrines. He notes how unpredictable derivative works cases has been decided in court. This may be a sign of the inadequacies of derivative works in general and the clouding of what exactly constitutes originality. In addition, how substantial one work builds off the other is also difficult to ascertain in some respect.

This article provides one case study in how a lawyer actively engages in attempting to appeal to the Courts by modifying what appears to him to be an inadequate portion of Copyright Law. This is possible because, as he argues, the evaluation of derivative works is too narrowly set. 

 

 

Wang, Shujen. “Recontextualizing Copyright: Piracy, Hollywood, the State, and Globalization.” Cinema Journal 43 (2003): 25-43.

Shujen Wang is a professor of media and film studies at Emerson College. In this article she discusses transnational copyright governance among other topics. Her analysis looks at the qualities of both copyright owners and users. In general she says that the state continues to play a prominent role in intellectual property (IP) and information technology (IT) policy making. In addition the consumer has an active role in their infringing use of copyrighted material. This is a general description of her task. More nuanced is how she employed three prominent experts in the field of sociology namely, Scott Lash, John Urry and Manuel Castells. Their views may coincide with Karnow’s about the structure of culture as it is today. The virtual reality or information structure is highly abstract and variable. Wang goes on to expand on this point and the need to examine these topics under the description of her task as mentioned prior. So these authors initially act as a backdrop for her task and sub sequentially remains a critical theme in her work.

Similarly, this article acts to compliment and expand on Karnow’s position. This is not only an information based culture; it is also that culture has become information.

 

 

Schiller, Dan. “Pushing informationalized capitalism into science and information technology.”

Dan Schiller, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign offers an alternative view to the previous mentioned authors about the state of current culture. He contends that it is not due to newly developing technologies that we are in age of informational capitalism. He credits the change on political and economic fronts. While this article does not so much touch on copyright per se, it is useful because it provides another perspective on the issue of culture and information. In addition he touches on intellectual property as well as copyright law in general stating that global policies while seemingly for free enterprise, growth, and creativity is rather all about profit. He seems to accredit persons (such as corporate leaders, government and communities) for developing a new market of information to adapt to the changing global market.

This article contributes precisely because it provides a counter argument in some ways thereby adding complexity to the topics being discussed.

 

 

Karnow, Curtis E. A. “Data Morphing: Ownership, Copyright and Creation.” The MIT Press 27 (1994): 117-122.

Curtis Karnow offers an insightful analysis of the impact of the current virtual world on copyright relevance. After laying out the basic tenets of copyright culture and the ease with which content can be morphed he concludes that as technology produces a more complete virtual world copyright would in fact disintegrate. While copyright is indeed a useful and necessary right that helps define property, the technological revolution changes the very essence of property putting it in a chaotic and unstable environment that is virtual reality. In effect there are two consequences of property: (1) the elimination of invariable objects that render authors incapable of owning their own works, and (2) the amalgamation of structure, surface, background and fact.

This article contributes because current culture is more clearly defined as virtual and briefly explains how this is significant for copyright. The argument is that context is crucial in determining copyright use but when context merges with everything else it is like copyrighting the universe.

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1123809?&Search=yes&term=jane&term=ginsburg%2C&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3Dginsburg%252C%2Bjane%26f0%3Dall%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3D%26f1%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=5&ttl=2136&returnArticleService=showArticle