European Publishers Council. "Hamburg Declaration Regarding Intellectual Property Rights." Berlin: European Publishers Council. June 25, 2009.

This brief statement from the European Publishers Council (EPC) argues for "urgent improvements in the protection of intellectual property on the Internet." Without providing an answer to the problem or even asserting a path toward improvement of the situation, the statement simply places the onus of blame on sites that index their content. Meanwhile, the statement applauds national and internation governments for their efforts to protect international property.

Practically speaking, this statement is fairly ineffectual. Google's response has been essentially, "Go ahead and stop us from indexing your content" – a response that clearly demonstrates how vital news aggregation is to online media. Without offering a solution that will help users find content online while also crediting the correct sources, the EPC doesn't have much weight to throw around. This statement, instead, serves as a thermometer of the rising tension between investigative journalists and news aggregation websites.

James Boyle, an advocate for the public domain, writes in his first chapter, the importance of intellectual property and how it is supposed to not only create incentives for innovation but also to create feedback that, “dictates the contours of information and innovation production”. Boyle recognizes that copyright law is intended to allow an artist to make a living if their works are able to be protected by copyright, however, the extent of the copyright is what he critiques. He writes, “the rights that were supposed to be limited in time and scope to the minimum monopoly necessary to ensure production become instead a kind of perpetual corporate welfare- restraining the next generation of creators instead of encouraging them”. Boyle believes that the extension of copyright is in the favor of large corporations who wish to seek profit rather than seek creation, which is the basis for the copyright law. He continues to write that he believes that the goal of the system (protection laws as a whole) should be monopolized only as long enough to provide incentives and then should be released into the public domain so that the public can benefit as well. He also points out that for most owners make all the money they will receive within five or ten years and that the remaining years are of little use. Another point Boyle also makes is that there are many works that have unidentified copyright owners or owners that just cannot be found which can be difficult for libraries who need permission to reproduce that material and therefore cannot if they cannot find the owner. This he believes is harmful to the public and does not allow them access to something that one may have permission to use but simply cannot get that permission due to the lack of information about the owner. Boyle argues that the extension of copyright law was lengthened without any evidence that it would encourage innovation.
    James Boyle’s argument for the protection of the public domain is convincing and it is convincing as my opposing argument for my paper. He provides an argument unlike other arguments that I have found because he not only discusses the corporate perspective but also the length of time that an owner actually receives payment for his work under copyright law. His argument is important to my paper because it provides a counter-argument that is strong and concise.

This article explains the problems of converging such laws as copyrights laws and trademark laws in terms of defining whether or not characters can be protected by these laws. These characters can be protected because they take on a life of their own, however the extent of the protection is in question. With regard to copyright, copyright doctrines of the idea/expression dichotomy and fair use are of importance. Helfand writes, “owners and creators seek to wrap their fictional characters in a net of invulnerability- a net created through an artful interweaving of copyright, trademark and unfair competition laws”, and it is this protection which allows large corporations to profit off of characters. Helfand’s main argument is that the courts have merged its tests, reasoning and language used in determining infringement, in order to arrive at a single approach to recognizing character infringement rather than separating each approach. This he believes, if it goes unchecked, will “dilute the significance of a limited copyright term and hence make fewer characters available for ‘unauthorized’ expressive uses”. He goes on to express that the goals of trademark and unfair competition law no longer become used the way they were intended to be used and that it focuses it solely on whether or not characters are similar, or if a character’s reputation is harmed by the unauthorized use rather than looking at the likelihood of consumer confusion. With regard to Mickey Mouse, Helfand touches on the Walt Disney Productions vs. Air Pirates case, noting that Mickey Mouse is the story being told which called for the mingling of the elements of copyright infringement with trademark infringement because Mickey Mouse has “achieved a high degree of ‘recognition’ and ‘identification’”.
    This article is important to my paper because it questions not the extension of the copyright act, which I have already touched on in other articles, but expresses the importance of keeping boundaries between different types of protection laws. If these laws continue to be merged and lack identifying main causes for such laws, then characters such as Mickey Mouse will continue to be protected in all ways which will continue to further it’s time spent under protection laws including copyright laws rather than entering the public domain. This argument is in opposition to my thesis and provides a different perspective.

     This article discusses the legal framework in which copyright cases are debated and decided. Geller begins by describing the basis of “territoriality” and how it is derived from the international system of nation-states and clear boundaries. The author admits that this definition is highly problematic when dealing with cyberspace and transfers of data that cut across borders. He then goes on to discuss the variations in each country’s laws regarding cyberspace copyright infringement and how this often leads to inconsistent judgments. For example, in a case that involves multiple countries, a court may award infringement compensation within the conservative limits of a particular country’s legal system. At the same time, it might use justification from another country’s legal code to grant a severe punishment. Geller concludes that the most effective way of combating international intellectual piracy is through a standardized legal code that eliminates such gross inconsistencies.
     This paper is very valuable for the question that I am trying to answer, because it shows the legal perspective and legal limitations of the prosecution of international copyright infringement cases. The Internet operates in a borderless context and if the international community wants to regulate online copyright infringement, multinational institutions needs to modify their framework. Similarly, if the ACTA is to be effective, it should not be based on a borders and territoriality. The paper also demonstrates that the ACTA will merely add another set of rules to the already complicated international legal network. Nevertheless, the paper fails to propose a way to iron out the inconsistencies in legal codes around the world. Perhaps the ACTA is a valuable multinational forum but its focus should be shifted to addressing the problems within the existing legal system and not creating new laws.

Sprigman, Christopher. "Fashion Copyright, 'Corruption,' and the Unheard Consumer." Public Knowledge Blog. http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1404. February 20, 2008.

Christopher Sprigman, author of the article, "The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design, wrote this blog, which elaborates on the common corruption of the intellectual property lawmaking process. More specifically, he argues that fashion is fueled by the copying. Yet the CFDA, which is run by a select few elite designers, is advocating a stronger IP for fashion designs. The problem though, is that the CFDA is only run by a small number of high-end designers, and the majority of the other designers have no say in this. Furthermore, the CFDA pursues similar goals as famous industries in Hollywood becuase they give a large amount of money to them. This is why there are so many Congressman in favor of a stronger fashion IP - not becuase it is the right thing to do, but because they are given money for it. Therefore, this blog focuses on the Congress aspect of fashion copyright.

Although this source is a blog, the author, who is also the author of another one of my very important sources, makes many good points about why certain individuals strive for a fashion copyright, even though it may not be the best decision. In particular, the author talks about the influence the CFDA receives from pursuing a stronger IP, although it does not represent most designers' views. Therefore, this blog will provide me with more reasons explaining why it is wrong to place a copyright on fashion. I will also be able to utilize many of Sprigman's statements in the blog to support my thesis.

Raustiala, Kal and Sprigman, Chris,The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 92, p. 1687, 2006; UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 06-04.

This paper is extremely informative in that it addresses both sides of fashion copyright, whereas most other papers point out only one side of the argument. Moreover, it explores the question of why other major industries have obtained and used powerful IP protections for their products, while the fashion industry is for the most part still ineffective yet very economically successful. First, the paper argues that there should be an effective copyright on fashion because it protects the designers' creativity. However, it also argues that a weak IP actually helps the fashion industry in its innovation. Specifically, the terms "induced obsolescence" and "anchoring" are mentioned to explain that copying is actually beneficial for the fashion industry and in fact promotes fashion.

I will be able to refer to this article a great deal when writing my own paper because it explains how the fashion industry’s piracy paradox works and explores how copying plays an important role in the fashion industry’s innovation cycle. It also gives an ample of amount of history about fashion copyright, which is very important for my paper. Finally, it will help me to support my thesis because it talks about both sides of the argument. Therefore, in my paper, I will be able to address both sides of the fashion copyright problem and give reliable information to support either side, although ultimately, I will acknowledge that there should not be a fashion copyright.