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. http://ssrn.com/abstract=878401
This detailed article is an in depth view of both sides of the fashion copyright debate. Rather than simply looking at and supporting only one viewpoint on this controversial issue, the authors address both angles to the fashion copyright controversy. They then proceed to prove why support of low IP protection is the better choice despite arguments made in support of fashion copyright laws. This article describes the fashion industry as unique since it continually produces original content while its main creative element remains outside of copyright protection. This appears to condradict the theory of IP rights which claims that copying, which is rampant in the fashion industry, smothers the incentive for innovation. The article then presents the reader with the two overarching arguments. The argument for increased copyright protection within the fashion industry is more of a moral rights claim. This side claims the lack of current fashion design protection is an injustice to the immense creativity put into the creation of apparel. The other side looks at the unique nature of the fashion industry. They claim copying drives the cycle that makes fashion such a thriving, innovative industry. The article then proceeds to delve into past attempts at copyright protection for fashion. One failed attempt was made by the Fashion Originators' Guild of America: they made a deal between designers and retailers to refuse the sale of any copied apparel and boycotted any member of the guild who violated this rule. Since clothing and apparel are considered utilitarian objects, copyright should not apply to fashion design. Patents and trade dress also are not effective methods of protecting copyright. Although trademark is used by designers, it can only be used to protect names and logos, not entire designs. Therefore, bills like HR 5055 are suggested by groups like the CFDA. One of the main concepts of this paper is how induced obsolescene and the positional nature of apparel drive the fashion cycle, which would be incredibly slow and ineffective without copying. In addition, Raustiala and Sprigman explain how free appropriation helps to anchor trends in the industry. So, they conclude that due to induced obsolescene and anchoring of trends, the fashion industry has remained stable despite rampant copying. Finally, the authors address the copyright system in the European Union and how even with protection laws, very few design infringment cases come to court. Additionally, due to the litigious culture of the United States, copyright protection in the US would simply flood the courts with unnecessary cases and reduce innovation due to fear of suit.
This article is of extreme importance to any research regarding the issue of fashion copyright. The article is unique among other scholarly works on this issue in that rather than just delving into one side of the debate, the authors address the arguments on both sides of this fashion copyright war. This is an extremely useful method and structure since it provides the reader with insight into both arguments. However, the article is then strengthened by analyses of both arguments and subsequent counterarguments against those supporting fashion copyright. Since my topic revolves around whether fashion copyright should be enacted or not, having both argments laid out within one coherent paper is extremely beneficial. The paper also looks at previous attempts at fashion copyright. This is important in building the history and basis of design protection in my paper and why these laws should not be enacted in the present day. This article is very important in building the foundation of my argument.
“What Cloud Computing Really Means”
by Eric Knorr, Galen Gruman,
This article provides an effective explanation of ‘cloud computing’ for both techy and other individuals who are not at all familiar with the concept. “Some analysts and vendors define cloud computing narrowly as an updated version of utility computing: basically virtual servers available over the internet. Others go very broad, arguing anything you consume outside the firewall is ‘in the cloud,’ including conventional outsourcing.” [pg. 1] To understand the how broad the phenomenon of cloud computing spreads, the authors have broken it down in several categories including:
SaaS: SaaS is an acronym for “software as a service.” This refers to software that is provided to a user over the internet and used within a web browser rather than launching the software from the hard drive of the personal computer being used to operate that software. Examples of this type of cloud computing include Salesforce.com and Google Apps.
Utility Computing: The most traditional form of cloud computing which simply means using the internet to store data on remote servers hosted by third parties rather than lodging your data on your personal computer(s) or server(s). Utility computing is commonly described as virtual servers that can be accessed on demand. The companies that pioneer this area include IBM, Sun, and Amazon.com.
Web Services (in the cloud): This type of cloud computing is closely related to Seas, “web service providers offer APIs that enable developers to exploit functionality over the Internet, rather than delivering full-blown applications. “ [pg. 2] These services range from conventional credit card processing to Bloomberg.
MSP: Managed service providers (MSPs) are among the old members of the modern day cloud computing family. These are essentially applications that are exposed to IT rather than to the end users of personal computers. A virus scanning service for email that is contracted by an internet service provider for its clients is an example of an MSP.
Based on the description and variations of cloud computing described in this article we may be left wondering what do we actually do over the internet that is not in some way considered cloud computing. If websites and web-based services do not actually fit into one of the known sub-categories of cloud computing it seems as if they will in the near future.
Ory, David T.
Mokhtarian, Patricia L.
Redmond, Lothlorien S.
Collantes, Gustavo O.
Abstract:Commuting is popularly viewed as a stressful, costly, time-wasting experience from the individual perspective, with the attendant congestion imposing major social costs as well. However, several authors have noted that commuting can also offer benefits to the individual, serving as a valued transition between the home and work realms of personal life. Using survey data collected from about 1,300 commuting workers in three San Francisco Bay Area neighborhoods, empirical models are developed for four key variables measured for commute travel, namely: Objective Mobility, Subjective Mobility, Travel Liking, and Relative Desired Mobility. Explanatory variables include measures of general travel-related attitudes, personality traits, lifestyle priorities, and sociodemographic characteristics. Both descriptive statistics and analytical models indicate that commuting is not the unmitigated burden that it is widely perceived to be. About half of the sample were relatively satisfied with the amount they commute, with a small segment actually wanting to increase that amount. Both the psychological impact of commuting, and the amounts people want to commute relative to what they are doing now, are strongly influenced by their liking for commuting. An implication for policy is that some people may be more resistant than expected toward approaches intended to induce reductions in commuting (including, for example, telecommuting). New creativity may be needed to devise policies that recognize the inherent positive utility of travel, while trying to find socially beneficial ways to fulfill desires to maintain or increase travel.