8353 research outputs found
Sort by
I Fought the Shaw: A Game Theory Framework and Approach to the District Courts\u27 Struggle with IPR Estoppel
Get PDFFair or Free Use of Copyrighted Materials in Education and Research and the Limit of Such Use
Get PDFThe concept of fair use, fair dealing, or free use of copyrighted works for education and research is incorporated in copyright laws around the world. This is to strike a balance between the private interests of copyright holders and the public interests of students and researchers to use the copyrighted materials in furthering their knowledge. While fair and free use of copyrighted materials for the purpose of study and research is favored and permitted under copyright laws almost everywhere in the world, the limit of such use is not clearly defined in these laws. This Article will attempt to determine the permissible limit for copying copyrighted materials without paying fees to or asking permission from copyright holders in light of the existing legal provisions and case law from around the world. To do so, this Article will first analyze the national and international legal provisions related to copyright exception for education and research. The Article will then analyze various conditions and factors and their relative importance to determine generally how much copying of copyrighted materials for education and research would be allowed without permission or license fees. While this Article concludes that it is impossible to clearly define the precise permissible limit of fair and free use, this Article recommends for a liberal interpretation of fair and free use exception especially when such use is for education and research
From Reparations to Dignity Restoration: The Story of the Popela Community.
No full textIn certain circumstances property takings are part of a larger strategy to further subjugate a certain group within the polity by denying their humanity or their capacity to reason. These takings involve more than the confiscation of property; they also involve the deprivation of dignity. In her book, We want what’s ours: Learning from South Africa’s land restitution program, Atuahene has called these dignity takings. The Popela people are a resource-poor, but culturally-rich African community from South Africa’s Limpopo region that the colonial and apartheid regimes subjected to dignity takings. The post-apartheid state was interested not only in providing compensation for property taken from the Popela community and others, but also facilitating dignity restoration – a comprehensive remedy that addresses the deprivations of property as well as dignity. At the end of a protracted legal battle, the Constitutional Court ruled that the Popela community was entitled to reparations requiring the post-apartheid state to purchase the disputed land from its current owners and return it to the community. However, the state went above and beyond the Court-ordered remedy and tried to facilitate dignity restoration by expanding the number of community members entitled to land and increasing the amount of land transferred. The problem, however, is that over ten years since the much-celebrated court victory, the state has failed to deliver the more modest reparations mandated by the Constitutional Court as well as the more ambitious remedy designed to bring about dignity restoration. This article charts the consequences of the state’s failed move from reparations to dignity restoration
The Forgotten Issue? The Supreme Court and the 2016 Presidential Campaign
Get PDFThis Article considers how presidential candidates use the Supreme Court as an issue in their election campaigns. I focus in particular on 2016, but I try to make sense of this extraordinary election by placing it in the context of presidential elections over the past century.
In the presidential election of 2016, circumstances seemed perfectly aligned to force the Supreme Court to the front of public debate, but neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton treated the Court as a central issue of their campaigns. Trump rarely went beyond a brief mention of the Court in his campaign speeches; Clinton basically avoided the issue as much as possible throughout the general election. The candidates’ relative lack of attention to the Court can partly be explained by factors unique to the 2016 campaign. Yet historically the Court has rarely been a major concern for presidential candidates. It was not until the 1960s that major party presidential candidates even considered the Supreme Court as an issue appropriate for presidential campaigns, and since then candidates have been reluctant to press future appointments to the Court as a centerpiece of their election efforts. The 2016 campaign, for all its precedent-shattering and unpredictable qualities, basically fell into a predictable dynamic when it came to the candidates’ treatment of the Court
Commitment Through Fear: Mandatory Jury Trials and Substantive Due Process Violations in the Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders in Illinois
Get PDFIn Illinois, a person deemed a Sexually Violent Person (“SVP”) in a civil trial can be detained indefinitely in treatment facilities that functionally serve as prisons. SVPs are not afforded the right to waive a jury trial, a right that criminal defendants enjoy. This results in SVPs facing juries that treat sex offenders as monsters or sub-humans, due to often sensationalistic media coverage and the use of sex offenders as boogeymen in political campaigns. The lack of a jury trial waiver results in more individuals being deemed SVPs, depriving many of their liberty without the due process of law, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
Preventing Drug-Related Deaths at Music Festivals: Why the Rave Act Should be Amended to Provide an Exception for Harm Reduction Services
Get PDF
No Place to Call Home: The Iraqi Kurds under the Ba’ath, Saddam Hussein, and ISIS
Get PDFThe Kurds are the world’s largest ethnonational group without their own state. They have often been the target of ethnic strife and discrimination. Even within their semi-autonomous territory, Iraqi Kurds have faced humiliation and oppression. This essay argues that the Kurds in Iraq have been deprived of their property and dignity and hence have been subjected to “dignity takings.” This occurred in three distinct phases: the 1970s under “Ba’athification,” the 1980s under Saddam Hussein, and at present under the Islamic State (ISIS). During each phase, the Kurds have suffered involuntary property loss through forced relocations and the destruction of homes and entire villages, and are victims of dehumanization and infantilization through mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and the denial of self-determination. This paper confirms that the Iraqi Kurds fit within the scope of the emerging field of dignity takings, and seeks to expand the parameters of infantilization to include the denial of self-determination