1,721,061 research outputs found
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC: The Persistence of Scarcity
Get PDFPart I traces the history of broadcast regulation, emphasizing the development of the scarcity doctrine and the subsequent deregulatory trend. Part II examines the FCC\u27s 2003 rule changes and the Third Circuit\u27s analysis of those modifications in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC. Part III analyzes the assumptions underlying the FCC\u27s proffered explanation for its rule changes, ultimately concluding that they lack justification, and offers suggestions for responsible ownership deregulation. Part IV calls on Congress to reassert itself as the final arbiter of media policy
The Limits of Copyright Office Expertise
Get PDFThe mismatch between the expanding administrative and regulatory obligations of the United States Copyright Office and its limited institutional expertise is an emerging problem for the copyright system. The Office’s chief responsibility—registration and recordation of copyright claims—has taken a back seat in recent years to a more ambitious set of substantive rulemakings and policy recommendations. As the triennial rulemaking under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act highlights, the Office is frequently called upon to answer technological questions far beyond its plausible claims of subject matter expertise. This Article traces the Office’s history, identifies its substantial but discrete areas of expertise, and reveals the ways in which the Office has overstepped any reasonable definition of its expert knowledge. This Article concludes with a set of recommendations to better align the Office’s agenda with its expertise by, first, reducing the current regulatory burdens on the Office, and second, building greater technological and economic competence within the Office, better equipping it to address contemporary questions of copyright policy
Relative Access to Corrective Speech: A New Test for Requiring Actual Malice
Get PDFThis Article reexamines the First Amendment protections provided by the public figure doctrine. It suggests that the doctrine is rooted in a set of out-dated assumptions regarding the media landscape and, as a result, has failed to adapt in a manner that accounts for our changing communications environment.
The public figure doctrine, which imposes the more rigorous actual malice standard of fault on defamation plaintiffs who enjoy greater access to mass media, was constructed in an era defined by one-to-many communications media. Newspapers, broadcasters, and traditional publishers exhausted the Court\u27s understanding of the means of communicating with mass audiences. As a result, the public figure doctrine looks only to the status of the plaintiff in determining the appropriate degree of fault.
But the development of many-to-many media, like the internet, challenges the assumptions that underlie the public figure doctrine. Many-to-many media increase access to the means of mass communication, creating variety among speakers that Court neither considered nor predicted in constructing the public figure doctrine. In such a heterogeneous and dynamic communications environment, the uniform treatment of defamation defendants should be questioned. BEAK This Article suggests that in determining whether the actual malice standard should apply, courts should consider not only variations among plaintiffs, but they should also demonstrate sensitivity to the increased diversity among defamation defendants. By considering a plaintiff\u27s ability to avail herself of corrective counter speech not in isolation, but in light of the reach of the defendant\u27s publication, courts can more usefully apply the actual malice standard in the contemporary communications environment
Tattoos & IP Norms
Get PDFThe U.S. tattoo industry generates billions of dollars in annual revenue. Like the music, film, and publishing industries, it derives value from the creation of new, original works of authorship. But unlike rights holders in those more traditional creative industries, tattoo artists rarely assert formal legal rights in disputes over copying or ownership of the works they create. Instead, tattooing is governed by a set of nuanced, overlapping, and occasionally contradictory social norms enforced through informal sanctions. And in contrast to other creative communities that rely on social norms because of the unavailability of formal intellectual property protection, the tattoo industry opts for self-governance despite the comfortable fit of its creative output within the protections of the Copyright Act.
This Article relies on qualitative interview data drawn from more than a dozen face-to-face conversations with professionals in the tattoo industry. Based on those interviews, it offers a descriptive account of the social norms that have effectively displaced formal law within the tattoo community, provides a set of complementary cultural and economic explanations for the development of those norms, and outlines the broader implications of this research for intellectual property law and policy
Rethinking Anticircumvention\u27s Interoperability Policy
Get PDFInteroperability is widely touted for its ability to spur incremental innovation, increase competition and consumer choice, and decrease barriers to accessibility. In light of these attributes, intellectual property law generally permits follow-on innovators to create products that interoperate with existing systems, even without permission. The anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA ) represent a troubling departure from this policy, resulting in patent-like rights to exclude technologies that interoperate with protected platforms. Although the DMCA contains internal safeguards to preserve interoperability, judicial misinterpretation and narrow statutory text render those safeguards largely ineffective.
One approach to counteracting the DMCA\u27s restrictions on interoperability is to rely on antitrust scrutiny and the resulting mandatory disclosure of technical information. But both doctrinal and policy considerations suggest that antitrust offers a less than ideal means of lessening the DMCA\u27s impact on interoperability. Rather than relying on antitrust, this Article proposes a solution that addresses the restriction of interoperability at its source. This approach broadens the DMCA\u27s existing interoperability exemption to create an environment more hospitable to interoperable technologies. To preserve the protections the DMCA offers copyright holders, this expanded exemption would disaggregate control over interoperable software and devices from the control over access and copying that Congress intended the DMCA to enable
The Penumbral Public Domain: Constitutional Limits on Quasi-Copyright Legislation
Get PDFThis Article attempts to reconcile the breadth of the modern Commerce Clause with the notion of meaningful and enforceable limits on Congress\u27 copyright authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
The Article aims to achieve two objectives. First, it seeks to outline a general approach to identifying and resolving inter-clause conflicts, sketching a methodology that has been lacking in the courts\u27 sparse treatment of such conflicts. Second, it applies that general framework to the copyright power in order to outline the scope of constitutional prohibitions against quasi-copyright protections. In particular, this application focuses on the federal anti-bootlegging statutes and the Second Circuit\u27s recent analysis of them in United States v. Martignon.
In broad terms, the limits inherent in Clause 8 divide into two categories: limits on the sorts of works in which Congress can grant exclusive rights and limits on the types of exclusive rights Congress can use to protect those works. Those limits constrain Congress any time it attempts to legislate within the core subject matter of its copyright power-grants of exclusive rights in expression. Otherwise, they are effectively stricken from the Constitution, violating the basic canon of construction that rejects readings that render text superfluous.
Once the limits of Clause 8 are understood to apply regardless of the power Congress employs, a component of the public domain firmly and permanently rooted in the Constitution emerges. This public domain, defined by the limits of Clause 8, includes both unoriginal and unwritten expressive works - two classes of works that, as a constitutional matter, cannot be the subject of federal grants of exclusive rights. By extending exclusive rights to unwritten live performances, the anti-bootlegging statutes run afoul of the external limits of Clause 8
- …
