I have a new post up at JOTWELL, reviewing a forthcoming piece by Julie Cohen on the zombification of the First Amendment. That doesn’t sound like cyberlaw, but it is.
Here is the link. The title is an homage to Night of the Living Dead: “They’re coming to get you, Barbara.” Many thanks to the JOTWELL team for using an old “Fountain of Youth” headshot of me.
I am speaking on a couple of panels at the upcoming AALS (Associaton of American Law Schools) meeting in Washington, DC. The more provocative of the two is the “AALS President’s Program – Implementing Innovation in Law Schools,” which will be presented at 10:30 am on Saturday January 3 2015.
The program description is this:
“As law schools seek to compete in a changing and challenging global market for legal education, many are striking out in new directions with innovative programs and ideas. The process of innovation in legal education is not unlike that of other businesses and organizations. That process must include the right incentives and culture for forming new ideas, as well as a process for vetting them, prioritizing them, implementing them, and assessing their effectiveness. This session addresses the innovation process and probes how to both spur innovative ideas and then to also move efficiently to implement the ones that seem right for the institution. The session’s speakers bring a wide range of experience with innovation at diverse institutions.”
The speakers are
Dan Rodriguez (Dean of Northwestern University School of Law and AALS President), will moderate.
I don’t know precisely what we’ll say, but I know that Paul, for one, will come prepared to challenge the academics.
Twitter links: @SturmCOL, @UWSchoolofLaw, @PaulLippe, @DeanDBRodriguez, @profmadison
The American Law Institute has announced plans to produce a Restatement of Copyright. (Announcement here, including the names of the Reporter (NYU’s Chris Sprigman) and Associate Reporters (Lydia Loren, from Lewis & Clark; Tony Reese, from UC Irvine; and Molly Van Houweling, from UC Berkeley).
In light of global concerns about the role of IP law in the production of, distribution of, and access to innovative things and creative works, I hope that the team of Reporters will take an inclusive view of their subject. Copyright is not an end in itself, and even for lawyers and policymakers working with and for the producers of creative stuff, often copyright is only one of several important legal and cultural institutions that they need to understand and use. A “Restatement of Copyright” can make a terrific contribution by putting copyright explicitly in its broader contexts.
[A longtime reader wrote recently to ask: Is the blog still alive? And it is.]
All of the interest in the Supreme Court tomorrow is likely to be focused on Hobby Lobby and, to a lesser extent, Harris v. Quinn. But I’ll be watching something that happens before either of those decisions is announced. I’ll be looking to see if the Supreme Court granted cert in the StreetView case. I hope the answer is no.
The StreetView case — Google v. Joffe — is one that I’ve blogged extensively about over the past year. See Part I, Part II; see also my coverage of the Ninth Circuit opinion, Google’s petition for rehearing, and the filing of Google’s cert. petition.) Briefly, Google’s StreetView cars intercepted the contents of transmissions from residential wi-fi routers whose owners had not turned on encryption. A number of class actions have been filed claiming that the interceptions were violations of the federal Wiretap Act. Google moved to dismiss them, arguing that radio communications (like wi-fi) basically have to be encrypted to be protected by the Wiretap Act. The district court and the Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that the exception Google points to applies only to traditional AM/FM radio broadcasts.
Although I disagree with the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning and would find it professionally advantageous if the Supreme Court decided to take the case, I hope it denies cert. Here’s why. Continue reading The Supreme Court Considers Google Street View
Rebecca Tushnet points to this column by Cory Doctorow arguing that Hachette is being held hostage in its fight with Amazon over e-book versions of its books because of its “single-minded insistence on DRM”: “It’s likely that every Hachette ebook ever sold has been locked with some company’s proprietary DRM, and therein lies the rub.” Doctorow argues that because of the DMCA Hachette can no longer get access, or authorize others to get access to, its own books:
Under US law (the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and its global counterparts (such as the EUCD), only the company that put the DRM on a copyrighted work can remove it. Although you can learn how to remove Amazon’s DRM with literally a single, three-word search, it is nevertheless illegal to do so, unless you’re Amazon. So while it’s technical child’s play to release a Hachette app that converts your Kindle library to work with Apple’s Ibooks or Google’s Play Store, such a move is illegal.
It is an own-goal masterstroke.
Everyone loves irony, but I can’t figure out how to make Doctorow’s argument work. First, I can’t figure out what the anticircumvention problem would be. Second, I can’t figure out why Hachette wouldn’t be able to provide other distributors with e-book versions of its books. Continue reading Is Hachette Being Hoisted by Its Own DRM Petard?