Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts最新文献

{"title":"Session 1: The Legal Landscape","authors":"J. Ginsburg, L. Gasaway, Maria A. Pallante, Richard Rudick, S. Perlmutter","doi":"10.7916/D8G44N8Q","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8G44N8Q","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131730381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Session 4: What Should Be the Conditions on Libraries Digitizing, Maintaining, and Making Available Copyrighted Works?","authors":"C. Weston, Ivy Anderson, K. Crews, Roy S. Kaufman, W. Maher","doi":"10.7916/D82V2D3B","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D82V2D3B","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125659562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Copyright Industry Perspectives: The Pivotal Role of TPMs in the Evolution of the Video Game Industry","authors":"C. Troncoso","doi":"10.7916/D8125T2R","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8125T2R","url":null,"abstract":"The story of the video game industry, like that of many other creative art forms, is in part a testament to the power of copyright law. Compared with many other industries that rely on copyright protection, however, the video game industry is relatively young. Although there is considerable debate about the industry’s precise birthdate, most point to the earlyto mid-1970s as the point at which video games entered into the mainstream consciousness. Coming of age around the same time that the 1976 Copyright Act was being debated and later implemented, an initial challenge for the industry was simply ensuring that authors of video games received the same scope of copyright protection as authors of more traditional forms of media. Given that the defining characteristic of video game software was its interactivity, with the audiovisual output controlled in part by user interaction, there was initially some uncertainty about the extent to which early video games could be protected by copyright. Indeed, the Register of Copyrights once famously declined to register a copyright claim in the audiovisual components of a video game in part because the content was not an original work of authorship due to its interactive nature.1 In denying the claim for copyright, the Register noted that the audiovisual components of the game could not be registered because “they are created randomly by the player and not by the author of the video game.”2 Of course, the Register was subsequently persuaded to register the work,3 and questions about the copyrightability of video games have faded. Unsurprisingly, however, other copyright challenges have emerged. Like most desirable digital content, video games are subject to extraordinarily high levels of online piracy and other forms of copyright infringement. Although the pernicious effects of piracy are well known, the steps the video game industry has taken to combat piracy—and defeat it in the marketplace—warrant closer","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121488541","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Prefaces to Scalia/Ginsburg: A (Gentle) Parody of Operatic Proportions","authors":"Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg","doi":"10.7916/JLA.V38I2.2118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/JLA.V38I2.2118","url":null,"abstract":"Scalia/Ginsburg is for me a dream come true. If I could choose the talent I would most like to have, it would be a glorious voice. I would be a great diva, perhaps Renata Tebaldi or Beverly Sills or, in the mezzo range, Marilyn Horne. But my grade school music teacher, with brutal honesty, rated me a sparrow, not a robin. I was told to mouth the words, never to sing them. Even so, I grew up with a passion for opera, though I sing only in the shower, and in my dreams. \u0000One fine day, a young composer, librettist and pianist named Derrick Wang approached Justice Scalia and me with a request. While studying Constitutional Law at the University of Maryland Law School, Wang had an operatic idea. The different perspectives of Justices Scalia and Ginsburg on constitutional interpretation, he thought, could be portrayed in song. Wang put his idea to the “will it write” test. He composed a comic opera with an important message brought out in the final duet, “We are different, we are one”—one in our reverence for the Constitution, the U.S. judiciary and the Court on which we serve. \u0000Would we listen to some excerpts from the opera, Wang asked, and then tell him whether we thought his work worthy of pursuit and performance? Good readers, as you leaf through the libretto, check some of the many footnotes disclosing Wang’s sources, and imagine me a dazzling diva, I think you will understand why, in answer to Wang’s question, I just said “Yes.” \u0000Preface by Justice Antonin Scalia: \u0000While Justice Ginsburg is confident that she has achieved her highest and best use as a Supreme Justice, I, alas, have the nagging doubt that I could have been a contendah—for a divus, or whatever a male diva is called. My father had a good tenor voice, which he trained at the Eastman School of Music. I sang in the Georgetown Glee Club (directed by Washington Post music critic Paul Hume, whom President Truman rewarded with a valuable letter for his review of Margaret’s singing). I have sung in choirs and choral groups much of my life, up to and including my days on the D.C. Circuit. And the utter peak of my otherwise uneventful judicial career was an evening after the Opera Ball at the British Ambassador’s Residence, when I joined two tenors from the Washington Opera singing various songs at the piano—the famous Three Tenors performance. \u0000I suppose, however, that it would be too much to expect the author of Scalia/Ginsburg to allow me to play (sing) myself—especially if Ruth refuses to play (sing) herself. Even so, it may be a good show.","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116737192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Audiovisual Works and the Work for Hire Doctrine in the Internet Age","authors":"John L. Schwab","doi":"10.7916/D83F508X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D83F508X","url":null,"abstract":"Chris Carter was one of the most successful writers and creators of television in the 1990s. His works include “Millennium” and, most prominently, “The XFiles.” Mr. Carter created “The X-Files” and was the program’s ‘showrunner,’ meaning he either made or approved every creative decision associated with each episode—including the writing, the direction, the set design, the costuming and the editing. As is common in the world of audiovisual entertainment, Mr. Carter did not own the copyright to “The X-Files.” This created a problem for Mr. Carter, since the commercial success of “The X-Files” made it a prime candidate for syndication. Syndication, also known as second run programming, is the most lucrative aspect of television production. The owner of “The X-Files,” Twentieth Century Fox Television, sold the program’s syndication rights to a separate Fox subsidiary, the FX Network. This original sale led to allegations of self-dealing. Fox subsequently resyndicated the program with a competitor, NBC Universal’s USA Network. When Fox resyndicated, however, the studio claimed that the","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127640413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fragmented Literal Similarity in the Ninth Circuit: Dealing with Fragmented Takings of Jazz and Experimental Music","authors":"Michael Zaken","doi":"10.7916/D85M63P8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D85M63P8","url":null,"abstract":"The testimony of an expert upon such issues, especially his cross-examination, greatly extends the trial and contributes nothing which cannot be better heard after the evidence is all submitted. It ought not to be allowed at all; and while its admission is not a ground for reversal, it cumbers the case and tends to confusion, for the more the court is led into the intricacies of dramatic craftsmanship, the less likely it is to stand upon the firmer, if more naive, ground of its considered impressions upon its own perusal. We hope that in this class of cases such evidence may in the future be entirely excluded, and the case confined to the actual issues; that is, whether the defendant copied it, so far as the supposed infringement is identical.4","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128146872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Master Copies, Unique Copies and Volitional Conduct: Cartoon Network’s Implications for the Liability of Cyber Lockers","authors":"Carrie Bodner","doi":"10.7916/D8028PHR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8028PHR","url":null,"abstract":"As technology advances, new types of devices and increasing compatibility of data formats make it possible to use files previously accessible on only one or two devices. For example, a person might wish to access a business file (formerly stored on a work computer or perhaps even in a file cabinet at the office) from her smart phone. Similarly, another might wish to access his MP3 collection (stored on an iPod or personal computer) from his work computer. Such technological progress has paved the way for innovative digital, cable and Internet services that enable users to enjoy copyrighted content in new ways: from time-shifting via VCRs to place-shifting via new TV devices; from instantly purchasing a movie through video on demand to watching a live stream of sports coverage on the Internet. One type of service that has recently proliferated is the digital storage locker—also known as the cyber locker. Digital storage lockers enable users to","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128157135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Session 3: To What Extent Should Libraries Be Permitted to Engage in Mass Digitization of Published Works, and for What Purposes?","authors":"Eric Harbeson, Gloria C. Phares, Janice T. Pilch, Karyn Temple Claggett, Paul Aiken","doi":"10.7916/D86M34S6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D86M34S6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"107 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121943978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Developing a Copyright System That Works For Songwriters","authors":"Rick Carnes","doi":"10.7916/D8222V5P","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8222V5P","url":null,"abstract":"The organization that I head, the Songwriters Guild of America (SGA), is the oldest and largest national organization in the world run exclusively by and for the creators of musical compositions and their heirs. SGA has approximately five thousand members nationwide and over eighty years of experience in advocating for music creator rights on the federal, state and local levels.1 SGA’s membership comprises songwriters, lyricists, composers and the estates of deceased members. SGA provides a variety of administrative services to its members—including contract analysis, copyright registration and renewal filings, termination rights notices, and royalty collection and auditing—to ensure that songwriters receive fair and accurate compensation for the use of their works.2 SGA takes great pride in its unique position as the sole untainted representative of the interests of American and international music creators, uncompromised by the frequently conflicting views and “vertically integrated” interests of other copyright users and assignees. Now, I want to stress that I am not a lawyer. What I am is a professional songwriter who has been lucky enough to have had some modest success over a period of years, including having my songs on over forty platinum albums. And one thing we songwriters know about—and frequently write about—is right and wrong, good and bad. So, as Congress is reviewing the state of copyright in the United States, I would like to use this opportunity to discuss what is right and what needs fixing.3 First and foremost, I want to point out that the bedrock principles that a creator has the right to control the use of something he or she has created, and to receive attribution and fair compensation for such use, are rights that I have personally noted are widely embraced—or at least given lip service—by the American public. SGA applauds this fact, but also notes its strong and longstanding support for the incorporation of various free speech concepts into the United States Copyright Act through the fair use doctrine.4 On that very important point, I simply want to stress the importance of balance. Just as we never want to inhibit the free exchange of","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134532791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"“Defamation Live”: The Confusing Legal Landscape of Republication in Live Broadcasting and a Call for a “Breaking News Doctrine”","authors":"Matthew D. Bunker, C. Calvert","doi":"10.7916/D82F7NW9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D82F7NW9","url":null,"abstract":"Live, broadcast defamation is a murky area of law garnering surprisingly scant scholarly attention. But because libel law typically creates republication liability for broadcasters who air defamatory statements uttered by third parties—even when news organizations have no idea what the third parties are about to say— broadcasters covering live, breaking news events face significant risks of liability for remarks by people at the scene. This Article analyzes the case law of live and spontaneous broadcast defamation, explores the statutory backdrop in such cases and, ultimately, proposes a solution in the form of a “breaking news doctrine” that relieves broadcasters of republication liability if five prerequisites are satisfied.","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130507655","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}