Search results

This paper argues that the revolution in intellectual property rights is not forward-looking, but backward looking, and that it is not consonant with the purposes of the patent and copyright clause. It is animated by the theory of common law copyright, which deliberately reconceptualizes social relations in order to recast them as property, and which has been with us for centuries. This paper investigates the “mythology of common law copyright,” showing how this reconceptualization has worked both historically and in the present day to push the law in a direction that is ostensibly author-centered, but is actually focused on the rights of intermediaries.

This article seeks to deal with the fundamental conceptual differences between consumer law and copyright law that render the application of consumer law to copyright‐law related conflicts difficult.

Following a normative approach to copyright and consumer law based on an analysis of the relevant literature and case law, the article examines in which situations consumers encounter obstacles when trying to rely on consumer law to invoke “privileges” granted to them under copyright law, such as the private copying exception.

Research shows that most difficulties lie in the fundamental conceptual differences between consumer law and copyright law regarding the objectives and beneficiaries of each regime, as well as diverging conceptions of “property”, “user rights” and “internal market”. Such discrepancies undeniably follow from the fact that each regime traditionally never had to deal with each other's concerns: consumers never played a role in copyright law, whereas copyright protected works were not seen as consumer goods.

By identifying the main conceptual differences between the two legal regimes, the article contributes in an inter‐disciplinary manner to the discussion on the place of the digital consumer under European law.

This paper aims to give a snapshot of the copyright and neighboring rights law of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), illustrating the provisions governing the law. It seeks to frame UAE copyright provisions within the context of the principles of copyright and the structure of international copyright protection.

The article begins with an overview of copyright laws. It highlights the central issues of concern to education, librarianship, and scholarship, depicting the complexity that the digital era has brought on copyright doctrines. It then explains the exclusive rights granted under the law, showing its orientation toward the civil law tradition with its emphasis on moral rights.

The author observes that a key effort to making practical sense of copyright in this region entails educating key communities, and emphasizing the importance of copyright limitations and exceptions pertaining to educational institutions and libraries. He advocates for applying copyright to the advantage of academic and research communities, and offers strategies strengthening the right of use in favor of these communities. Understanding the concepts and principles of copyright will make these communities proponents of sound copyright policies that will safeguard the promotion of learning and the right of public access, while still protecting intellectual property rights.

There has not been any discussion in the library literature on copyright in the UAE and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Therefore, this case study of the UAE copyright and neighboring rights law aims to provoke such discussion. It should be useful to the whole library community, and particularly those in the UAE and other GCC countries.

The purpose of this article is to provide a general review of the concepts of copyright and open access as they relate to library instruction. The authors provide instructional advice to librarians on these topics.

The authors approach the topic from a descriptive and instructional stance. General research on the topics listed above was conducted and is presented as an overview.

The authors discuss the basics of copyright law, Creative Commons licenses, open access resources and copyright considerations specific to using music in instruction.

This article includes useful tips and resources for instructional librarians, such as where to find open access or Creative Commons content. It is of value to any librarian that utilizes other entities’ content in the course of instruction.

Copyright is integral to everything we do in digital publishing. This new column will examine a wide range of intellectual property issues using concrete examples from current projects. Since Internet‐based publishing is automatically international, the column will look at the British, European and other aspects, as well as US law. This first column deals with the question of whether a set of 1960s era Black Panther Party pamphlets are in the public domain under US copyright law. It also mentions the moral rights issues that would arise in a German context. The final section of the column reviews some of the information sources useful in answering questions of this sort.

This paper aims to investigate the potential impacts that differences between UK and US copyright laws for sound recordings have on musicians. It also highlights the needs for continued standardisation of international copyright laws (particularly those for sound recordings), copyright law education for creators, and a need for musicians to re‐think future artistic and managerial decisions.

In this critical analysis of current academic literature and legislation, significant differences between the domestic copyright laws of the UK and USA have been identified. The impacts of these differences on musicians are discussed and conclusions drawn.

Findings suggest that there are several significant differences between the UK and US copyright laws for sound recordings, which do impact on musicians in both countries. However, determining the degree of impact is dependent on several contributing factors: the nationality of the musician; the level of success of the musician; the creative roles adopted by the musician; and the ambition of the musician.

Research scope was limited to the domestic copyright laws of the UK and USA only; and, specifically, the copyright laws for sound recordings. Findings were generalised for all musicians, regardless of type or genre.

This paper is one of the first to investigate the impact of differences in domestic copyright laws on musicians, and identifies several strategy issues that must be considered by musicians when making future artistic and managerial decisions.

The Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags constitute a set of instruments that can be used to instruct software robots. However, the current version of Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags are both too simple and ambiguous in an internet world with many potential conflicts, especially in terms of copyright and trespass to chattels. This paper seeks to propose an amendment to the Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags to solve the problems.

Instead of following personal experience, this paper surveys several predominant cases in an attempt to find general principles that can be used as guidelines to amend the Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags.

According to several court cases, the Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags can not only be used to simply allow or refuse the software robots, but also expressing the online copyright authorization policies of webmasters. Any robot following the given policies can prevent possible conflicts, and undoubtedly, any robot ignoring these may be in breach of the law. In terms of adapting to their new roles successfully, the Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags need some supplements and adoption; as a result, the webmasters can express their will more explicitly and avoid unnecessary disputes in relation to copyright authorization scope and trespass to chattels as well.

This paper reveals the new function of the Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags. Based on this new function, this paper points out the disadvantages of the current Robots.txt and Robots Meta tags and proposes new a comprehensive amendment based on this new function.

A great artist creates a mural which, bearing his name, eventually reaches the hands of a purchaser who objects to the nude figures that the creator had seen fit to incorporate into his tableau. The purchaser, therefore, employs another artist to drape the figures. In a now famous decree the German Supreme Court, in 1912, held that the transferee of the mural in a case involving these facts, could not have changed it to suit his individual preferences.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the USA's movement to a digital network infrastructure which may be threatened by the unavailability of high‐speed network channels to some sources of information.

One reason for unavailability is fear by network intermediaries that they face legal liability for carrying harmful messages. Yet changing the law to require network intermediaries to provide equal access to their services raises First Amendment questions.

A mechanism should be established for providers of network services to inform potential customers of the terms on which they handle traffic. An electronic forum for notices of access policy would be one way to implement this recommendation.

Uncertainty about equal access, tort liability and First Amendment privileges adversely affects commercialization of the Internet. Commercialization must begin with acceptance of three goals for digital electronic network policy: encouraging a diversity of information products, preventing suppliers of information content from being foreclosed from access to markets, and allowing persons suffering legal injury, because of information content, to obtain compensation based on fault.

America's movement to a digital network infrastructure may be threatened by the unavailability of high‐speed network channels to some sources of information. One reason for unavailability is fear by network intermediaries that they face legal liability for carrying harmful messages. Yet changing the law to require network intermediaries to provide equal access to their services raises First Amendment questions.