Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 Publications by Neil Turkewitz
TOTM I recently published a piece in the Hill welcoming the Canadian Supreme Court’s decision in Google v. Equustek. In this post I expand (at length) . . .
I recently published a piece in the Hill welcoming the Canadian Supreme Court’s decision in Google v. Equustek. In this post I expand (at length) upon my assessment of the case.
In its decision, the Court upheld injunctive relief against Google, directing the company to avoid indexing websites offering the infringing goods in question, regardless of the location of the sites (and even though Google itself was not a party in the case nor in any way held liable for the infringement). As a result, the Court’s ruling would affect Google’s conduct outside of Canada as well as within it.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM According to Cory Doctorow over at Boing Boing, Tim Wu has written an open letter to W3C Chairman Sir Timothy Berners-Lee, expressing concern about a proposal . . .
According to Cory Doctorow over at Boing Boing, Tim Wu has written an open letter to W3C Chairman Sir Timothy Berners-Lee, expressing concern about a proposal to include Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) as part of the W3C standards.
TOTM What does it mean to “own” something? A simple question (with a complicated answer, of course) that, astonishingly, goes unasked in a recent article in . . .
What does it mean to “own” something? A simple question (with a complicated answer, of course) that, astonishingly, goes unasked in a recent article in the Pennsylvania Law Review entitled, What We Buy When We “Buy Now,” by Aaron Perzanowski and Chris Hoofnagle (hereafter “P&H”). But how can we reasonably answer the question they pose without first trying to understand the nature of property interests?
TOTM I recently became aware of a decision from the High Court in South Africa that examines an interesting intersection of freedom of expression, copyright and . . .
I recently became aware of a decision from the High Court in South Africa that examines an interesting intersection of freedom of expression, copyright and contract. It addresses the issue of how to define the public interest in an environment of relatively unguarded rhetoric about the role of copyright in society that is worth exploring. But first, a quick recap of the relevant facts, none of which were in issue.
TOTM In a recent article for the San Francisco Daily Journal I examine Google v. Equustek: a case currently before the Canadian Supreme Court involving the scope of . . .
In a recent article for the San Francisco Daily Journal I examine Google v. Equustek: a case currently before the Canadian Supreme Court involving the scope of jurisdiction of Canadian courts to enjoin conduct on the internet.
In the piece I argue that…
Regulatory Comments "What are the knowledge, skills, and abilities you believe are the most important for the Register of Copyrights?"
“What are the knowledge, skills, and abilities you believe are the most important for the Register of Copyrights?
While undoubtedly this is a restatement of the obvious, the Register should, first and foremost, have a background that demonstrates his or her understanding of the importance of modern and effective copyright protection and its critical role in the economic and cultural health of this nation…”
“The Register should seek to ensure that all creators are able to choose the manner in which their creations are used. An effective and functional copyright environment is not a panacea; it does not on its own create global parity in the marketplace of ideas. But it does give individual creators a fighting chance, and an opportunity to compete. The ability to generate revenue from one’s creativity — to earn a living as a creator by determining how and when to license the use of one’s creative works — is fundamental to a society’s ability to foster cultural production. The moral and economic aspects of this equation are inseparable.
It is also important for the Register to fully grasp that systems of copyright replaced private patronage as the mechanism for enabling creators to be self-sustaining. When creativity is fueled by market forces, the cultural power and potential of individuals is unleashed and society benefits. While copyright may be inadequate on its own to create optimal market conditions, it remains by far the most effective tool for fostering creativity and democratizing culture…”
Written Testimonies & Filings "Given the importance of copyright protection to the US national interest, including from an economic, political and social perspective (on which, please see our response to the Register’s request for comments, attached), we strongly agree with the proposal set forth by the Committee to reform the Copyright Office..."
“Given the importance of copyright protection to the US national interest, including from an economic, political and social perspective (on which, please see our response to the Register’s request for comments, attached), we strongly agree with the proposal set forth by the Committee to reform the Copyright Office.
First, we agree with the Committee that in order to best advance the interests of the United States — “to meet the needs of a modern 21st Century copyright system” — the Copyright Office should be established as a stand-alone office in the legislative branch, and that the Register be nominated and subject to confirmation by Congress. As will undoubtedly be articulated in other submissions, the establishment of the Copyright Office within the Library of Congress was largely an accident of history related to the deposit of copies and the Library collection. But there is little reason to continue the status quo in an environment of constant change when it no longer best serves the interests of the nation. For much of our history, while there may have been the potential for some conflict between the objectives of the Library and those of the Copyright Office, they tended to be minimal, and largely to be avoided by the Library’s general deference to the Copyright Office in matters affecting copyright policy.
As will undoubtedly be articulated in other submissions, the establishment of the Copyright Office within the Library of Congress was largely an accident of history related to the deposit of copies and the Library collection. But there is little reason to continue the status quo in an environment of constant change when it no longer best serves the interests of the nation. For much of our history, while there may have been the potential for some conflict between the objectives of the Library and those of the Copyright Office, they tended to be minimal, and largely to be avoided by the Library’s general deference to the Copyright Office in matters affecting copyright policy.
In the current digital environment, however, the intersections and points of conflict between Library priorities focused on preservation and access, and Copyright Office priorities of encouraging and protecting creativity, have grown more frequent and more fundamental….”
TOTM Yesterday the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee issued the first set of policy proposals following their long-running copyright review process. These . . .
Yesterday the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee issued the first set of policy proposals following their long-running copyright review process. These proposals were principally aimed at ensuring that the IT demands of the Copyright Office were properly met so that it could perform its assigned functions, and to provide adequate authority for it to adapt its policies and practices to the evolving needs of the digital age.
In response to these modest proposals, Public Knowledge issued a telling statement, calling for enhanced scrutiny of these proposals related to an agency “with a documented history of regulatory capture.”
TOTM Last week, the Internet Association (“IA”) — a trade group representing some of America’s most dynamic and fastest growing tech companies, including the likes of . . .
Last week, the Internet Association (“IA”) — a trade group representing some of America’s most dynamic and fastest growing tech companies, including the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon, and eBay — presented the incoming Trump Administration with a ten page policy paper entitled “Policy Roadmap for New Administration, Congress.”
The document’s content is not surprising, given its source: It is, in essence, a summary of the trade association’s members’ preferred policy positions, none of which is new or newly relevant. Which is fine, in principle; lobbying on behalf of members is what trade associations do — although we should be somewhat skeptical of a policy document that purports to represent the broader social welfare while it advocates for members’ preferred policies.