Chapter
1.3.5. Some L&Es Are Adopted for Politically Expedient Reasons
1.3.6. Some L&Es Provide Flexibility in Copyright Laws
1.4. Why Other Countries Should Adopt Flexible, Open-ended L&Es
1.4.1. Open-ended L&Es Enable the Law to Adapt to New Circumstances
1.4.2. Open-ended L&Es Can Produce Reasonably Predictable Outcomes
1.4.3. Flexible L&Es Can Be Compatible With International Treaty Obligations
2 The Role of the Author in Copyright
2.1. Authors and Copyright Ownership
2.2. What If Authors Retained Their Copyrights?
2.3. Making Copyright Work for Authors
2.3.1. Authors and Publishers
2.3.2. Authors as Publishers
3 A Few Observations about the State of Copyright Law
3.2. Why We Don’t Inherently Want Strong or Weak Copyright Laws
3.3. The Damage Done by Our Current Copyright Laws
3.4. What the Old English Common Law Judges Taught Me
3.5. What Being a Musician Has Taught Me
3.6. Some Examples of Copyright Sloganeering
3.7. My Experience with Copyright Law
3.8. What BIKE Riding Has Taught Me
3.9. Why Can’t Copyright Laws Be Like Riding a Bike?
3.10. The Attack on Safe Harbors and Fair Use
3.11. Why We Need Flexible Copyright Laws
5 Copyright in a Digital Ecosystem
5.2. Users in the Digital Ecosystem: Opportunities and Threats
5.3. Formulating a Theory of User Rights
5.3.1. Moving beyond Limitations and Exceptions
5.3.2. The Virtues of Using Creative Works
Productive and Transformative Use
5.3.3. A Rationale for User Rights
5.3.4. What Rights Do Users Need?
5.4. Using Rights to Promote Desirable Uses
5.4.1. The Rise of the Rights Discourse
5.4.2. The Formalistic Analysis of Rights
5.4.3. Is Fair Use an Affirmative Defense?
5.4.4. Objections to the User-Rights Approach
5.5. Legal Implications of User Rights
5.5.1. Legal Interpretation
5.5.2. Legal Oversight of Private Ordering
6 The Canadian Copyright Story
6.1. Canada’s Unlikely Path to Users’ Rights in Copyright
6.1.1. 2002 – Signs of Change?
6.1.2. 2003–2005 – The Recognition of Users’ Rights
6.1.3. 2006–2008 – The Fair Copyright Fight
6.1.4. 2009 – Hitting the Reset Button
6.1.5. 2010–2012 – Copyright Closure: A Bill Passes and the Court Releases a Pentalogy of Cases
6.2. What the Canadian Experience Teaches
6.2.1. Users as Copyright Stakeholders
6.2.2. The Internet as a Tool for Participation
6.2.3. The Role of Academics in the Policy Process
6.2.4. Users’ Rights Have a Strong Policy Foundation
6.2.5. International Flexibility Allows for Users’ Rights
6.2.6. Trade and Copyright
7 (When) Is Copyright Reform Possible?
7.1. The Structure of Copyright Policy Making
7.2.1. Evidence-Based Policy Making
7.2.2. Limitations and Exceptions
7.2.5. Miscellaneous Recommendations
8 Fair Use and Its Politics – at Home and Abroad
8.2. American Fair Use Doctrine and the Three-Step Test
8.2.1. Rules, Standards, and Fair Use
8.2.2. The Three-Step Test and Its Angst
8.2.3. Fair Use, Meet Three Step; Three Step, Meet Fair Use
8.2.4. A Thought Experiment on the Three-Step Test
8.2.5. Clustering Fair Use; Fair Use as a Mechanism for Establishing Exceptions
8.3. What Happens When Fair Use Goes Abroad
8.3.1. The Spread of Fair Use to Other Jurisdictions
8.3.2. Fair Use and the Global Activist Community
8.3.3. The Posture of the U.S. Government on the Fair Use Doctrine in International Negotiations
Fair Use, Democracy, and Innovation
9.2. Copyright, Droit d’auteur and Open Norms
9.3. In Search of Flexibilities Inside the EU Acquis
9.4. Flexibilities in Freedom of Expression
10 The Limits of “Limitations and Exceptions” in Copyright Law
10.1. Some Historical Milestones
10.2. Obsolescent or Merely Inadequate Legal Tools?
10.3. Heading for the Exit?
10.4. Some Premises for Reform
11 Lessons from CopyrightX
11.1. The Course Structure
11.2. Pedagogic Principles
12 Rights on the Border: The Berne Convention and Neighbouring Rights
12.2. Gaining Protection under Berne – The Need for Authorship of a Literary or Artistic Work
12.3. Photographic Works – An Early Claimant for Protection
12.4. Other Early Claimants for Protection
12.5. The Case of Sound Recordings
12.6. Broader Concerns about Neighbouring Rights
12.7. The Ostertag Report and Draft Proposals
12.8. The Work of the Samedan Committee
12.9. The Trajectory of Neighbouring Rights Protection after Samedan
12.10. Lessons from Samedan?
13.3. Copyright Uses and Patent Uses: Baker v. Selden
13.3.1. Introducing Baker v. Selden
13.3.3. Baker and “merger”
Patent Law Is a Jealous Monarch
13.4. Defining “Explanation” and “Use”
13.4.1. Tentative Conclusion: Interoperability and Baker
13.4.2. Juridical Integrity and Lack of “Fit”
13.4.3. Should Mixed Uses Qualify for Baker’s Shelter
13.5. Resistance to the Use/Explanation Distinction
13.5.1. “Rights Over Use” as a Conceptual and Economic Fulcrum
13.5.2. Further Buttressing Baker’s Use/Explanation Distinction from Attack
Baker and Caselaw Progeny
Congressional Implementation
13.6. Subsection 113(b) Applied Directly to Computer Programs
13.6.2. Is Baker only for accounting forms and other PGS works?
13.6.4. Copying Computer Object Code
13.6.5. Does the breadth of subsection 113(b) govern?
14 Reframing International Copyright Limitations and Exceptions as Development Policy
14.2 Development and the International Copyright Framework
14.2.1 The Rhetoric of Development and the Institutional Context for International Copyright
14.2.2 Constructing the National Public Interest in the Design of International Copyright Law
14.3 Limits of the International Copyright Framework for Development
14.3.1 The Limits of Copyright Harmonization
14.3.2 Existing Limitations and Exceptions in the Berne/TRIPS Framework
(i) Uncompensated Limitations and Exceptions in the Berne/TRIPS Framework
(ii) Compensated Limitations and Exceptions in the Berne/TRIPS Framework
(iii) Implied Limitations and Exceptions in the Berne/TRIPS Framework
(iv) Limitations and Exceptions in the Digital Copyright Regime
14.4 Finding Development in the International Copyright Framework
14.4.1 The Case for Development-Inducing Limitations and Exceptions
14.4.2 Past Efforts to Address Development Interests in the Berne Convention
14.4.3 Why Does Copyright’s Development Role Require an International Solution?
(i) Coordination Problems
14.5 The Case for Development-Inducing Limitations and Exceptions
14.5.1 Distinguishing the Public Interest, Creativity and Development
14.5.2 Mismatched Berne/TRIPS Limitations and Exceptions
14.6 Reframing International Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Development
14.6.1 Steps toward a Redesign of International Copyright Law
(i) Strict Enforcement of Copyright’s Boundaries in a Local Context
(ii) Harmonizing the Education Exception
(iii) Maximizing Use of Authorial Works for Human Capital Formation
14.6.2 Mandatory International Limitations and Exceptions
Copyright Law in an Age of Limitations and Exceptions
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.