Last week, I stuck my toe into a little debate on Twitter about the word weaponize, when Professor Cathay Y. N. Smith[1] defended her use of the expression “Weaponizing Copyright.” Smith was citing the title and subject of her own draft paper, and because I still hate Twitter for discussing complex issues, I read the 73-page draft over the weekend. ...
In a paper published in 2020, [1] scholars Danielle Keats Citron and Mary Anne Franks advocate a relatively modest and elegant approach to amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996—changes that would directly help the statute’s unintended victims—but it is difficult to imagine how any nuanced consideration of the 230 issue will make headway in the current ...
The Committee for Justice held this panel discussion about the decision in Google v. Oracle. Featuring Adam Mossoff Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Zvi Rosen Assistant Professor at the Southern Illinois University School of Law, Steven Tepp President & CEO of Sentinel Worldwide, and moderated by Curt Levey, President of the Committee for ...
You wouldn’t think that a state entity would have the right to seize your intellectual property any more than it would have the right to seize other forms of property without due process. But it can. In this podcast, I talk with filmmaker Rick Allen and copyright expert and advocate Kevin Madigan about the challenge that state sovereign immunity poses ...
Once the die was cast (i.e. after oral arguments) in Google v. Oracle, I don’t think I was alone in feeling that if the Supreme Court held that the computer code at issue in this case was not properly a subject of copyright protection, that would be an acceptably narrow decision, even though many might disagree with it as a ...
