For those of you who like podcasts, Doug Lichtman from UCLA does an excellent one called IP Colloquium, and last year he did an episode on the Harry Potter case we’re reading. It’s a good assembly of perspectives because he has a guest representing each side of the case and he has his own view of how the case should have come out.
-
Blog under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
-
About
-
In this course we will focus on a seemingly esoteric legal subject that is now located at the heart of many social, cultural, economic, and political conflicts: copyright law. While initially codified as a state granted monopoly designed to to encourage publishers and established authors to invest in culture, copyright law has now extended into every part of our day to day life and interaction with media. Moreover, the law is obviously and increasingly dangerously out of touch with digital culture. But what is really at stake in the copyright battles? Does our law reward profit, control, or culture? Should culture be owned? Does it even make sense to call it "intellectual property"?
In our efforts to better understand these issues, we will read both primary and secondary materials, covering subjects ranging from the birth of copyright to contemporary justifications for copyright reform, analyze relevant and interesting documentary films, and enjoy guest lectures from a range of established speakers.
-
In this course we will focus on a seemingly esoteric legal subject that is now located at the heart of many social, cultural, economic, and political conflicts: copyright law. While initially codified as a state granted monopoly designed to to encourage publishers and established authors to invest in culture, copyright law has now extended into every part of our day to day life and interaction with media. Moreover, the law is obviously and increasingly dangerously out of touch with digital culture. But what is really at stake in the copyright battles? Does our law reward profit, control, or culture? Should culture be owned? Does it even make sense to call it "intellectual property"?
