«Jardines vallados» y la Stationers’ Company 2.0

La llei de drets d'autor es va originar com una llei dissenyada per a regular el comerç de treballs impresos, no pas com una llei dissenyada per a protegir els interessos d'autors. L'Estatut d'Anne ho va canviar concedint els drets d'autor a l'autor, la qual cosa creava la possibilitat de negociacions de prepublicació. Avui aquest acord s'ha trencat. En la nostra era de la computació en núvol i el web 2.0, els intermediaris no autors proporcionen plataformes que constitueixen les eines d'autoria, les eines de publicitat i les eines de distribució comercial. En aquest nou ecosistema, veiem una tornada al model de la Stationers' Company, en el qual el poder legal sobre la producció d'autor està a les mans dels propietaris de les tecnologies intermediàries. Així, doncs, el futur dels drets d'autor digitals sembla cada vegada més una tornada als seus orígens, atès que els autors tenen un paper de vassalls obligats pels senyors de les plataformes on treballen. Copyright law originated as a law designed to regulate the commerce of printing, not as a law designed to protect the interests of authors. The Statute of Anne changed this by vesting copyright with the author and thereby creating the possibility of pre-publication negotiations. Today that bargain is being broken. In our era of cloud-computing and Web 2.0, non-author intermediaries provide platforms that constitute the tools of authorship, the tools of publicity, and the tools of commercial distribution. Within this new ecosystem, we are seeing a return to the model of the Stationers' Company, where legal power over authorial production is vested in the hands of the owners of intermediary technologies. The future of digital copyright thus increasingly resembles a return to its early history, as authors play the legal role of vassals beholden to the lords of the platforms where they labor.El derecho de autor nació para regular el comercio de las obras impresas, no para proteger los intereses de los autores. El Statute of Anne vino a cambiar esta situación, confiriendo los derechos al autor, lo que creó la posibilidad de entablar negociaciones previas a la publicación. Hoy en día, este pacto se está rompiendo. En nuestra era de computación en la nube y de la Web 2.0, intermediarios no autores proporcionan plataformas que constituyen las herramientas para la autoría, la publicidad y la distribución comercial. En este nuevo ecosistema vemos un regreso al modelo de la Stationers' Company, donde las facultades legales sobre la producción de los autores se atribuye a los dueños de las tecnologías intermediarias. De este modo, el futuro del derecho de autor en el entorno digital parece cada vez más un retorno a su época histórica original, donde los autores juegan el papel de vasallos sometidos a los señores de las plataformas en que trabaja

User-Generated Content and Virtual Worlds

Many legal commentators have claimed that virtual worlds owe their popularity to their focus on user-generated content and user creativity. While this is true in part and authorial freedom may draw consumers to virtual worlds, user-generated content can also pose risks to virtual world business from both an aesthetic and legal perspective. A significant tension exists between permitting participants to create content freely and building a successful virtual environment. In some instances, user-generated content can overwhelm virtual worlds. The future of user-generated content in virtual worlds is not clear, given the significant practical and legal problems that accompany user-generated content

Innovative Copyright

For over a decade, Michael Carrier has been exploring the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property ( IP ) law, contributing many articles that offer new solutions and approaches to the vexing problems confronting the law of innovation. Carrier\u27s academic writing is situated in a voluminous scholarly discourse about the appropriate rules and goals of the laws of copyright, patent, and antitrust. While Carrier easily could have written an insider tome for specialists in this area, his new book, Innovation for the 21st Century, is targeted at a broader audience. Carrier\u27s book is directed at legislators, jurists, and opinion makers-as well as interested readers-who want to understand these questions and may play some part in legal reforms. It follows, given his broad audience, that Carrier faces some challenges describing the specialized fields of copyright, patent, and antitrust law

The Trademark Function of Authorship

The use of authorial marks in relation to the sale of creative works, like the use of business trademarks in relation to the sale of goods and services, creates social benefits that deserve legal protection. Authorial attribution acts as an incentive to authorial production, provides valuable information to consumers, and provides additional social benefits that go beyond issues of market efficiency. However, the use of authorial marks, like the use of trademarks, can create social harms. Just as counterfeiters place illegitimate trademarks on goods, exploiters of entertainment markets may be tempted to misattribute authorship. In the United States, such deceptive practices were traditionally subject to the remedial mechanisms of trademark and unfair competition laws. However, in a recent decision, Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003), the United States Supreme Court held that federal trademark law does not address the misattribution of authorship. The Dastar decision stated that trademark protections were designed to protect the creators of tangible products sold in the marketplace. The Court stated that trademark law was not designed to protect the interests of those who originate creative ideas or communications. This article explores society\u27s interests in ascertaining the authorship of creative works and explains how those interests both resemble and diverge from standard trademark interests. It concludes that authorship marks are sufficiently analogous to trademarks that the Dastar approach is misguided. Consumers can and should be protected from misattributions of authorship where such misattributions can easily be remedied by law and where the failure to provide such remedies is likely to lead to significant consumer harms