Copyright and Free Speech Rights

By letter of 1 March 1993, the Copyright Compliance Office of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) informed a copyshop that it had “without prior permission, made multiple copies of excerpts of copyrighted works for distribution to students in course anthologies.” Stating that this copying was an infringement of copyright, the letter requested the copyshop to sign an enclosed agreement stating it would not commit such acts again and to pay a penalty of “$2,500 to help defray the costs of the AAP\u27s copyright enforcement program in this matter and to impress on your business the need to operate in compliance with controlling law.” The letter contained a promise not to sue for infringement if the copyshop complied with conditions. One of the offenses of the copyshop was distributing the copies after permission was requested, but before it was granted. And one of the works alleged to have been infringed--a drama, “The London Merchant” by George Lillo, copied from the Signet Classic Book of 18th & 19th Century British Drama -- was not (and had never been) protected by American copyright, the “controlling law.” If the actor in this scenario had been the U.S. Secretary of Education, a court would surely conclude that the menacing letter violated the free speech rights of the professors and students for whom the copyshop made the copies. Why, then, should a powerful trade association not be held accountable on similar grounds? The traditional answer -- that the AAP is not a governmental agency -- is hollow in view of the fact that: 1) the impact is the same as if a government agent had been the actor; 2) the private individual as actor assumed a law enforcement role; and 3) the actor purported to act under the authority of laws enacted by Congress. The short answer to the question is that the relationship between copyright and free speech rights has not become a part of legal culture. The primary reason almost surely is that judges view copyright against the backdrop of property law. As one court said, “The first amendment is not a license to trammel on legally recognized rights in intellectual property.” Such a position almost surely forecloses a recognition that while copyright protects the author\u27s exclusive right to publish, the First Amendment protects the citizen\u27s right to read what is published. Our argument here is that there can be no complete understanding of copyright law without an understanding of its relationship to the First Amendment, arguably the single most important provision of the U.S. Constitution. In pedagogical terms, the relationship is that the copyright clause protects the right to teach (by publishing original works of authorship) and the First Amendment protects the right to learn (by reading the published works) in case the copyright owner wishes to deny access to the work. In this Article we assume a policy favoring a public right of access to use copyrighted materials for their constitutional purpose, learning. The premises are that: 1) the right of free speech includes the right of access to copyrighted materials; 2) there are free speech values in the copyright clause itself; 3) to protect the constitutional policies of copyright in today\u27s world we need to return to first principles; and 4) the problem of how to accommodate the public\u27s right of access and the copyright owner\u27s right to profit can best be resolved by recognizing that copyright law is public law, not private law, and by acting accordingly. Finally, we can recognize that copyright permits an incursion into the public domain for public purposes more important than the private purposes that are touted as necessary to induce the creation of copyrighted works

Bezlotoxumab for Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection

BACKGROUND Clostridium difficile is the most common cause of infectious diarrhea in hospitalized patients. Recurrences are common after antibiotic therapy. Actoxumab and bezlotoxumab are human monoclonal antibodies against C. difficile toxins A and B, respectively. METHODS We conducted two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials, MODIFY I and MODIFY II, involving 2655 adults receiving oral standard-of-care antibiotics for primary or recurrent C. difficile infection. Participants received an infusion of bezlotoxumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight), actoxumab plus bezlotoxumab (10 mg per kilogram each), or placebo; actoxumab alone (10 mg per kilogram) was given in MODIFY I but discontinued after a planned interim analysis. The primary end point was recurrent infection (new episode after initial clinical cure) within 12 weeks after infusion in the modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS In both trials, the rate of recurrent C. difficile infection was significantly lower with bezlotoxumab alone than with placebo (MODIFY I: 17% [67 of 386] vs. 28% [109 of 395]; adjusted difference, −10.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −15.9 to −4.3; P<0.001; MODIFY II: 16% [62 of 395] vs. 26% [97 of 378]; adjusted difference, −9.9 percentage points; 95% CI, −15.5 to −4.3; P<0.001) and was significantly lower with actoxumab plus bezlotoxumab than with placebo (MODIFY I: 16% [61 of 383] vs. 28% [109 of 395]; adjusted difference, −11.6 percentage points; 95% CI, −17.4 to −5.9; P<0.001; MODIFY II: 15% [58 of 390] vs. 26% [97 of 378]; adjusted difference, −10.7 percentage points; 95% CI, −16.4 to −5.1; P<0.001). In prespecified subgroup analyses (combined data set), rates of recurrent infection were lower in both groups that received bezlotoxumab than in the placebo group in subpopulations at high risk for recurrent infection or for an adverse outcome. The rates of initial clinical cure were 80% with bezlotoxumab alone, 73% with actoxumab plus bezlotoxumab, and 80% with placebo; the rates of sustained cure (initial clinical cure without recurrent infection in 12 weeks) were 64%, 58%, and 54%, respectively. The rates of adverse events were similar among these groups; the most common events were diarrhea and nausea. CONCLUSIONS Among participants receiving antibiotic treatment for primary or recurrent C. difficile infection, bezlotoxumab was associated with a substantially lower rate of recurrent infection than placebo and had a safety profile similar to that of placebo. The addition of actoxumab did not improve efficacy. (Funded by Merck; MODIFY I and MODIFY II ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01241552 and NCT01513239.

Iron Behaving Badly: Inappropriate Iron Chelation as a Major Contributor to the Aetiology of Vascular and Other Progressive Inflammatory and Degenerative Diseases

The production of peroxide and superoxide is an inevitable consequence of aerobic metabolism, and while these particular "reactive oxygen species" (ROSs) can exhibit a number of biological effects, they are not of themselves excessively reactive and thus they are not especially damaging at physiological concentrations. However, their reactions with poorly liganded iron species can lead to the catalytic production of the very reactive and dangerous hydroxyl radical, which is exceptionally damaging, and a major cause of chronic inflammation. We review the considerable and wide-ranging evidence for the involvement of this combination of (su)peroxide and poorly liganded iron in a large number of physiological and indeed pathological processes and inflammatory disorders, especially those involving the progressive degradation of cellular and organismal performance. These diseases share a great many similarities and thus might be considered to have a common cause (i.e. iron-catalysed free radical and especially hydroxyl radical generation). The studies reviewed include those focused on a series of cardiovascular, metabolic and neurological diseases, where iron can be found at the sites of plaques and lesions, as well as studies showing the significance of iron to aging and longevity. The effective chelation of iron by natural or synthetic ligands is thus of major physiological (and potentially therapeutic) importance. As systems properties, we need to recognise that physiological observables have multiple molecular causes, and studying them in isolation leads to inconsistent patterns of apparent causality when it is the simultaneous combination of multiple factors that is responsible. This explains, for instance, the decidedly mixed effects of antioxidants that have been observed, etc...Comment: 159 pages, including 9 Figs and 2184 reference

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570