Google vs. The Copyright Tradition

Google Rules ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 65-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne Elizabeth Gray
Keyword(s):  
Operating System ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Benefits ◽  
Google Books ◽  
Google Search

This chapter provides an examination of Google’s US copyright case law, covering disputes over Google’s use, without permission, of copyrighted content in Google Search, Google Images, Google Books, YouTube, and its phone operating system Android. When resolving Google’s copyright disputes, US courts have considered the public benefits of Google’s services and have exhibited a willingness to limit private property rights in favor of the public interest in accessing information and content. These decisions have legitimized Google’s activities, and they have gifted Google private gains that fuel its information empire.

scholarly journals Restrictions of Private Property Right in Terms of the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Experience of the US, UK and Ukraine

2021 ◽  
pp. 263-277
Author(s):  
Kateryna Nekit
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Business Owners ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
The Us ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Spread Of Infection

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on human rights. Many rights have been restricted to prevent the spread of infection. The restrictions on private property rights during the pandemic were not so obvious, but no less significant. The massive closure of restaurants, cafes, cinemas and other crowded places has resulted in significant losses for business owners. The question arose about the admissibility of such restrictions on the rights of owners, as well as the need to compensate for the losses caused. The purpose of this article is to study the criteria developed by international practice under which the restriction of property rights is allowed, and approaches to resolving issues of compensation for losses caused to owners when it is necessary to ensure a balance of private and public interests in Ukraine. The article also analyzes approaches to resolving issues of compensation for losses caused to owners as a result of restrictions on their rights, developed in the case law of the United States and Great Britain.

Inclusion and Representation: The Settlement of Property Claims of the Dispossessed in the Aftermath of an Armed Conflict

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-425
Author(s):  
Tamar Megiddo ◽  
Eyal Benvenisti
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Good ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Property Owners ◽  
The Government

AbstractThis Article examines the authority of states to settle individual private property claims in post–conflict negotiations towards settlement. We analyze this question by exploring the limits of states’ authority to take or limit private property rights for the public good. We argue that this authority rests on two cumulative justifications: the inclusion of the property owners among the public that stands to benefit from the public good, and their representation by the government that decides on the taking of the property. In post–conflict settlement, the negotiating states may redistribute both private property and the public good between and within their respective communities. Their authority to redistribute continues to rests on the same justifications of inclusion and representation. Hence, their authority extends only to the redistribution of property of owners who are members of the respective communities that negotiate the agreement, and who are represented by a negotiating government.

Property Systems and Environmental Regulation

2019 ◽  
pp. 702-718
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Environmental Regulation ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Property Holding ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the impact of property rights on environmental regulation. It first considers a range of property paradigms and how they relate to environmental law, including entitlements-based models of property and resource allocation models of property, before turning to ‘public’ and ‘private’ conceptions of property. It takes note of the fact that environmental protection is a ‘public’ or communal interest, but assimilating public interest objectives into systems of property law based on notions of private right has been problematic, especially for Western systems. The chapter also analyses the interactions between ‘public’ interest and ‘private’ property rights; the role of customary law and cultural norms in the organization of property holding and resource use, using the Maori case as example; and how property structures foster environmental stewardship.

POLITICS AND PROPERTY IN NATURAL RESOURCES

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-94
Author(s):  
Andrew P. Morriss
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Natural Resource ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Environmental Problems ◽  
Economic Problem ◽  
Extractive Industries ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Natural Resource Extraction

Modern discussions of natural resources focus on increasing public control over extractive industries proposing measures that range from increasing the public's share of the gain via royalties and taxes to regulating extractive activities to prevent environmental problems to outright expropriation of private investments. This article argues that such efforts are counterproductive because the fundamental economic problem of natural resources is producing the knowledge necessary to locate and extract resource deposits. The public benefit comes from enabling the use of the resources and the increased economic activity their discovery produces rather than from royalties or expropriation. The key question in designing natural resource laws is thus their effects on the incentive to discover and manage resources. Private property rights in natural resources are the best way to provide such incentives. Fortunately, the combination of property rights and tort law principles (trespass and nuisance) enables property rights to solve environmental problems related to natural resource extraction as well.

scholarly journals Trademarks Worth a Thousand Words : Freedom of Expression and the Use of the Trademarks of Others

2012 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 877-907
Author(s):  
Teresa Scassa
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Trademark Protection ◽  
Expressive Content

Trademarks play an important role in facilitating critical speech in an increasingly corporate capitalist society. Not only do they serve as markers for expressive content on the Internet, they can also be used as vehicles for the communication of critical messages about the trademark owner or its products or services. In this paper, the author examines the implicit balance in the Trade-marks Act between freedom of expression values and trademark rights, and argues that it is being significantly altered by the contemporary push for greater trademark protection. The author identifies specific problems that emerge from Canadian case law relating to freedom of expression and trademark law. These include the treatment by courts of intellectual property rights as private property rights, inattention to the trademark/copyright overlap, the troublesome distinction between commercial and non-commercial uses, and the phenomenon of trademark bullying. The author argues for a sharp evolution in Canadian case law that would establish clear parameters for critical speech using trademarks.

Equità, efficienza e diritti di proprietà

1989 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-190
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Clerico
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Imperfect Information ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Market Failures ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right

Abstract Because of the market failures private property rights not always are such to obtain socially acceptable outcomes through the exchange. To guarantee social welfare the policy maker usually limits the property rights. Such limitations concern: the existence of the private property rights in itself; the right of transferring and exchanging the above mentioned; the right of discretionary use of the private property.The restrictions to private property rights are motivated by efficiency and equity. On the efficiency side the public policy can be set up by three reasons: presence of externalities; existence of imperfect information; difficulties to coordinate economic activity and exchange.Efficiency and equity are obviously affected by any restriction of the property rights. We face the fact that often the equity aim is not a universal aim but instead a particular one restricted to some social group. On the equity side public policy claims its right to intervene particularly when the right holder earns pure profits limitative of the consumer welfare and exploits his market power.Any restriction to private property rights is either a source of benefits for people not paying the relative cost or a cause of cost for people not enjoying any benefit. Ideally it would be necessary either to levy a tax or to give a subsidy in order to bring back the initial welfare conditions. This rarely happens above all because of tangled effects and transaction costs.

scholarly journals Public Purpose as a Justification for Expropriation of Rural Land Rights in Ethiopia

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brightman Gebremichael
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Private Land ◽  
Rural Land ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Purpose ◽  
The Government

AbstractExpropriation of private land rights involves two contradictory interests: there is a public need for land; and landholders expect security of tenure and protection of their private property rights. A satisfactory expropriation policy must strike a balance between these interests. Legislation must therefore only authorize the government to expropriate land rights for a clear and limited public purpose under the supervision of an independent body. The author argues that Ethiopia's rural land laws have defined the public purpose for the expropriation of rural land rights in different ways depending on the nature of the landholders. For peasants and pastoralists the public purpose requirement is defined vaguely and broadly, whereas for investors the concept is limited to projects implemented by government. The author argues that the protection of private property rights and security of tenure are further undermined by a legislative failure to authorize affected people to appeal to an independent body on the basis that the public purpose requirement has not been satisfied.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document