scholarly journals Copyright Policymaking as Procedural Democratic Process: A Discourse Theoretic Perspective on ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarie Bridy
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The Public ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
College Of Law ◽  
Security Information ◽  
University Of Idaho

In Bring in the Nerds: Secrecy, National Security, and the Creation of Intellectual Property Law, David Levine juxtaposes two starkly different copyright policymaking processes: the closed international process that produced the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the relatively open domestic process that led quite dramatically to the scuttling of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). He reads the two processes against each other as a prelude to recommending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reform. The amendment to FOIA that Professor Levine proposes would open the international IP policymaking process to greater public scrutiny by creating a qualified public right to "foreign relations" national security information, which was systematically withheld from the public during the ACTA negotiations. This article, prepared for the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal's 2012 Symposium, "Piracy and the Politics of Policing: Legislating and Enforcing Copyright Law," is a response to Professor Levine that draws on Jürgen Habermas' discourse theory of procedural democracy to examine the policymaking dynamics of ACTA and SOPA/PIPA and to assess the democracy-enhancing potential of the FOIA reform Professor Levine proposes.Annemarie BridyProfessor<http://www.uidaho.edu/law/faculty/annemariebridy>|University of Idaho College of Law|PO Box 83720-0051|Boise, ID 83720|Ph. 208.364.4583Affiliate Scholar<https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/annemarie-bridy>|Stanford Center for Internet and SocietyAffiliate Fellow<http://isp.yale.edu/people-directory?type=19>|Yale Information Society ProjectSSRN<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=630766>|HeinOnline<http://heinonline.org/HOL/AuthorProfile?collection=journals&search_name=Bridy,%20Annemarie&base=js>|LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/annemariebridy>|Twitter<https://twitter.com/AnnemarieBridy>

8. Public Interest Immunity and Related Matters

2021 ◽  
pp. 190-203
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Proper Functioning ◽  
The Law

Chapter 8 examines the doctrine of public interest immunity. It discusses the development of the law; ‘class’ claims and ‘contents’ claims; national security and analogous concerns; proper functioning of the public service; the two main contexts in which public interest immunity disputes in criminal cases have arisen—the disclosure of the identity of police informers, and the disclosure of the location of police observation points; how the doctrine of public interest immunity stands alongside, and probably overlaps with, the operations of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which governs the disclosure of sources of information contained in publications.

8. Public Interest Immunity and Related Matters

Evidence ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Proper Functioning ◽  
The Law

Chapter 8 examines the doctrine of public interest immunity. It discusses the development of the law; ‘class’ claims and ‘contents’ claims; national security and analogous concerns; proper functioning of the public service; the two main contexts in which public interest immunity disputes in criminal cases have arisen—the disclosure of the identity of police informers, and the disclosure of the location of police observation points; how the doctrine of public interest immunity stands alongside, and probably overlaps with, the operations of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which governs the disclosure of sources of information contained in publications.

scholarly journals Copyright's Digital Deputies: DMCA-Plus Enforcement by Internet Intermediaries

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarie Bridy
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
College Of Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Secondary Liability ◽  
University Of Idaho ◽  
Due Process Rights ◽  
Voluntary Basis

In the years since passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), the copyright industries have demanded that online intermediaries - both those covered by the DMCA and those falling outside the statute's ambit - do more than the law requires to protect their intellectual property rights. In particular, they have sought new ways to reach and shutter "pirate sites" beyond the reach of United States law. Their demands have been answered through an expanding regime of nominally voluntary "DMCA-plus" enforcement.This chapter surveys the current landscape of DMCA-plus enforcement by dividing such enforcement into two categories: Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 DMCA-plus enforcement is cooperation by DMCA-covered intermediaries over and above what is required for safe harbor. Type 2 DMCA-plus enforcement is cooperation by intermediaries whose activities fall outside the scope of the DMCA's safe harbors and who are not liable for their customers' copyright infringements under secondary liability rules.As the gap widens between what the law requires and what intermediaries are agreeing to do on a voluntary basis, there is reason to be concerned about the expressive and due process rights of users and website operators, who have no seat at the table when intermediaries and copyright owners negotiate "best practices" for mitigating online infringement, including which sanctions to impose, which content to remove, and which websites to block without judicial intervention.Annemarie BridyProfessor<http://www.uidaho.edu/law/faculty/annemariebridy>|University of Idaho College of Law|PO Box 83720-0051|Boise, ID 83720|Ph. 208.364.4583Affiliate Scholar<https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/annemarie-bridy>|Stanford Center for Internet and SocietyAffiliate Fellow<http://isp.yale.edu/people-directory?type=19>|Yale Information Society ProjectSSRN<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=630766>|HeinOnline<http://heinonline.org/HOL/AuthorProfile?collection=journals&search_name=Bridy,%20Annemarie&base=js>|LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/annemariebridy>|Twitter<https://twitter.com/AnnemarieBridy>

Information Is Power

2021 ◽  
pp. 230-245
Author(s):  
Mary-Rose Papandrea
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Government Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Press ◽  
Security Information ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Government Secrecy ◽  
Right Of Access

Balancing the equally important but sometimes conflicting priorities of government transparency for public accountability versus government secrecy for national security seems intractable. One possibility is to recognize a constitutional right of access to government information. This would support democratic self-governance, allow the public to engage in meaningful oversight, and provide access to necessary information without the game of leaks. It could radically refocus arguments regarding the rights of government employees to reveal national security information and of third parties to publish it. Recognizing this right faces an uphill battle against decades of First Amendment jurisprudence. It also faces innumerable logistical and practical obstacles. It would not eliminate the need to determine when the public, the press, and government insiders can disclose national security information. Nevertheless, the ongoing collapse of press access norms and government’s increasing desire to operate outside public view may warrant dramatically rethinking First Amendment scope and protections.

Getting at the Live Archive: On Access to Information Research in Canada

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 623-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Walby ◽  
Mike Larsen
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
Official Discourse ◽  
Dirty Data ◽  
Information Research ◽  
Public Record ◽  
Constitutional Right

Most of the draft documents, memoranda, communications, and other textual materials amassed by government agencies do not become public record unless efforts are taken to obtain their release. One mechanism for doing so is “access to information” (ATI) or “freedom of information” (FOI) law. Individuals and organizations in Canada have a quasi-constitutional right to request information from federal, provincial, and municipal levels of government. A layer of bureaucracy has been created to handle these requests and manage the disclosure of information, with many organizations having special divisions, coordinators, and associated personnel for this purpose. The vast majority of public organizations are subject to the federal Access to Information Act (ATIA) or the provincial and municipal equivalents.We have been using ATI requests to get at spectrum of internal government texts. At one end of the spectrum, we are seeking what Gary Marx calls “dirty data” produced by policing, national security, and intelligence agencies. Dirty data represent “information which [are] kept secret and whose revelation would be discrediting or costly in terms of various types of sanctioning.” This material can take the form of the quintessential “smoking gun” document, or, more often, a seemingly innocuous trail of records that, upon analysis, can be illuminating. Dirty data are often kept from the public record. At the other end of the disclosure spectrum are those front-stage texts that represent “official discourse,” which are carefully crafted and released to the public according to government messaging campaigns.

scholarly journals Access to Information Held by Public Authorities

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Record Management ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Definition Of Information ◽  
The Right

Chapter 4 considers the administrative structure created by the Freedom of Information Act 2000; the right to information itself; the public authorities that are subject to the right; and the way in which requests for information should be handled. The chapter addresses the form of the request; the definition of ‘information’; the problems that tribunals have had in deciding whether information is held by a public authority; time limits; the transfer of requests from one authority to another; the duty to provide advice and assistance; fees and costs; vexatious and repeated requests; and the notice which has to be given when a request is refused. The chapter then considers the automatic disclosure of information through publication schemes, the need for consultation with third parties, and record management.

scholarly journals Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarie Bridy
Keyword(s):  
Information Society ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Quarter Century ◽  
Current Structure ◽  
Slow Development ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
College Of Law ◽  
University Of Idaho

For more than a quarter century, interest among copyright scholars in the question of AI authorship has waxed and waned as the popular conversation about AI has oscillated between exaggerated predictions for its future and premature pronouncements of its death. For policymakers, the issue has sat on the horizon, always within view but never actually pressing. To recognize this fact, however, is not to say that we can or should ignore the challenge that AI authorship presents to copyright law's underlying assumptions about creativity. On the contrary, the relatively slow development of AI offers a reprieve from the reactive, crisis-driven model of policymaking that has dominated copyright law in the digital era.By engaging and extending insights from two relatively discrete lines of existing scholarship - the postmodern critique of romantic authorship and the more pragmatic literature on copyright in works produced with the aid of computers - this Article seeks to answer the vexing copyright questions that arise from the artificially intelligent production of cultural works. It does so by developing the argument that all creativity is inherently algorithmic and that works produced autonomously by computers are therefore less heterogeneous to both their human counterparts and the current structure of copyright law than appearances may at first suggest.Annemarie BridyProfessor<http://www.uidaho.edu/law/faculty/annemariebridy>|University of Idaho College of Law|PO Box 83720-0051|Boise, ID 83720|Ph. 208.364.4583Affiliate Scholar<https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/annemarie-bridy>|Stanford Center for Internet and SocietyAffiliate Fellow<http://isp.yale.edu/people-directory?type=19>|Yale Information Society ProjectSSRN<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=630766>|HeinOnline<http://heinonline.org/HOL/AuthorProfile?collection=journals&search_name=Bridy,%20Annemarie&base=js>|LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/annemariebridy>|Twitter<https://twitter.com/AnnemarieBridy>

scholarly journals ACTA and the Specter of Graduated Response

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarie Bridy
Keyword(s):  
Service Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Digital Environment ◽  
Internet Users ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
College Of Law ◽  
Copyright Enforcement ◽  
University Of Idaho ◽  
Final Round

This article considers the evolution of ACTA's "digital environment" provisions in the context of concerns raised early in the negotiations that the agreement would require signatories to mandate graduated response regimes for online copyright enforcement (à la France's controversial HADOPI system). The Consolidated Text of ACTA released in October 2010, following the final round of negotiations in Japan, contains no provision mandating the adoption of graduated response. Such regimes are tacitly endorsed in the agreement, however, through language in the preamble and the digital environment provisions concerning the promotion of greater cooperation between rights owners and service providers. Moreover, opponents of graduated response should be wary of the fact that public law mechanisms - be they domestic or international - are not the only means by which graduated response can effectively become the law for Internet users. The United States and Ireland provide examples of the trend toward private ordering in the project of online copyright enforcement.Annemarie BridyProfessor<http://www.uidaho.edu/law/faculty/annemariebridy>|University of Idaho College of Law|PO Box 83720-0051|Boise, ID 83720|Ph. 208.364.4583Affiliate Scholar<https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/annemarie-bridy>|Stanford Center for Internet and SocietyAffiliate Fellow<http://isp.yale.edu/people-directory?type=19>|Yale Information Society ProjectSSRN<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=630766>|HeinOnline<http://heinonline.org/HOL/AuthorProfile?collection=journals&search_name=Bridy,%20Annemarie&base=js>|LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/annemariebridy>|Twitter<https://twitter.com/AnnemarieBridy>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document