Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Fair's Fair: An Argument For Mandatory Disclosure Of Technological Protection Measures, Robert C. Denicola
Fair's Fair: An Argument For Mandatory Disclosure Of Technological Protection Measures, Robert C. Denicola
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Section 1201(a)(1) of the Copyright Act prohibits the act of "circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work," including, for example, by-passing password protection or encryption intended to restrict access to paying customers. Section 1201(a)(2) prohibits the manufacture or sale of "any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" primarily designed for the purpose of circumventing access controls on copyrighted works. Additionally, § 1202(b) prohibits the manufacture or sale of products, devices or services primarily designed to circumvent "a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner"--for example, a technological measure intended to …
Better, Faster, Cheaper - Later: What Happens When Technologies Are Suppressed, Kurt M. Saunders, Linda Levine
Better, Faster, Cheaper - Later: What Happens When Technologies Are Suppressed, Kurt M. Saunders, Linda Levine
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Some inventions never see the light of day. Others enter the spotlight after long delays and the factors that slowed the arrival of that innovation are ignored. Technology suppression is a real occurrence involving well known and widely used products. In this Article, we examine the topic of technology suppression, seeking to reveal the tactics of suppression and the patterns and conditions under which it occurs. Current examples of US technologies are used to highlight the significance of this phenomenon. We consider related factors, including market and innovation forces, and we identify suppressive tactics, using illustrative cases where patent nonuse …
A World Without Privacy: Why Property Does Not Define The Limits Of The Right Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Sherry F. Colb
A World Without Privacy: Why Property Does Not Define The Limits Of The Right Against Unreasonable Searches And Seizures, Sherry F. Colb
Michigan Law Review
Imagine for a moment that it is the year 2020. An American company has developed a mind-reading device, called the "brain wave recorder" ("BWR"). The BWR is a highly sensitive instrument that detects electrical impulses from any brain within ten feet of the machine. Though previously thought impossible, the BWR can discern the following information about the target individual: (1) whether he or she is happy, sad, anxious, depressed, or irritable; (2) whether he or she is even slightly sexually aroused; (3) whether he or she is taking any medication (and if so, what the medication is); (4) if a …
The Fourth Amendment And New Technologies: Constitutional Myths And The Case For Caution, Orin S. Kerr
The Fourth Amendment And New Technologies: Constitutional Myths And The Case For Caution, Orin S. Kerr
Michigan Law Review
To one who values federalism, federal preemption of state law may significantly threaten the autonomy and core regulatory authority of The Supreme Court recently considered whether a1mmg an infrared thermal imaging device at a suspect's home can violate the Fourth Amendment. Kyllo v. United States announced a new and comprehensive rule: the government's warrantless use of senseenhancing technology that is "not in general use" violates the Fourth Amendment when it yields "details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion." Justice Scalia's majority opinion acknowledged that the Court's rule was not needed to resolve the case …
Katz Is Dead. Long Live Katz, Peter P. Swire
Katz Is Dead. Long Live Katz, Peter P. Swire
Michigan Law Review
Katz v. United States is the king of Supreme Court surveillance cases. Written in 1967, it struck down the earlier regime of property rules, declaring that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." The concurrence by Justice Harlan announced the new regime - court-issued warrants are required where there is an infringement on a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy." Together with the companion case Berger v. New York, Katz has stood for a grand conception of the Fourth Amendment as a bulwark against wiretaps and other emerging forms of surveillance. Professor Orin Kerr, in his excellent article, shows that …
Technology, Privacy, And The Courts: A Reply To Colb And Swire, Orin S. Kerr
Technology, Privacy, And The Courts: A Reply To Colb And Swire, Orin S. Kerr
Michigan Law Review
I thank Sherry Colb and Peter Swire for devoting their time and considerable talents to responding to my article, The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution. I will conclude with a few comments.