Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Ad-supported (1)
- Behavioral economics (1)
- Broadcast media (1)
- Computer Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
-
- Content (1)
- Copyright law (1)
- Digital media (1)
- Economics (1)
- FCC (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Fox Television (1)
- Freeconomics (1)
- Golden Globe (1)
- Indecency (1)
- Institutionalized word taboo (1)
- Intellectual Property Law (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Law and Technology (1)
- Moral rights (1)
- Multisided markets (1)
- Pacifica (1)
- Profanity (1)
- Science and Technology (1)
- Taboo (1)
- Utilitarianism (1)
- Zero-price effect (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law
Institutionalized Word Taboo: The Continuing Saga Of Fcc Indecency Regulation, Christopher M. Fairman
Institutionalized Word Taboo: The Continuing Saga Of Fcc Indecency Regulation, Christopher M. Fairman
Christopher M Fairman
Indecency regulation by the Federal Communication Commission and Supreme Court is the product of word taboo—the subconscious, emotional, involuntary avoidance of certain words out of fear that some harm will occur if they are spoken. Acting in tandem, the Court and the Commissioners create institutionalized word taboo based upon the assumption that broadcast media’s pervasive and intrusive presence into the home endangers unsupervised children. Technological innovation renders this premise invalid today, but institutionalized word taboo remains. This article (1) traces the rise of indecency regulation, (2) explains the invalidity of the assumptions used to justify it, (3) introduces word taboo …
Copyright Freeconomics, John M. Newman
Copyright Freeconomics, John M. Newman
John M. Newman
Innovation has wreaked creative destruction on traditional content platforms. During the decade following Napster’s rise and fall, industry organizations launched litigation campaigns to combat the dramatic downward pricing pressure created by the advent of zero-price, copyright-infringing content. These campaigns attracted a torrent of debate, still ongoing, among scholars and stakeholders—but this debate has missed the forest for the trees. Industry organizations have abandoned litigation efforts, and many copyright owners now compete directly with infringing products by offering licit content at a price of $0.
This sea change has ushered in an era of “copyright freeconomics.” Drawing on an emerging body …