Law Commons^™

Copyright Owners' Putative Interests In Privacy, Reputation, And Control: A Reply To Goold, Wendy J. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

My own view is that Goold overstates the explanatory role of tort law. But even were that not the case, the courts need to reach some kind of “settled” understanding on these various interests before a cause of action is created or definitively rejected, and that no such consensus on the three matters mentioned yet exists, whether they are viewed as forms of tort or otherwise. Goold’s work may nevertheless be an important step toward reaching closure on these and other open questions in copyright law.

Copyright Owners' Putative Interests In Privacy, Reputation, And Control: A Reply To Goold - Draft - 05-15-2017, Wendy J. Gordon

Scholarship Chronologically

Patrick Goold’s interesting new article, Unbundling the “Tort” of Copyright Infringement (“Unbundling”) centers on a key lack of clarity that Professor Goold perceives in the cause of action for copyright infringement. The lack of clarity, he argues, afflicts threshold definitions of what constitutes actionable copying.

Draft Of The Concept Of "Harm" In Copyright - 2013, Wendy J. Gordon

Scholarship Chronologically

This essay examines the tort of copyright infringement. It argues that the ideas of "harm" and "fault" already play a role in the tort’s functioning, and that an ideally reformulated version of the tort should perhaps give a more significant role to “harm.” The essay therefore examines what “harm” can or should mean, reviewing four candidates for cognizable harm in copyright law (rivalry-based losses, foregone fees, loss of exclusivity, and subjective distress) and canvassing three philosophical conceptions of “harm” (counterfactual, historical-worsening, and noncomparative). The essay identifies the appropriateness vel non of employing, in the copyright context, each harm-candidate and each …

The Concept Of 'Harm' In Copyright, Wendy J. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

This essay examines the tort of copyright infringement. It argues that the ideas of "harm" and "fault" already play a role in the tort’s functioning, and that an ideally reformulated version of the tort should perhaps give a more significant role to “harm.” The essay therefore examines what “harm” can or should mean, reviewing four candidates for cognizable harm in copyright law (rivalry-based losses, foregone fees, loss of exclusivity, and subjective distress) and canvassing three philosophical conceptions of "harm" (counterfactual, historical-worsening, and noncomparative). The essay identifies the appropriateness vel non of employing, in the copyright context, each harm-candidate and each …

The In Rem Forfeiture Of Copyright-Infringing Domain Names, Andrew Sellars

Faculty Scholarship

In the summer of 2010, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security began "Operation In Our Sites," an enforcement sweep targeted towards websites allegedly dealing in counterfeit goods and copyright-infringing files. The operation targeted the websites by proceeding in rem against their respective domain names. For websites targeted for copyright infringement, ICE Agents used recently-expanded copyright forfeiture remedies passed under the 2008 PRO-IP Act, providing no adversarial hearing prior to the websites being removed, and only a probable cause standard of proof.

This Paper examines three specific harms resulting from Operation In Our Sites, and …

Legislative Inaction On The Information Superhighway: Bargaining In The Shadow Of Copyright Law, Maureen A. O'Rourke

Faculty Scholarship

As a practical matter, the development of law in the form of enacted legislation often does not keep pace with societal change. At first glance, this fact seems somewhat disturbing since the law, according to some philosophies, should reflect social consensus. However, this is neither remarkable nor cause for concern. The law's processes are deliberative, involving time-consuming public testimony and debate. Thus, the law often plays "catch-up" with social change. This reactive rather than pro-active decision-making is generally desirable as the law is likely to change to reflect well-considered social judgments rather than passing social fancies. This column briefly examines …

Note On Individualized V Particularized Entitlement Inquiries - 1984, Wendy J. Gordon

Scholarship Chronologically

My analysis now looks something like this: Some entitlements should be "prima facie" protectible from invasion. That means that there are some entitlements which the owner should be able to protect even if he or she is unable to prove (a) that protection is in the net social interest or (b) that the invader's action is deserving of punishment. I would call these entitlements "property".