Internet Law Commons^™

Profits In Cyberspace: Should Newspaper And Magazine Publishers Pay Freelance Writers For Digital Content?, Rod Dixon Esq.

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

It is remarkable how fast recent trends have driven an increasing number of publishers of magazines, newspapers, and other similar works to port the print version of their works to digital and electronic format in the form of online computer databases and multimedia CDROM technologies. Online computer databases and CD-ROM media can be exceptionally profitable ventures for publishers who convert a preexisting print work into a digital product. However, publishers' profits from digital media may be impaired if there is a question as to whether the publisher has satisfactorily secured the copyright to the material making up the digital media. …

Sovereign Indignity? Values, Borders And The Internet: A Case Study, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

This article focuses on the publication ban issued by a Canadian court in a notorious murder trial, and the popular reaction to the publication ban, as a case study of the new global communications environment. Part I reconstructs the factual circumstances that provoked the ban, as well as the responses of the media, the legal establishment, and the public. Part II examines the ban itself, the constitutional challenge mounted by the media, and the landmark Dagenais decision. Part III reflects on the meaning of the entire episode for law, journalism, and national sovereignty.

The Dagenais decision demonstrates the continued independence …

The Computer As Advocate: An Approach To Computer-Generated Displays In The Courtroom, Mario Borelli

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Closing The Barn Door After The Genie Is Out Of The Bag: Recognizing A "Futility Principle" In First Amendment Jurisprudence, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

This article argues for a simple proposition: the First Amendment imposes a presumption against the suppression of speech when suppression would be futile. Suppression is futile when the speech is available to the same audience through some other medium or at some other place. The government can overcome this presumption of futility only when it asserts an important interest that is unrelated to the content of the speech in question, and only when the suppression directly advances that interest.

In Part I, the article explores the role that this unarticulated "futility principle" has played in Supreme Court and other decisions …