SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Benkler, Y. (2000). From consumers to users: Shifting the deeper structures of regulation towards sustainable commons and user access. Federal Communication Law Journal, 52, 561579.
  • Benkler, Y. (2001). Property, commons, and the First Amendment: Towards a core common infrastructure. White Paper for the First Amendment Program, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. Retrieved November 10, 2004 from http://www.benkler.org/WhitePaper.pdf
  • Boyle, J. (2004). A manifesto on WIPO and the future of intellectual property. Duke Law & Technology Review, 2004 (0009). Retrieved October 20, 2004 from http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2004dltr0009.html
  • Chmielewski, D. C. (2004, November 8). Rip. sample. mash. share: The Wired CD’s Creative Commons license lets listeners sample and swap songs online—legally. Mercury News. Retrieved November 10, 2004 from http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/10126944.htm?1c
  • Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) (2000).
  • Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 412 (2000).
  • Gasaway, L. N. (2003). Copyright ownership & the impact on academic libraries. DePaul-LCA Journal of Art and Entertainment Law, 13, 277311.
  • Goldstein, P. (2003). Copyright’s Highway: From Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford Law and Politics/Stanford University Press.
  • Gorman, R. A., & Ginsburg, J. C. (2002). Copyright: Cases and Materials (6th ed.). New York: Foundation Press.
  • Jones, M. (2004). Eldred v. Ashcroft: The constitutionality of the copyright term extension act. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 19, 85106.
  • Kim, M. (2005). An Analysis of the Creative Commons as a Solution for Copyright Protection in the Digital Era. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
  • Kranich, N. (2004). The Information Commons: A Public Policy Report. The Free Expression Policy Project. Brennan Center for Justice at NYC School of Law.
  • Lessig, L. (2004a). Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin Press.
  • Lessig, L. (2004b). The Creative Commons. Montana Law Review, 65, 113.
  • Linksvayer, M. (2005, March 7). CC search index breakdown. Creative Commons blog. Retrieved March 10, 2005 from http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5311
  • Merges, R. P. (2004). A new dynamism in the public domain. University of Chicago Law Review, 7, 181203.
  • Movement seeks copyright alternatives. (2004, October 10). Associated Press. Retrieved October 15, 2004 from http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2004/10/10/ap1584258.html
  • O’Hara, R. (2003). You say you want a revolution: Music & technology—evolution or destruction? Gonzaga Law Review, 39, 247294.
  • Reichman, J. H., & Uhlir, P. F. (2003). The public domain: A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66, 315462.
  • Rohter, L. (2006, June 26). Some rights reserved: Advancing flexible copyrights. New York Times, p. E1.
  • Samuelson, P. (n.d.). Tightening the copyright noose: Why you should be worried about the white paper on intellectual property rights and the national information infrastructure. Retrieved October 20, 2004 from http://www.eff.org/IP/?f=tightening_copyright_noose.article.txt
  • “Some rights reserved:” Building a layer of reasonable copyright . (n.d.). Retrieved July 2, 2004 from http://creativecommons.org/about/history
  • Stoeltje, G. (2004). Light in custody: Documentary films, the TEACH Act, and the DMCA. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, 20, 10751111.
  • Wagner, R. P. (2003). Information wants to be free: Intellectual property and the mythologies of control. The Columbia Law Review, 103, 9951034.