Slashdot Mirror
Domain: ssrn.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to ssrn.com.
Comments · 463
-
Re:Very Good, but Biased
Thank you for the (mostly) kind words. I think the accusation of bias is probably fair.
For a good exposition of the pro-DMCA position from an independent copyright scholar, see Jane Ginsburg's "From Having Copies to Experiencing Works: The Development of an Access Right in US Copyright Law." The only online citation I am aware of is at the Social Science Research Network archive: http://papers2.ssrn.com/paper.taf?ABSTRACT_ID=222
4 93 . Ginsburg has also posted a slightly more recent paper, "Copyright Use and Excluse on the Internet," to SSRN. That URL is http://papers2.ssrn.com/paper.taf?ABSTRACT_ID=2397 47-- Jessica Litman
-
Re:Unfounded accusations!
Why are you slandering them without foundation?
Um, dude? Slander is spoken defamation, while libel is what it's known as when it's written defamation.I suggest you read this Cyberspace Law Lesson for more background on libel and slander, so you can use the terms properly in the future.
--
-
Re:The danger of metaphorsOne thing I noticed about both PhatKat and lance links's comments is that they question the use of metaphor in discussing politics. A good portion of Solove's paper was the use of metaphor in politics: precisely because you can influence the decisions people make by posing the question in a certain way, you must give extra consideration to which metaphor you use.
I don't think Solove was saying that Kafka presents a more accurate depiction of the problems regarding online privacy. Instead, the bulk of his paper suggests that the dehumanized and -izing collection of perfectly innocuous data, which is then acted upon in a dehumanized/-izing manner, is a greater threat than turning all of Batman's toys over to the government. Yet most lawmakers are concerned only with the latter; Solove suggests that they are concerned with this aspect only because they are fighting against Big Brother. Change the metaphor they think of and change the action you get from them.
Solove suggests using Kafka as a metaphor rather than Orwell. This is not because he thinks that Kafka has better descriptive power, that the internet can actually be summed up in that metaphor, but because he thinks he will get a certain reaction out of the various legislatures if the question is posed in these terms. Narrative as a tool to induce behavior, rather than as a method for gaining understanding. Basically, he's working from postmodernist assumptions regarding the place of metaphor in discourse, but his paper is not nearly as unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally) dada-esque in its prose style.
-
Sequential Innovation, Patents, And Imitation
Doesn't deal directly with open source but nods in its direction.
Sequential Innovation, Patents, And Imitation
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =206189
JAMES E. BESSEN, ERIC MASKIN Harvard University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) January 2000 MIT Dept. of Economics Working Paper No. 00-01
Abstract:
How could such industries as software, semiconductors, and computers have been so innovative despite historically weak patent protection? We argue that if innovation is both sequential and complementary--as it certainly has been in those industries--competition can increase firms' future profits thus offsetting short-term dissipation of rents. A simple model also shows that in such a dynamic industry, patent protection may reduce overall innovation and social welfare. The natural experiment that occurred when patent protection was extended to software in the 1980?s provides a test of this model. Standard arguments would predict that R&D intensity and productivity should have increased among patenting firms. Consistent with our model, however, these increases did not occur. Other evidence supporting our model includes a distinctive pattern of cross-licensing in these
industries and a positive relationship between rates of innovation and firm entry. -
LIBEL, not slander...Uh, according to this URL, slander is spoken defamation, libel is when it's written, as Leonardo alledges about Salon.
Geez, I'm not a laywer, and even I knew the difference! If this lack of intelligence is typical of the SMDI folks, then they deserve to have their scheme get cracked.
-
Libel, Slander, Defamation, etc.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes libel, slander, defamation and such. Here are some excellent articles explaining these issues, particularly with respect to the Internet:
-
Libel, Slander, Defamation, etc.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes libel, slander, defamation and such. Here are some excellent articles explaining these issues, particularly with respect to the Internet:
-
Libel, Slander, Defamation, etc.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes libel, slander, defamation and such. Here are some excellent articles explaining these issues, particularly with respect to the Internet:
-
Libel, Slander, Defamation, etc.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes libel, slander, defamation and such. Here are some excellent articles explaining these issues, particularly with respect to the Internet:
-
Libel, Slander, Defamation, etc.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes libel, slander, defamation and such. Here are some excellent articles explaining these issues, particularly with respect to the Internet:
-
Re:go england?
Comparing this ISP to a newspaper isn't the best analogy, because a newspaper has editors who review and are responsible for the content of their newspaper. They are publishers.
A better analogy is to compare the ISP to a newsstand. They distribute content, but they do not review or edit any of it. They are merely distributors. Can a newssstand be sued for libel if they distribute a newspaper containing libelous information?
These apply to US law, but they do a good job of explaining libel, trade libel, slander and defamation, particularly with respect to the Internet and ISPs:
Of course that brings up an interesting question. Is Slashdot a publisher or a distributor? Does moderation constitue editorial control? By Slashdot, or by individual moderators? I'm so confused....
-
Re:go england?
Comparing this ISP to a newspaper isn't the best analogy, because a newspaper has editors who review and are responsible for the content of their newspaper. They are publishers.
A better analogy is to compare the ISP to a newsstand. They distribute content, but they do not review or edit any of it. They are merely distributors. Can a newssstand be sued for libel if they distribute a newspaper containing libelous information?
These apply to US law, but they do a good job of explaining libel, trade libel, slander and defamation, particularly with respect to the Internet and ISPs:
Of course that brings up an interesting question. Is Slashdot a publisher or a distributor? Does moderation constitue editorial control? By Slashdot, or by individual moderators? I'm so confused....
-
Re:go england?
Comparing this ISP to a newspaper isn't the best analogy, because a newspaper has editors who review and are responsible for the content of their newspaper. They are publishers.
A better analogy is to compare the ISP to a newsstand. They distribute content, but they do not review or edit any of it. They are merely distributors. Can a newssstand be sued for libel if they distribute a newspaper containing libelous information?
These apply to US law, but they do a good job of explaining libel, trade libel, slander and defamation, particularly with respect to the Internet and ISPs:
Of course that brings up an interesting question. Is Slashdot a publisher or a distributor? Does moderation constitue editorial control? By Slashdot, or by individual moderators? I'm so confused....