Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Monday April 17, 2006
12:30-1:30 PM
Room 280A
Stanford Law School
Open to All
Lunch Served

DRM strategies for technical copy protection regulate the use of content by imposing “compliance” rules on manufacturers, dictating that devices be designed to chaperone the user. These compliance rules raise concerns for the new balance of copyright being struck by these control mechanisms. But less often discussed are “robustness rules” that accompany them, requiring manufacturers to build their devices to “effectively frustrate” users from investigating the inner workings of the device itself. Not only must the technology regulate its users, it must be inscrutable to them. This aspect of the DRM approach must be examined for its potential implications -- not only for manufacturers of entertainment and information technologies, but for users. I will investigate this concern by asking not what it does to limit users, but how it shapes the very possibility of user agency, the sense or knowledge that one can investigate and manipulate their own tools. Recent work in the sociology of technology offers intellectual tools for this consideration, to ask first what users do with their technologies and why this is important, what it means for users to have and experience agency with their own tools, and what a mandated and enforced change in this sense of agency could mean for the life of cultural technologies.

Student Megan Adams drafted and filed this complaint alleging that the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to conduct an adequate search and wrongfully witholding documents.

Student Megan Adams drafted and filed this complaint alleging that CBP failed to comply with the FOIA by failing to conduct an adequate search and wrongfully witholding documents.

Note New date

Monday April 10, 2006
12:30-1:30 PM
Room 95
Stanford Law School
Open to All
Lunch Served

As people around the world increasingly interact with each other in cyberspace it is inevitable that disputes will arise. If the internet is to become a trusted environment for both commerce and content, individuals and organizations must have access to redress systems to resolve their online disputes. In the face-to-face world we rely on the courts to address disagreements, but courts are not well designed to handle online disputes because judicial systems are usually too tied to geography and jurisdiction. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) is a better solution for many online conflicts because it is effective, efficient, and trans-boundary by nature. As an organization pioneering the creation of online marketplaces eBay has long acknowledged the need for effective online redress, and that is why eBay and PayPal have invested heavily in ODR processes and partnerships. The work done by eBay in this area offers a blueprint for how other institutions, especially public institutions, can provide redress systems as they steadily move their operations online.

UPDATE: POSITION FILLED
___________

Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society
Executive Director, Fair Use Project

The Center for Internet and Society, located at Stanford Law School, is a leading center for the study of the relationship between the public interest, law and technology. CIS was founded by Founder and Director, Professor of Law Lawrence Lessig. and is headed by Executive Director Jennifer S. Granick, who also teaches the Cyberlaw Clinic. he Center for Internet and Society (CIS) is a public interest technology law and policy program at Stanford Law School and a part of Law, Science and Technology Program at Stanford Law School. The CIS brings together scholars, academics, legislators, students, programmers, security researchers, and scientists to study the interaction of new technologies and the law and to examine how the synergy between the two can either promote or harm public goods like free speech, privacy, public commons, diversity, and scientific inquiry. The CIS strives as well to improve both technology and law, encouraging decision makers to design both as a means to further democratic values.

Monday April 3, 2006
12:30-1:30 PM
Room 280A
Stanford Law School
Open to All
Lunch Served

The music, film, book, and software industries enforce their copyrights against pirates. But in the much larger global fashion industry, copyright does not protect most original apparel designs, and design "piracy" is a way of life. Why are the rules about copying seemingly so different in the fashion industry? And why is there so little apparent effort by the industry to change those rules?

Chris Sprigman (Univ. of Virginia School of Law) and Kal Raustiala (UCLA Law School) argue that copying functions as an important element of - and perhaps even a necessary predicate to - the fashion industry's swift cycle of innovation.

Thursday March 23, 2006
12:30-1:30 PM
Room 280A
Stanford Law School
Open to All
Lunch Served

In the controversy over file sharing the perspective of music makers is often overlooked. Loudest are the voices of copyright holders and industry representatives, their lawyers and politicians. For the vast majority of musicians, however, the current regime is neither just nor practical. Its inherent contradictions have been starkly revealed by digital technology but those contradictions have been there all along. This talk will bring the perspective of the music maker (inclusive of musicians, composers, sound engineers and instrument builders) to a discussion of three crucial questions: 1.

CIS is podcasting! CE @ 10 sessions now available in the ITunes Music Store

Wednesday March 22, 2006
12:30-1:30 PM
Room 95
Stanford Law School
Open to All
Lunch Served

What if copyright really isn't about copying at all? What happens to
the concept of copyright if you take the "copy" out of it? What you're
left with is particular forms of control over the distribution of
information. And, perhaps, a better way of understanding and
reconciling other forms of information law such as freedom of the
press and telecommunications regulation.Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006
4:30 PM to 6 PM
Room 180
Open to All

With the growth of the Internet as a tool of free speech, hate speech
remains a challenging issue. The breadth of issues attendant to regulating and addressing hate speech on the Internet is seen by considering a number of questions. Should universities ban hate speech on their networks? Should libraries install filters to protect children? Should your Internet Service Provider remove harmful posts? These and other thought-provoking subjects will be discussed, with a unique opportunity to ask questions of two experts in this area.Ann Brick is a Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.