Telif Hakkını Mülkiyet Olarak Gördüğümüzde Görmediğimiz Şey

Abstract

Eser sahiplerinin telif hakkı düzeni içerisindeki asli yerleri hakkındaki tüm söylevlere rağmen, telif hakkı düzenlemeleri aslında onlara çok az güç ve daha az para vermektedir. Aracılar telif haklarına sahip olup; eser sahiplerine yaptıkları ödemeleri azaltırken, kendi gelirlerini en üst düzeye çıkartabilecek şekilde lisansları yapılandırabiliyorlar. Telif hakkı çalışanlar, bu durumu yüzeysel olarak ele almaktadır. Çünkü hukukçular olarak; telif haklarının mülkiyet hakkı olduğunu, mülkiyet haklarının serbest bir şekilde devredilebildiğini ve mülkiyet hakkını devralan kişinin, asıl hak sahibinin yerini aldığını itirazsız kabul ediyoruz. Bu çalışmada, 1710 tarihli kanuni telif haklarını yaratan ve bunları yayımcıların ve matbaacıların elinde toplayan Anne Kanunu (The Statue Of Anne) ile Amerikan Yerlilerinin elinde bulunan toprakların kendilerinden alınmasında kritik bir işlevi olan 1887 tarihli Dawes Kanunu’nu karşılaştırıyorum. Bu iki kanunun hikayesinden aynı ahlaki değeri çıkartıyorum: Bir şeyi serbestçe devredilebilir bir mülkiyet hakkı olarak tesis etmek, çoğu kez zenginlik ve pazarlık gücündeki eşitsizlikleri yansıtan veya şiddetlendiren sonuçlara yol açar. Mülkiyet hakkını çevreleyen hukuki dogma, bunu fark etmememizi kolaylaştırır.

Keywords

• Telif Hakkı
• Mülkiyet
• Eser Sahiplerinin Hakları
• Devredilebilirlik
• Dawes Kanunu

What We Don’t See When We See Copyright As Property

Abstract

For all of the rhetoric about the central place of authors in the copyright scheme, our copyright laws in fact give them little power and less money. Intermediaries own the copyrights, and are able to structure licenses so as to maximise their own revenue while shrinking their payouts to authors. Copyright scholars have tended to treat this point superficially, because – as lawyers – we take for granted that copyrights are property; property rights are freely alienable; and the grantee of a property right stands in the shoes of the original holder. I compare the 1710 Statute of Anne, which created statutory copyrights and consolidated them in the hands of publishers and printers, with the 1887 Dawes Act, which served a crucial function in the American divestment of Indian land. I draw from the stories of the two laws the same moral: Constituting something as a freely alienable property right will almost always lead to results mirroring or exacerbating disparities in wealth and bargaining power. The legal dogma surrounding property rights makes it easy for us not to notice.

Keywords

• Copyright
• Property
• Authors’ Rights
• Alienability
• Dawes Act

References

1. Aistars S, Hartline D and Schultz M, ‘Copyright Principles and Priorities to Foster a Creative Digital Marketplace’ (2016) 23 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 769
2. Alexander I, ‘All Change for the Digital Economy: Copyright and Business Models in the Early Eighteenth Century’ (2010) 25 Berkeley Tech.L.J. 1351
3. Anderson R T, Berger B, Krakoff S and Frickey P E, American Indian Law: Cases and Commentary (3rd edn, St. Paul 2015)
4. Aragon N, ‘Note: Calculating Artists’ Royalties: An Analysis of the Courts’ Dualistic Interpretations of Recording Contracts Negotiated in a Pre-Digital Age’ (2017) 2017 Cardozo Law Review De Novo 180
5. Band J and Butler B, ‘Some Cautionary Tales about Collective Licensing’ (2013) 21 Michigan State International Law Review 687
6. Banks M, ‘MEPs Rally against Planned EU Copyright Reform’ (The Parliament 8 June 2018) https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/meps-rally-against-planned-eu-copyright-reform
7. Banner S, How the Indians Lost Their Land (Cambridge, MA 2005)
8. Barringer F, ‘Freelancers Suing Again on Copyright’ (New York Times, 6 July 2001) https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/06/business/freelancers-suing-again-on-copyright.html

9. Bently L, ‘Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Problems Facing Freelance Creators in the UK Media Marketplace, A Briefing Document on Behalf of the Creators Rights Alliance’ (Creatorsrights, 29 June 2009) http://www.creatorsrights.org.uk/media/between.pdf
10. Berger, ‘Red: Racism and the American Indian’ (2009) 56 UCLA Law Review 591
11. Blagden C, The Stationers Company: A History 1403–1959 (London 1960)
12. Blake L and Stuart D K, ‘Analysis of a Recording Contract’ in M Halloran (ed), The Musician’s Business and Legal Guide (Upper Saddle River 2008) 282, 312
13. Bowker, ‘Self-Publishing in the United States 2010–15’ (2015) http://media.bowker.com/documents/bowker-selfpublishing-report2015.pdf
14. Bracha O, ‘The Adventures of the Statute of Anne in the Land of Unlimited Possibilities: The Life of a Legal Transplant’ (2010) 25 Berkeley Tech.L.J. 1427
15. Carlisle S, ‘DMCA ‘Takedown’ Notices: Why ‘Takedown’ Should Become ‘Takedown and Stay Down’ and Why It’s Good for Everyone’ (Nova Southeastern University Copyright Office Blog, 23 July 2014) http://copyright.nova.edu/dmca-takedown-notices/
16. Carroll M A, ‘Whose Music Is it Anyway? How We Came to View Musical Expression as a Form of Property’ (2004) 72 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1405
17. Chu J and Marino T, ‘Victims of IP Theft Need Better Protection’ (The Hill, 12 March 2014) http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/200630-victims-of-ip-theft-need-better-protection
18. Cohen J E, Configuring the Networked Self (New Haven 2012)
19. Cool L L, ‘Recording Artist’ in Privacy and Piracy: The Paradox of Illegal File Sharing on Peer-to-Peer Networks and the Impact of Technology on the Entertainment Industry, Hearing Before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs 108th Congress (30 September 2003)
20. Cowdray K, ‘ALCS Survey Finds 15% Drop in Average Author Earnings since 2013’ (The Bookseller, 27 June 2018) https://www.thebookseller.com/news/alcs-reveals-average-author-earnings-even-lower-four-years-ago-818891
21. CREATe Copyright Research Centre at the University of Glasgow, Copyright Evidence Wiki http://www.copyrightevidence.org/evidence-wiki/index.php/Copyright_Evidence
22. Curtis R, How to Be Your Own Literary Agent: An Insider’s Guide to Getting Your Book Published (Houghton Mifflin Company New York 2003)
23. David Streatfield, ‘Amazon Signs Up Authors, Writing Publishers Out of Deal’ (New York Times, 17 October 2011) https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/technology/amazon-rewrites-the-rules-of-book-publishing.html
24. Deahl R, ‘New Guild Survey Reveals Majority of Authors Earn Below Poverty Line’ (Publishers Weekly, 11 September 2015) https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/68008-new-guild-survey-reveals-majority-of-authors-earn-below-poverty-line.html
25. Deazley R, On the Origin of the Right to Copy (Oxford 2004)
26. Deboe A, A History of the Indians of the United States (Norman, OK 1970)
27. Deboe A, The Road to Disappearance: A History of the Creek Indians (Norman, OK 1966)
28. DiCola P and Touve D, ‘Licensing in the Shadow of Copyright’ (2014) 17 Stanford Technology Law Review 397
29. DiCola P, ‘Money From Music: Survey Evidence on Musicians’ Revenue and Lessons About Copyright Incentives’ (2013) 55 ACJ 301
30. Doctorow Cory, Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free: Laws for the Internet Age (2014, Mc Sweeney’s San Francisco ) 8
31. Dupont D, ‘Composer Maria Schneider Warns Students about the Future of the Music Industry’ (Bowling Green Independent News, 31 March 2018) http://bgindependentmedia.org/composer-maria-schneider-warns-students-about-the-future-of-the-music-industry/
32. Dusollier S, Ker C, Iglesias M and Smith Y, ‘Contractual Arrangements Applicable to Creators: Law and Practice of Selected Member States’ study commissioned by the European Parliament Directorate General for Internal Policies (2014) http://www.cross-innovation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/IPOL-JURI_ET2014493041_EN.pdf
33. Europe Economics IViR, ‘Remuneration of Authors of Books and Scientific Journals, Translators, Journalists and Visual Artists for the Use of Their Works’ study prepared for the European Commission (ivir.nl, 2016) https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/remuneration_of_authors_final_report.pdf
34. European Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the Document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market 19–29 (eu-lex.europa, 11 July 2012) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012SC0204&from=EN
35. Feeley S, ‘‘Before Long to be Good Friends:’ Diplomatic Perspectives of the Tuscarora War’ in M. LeMaster and B.J. Wood (eds), Creating and Contesting Carolina (Columbia 2013)
36. Finklestein H, ‘The Copyright Law: A Reappraisal’ (1956) 104 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1025
37. Fisher W III, Promises to Keep: Technology, Law & the Future of Entertainment
38. Fisk C, ‘Authors at Work: The Origins of the Work-for-Hire Doctrine’ (2003) 15 Yale J.L. & Human 1
39. Fisk C, ‘Hollywood Writers and the Gig Economy’ (2018) 2017 U.Chi. Legal F. 177
40. Fowler G A, ‘Your Data Is Way More Exposed than You Think’ (Wall Street Journal, 24 May 2017) https://www.wsj.com/articles/your-data-is-way-more-exposed-than-you-realize-1495657390
41. Friedlander J P, ‘RIAA Year-End Music Industry Revenue Report’ (Riaa 22 March 2018) http://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/RIAA-Year-End-2017-News-and-Notes.pdf
42. Future of Music Coalition, ‘Principles for Artist Compensation in New Business Models’ (2 April 2009) https://www.futureofmusic.org/article/article/principles-artist-compensation-new-business-models
43. Gadd I, ‘The Stationers Company in England before 1710’ in I. Alexander and H.T. Gomez-Arostegui (eds), Research Handbook on the History of Copyright Law (Cheltenham 2018) 81
44. Garcia K, ‘Private Copyright Reform’ (2013) 20 Mich. Telecom. & Technology Law Review 1
45. Garon J M, ‘Digital Hollywood 2.0: Reimagining Film, Music, Television and Publishing Distribution as a Global Artist Collaborative’ (2013) 21 Michigan State International Law Review
46. Geiger C, Bulayenko O and Frosio G, ‘The Introduction of a Neighbouring Right for Press Publishers at EU Level: The Unneeded (and Unwanted) Reform’ (2017) 39 EIPR 202
47. Gervais D (ed), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (3rd edn, Frederick 2016)
48. Gervais D, ‘User- Generated Content and Music File-Sharing: A Look at Some of the More Interesting Aspects of Bill C-32’ in M. Geist (ed), From “Radical Extremism” to “Balanced Copyright”: Canadian Copyright And The Digital Agenda (Irwin Law 2010) 450
49. Gervais D, (Re) structuring Copyright: A Comprehensive Path to International Copyright Reform (Cheltenham 2017)
50. Giblin R, ‘Reimagining Copyright’s Duration’ in R. Giblin and Kimberlee (eds), What If We Could Reimagine Copyright? (2017)
51. Giblin R, ‘Should It Be Copyright’s Role to Fill Houses with Books?’ in S. Frankel and D. Gervais (eds), Intellectual Property and Regulation of the Internet: The Nexus with Human and Economic Development (Wellington 2017)
52. Giblin R, ‘The Author Made 3p from the Sale of this Book’ (The Author’s Interest Blog, 3 April 2018) https://authorsinterest.org/2018/04/03/more-on-fair-trade-for-authors/
53. Gibson J, Johnson P and Dimita G, ‘The Business of Being an Author: A Survey of Authors’ Earnings and Contracts’ (ORCA, April 2015) https://orca.cf.ac.uk/72431/1/Final%20Report%20-%20For%20Web%20Publication.pdf
54. Ginsburg J C and Sirinelli P, ‘Private International Law Aspects of Authors’ Contracts: The Dutch and French Examples’ (2015) 39 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 171
55. Ginsburg J C and Treppoz E, International Copyright Law US and EU Perspectives: Text and Cases (Cheltenham 2015)
56. Ginsburg J C, ‘Copyright Use and Excuse on the Internet’ (2000) 24 Colum.-VLA J.L. & Arts 1
57. Ginsburg J C, ‘Fair Use for Free, or Permitted-but-Paid?’ (2015) 29 Berkeley Tech Law Journal
58. Ginsburg J C, ‘The Place of the Author in Copyright’ in R.L. Okediji (ed), Copyright Law in an Age of Exceptions and Limitations (2017)
59. Goldstein P and Hugenholz B, International Copyright (2nd edn, Oxford 2010)
60. Gomez-Arostegui H T, ‘The Untold Story of the First Copyright Suit under the Statute of Anne in 1710’ (2010) 25 Berkeley Tech.L.J. 1247
61. Grynberg M, ‘Property Is a Two-Way Street: Personal Copyright Use and Implied Authorization’ (2010) 79 Fordham Law Review 435
62. Guinan Jr. J J, ‘Duration of Copyright: Study No. 30’ (1957) (77–79) reprinted in Copyright Society of the USA Studies on Copyright vol. 1
63. Haefeli E, ‘Kieft’s War and the Cultures of Violence in Colonial America’ in M.A. Bellesiles (ed), Lethal Imagination: Violence and Brutality in American History (New York 1999)
64. Handke C and Towse R, ‘Economics of Copyright Collecting Societies' (2007) 38 International Review of Intellectual Property & Competition Law 937
65. Hansen H, Carson D, Moglen E, Seltzer W and Sims C, ‘Mickey Mice? Potential Ramifications of
66. Harmon E, ‘‘Notice and Stay Down’ Is Really Filter Everything’ (Electronic Frontier Foundation Deeplinks Blog, 21 January 2016) available at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/notice-and-stay-down-really-filter-everything
67. Harris M, ‘How Much Is a Word Worth?’ (Medium, 16 April 2018) https://medium.com/s/story/how-much-is-a-word-worth-7fcd131a341c
68. Horbaczewski H, ‘No Silver Lining for the Emperor’s New Clothes: Golan and the Traditional Contours of Copyright’ (2012) 59 (4) Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A. 865
69. Huntsberry F, ‘Paramount Pictures’ in Promoting Investment and Protecting Commerce Online:
70. IFPI, ‘Rewarding Creativity: Fixing the Value Gap’ http://www.ifpi.org/value_-gap.php 19 April 2018
71. International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, ‘Europe’s Creators, Cultural and Creative Industries’ Call to the European Council: Secure the Aims of the Proposed Copyright Directive in the DSM’ (12 April 2018) http://www.ifpi.org/downloads/EU_Creators_Cultural_and_Creative_Industries_Call_to_European_Council.pdf
72. Joint Comments of the American Association of Independent Music et. al., In re: Section 512 Study (31 March 2016) https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Music-Community-Submission-in-re-DMCA-512-FINAL-7559445.pdf
73. Kades E, ‘The Dark Side of Efficiency: Johnson v M’Intosh and the Expropriation of American Indian Lands’ (2000) 148 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1065
74. Kaminski M E, ‘The Capture of International Intellectual Property Through the US Trade Regime’ (2014) 87 S.Cal.L.Rev. 977
75. Katz A, ‘Copyright Collectives: Good Solution but for Which Problem’ in R. C. Dreyfuss, D. Zimmerman and H .First (eds), Working Within the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society (New York 2010)
76. Katz A, ‘Copyright, Exhaustion, and the Role of Libraries in the Ecosystem of Knowledge’ (2016) 13 I/S Journal of Law & Policy for the Information Society 81
77. Kerr O, ‘A Lukewarm Defense of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’ in A Thierer and C W Crews (eds), CopyFights: The Future of Intellectual Property in the Information Age (Cato Instıtute 2002)
78. Kinsella E, ‘Damien Hirst and Anish Kapoor Land on UK Rich List (Again)’ (Artnet News, 8 May 2017) https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artists-on-sunday-times-rich-list-952055
79. Koenigsberg F I, ‘The Fifth Annual Christopher Meyer Memorial Lecture: Humpty Dumpty in Copyright Land’ (2004) 51 J. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. 677
80. Kretschmer M and Hardwick P, ‘Authors’ Earnings from Copyright and Non-Copyright Sources: A Survey of 25,000 British and German Writers’ (Dorset 2007) https://micro-sites.bournemouth
81. Kretschmer M, ‘Copyright and Contracts: Regulating Creator Contracts: The State of the Art and a Research Agenda’ (2010) 18 J.Intell.Prop. L. 141
82. Kretschmer M, ‘Does Copyright Law Matter? An Empirical Analysis of Creators Earnings’ (SSRN 21 May 2012) SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2063735
83. Kretschmer M, ‘Private Copying and Fair Compensation: An Empirical Study of Copyright Levies in Europe’ (2011) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310183/ipresearch-faircomp-201110.pdf
84. Kretschmer M, Singh S, Bently L and Cooper E, ‘2011 Copyright Contracts and Earnings of Visual Creators: A Survey of 5800 British Designers, Fine Artists, Illustrators and Photographers’ (2011) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4899875.pdf
85. Krikorian G and Kapczynski A (eds), Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property (New York 2010)
86. Lemley M A, ‘Faith-Based Intellectual Property’ (2015) 62 UCLA Law Review 1328
87. Lemley M A, ‘IP in a World Without Scarcity’ (2015) 90 New York University Law Review 460
88. Lessig L, Free Culture (New York 2004)
89. Lessig L, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It (New York 2011)
90. Levine R and Ride F: How the Internet is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back (1st edn, Vintage Books 2011)
91. Litman J, ‘Copyright Noncompliance (Or Why We Can’t ‘Just Say Yes’ To Licensing)’ (1997) 29 N.Y.U. Journal of International Law & Policy 237
92. Litman J, ‘Information Privacy/Information Property’ (2000) 52 Stanford Law Review 1283
93. Litman J, ‘Lawful Personal Use’ (2007) 85 Texas Law Review 1871
94. Litman J, ‘Readers’ Copyright’ (2011) 58 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 325
95. Litman J, ‘Real Copyright Reform’ (2010) 96 Iowa Law Review 1
96. Litman J, ‘Sharing and Stealing’ (2004) 26 Hastings Communication & Entertainment Law Journal
97. Litman J, ‘The Exclusive Right to Read’ (1994) 13 Cardozo Arts & Ent.L.J. 29
98. Litman J, ‘The Politics of Intellectual Property’ (2009) 27 Cardozo Arts & Entertaintment Law Journal 313
99. Litman J, ‘War & Peace: The 34th Annual Donald C Brace Lecture’ (2006) 53 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 1
100. Litman J, ‘What Notice Did’ (2016) 96 Boston University Law Review 717
101. London T and Pesner B, Outrageous Fortune: The Life and Times of the New American Play (TDF New York 2009)
102. Long M, ‘Publishers Raise New Concerns over SGAE Practices’ (IQ Magazine, 11 June 2018) https://www.iq-mag.net/2018/06/publishers-new-concerns-sgae-practices/#.Wx_5t1Mvw74
103. Loren L P, ‘Renegotiating the Copyright Deal in the Shadow of the Inalienable Right to Terminate’ (2010) 62 Fla.L.Rev. 1329
104. Lunney G, Copyright’s Excess: Money and Music in the US Recording Industry (Cambridge 2018)
105. McLeod K, Freedom of Expression (1st edn, Doubleday New York 2005)
106. Menell P and Nimmer D, ‘Judicial Resistance to Copyright’s Inalienable Right to Terminate Transfers’ (2010) 33 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 227
107. Merges R P, ‘The Concept of Property in the Digital Era’ (2008) 45 Houston Law Review 1239; A Mossoff, ‘Is Copyright Property?’ (2005) 42 San Diego Law Review 29
108. Mullins B and Nickas J, ‘Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign’ (WSJ, 14 July 2017) https://www.wsj.com/articles/paying-professors-inside-googles-academic-influence-campaign-1499785286
109. N.J. Newton (ed), Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law: 2005 Edition (Newark 2005)
110. N.W. Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox (Oxford 2008)
111. Newman J M, ‘The Myth of Free’ (2018) 86 George Washington Law Review 551
112. Newman M, ‘Sony Music Entertainment to Start Paying Indie Artists and Labels Spotify Sale Proceeds as Early as August’ (Billboard 14 June 2018) https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8461117/sony-music-canada-spotify-pay-indie-artists-labels
113. O’Malley Greenburg Z, ‘America’s Wealthiest Celebrities: The Top 10 by Net Worth’ (Forbes, 18 December 2017) https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2017/12/18/americas-wealthiest-celebrities-2017-the-top-ten-by-net-worth/
114. O’Malley Greenburg Z, ‘Revenge of the Record Labels: How the Majors Renewed Their Grip on Music’ (Forbes, 15 April 2015) https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2015/04/15/revenge-of-the-record-labels-how-the-majors-renewed-their-grip-on-music
115. O’Malley Greenburg Z, ‘Spotify Goes Public at $30 Billion: When Will Artists See Any of That?’ (Forbes, 3 April 2018) https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2018/04/03/spotify-ipo-goes-public-at-30-billion-when-will-artists-see-any-of-that
116. O’Malley Greenburg Z, ‘The World’s Highest Paid Women in Music 2017’ (Forbes, 20 November 2017) https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2017/11/20/the-worlds-highest-paid-women-in-music-2017/
117. O’Rourke M, ‘Bargaining in the Shadow of Copyright Law After Tasini’ (2003) 53 Case Western Reserve University Law School 605
118. Oman R, ‘Going Back to First Principles: The Exclusive Rights of Authors Reborn’ (2008) 8 Journal of High Technology Law 169
119. Orphanides K G, ‘The EU’s Bizarre War on Memes is Totally Unwinnable’ (Wired 18 June 2018) http://www.wired.co.uk/article/eu-meme-war-article-13-regulation
120. Patry W, How to Fix Copyright (Oxford 2011)
121. Patry W, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars (Oxford 2009)
122. Patterson L R, Copyright in Historical Perspective (Nashville 1968)
123. Paulson M and Gelles D, ‘Hamilton, Inc.: The Path to a Billion-Dollar Broadway Show’ (NY Times 8 June 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/theater/hamilton-inc-the-path-to-a-billion-dollar-show.html
124. Peoples G, ‘War of Words: Labels and Trade Groups Target YouTube’s ‘Value Gap’’ (Billboard 13 April 2016) https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7333110/war-of-words-labels-trade-groups-youtube-value-gap
125. Perzanowski A and Schultz J, The End of Ownership (1st edn, 2016)
126. Pessach G, ‘Deconstructing Disintermediation: A Skeptical Copyright Perspective’ (2013) 31 Cardozo Arts & Entertaintment Law Journal 833
127. Preston D, ‘Why Is it So Goddamned Hard to Make a Living as a Writer Today?’ Authors Guild Bulletin 63, Summer 2017
128. Radin M J, Boilerplate (Princeton University Press 2013) 33–51, 168–76; L. Hyde, Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership (1st edn, Farrar Straus and Giroux 2010)
129. Rasenberger M and Pepe C, ‘Copyright Enforcement and Online File Hosting Services: Have Courts Struck the Proper Balance’ (2012) 59 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A 627
130. Recording Industry Association of America, ‘Press Release: Historic Coalition of 213 Musical Artists Calls on Congress to Pass CLASSICS Act, Fix the ‘Pre-1972’ Loophole for Legacy Artists’ (RIAA, 13 February 2018) https://www.riaa.com/historic-coalition-213-musical-artists-calls-congress-
131. Reese R A, ‘Optional Copyright Renewal: Lessons for Designing Copyright Systems, The 38 Annual Horace J. Manges Lecture’ (2015) 39 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 145
132. Reese R A, ‘Termination Formalities and Notice’ (2016) 96 B.U.L. Rev. 895; Authors Alliance, ‘Termination of Transfers’ (2017) https://www.authorsalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/20180315-ToT-Templates.pdf
133. Reilly T, ‘Copyright and a Synergistic Society’ (2017) 18 Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 575
134. Ringer B A, ‘Renewal of Copyright: Study No. 31’ (1963) (121–122) reprinted in Copyright Society of the USA Studies on Copyright vol. 2 503
135. Robinson L G, ‘The Judicial Conquest of Native America: The Story of Johnson v M’Intosh’ in C. Goldberg, K.K. Washburn and P.P. Frickey (eds), Indian Law Stories (New York 2011) 29
136. Rogers A, ‘Google’s Academic Influence Campaign: It’s Complicated’ (WIRED, 14 July 2017) https://www.wired.com/story/googles-academic-influence-campaign-its-complicated/
137. Royster J V, ‘The Legacy of Allotment’ (1995) 27 Ariz.St.L.J. 1
138. Samuelson P, ‘Legally Speaking: The EU’s Controversial Digital Single Market Directive’ 61 Communications of the ACM, forthcoming November 2018; ‘Google Criticized for Push Against EU Copyright Reform’ (Financial Times, 26 June 2018) https://www.ft.com/content/a8031d7a-78a0-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d
139. Samuelson P, ‘The Copyright Grab’ (WIRED, 1 January 1996), https://www.wired.com/1996/01/white-paper/
140. Schechner S and Kostove N, ‘Google and Facebook Likely to Benefit from Europe’s Privacy Crackdown’ (Wall Street Journal, 23 April 2017) https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-europes-new-privacy-rules-favor-google-and-facebook-1524536324
141. Schmidt E A, The Divided Dominion: Social Conflict and Indian Hatred in Early Virginia Boulder, CO (2014)
142. Schwartz E A, The Rogue River Indian War and Its Aftermath: 1859–1980 (Norman, OK 1997)
143. Schwartz P M and Treanor W M, ‘Eldred and Lochner: Copyright Term Extension and Intellectual Property as Constitutional Property’ (2003) 112 Yale Law Journal 2331
144. Senftleben M, ‘Copyright, Creators, & Society’s Need for Autonomous Art – the Blessing and Curse of Monetary Incentives’ (2017) in Giblin and Weatherall, What If We Could Reimagine Copyright?
145. Shapiro R and Aneja S, ‘Unlocking the Gates: America’s New Creative Economy’ (2018) http://www.recreatecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ReCreate-Creative-Economy-Study-Report.pdf
146. Silbey J, The Eureka Myth: Creators, Innovators and Everyday Intellectual Property (Stanford 2015)
147. Siwek S E, ‘Copyright Industries in the US Economy: 2016 Report’ (December 2016) http://www.iipawebsite.com/pdf/2016CpyrtRptFull.PDF with Computer and Communications Industry Association, Fair Use Industries in the U.S. Economy: Economic Contributions of Industries Relying on Fair Use (2017) http://www.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Fair-Use-in-the-U.S.-Economy-2017.pdf
148. Sprigman C, ‘Copyright and Creative Incentives: What We Know (and Don’t)’ (2017) 55 Hous.L.R. 451
149. Statista, ‘Dossier: Film Industry in the U.S.’ (2018) https://www.statista.com/study/11472/film-industry-in-the-united-states-statista-dossier/
150. Stewart J B, ‘In the Chamber of Secrets: J.K. Rowling’s Net Worth’ (New York Times, 24 November 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/business/in-the-chamber-of-secrets-jk-rowlings-net-worth.html
151. Taplin J, ‘Is it Time to Break Up Google?’ (New York Times, 22 April 2017) available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/opinion/sunday/is-it-time-to-break-up-google.html
152. Taplin J, Move Fast and Break Things: How Facebook, Google, and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy (1st edn, Pan Books 2017)
153. Towse R, ‘Copyright and Artists: A View From Cultural Economics’ (2006) 20 Journal Economic Surveys 567
154. Towse R, ‘Economics of Copyright Collecting Societies and Digital Rights: Is there a Case for a Centralised Digital Copyright Exchange?’ (2012) 9 Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues 3
155. Tushnet R, ‘Economies of Desire: Fair Use and Marketplace Assumptions’ (2009) 51 William & Mary Law Review 513
156. United States Copyright Office, Circular No. 9: Works Made for Hire (2012) available at https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
157. United States Copyright Office: Section 512 Public Roundtable (2 May 2016) https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/public-roundtable/transcript_05-02-2016.pdf
158. US Copyright Office, Section 512 Study (2017) https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/
159. Van Houweling M, ‘Making Copyright Work for Authors Who Write to Be Read’ (2015) 38 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 381
160. Viswanathan B and Mossoff A, ‘Open-Access Mandates and the Seductively False Promise of ‘Free’’ (Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property Briefing Paper 4, April 2017) http://apo.org.au/node/93506
161. Von Lohmann F, ‘Measuring the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Against the Darknet: Implications for the Regulation of Technological Protection Measures’ (2004) 24 Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Reviw 635
162. Wijminga H, Klomp W, Van Der Jagt M and Poort J, ‘World Intellectual Property Association International Survey on Private Copying: Law and Practice 2016’ (Wipo, 2017) http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1037_2017.pdf
163. Zimmerman D, ‘Copyright As Incentives: Did We Just Imagine That?’ (2010) 12 Theo Inq Law 29
164. 6 Casa Duse v Merkin, 791 F.3d 247, 260 (2d Cir. 2015)
165. 19 Recordings v Sony Music Entertainment, No. 14-CV-1056 (SDNY filed 24 June 2015)
166. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians v State of Montana, 729 F.2d 1192 (9th Cir. 1984), aff’d 471 US 759 (1985)
167. Bleistein v Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U. S. 239, 248–49 (1903)
168. BMG Rights Management v Cox Communications, 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018)
169. Capitol Records v Thomas-Rasset, 692 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2012)
170. Colliery Eng’r Co. v United Correspondence Schs., 94 F. 152, 153 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1899)
171. Community for Creative Non Violence v Reid, 490 US 730 (1989)
172. DC Comics v Pacific Pictures Corp., 545 Fed, Appx. 678 (9th Cir. 2013)
173. Eldred v. Ashcroft” (2003) 13 Fordham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment Law Journal 771
174. EMI Christian Music v MP3Tunes, 844 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2016)
175. FBT Productions v Aftermath Records, 621 F.3d 958 (9th Cir 2010)
176. FBT Productions, 621 F.3d 958 (9th Cir 2010)
177. Fred Fisher Music Co. v M. Witmark & Sons, 318 U.S. 643 (19439
178. JAH IP Holdings v Mascio, 2014 US Dist LEXIS 16246 (D. Colo. 2014)
179. Johnson’s Lessee v M’Intosh, 21 US 543 (1923)
180. JustMed v Byce, 600 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2010)
181. Keiler v Harlequin Enters., 751 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2013)
182. Larson v Warner Brothers, 640 Fed. Appx. (9th Cir. 2016)
183. Lawrence v Dana, 15 F. Cas. 26 (C.C.D. Mass 1869)
184. Legitimate Sites v. Parasites Hearing Before the Subcommittee On Intellectual Property of the House Judiciary Committee 112th Congress (14 March 2011)
185. Malmsteen v Universal Music Group, 940 F. Supp. 2D 123, 132–33 (SDNY 2013).
186. Marvel Characters v Kirby, 726 F. 3d 119 (2d Cir. 2013)
187. Milne v Stephen Slesinger, Inc., 430 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2005).
188. NY Times v Tasini, 533 U.S. 483, 499–506 (2001).
189. Parton v Prang, 18 F. Cas. 1273, 1278 (C.C.D. Mass. 1872)
190. Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v Steinbeck, 537 F.3d (2d Cir. 2008)
191. Pulte v Derby, 20 F. Cas. 51 (C.C. D. Ohio 1852)
192. Sony BMG Music Entertainment v Tenenbaum, 660 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2011).
193. Tasini v NY Times, 972 F. Supp. 804 (SDNY 2007), rev’d 206 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2000)
194. Tavares v Capitol Records, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34317 (ND Cal. 2013)