[commlaw] 4/26 E-banking

Required Reading:

  • Reuben Grinberg, Note, Bitcoin: An Innovative Alternative Digital Currency, 4 Hastings Sci. & Tech. L.J. 159 (2012). (This is the required reading only because it’s short and easy to understand, relatively speaking. The first two articles in the Additional Reading list would be more rewarding if you’re interested in the subject.)

Additional Reading:

  • Joshua A.T. Fairfield, Bitproperty, 88 S. Cal. L. Rev. 805 (2015).
  • Kevin V. Tu & Michael W. Meredith, Rethinking Virtual Currency Regulation in the Bitcoin Age, 90 Wash. L. Rev. 271 (2015).
  • Matthew Kien-Meng Ly, Note, Coining Bitcoin’s “Legal-Bits”: Examining the Regulatory Framework for Bitcoin and Virtual Currencies, 27 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 587 (2014).
  • Carl Kaminski, Online Peer-to-Peer Payments: Paypal Primes the Pump, Will Banks Follow?, 7 N.C. Banking Inst. 375 (2003).

Homework:

  • What’s “Bank 3.0”? Why are Taiwanese banks suddenly racing toward Bank 3.0? What legal issues might arise from such endeavors?

 

Advertisements

[commlaw] 4/19 E-publishing

Required Reading:

  • Ali M. Stoeppelwerth, Antitrust Issues Associated With the Sale of E-Books and Other Digital Content, 25-SPG Antitrust 69 (2011).

Important Cases:

  • U.S. v. Apple, 952 F.Supp.2d 638 (2d Cir. 2015).
  • Book House of Stuyvesant Plaza Inc. et al. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al., 985 F.Supp.2d 612 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
  • Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F.Supp.2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

Additional Reading:

  • Niva Elkin-Koren, The Changing Nature of Books and the Uneasy Case for Copyright, 79 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1712 (2011).
  • Nicola F. Sharpea & Olufunmilayo B Arewa, Is Apple Playing Fair? Navigating the Ipod Fairplay Drm Controversy, 5 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 332 (2007).
  • 邱詩芳,無體數位著作環境第一次銷售原則之探討,中央大學產經所碩士論文 (2015).
    .

Special Presentation:

  • What’s wrong with U.S. v. Apple?, by 芊儒.

[commlaw] 3/29 Advertising and the Fourth Estate

Required Reading:

Important Cases:

  • Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 652 F.3d 431 (3d. Cir. 2011).
  • Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 (3d. Cir. 2004).
  • 旺旺中時購併案。
  • 旺旺中嘉購併案。
  • 遠傳中嘉購併案。

Additional Reading:

Homework:

  • Why are (some) people still objecting to the 遠傳中嘉購併案 since there is no Chinese capital involved?

 

[commlaw] 3/22 Breaking Down the Silos

Required Reading:

Important Cases:

  • Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

Additional Reading:

  • Douglas C. Sicker & Lisa Blumensaadt, Misunderstanding the Layered Model(s), 4 J. Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 299 (2006). (The Westlaw version doesn’t have graphs; get it from HeinOnline.)
  • Tim Wu & Christopher S. Yoo, Keeping the Internet Neutral?: Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo Debate, 59 Fed. Comm. L.J. 575 (2007).
  • Adam Thierer, The Perils of Classifying Social Media Platforms as Public Utilities, 21 CommLaw Conspectus 249 (2013).
  • Susan P. Crawford, The Internet and the Project of Communications Law, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 359 (2007).
  • RFC3724 – The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End.
  • Christopher S. Yoo, Network Neutrality and the Economics of Congestion, 94 Geo. L.J. 1847 (2006).
  • 張民萱,頻譜資源分配之政策 ─以開放模式為目標,中央大學產經所碩士論文 (2013).

Homework:

  • Please comment on the ongoing “must-carry” controversy in Taiwan.

 

[commlaw] 3/15 Sex and Violence: Regulating “Improper” Content

Required Reading:

  • Christopher M. Fairman, Institutionalized Word Taboo: The Continuing Saga of FCC Indecency Regulation, 2013 Mich. St. L. Rev. 567 (2013). (Read at least Part II – IV.)
  • EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive. (Read parts related to Protection of Minors.)
  • FCC consumer guide on “Obscene, Indecent, and Profane Broadcasts“.

Important Cases:

  • FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 US __, 132 S. Ct. 2307 (2012).
  • FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009).
  • Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
  • FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).
  • Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
  • Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26 (1970).

Additional Reading:

  • Lili Levi, “Smut and Nothing but”: The FCC, Indecency, and Regulatory Transformations in the Shadows, 16 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 1 (2013).
  • Kristin L. Rakowski, Branding as an Antidote to Indecency Regulation, 16 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 1 (2009).
  • John C. Quale & Malcolm J. Tuesley, Space, the Final Frontier–Expanding FCC Regulation of Indecent Content onto Direct Broadcast Satellite, 60 Fed. Comm. L.J. 37 (2007).
  • Adam Thierer, Why Regulate Broadcasting? Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age, 15 CommLaw Conspectus 431 (2007).

Homework:

  • What is your opinion about our current Internet content regulation?

 

[commlaw] 3/8 The Freedom of the Press

Required Reading:

  • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (read the syllabus at least).
  • Ming-Li Wang, The Fourth Estate Under Siege: The Making of a Democratic Institution and Its Pressing Challenges, 7 Nat’l Taiwan U. L. Rev. 385 (2012).

Important Cases:

  • Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
  • Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).
  • Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, 497 U.S. 1 (1990).

Additional Reading:

  • David A. Anderson, Freedom of the Press, 80 Tex. L. Rev. 429 (2002).
  • 林子儀,新聞自由的意義及其理論基礎,收於氏著《言論自由與新聞自由》,頁63。

Homework:

  • What is “the right to reply”? Should it be made an expansive legal right against abusive news media?