Comm. Law, cyberlaw, media law

[commlaw] 5/31 Privacy vs. Commercial Interests

Required Reading:

  • Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, ch.11 (If you haven’t finished it yet.)
  • Lothar Determann, Social Media Privacy: A Dozen Myths and Facts, 2012 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 7. (If you didn’t read it last week.)
  • If you have finished both of them, read something below.

Important Cases:

  • Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (decided May 16, 2016).
  • In re DoubleClick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F.Supp.2d 497 (S.D.N.Y., 2001).

Additional Reading:

Homework:

  • What is “big data”? If “big data” collects only anonymous data, does it still pose any threat to our privacy? (敏瑄)
Comm. Law, cyberlaw, media law

[commlaw] 5/24 Privacy vs. Free Speech

Required Reading:

  • Andrew R.W. Hughes, Does the United States Have an Answer to the European Right to Be Forgotten?, 7 No. 1 Landslide 18 (2014).
  • Lothar Determann, Social Media Privacy: A Dozen Myths and Facts, 2012 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 7.

Important Cases:

Additional Reading:

  • Spiros Tassis & Margarita Peristeraki, The Extraterritorial Scope of the “Right to Be Forgotten” and How This Affects Obligations of Search Engine Operators Located Outside the EU, 2 Eur. Networks L. & Reg. Q. 244 (2014).
  • Meg Leta Ambrose, A Digital Dark Age and the Right to Be Forgotten, 17 No. 3 J. Internet L. 1 (2013).
  • James Q. Whitman, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty, 113 YALE L.J. 1151 (2004).
  • Rodney A. Smolla, Privacy and the First Amendment Right to Gather News, 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1097 (1999).
  • Erwin Chemerinsky, Balancing the Rights of Privacy and the Press: A Reply to Professor Smolla, 67 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1152 (1999).
  • Guardian, Right to be Forgotten (a good portal, with news updates and commentaries).
  • Will Oremus, Why Is This Obscure New York Times Story Banned From Google Results in Europe?, Slate, (Oct. 6 2014).
  • Mark Scott, Google Alerts British News Outlets About Deleting Their Links, N.Y. Times (July 3, 2014).

Homework:

  1. Please brief us on the EU Court of Justice case “Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González.” (翊軒)
Comm. Law, cyberlaw, media law

[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.
Comm. Law, media law

[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?

 

Comm. Law, media law

[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.

 

Comm. Law, media law

[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?

 

Comm. Law, media law

[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?