Syllabus

Week 1: 1/17 & 1/19 Week 2: 1/24 & 1/26 Week 3: 1/31 & 2/2
Week 4: 2/7 & 2/9 Week 5: 2/14 & 2/16 Week 6: 2/21 & 2/23
Week 7: 2/28 & 3/2 Week 8: 3/7 & 3/9 Week 9: 3/14 & 3/16
Week 10: 3/21 & 3/23 Week 11: 3/28 & 3/30 Week 12: 4/4 & 4/6
Week 13: 4/11 & 4/13 Week 14: 4/18 & 4/20 Week 15: 4/25 & 4/27

Week 1

Monday, January 17: No Class
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

Wednesday, January 19: Introduction to Information Law & Policy

  • Moor, James, “What is computer ethics?” [HTML]
  • Latour, Bruno, “The Moral Dilemmas of a Safety-belt” [PDF]
  • Recommended: Orin S. Kerr, How to Read a Legal Opinion, 11 Green Bag 2d 51 (2007). [PDF]

Back to Top


Week 2

Monday, January 24: Introduction to Information Law and Policy

  • Clark, D. D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K. R., and Braden, R. 2005. Tussle in cyberspace: defining tomorrow’s internet. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 13, 3 (Jun. 2005), 462-475. [PDF]
  • Lessig, L. (2006). Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0. New York N.Y.: Basic Books. Excerpts: Regulating Code, read from “Z-theory” section to the end; What Things Regulate, read “A Dot’s Life” section only. Links HTML.

Wednesday, January 26: Freedom of Expression
Relationship Between Architecture and State Regulation

  • Berman, J. and Weitzner, D.J., “Abundance and User Control: Renewing the Democratic Heart of the First Amendment in the Age of Interactive Media,” 104 Yale Law Journal 1619, (1995). [PDF]
  • ACLU v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 181, 2008 (3d Cir. Pa. 2008) (skip sections III, IV A, IV C, and Conclusion) [PDF]

Back to Top


Week 3

Monday, January 31: Freedom of Expression and Access to Information
Regulating through Architecture and Technology

  • Lloyd v. Tanner 407 U.S. 551 (1972) [HTML]
  • UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. (02-361) 539 U.S. 194 (2003) (plurality opinion). [PDF] or [HTML]
  • Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 244  (Ct. App. 2001). (read Factual and Procedural Background section & section III) [HTML]
  • MacKinnon, Rebecca. “WikiLeaks, Amazon and the new threat to internet speech.” Special to CNN, December 3, 2010 [HTML]

Wednesday, February 2: Copyright
Class canceled.
Back to Top


Week 4

Monday, February 7: Copyright

  • 17 USC §§ 102, 103, 106, 107, 117 (definitions of works eligible for copyright; all links HTML)
  • Feist v. Rural, 499 U.S. 340 (1991) [HTML]

Wednesday, February 9: Commercial Privacy in the United States
Web Privacy Roundtable at Bancroft Hotel

  • FTC Staff Report, pages 1- 35 and 52-68. Available here (see link in right side bar titled “Text of the FTC Staff Report, and Concurring Statements of Commissioner Kovacic and Commissioner Rosch”)

Back to Top


Week 5

Monday, February 14: Introduction to Patent
Guest Lecturer: Robert Barr

Wednesday, February 16: Hot News

  • NBA v. Motorola, 105 F.3d 841 (1997) (§§ I and II) [HTML]

Back to Top


Week 6

Monday, February 21: No Class
President’s Day

Wednesday, February 23: Reusing Other People’s “Works” — Fair Use
Guest Lecturer: Professor Brian Carver

  • Online Policy Group (OPG) v. Diebold 337 F.Supp.2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004) Excerpt. [PDF]
  • Perfect 10 v. Google — District Court Opinion [Google Scholar]
  • Band, J., “The Google Library Project: Both Sides of the Story,” 2 Plagiary 1 (2006) [PDF]

Back to Top


Week 7

Monday, February 28: Contracts and Terms of Service (TOS)

  • Pro-CD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (1996) [HTML]
  • Good, N., Grossklags, J., Mulligan, D., and Konstan, J. (2007). Noticing Notice: A Large-Scale Experiment on the Timing of Software License Agreements. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 607-616. [PDF]
  • Aleecia McDonald (2009). The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies [PDF]

Wednesday, March 2: Copyright and Personal Use

  • Mulligan, Han, Burstein, “How DRM Content Systems Disrupt Expectations of Personal Use” [PDF]
  • The Engadget Interview: Paul Aiken, Executive Director of the Authors Guild [HTML]
  • Optional: Van Houweling, Molly Shaffer, Distributive Values in Copyright. Texas Law Review, Vol. 83, p. 1535, 2005. [PDF]

Thursday, March 3
Berkeley Technology Law Journal (BTLJ) Symposium
Back to Top


Week 8

Monday, March 7: Copyright in Software
Guest Lecturer: Professor Jason Schultz

  • Data East v. Epyx, 862 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1988) [HTML]
  • Apple v. Microsoft, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) [HTML]
  • Lotus v. Borland, 49 F.3d 807 (1st. Cir. 1995) [HTML]
  • Complaint: Tetris Holding LLC et. al. v. XIO Interactive [HTML] [PDF]

Wednesday, March 9: DMCA
Guest Lecturer: Professor Jennifer Urban

  • 17 USC § 512 (safe harbors; all links HTML)
  • Summary Judgment: Viacom Int’l Inc., et al., v. YouTube, Inc., et al., Nos. 07-Civ-2103 (LLS), 07-Civ-3582 (LLS). (S.D.N.Y., 2010) [PDF]
  • Urban, J., Quilter, L., “Efficient Process or ‘Chilling Effects’? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” Executive Summary (2006). [PDF]
  • Explore Google/YouTube’s ContentID tool: What is YouTube’s Content ID tool?

Back to Top


Week 9

Monday, March 14: Liability for Content Created and/or Posted by Others

  • 17 USC § 230 (protection for blocking/screening; link HTML)
  • Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, et al. v. Roommates.com LLC [PDF]

Wednesday, March 16: Information Licensing and Consumer Protection

  • Mortenson v. Timberline, 140 Wn.2d 568 (2000) [PDF]
  • Williams v. AOL, 43 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d. 1101 (2001) [PDF]
  • Cardozo v. True, 342 So. 2d 1053 (1977) [PDF
  • Aetna v. Jeppesen, 642 F.2d 339 (1981) [PDF]

Back to Top


Week 10: Spring Break!

Monday, March 21 & Wednesday, March 23
No Class: Spring Break
Back to Top


Week 11

Monday, March 28: Technology Design and Liability
Copyright

  • Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) Excerpt. [HTML]
  • MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. 545 U.S. 913 (2005). Read majority opinion (OPTIONAL: read Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion.) [PDF]

Wednesday, March 30: Technology Design and Liability
Privacy

  • 18 USC § 2512 (electronic communication interception devices; links HTML)
  • United States of America v. The Spy Factory, Inc. 951 F. Supp. 450; U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108 (1997). Read the first two paragraphs of the background and then section II B 1 to the end (starts bottom of page 21) [PDF]

Back to Top


Week 12

Monday, April 4: Privacy, Surveillance, and the Government

Wednesday, April 6: Privacy — Data Protection and Consumer Protection Approaches

  • FTC Policy Statement on Deception [PDF]
  • FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness [PDF]
  • In the Matter of Google. Read the Agreement, Complaint, Exhibits A-D, and Concurring Statement [all links PDF]
  • In the Matter of Sears Holdings Management Corporation (order) [PDF]
  • In the Matter of Sears Holdings Management Corporation (complaint) [PDF]
  • Alan Charles Raul, Edward McNicholas, Colleen Theresa Rutledge, and Adam Rusnak, End of the Notice Paradigm?: FTC’s Proposed Settlement Casts Doubt On the Sufficiency of Disclosures in Privacy Policies and User Agreements, 8 PVLR 1070 (2009) [PDF]

Back to Top


Week 13

Monday, April 11
Class canceled.

Wednesday, April 13: Consumer Protection and Security

  • FTC Statement on Data Security [PDF]
  • In the Matter of Eli Lilly [PDF]
  • In the matter of CardSystems [PDF]
  • California Office of Privacy Protection’s Recommended Practices under the Security Breach Notice law: Read pages 5-15 [PDF]

Back to Top


Week 14

Monday, April 18: Copyright Default Rules for the Workplace
Guest Lecturer: Professor Brian Carver

  • Jacobsen v. Katzer, Fed. Cir., No. 08-1001, 8/13/08 [PDF]
  • Artistic License [HTML]
  • Dennis Kennedy, A Primer on Licensing Legal Issues: Copyright, Copyleft and Copyfuture [PDF]

Wednesday, April 20: Access and Authorization

  • United States v. Lori Drew: Opinion [PDF]
  • Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (2000) [PDF]

Back to Top


Week 15

Monday, April 25: Rules in the Workplace

  • Wexler v. Greenberg, 399 Pa. 569 (1959) [Google Scholar]
  • Whyte v. Schlage, 101 Cal. App. 4th 1443 (2002) [Google Scholar]
  • Edwards v. Andersen, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008) [Google Scholar]
  • Aetna-Standard Engineering v. Rowland, 343 Pa. Superior Ct. 64 (1985) [HTML

Wednesday, April 27: Professional Ethics and Approaches

  • Collins, W. R. and Miller, K. W. 1992. Paramedic ethics for computer professionals. J. Syst. Softw. 17, 1 (Jan. 1992), 23-38. [CalNet Authentication Required]
  • John Morris and Alan Davidson, “Policy Impact Assessments: Considering the Public Interest in Internet Standards Development,” August 2003 Sections III- VI and appendixes [PDF]

Back to Top


BERNARD L. BILSKI AND RAND A. WARSAW, PETITIONERS v. DAVID J. KAPPOS, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
No. 08-964 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES