Newswise — The Intellectual Property Institute at University of Richmond's School of Law has launched the National CyberEducation Project (NCEP), an interdisciplinary, grassroots effort to engage college campuses in discussion of intellectual property issues.
Because debate over intellectual property issues in the digital age—often about file-sharing of music and movies--appears to reflect a new generation gap, the project focuses on educational efforts to bridge that gap. It also will produce conferences, articles, blogs, education kits and other student-oriented, campus-centric programs and materials.
The project's website--http://law.richmond.edu/ipi/cybered--provides news and educational tools about intellectual property in the digital age, including articles, opinion columns and briefs written by Richmond's law dean, Rod Smolla, and law professor James Gibson on the file-sharing case, MGM Studios v. Grokster, soon to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Video of "Copyright in Cyberspace," a panel discussion featuring Marybeth Peters, federal register of copyrights; Don Verrilli, the attorney who argued Grokster for the entertainment industry; and American University law professor Peter Jaszi, also is available on the site.
NCEP is administered by Richmond's law school in collaboration with The Media Institute, a Washington-based nonprofit foundation that promotes freedom of expression.
For more information, visit the Web site at http://law.richmond.edu/ipi/cybered, or write to [email protected].
NOTE TO EDITORS: A ruling in MGM Studios v. Grokster, the copyright/file-sharing case before the Supreme Court, is expected any day. Rodney Smolla, dean and Allen Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, and James Gibson, director of the school's Intellectual Property Institute and author of two friend-of-the-courts briefs in the case, are available to discuss the decision and what it means for the future of the mass media and technology industries.
In Grokster, the Supreme Court revisits an issue it first addressed more than 20 years ago, when it held that Sony Corp. was not liable to copyright owners for manufacturing Betamax VCR, despite the fact that some used it make illegal copies of TV programs. "Today the technology is not the Betamax, but Internet file-sharing software," observes Smolla. "Everyone knows that software such as Grokster's is overwhelmingly used to traffic copyrighted material. But like Sony, Grokster claims that its software is capable of innocent use as well and that it has no direct knowledge of what users are doing with the software. The moral, political, economic and legal question is whether our society ought to accept this defense."
To put it in geek-speak, says Gibson, the case is "Sony 2.0." "It's the story of two sets of innovators. One set consists of authors, artists, and their publishers, who rely on copyright's protection as an incentive to produce and disseminate books, music, film, and other creative works that enrich the culture. The other set consists of digital pioneers who use network technology to connect us with one another in unprecedented ways. Both communities are important to cultural and industrial progress, and when they clash, as here, innovation suffers in both the arts and technology. It's a collision of two of the biggest and fastest growing industries in this country. If the Supreme Court gets it wrong, innovation in one or the other industry is unduly hindered," Gibson continues.
RSS