Registration Now Open For 2016 CPIP Fall Conference
CPIP’s Fourth Annual Fall Conference will highlight how property rights in innovation and creativity benefit communities and economies around the world. We’ll focus on how secure IP rights foster investment, development, and access to products for consumers. We’ll bring together speakers with diverse experiences—from businesses creating music licensing models supporting songwriters to small startups using patent portfolios to secure venture capital investment.
You’ll hear from and meet influential industry leaders, policymakers, and scholars working on intellectual property issues. The conference proceedings will be published by the George Mason Law Review, ensuring that the academic presentations are available for future reference and citation. Attendees will also receive 9 hours of CLE credit.
George Mason Law Review Publishes Papers from Third Annual CPIP Fall Conference
The George Mason Law Review has just published the papers from the 2015 CPIP Fall Conference, The IP Platform: Supporting Invention & Inspiration.
We would like to thank Rod Harrell and the rest of the George Mason Law Review staff, as well as the authors whose rigorous research and writing yielded these excellent papers, for helping to make our annual conference a success.
The papers can be downloaded at the following links:
- Sandra Aistars, Devlin Hartline, & Mark Schultz, Copyright Principles and Priorities to Foster a Creative Digital Marketplace
- Matthew Barblan, Copyright as a Platform for Artistic and Creative Freedom
- Stephen Haber, Patents and the Wealth of Nations
- Terry Hart, License to Remix
- Christopher M. Holman, The Mayo Framework is Bad for Your Health
- Justin Hughes, Motion Pictures, Markets, and Copylocks
- Keith Mallinson, Don’t Fix What Isn’t Broken: The Extraordinary Record of Innovation and Success in the Cellular Industry Under Existing Licensing Practices
- Sean M. O’ Connor, Patented Electric Guitar Pickups and the Creation of Modern Music Genres
- James Pooley, The Myth of the Trade Secret Troll: Why the Defend Trade Secrets Act Improves the Protection of Commercial Information
- Eric Priest, Meet the New Media, Same as the Old Media: Real Lessons from China’s Digital Copyright Industries
IP Scholars Tell Second Circuit that TVEyes’ For-Profit, Wholesale Copying is Not Fair Use
On June 22, 2016, several CPIP scholars joined other IP scholars in an amicus brief penned by CPIP Director of Copyright Research & Policy Sandra Aistars asking the Second Circuit to reverse the district court’s holding that TVEyes engages in fair use. Mason Law’s Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic students Mark DeSantis and Rachel Kim helped research and draft the brief.
TVEyes is a for-profit, business-to-business service that copies and distributes thousands of hours of entertainment, news, sports and other television programming twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week without permission or payment to authors. The amici argue that Congress has thrice rejected requests to add a fair use exception for media monitoring and that the courts should not bypass congressional intent by finding fair use in this case. They also argue that TVEyes does not qualify for the limited non-profit archival exception in the Copyright Act.
To read the full amicus brief, please click here.
IP Scholars to FCC: It’s Not About “The Box”
This past April, we joined other IP scholars in explaining how the FCC’s proposed set-top box rules would undermine the property rights of creators and copyright owners. In reply comments filed last month, the EFF and a group of IP academics argued that the proposed rules would not implicate any copyright owners’ exclusive rights. Yesterday, we filed an ex parte letter with the Commissioners pointing out why this is wrong:
“Surprisingly, despite claiming that the proposed rules are consistent with copyright law, the EFF/professors fail to address the primary copyright concern raised by us and by many other commenters. By focusing on the navigational devices themselves, rather than on how creative works are delivered to those devices, the EFF/professors perform a sleight of hand that masks the real problem. The issue is not what consumers do with the creative works they receive in the privacy of their own homes—the issue is how those creative works are delivered to consumers’ homes in the first place.”
To read the full letter, please click here.