|
 |
PUBLICATIONS
| Cite as: J. High Tech. L. |
| Sergey Budylin & Yulia Osipova |
| Budylin and Osipova examine the state of Russian copyright law and the impediments created thereby in Russia’s quest to join the WTO. Currently, Russian law allows for the issuing of music licenses by collective management organizations without obtaining the permission of the actual right-holder. The article uses the web-site AllofMP3.com as a prime example of a site that sells copyrighted material without piracy protection, a practice considered legal until the right holder challenges the system. If the right-holder is a foreigner, he may only sue the organizations involved if the right-holders are covered under the Berne Convention or another international treaty. Budylin and Osipova summarize and explain the effect of statutory law, case law, and international treaties upon the development of copyright law in Russia. Finally, the article touches upon the reforms to Russian copyright law currently slated to take effect in early 2008, which will alter and improve the ability of right-holders to protect themselves against web-sites such as AllofMP3.com. |
|
| Brian Landry |
| Courts have been inconsistent in determining whether expression that involves a parody of a trademarked source deserves First Amendment protection. A trademark infringement suit requires that the use of a trademarked work in its entirety cause consumer confusion; however, the nature of a parody requires that the trademarked work be imitated. Courts have erroneously focused solely on when the contradictory message inherent in a parody is communicated. Rather, when defining parody, courts should consider the consumer’s actual experience in interpreting the expression. |
|
| Zak Hillman |
| Hillman discusses the right of a criminal defendant to be physically present in the courtroom when entering a guilty plea and analyzes the consequences of a defendant entering such a plea through the medium of video teleconference. He examines the development of the due process right to be present during critical stages of one’s criminal proceeding and discusses the benefits, concerns and procedural rules of the evolving usage of video technology to connect an out-of-court defendant with the court. In his analysis of this practice, Hillman concludes that, without a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to be physically present in the courtroom, the negative effects of such a system violate the defendant’s due process rights because they deprive him or her of a fair and just hearing. |
|
| Matt Flinders |
| Flinders examines the existing methods for protecting software from infringement, both domestically and abroad. His note examines the unique nature of software and explains the infeasibility of protecting this unique intellectual property within the current legislative confines of patent, trade secret, and copyright legal schemes. In addressing the underlying IP policies, Flinders discusses how the traditional "idea/expression" analysis for software does not fall within the traditional copyright doctrine. He also addresses the current patent protection scheme for software under TRIPs and the European Patent Convention. In seeking a solution to this dilemma, Flinders explores the feasibility of sui generis protection for software based on certain "carve out" statutes which protect both the functional and expressive aspects of intellectual property, such as the Semi-conductor Chip Protection Act and the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act. Flinders ends the piece by proposing a new protection scheme which recognizes that, although certain technical aspects of software are not "expression" within the traditional copyright framework, the work invested into creating these embodiments of a "process" deserves protection, which can be bestowed at a minimal burden to the public and the legislature. |
|
 |
|
