追逐版权中淫秽例外论的回声:最近的群体案例

J. R. Alexander
{"title":"追逐版权中淫秽例外论的回声:最近的群体案例","authors":"J. R. Alexander","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3007741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent district court rulings regarding copyright violations using BitTorrent file-sharing protocols to illegally download pornographic films have been numerous and largely procedural. But some have casually included language challenging the established doctrine of content neutrality in copyright, noting that obscenity exceptionalism might still be within the court’s policy discretion. This article traces these recent rulings and finds little substantive argument on behalf of exceptionalism other than its long-time understanding under common law, now abandoned. It also examines the critical early nineteenth century common law rulings considered seminal in establishing content exceptionalism in copyright and finds that current court references to them in swarm cases appear willing to accept what was believed to be their governing principles without consideration of the cautions expressed by earlier courts.","PeriodicalId":40000,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chasing Echoes of Obscenity Exceptionalism in Copyright: Recent Swarm Cases\",\"authors\":\"J. R. Alexander\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3007741\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent district court rulings regarding copyright violations using BitTorrent file-sharing protocols to illegally download pornographic films have been numerous and largely procedural. But some have casually included language challenging the established doctrine of content neutrality in copyright, noting that obscenity exceptionalism might still be within the court’s policy discretion. This article traces these recent rulings and finds little substantive argument on behalf of exceptionalism other than its long-time understanding under common law, now abandoned. It also examines the critical early nineteenth century common law rulings considered seminal in establishing content exceptionalism in copyright and finds that current court references to them in swarm cases appear willing to accept what was believed to be their governing principles without consideration of the cautions expressed by earlier courts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intellectual Property\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intellectual Property\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3007741\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3007741","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近地方法院对使用BitTorrent文件共享协议非法下载色情电影侵犯版权的裁决数量众多,而且主要是程序性的。但有些人漫不经心地加入了挑战版权内容中立的既定原则的语言,指出淫秽内容例外主义可能仍在法院的政策裁量权范围内。本文追溯了这些最近的裁决,发现除了在普通法下的长期理解(现在已被抛弃)之外,很少有实质性的论据支持例外论。它还考察了19世纪早期重要的普通法裁决,这些裁决被认为是建立版权内容例外主义的重要因素,并发现当前法院在群体案件中引用它们似乎愿意接受被认为是它们的管理原则,而不考虑早期法院表达的警告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Chasing Echoes of Obscenity Exceptionalism in Copyright: Recent Swarm Cases
Recent district court rulings regarding copyright violations using BitTorrent file-sharing protocols to illegally download pornographic films have been numerous and largely procedural. But some have casually included language challenging the established doctrine of content neutrality in copyright, noting that obscenity exceptionalism might still be within the court’s policy discretion. This article traces these recent rulings and finds little substantive argument on behalf of exceptionalism other than its long-time understanding under common law, now abandoned. It also examines the critical early nineteenth century common law rulings considered seminal in establishing content exceptionalism in copyright and finds that current court references to them in swarm cases appear willing to accept what was believed to be their governing principles without consideration of the cautions expressed by earlier courts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Intellectual Property
Journal of Intellectual Property Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property is a student-run publication. The Journal''s mission is to present articles that analyze the fundamental issues affecting intellectual property rights, the changing climate of different areas of intellectual property especially related to advances in technology, and issues and opinions surrounding recent judicial opinions and how they may affect the future of intellectual property rights, among others. The Journal accepts submissions from all levels of authors including law students, professors and academics, and practicing professionals. Articles accepted for publication may cover any area of intellectual property including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets.
期刊最新文献
Two Centuries of Trademark and Copyright Law: A Citation-Network-Analysis Approach The Confusion of Trademark Territoriality A Court Divided Chasing Echoes of Obscenity Exceptionalism in Copyright: Recent Swarm Cases Procrastination at the Patent Office?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1