By: Shalisha Francis In regards to copyright the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall have the power . . . to promote the Progress of Science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” The intellectual property clause was added to the Constitution because of the recognition of the importance of balancing both an author’s interest in protecting their creative works with the public interest in maintaining a method by which those same works could enter the public domain. However, the ability to properly perform this balancing act has proven more difficult than anyone could have expected. A recent Supreme Court case has tipped the scales and given artists and creators their just due. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0014
Month: May 2003
Is I-Voting I-Llegal?
By: Brett Stohs The Voting Rights Act was passed to prevent racial discrimination in all voting booths. Does the existence of a racial digital divide make Internet elections for public office merely a computer geek’s pipe dream? Or can i-voting withstand scrutiny under the current state of the law? This i-Brief will consider the current state of the law, and whether disproportionate benefits will be enough to stop this extension of technology dead in its tracks. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0013
Sealing the Coffin on the Experimental Use Exception
By: Jennifer Miller In a petition for writ of certiorari, Duke University requests that the Supreme Court reverse a Federal Circuit holding that, in its view, “seals the coffin on the experimental use exception for private universities.” This iBrief discusses the Federal Circuit’s decision in Madey v. Duke University and its possible effects on the progress of science. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0012
Can the Internet Kill? Holding Web Investigators Liable for Their Criminal Customers
By: Mark Sweet As the wealth of online information grows, private investigation websites are becoming more powerful and popular. Their client lists include attorneys, insurance agencies, banks, neighbors, employers, and, oh yes, stalkers and identity thieves. When a stalker used information from a web investigator to track down and kill his victim, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held the investigator liable for its customer’s criminal acts. This iBrief considers how far liability should extend for a web investigator, distinguishes web investigators from handgun and bullet retailers, and explains how this decision realizes a policy against privacy invasions. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0011