Copyright Law in Transition

Boston MassacreIrene’s post and Kali’s post got me thinking: What is it that interests me about copyright law? The answer is somewhat surprising, given that I specialize in copyright law: nothing, per se. I’m not especially attracted to the doctrine of copyright law more than a number of other subjects, such as torts or contracts or even securities regulation. Indeed, as cocktail party conversation goes, I always cringe a little when I say I specialize in copyright, because it often leads to a discussion of some particular controversy in which I am forced to admit at the end that I have no idea what the answer is, as the statute is vague and there are cases on both sides (or maybe no cases at all). At least there are answers to what constitutes insider trading.

What interests me about copyright is not copyright law in itself, but copyright law as a subject. Over the past few years, I’ve come to realize that my interest in copyright law and Internet law predates law school. It’s part of my general interest in ideological transitions, and in particular turbulent ideological transitions. I’m interested in copyright law for the same reason I’m interested in vigilantes and alterations in foreign policy and systems accidents.

Continue ReadingCopyright Law in Transition

Michael Jackson v. Prince: Thinking About Copyright, Intellectual Property, and the Age of the Eighties

12-0135tIrene’s recent post on why we love intellectual property gets at its certain power–its ubiquity in everyday life. The recent death of Michael Jackson speaks to that particular ubiquity. What was necessarily powerful about his death was that for kids of a certain generation (maybe if you were born between 1972 and 1980?), his music served, as the pundits keep saying over and over, as the “soundtrack” of our lives. I remember one slumber party where all of the Michael Jackson videos played over and over and over for 24 hours (those poor parents). The summers of 1983 through 1985 were consumed in the great debate (forget US v. USSR) of the middle 1980s: who was better, Michael Jackson or Prince! I was a stone cold Prince fan, who marshaled my arguments as if I was getting ready for battle (Purple! Let’s Go Crazy!, Purple!). I was usually in the minority in that one, as no one could top Michael’s videos (did Prince dance with zombies (No!), could Prince moonwalk (No!), could Prince rock that awesome red jacket (No!)).

This “great” debate of the Eighties morphed, though, in the Nineties, into a more interesting debate about, strangely enough, the performance artist’s relationship to copyright.

Continue ReadingMichael Jackson v. Prince: Thinking About Copyright, Intellectual Property, and the Age of the Eighties

What Is So Special (to Me) About Intellectual Property?

gone-with-the-wind-11Last week I announced a future post about “why I like IP” and what brought me to specialize in this area. First, as with many-and often the most successful-things in life, IP more or less happened to me. I graduated from the University of Bologna Law School with a thesis (very much like a master’s thesis) in Antitrust Law. During my time at Berkeley and while attending my Doctorate Program I still worked on Advertising and Antitrust Law, increasingly, however, focusing on the relationship between Antitrust and Intellectual Property. As I mentioned before, my mentor and guide of my whole career, professor Vito Mangini, played a vital role in “pushing” me further and further into the IP world. In fact, IP in general, and trademarks in particular, became my main focus of both writing and practicing when, following the suggestion of my professor (who also found scholarships to support my stay and study) I moved to London to attend the Queen Mary and Westfield College and the London School of Economics. Since then, my love for IP has just grown, and I have never thought of a better field of law in which to practice, teach, and write.

Continue ReadingWhat Is So Special (to Me) About Intellectual Property?
Newer Posts
Older Posts