- Please do your best to show up five minutes early for class so that we
can start discussions on time.
- It is particularly important that the discussion leaders show up on time.
- You support your classmates better if you not only do the readings in
advance of class, but also bring the readings to class.
These are mostly repeated from the outline.
- Due on Thursday: Rewrites of your introductions so that they can meet the
requirements of the Academic Honesty exercise.
- Due on Thursday: Annotated Bibliographies. See the assignment for more
- Yes, we have convocation on Thursday: Adam Hochschild will discuss
Twelve Men in a Printing Shop, London, May 22, 1787: A Great Human
Rights Movement is Born
- Meetings on Thursday: Discuss introductions again. Potentially map
structure of papers.
- I appreciated your interesting comments on the latest convocation. I
regret that we will not have class time to discuss it.
- Today we will take most of the notes in preparation for the discussion
- I am way behind on grading and I apologize. I am not sure when I will find
time given the other demands on my time.
- As you've noted, I am making public my comments on your discussions. I
hope that public comments will serve to improve all of your discussions.
(In class, students affirmed that we are enough of a community that
public comments are both safe and valued.) I will send grades privately.
- Once again, I find myself impressed by how well you discuss as a group.
You raised interesting points, you gave each other the opportunity to
speak, you often tied ideas back to the readings, and you started to
find ways to link concepts between discussions.
- I also found that you were more willing to challenge each other this
time. (I'm not sure whether it's because you did not agree, or if
some of you decided that you had a responsiblity for exploring the other
- On the other hand, I did find myself somewhat dismayed on the
enthusiastic digressions that focused on popular culture and that
did not draw from the readings.
- I noted a number of comments that I considered particularly good.
I don't have all of these in front of me, but they included a reflection
on the traditional
hero cycle, an early comment linking the first
discussion to the prior discussion on sampling, a few challenges of the
Do you really mean that?, and a strong attempt to ground
What does the law say? (an attempt that was,
- The leader had not brought copies of the articles we intended to discuss.
That shows a significant lack of preparation.
- The discussion touched on only one of the three articles. Certainly,
each of the other two articles should have had something to add. (Otherwise,
we should not have been asked to read/skim those articles.)
- The discussion drew upon some examples from popular culture. Readings
should have given participants background in these examples, particularly
since not everyone was familiar with the topics.
- I'm not sure what the main topic of this discussion was. Perhaps
transformative mean for different media?
- Particularly since the topic was unclear, I'm not sure what people took
away from the discussion.
- I appreciate that it was an energetic discussion. However, I'm not sure
what was gained from the discussion. In the end, the learning should take
precedence over the energy.
- It would have been nice to see more focus on "What does the law say about
whether this is transformative, and why?" rather than "Do you feel like
this is sufficiently transformative?"
- The leader had to deal with a relatively complex topic.
- That complexity revealed itself in student responses (or lack thereof) to
some of the questions.
- Because of the complexity of the topic, I am not that concerned that the
discussion ended a bit early.
- I am a bit concerned that the big question ("Wait a minute. How can they
have copyright on news?") did not come until the last three minutes of
the discussion. Participants had some responsibility to raise the
confusion early on. At the same time, the leader could have brought
the potential complexity to the fore.
- The confusion also suggests that the research paper needs to careful
in addressing the kinds of property rights that seem to be vested in
- I agree with one of the participants that the short Web article did a
nice job of tying together the issues from the newspaper article and
YouTube video. Hence, it might have been better to discuss that article
after the other two, rather than first.
- As much as I hate other people using my "Let's deconstruct this reading"
questions, because the newspaper article was so complex, our discussion of
that article might have been strengthened by such an approach.
- A related point: One should not start a discussion with "I'm sorry that
this article was so complex."
- The followup note about radio and TV were interesting, but would have
been more successful if participants had read something about these
different issues. It also seemed a bit like a short lecture, followed
by a weak "What do you think?"
- Certainly, that could provide a useful perspective for the paper: Is
online news more like printed news or more like broadcast? (However,
balancing "What seems appropriate" with "What have the courts ruled"
with "What are the courts likely to rule" may be difficult.
- I appreciate that the leader not only tried to ensure that everyone had
a chance to speak, but also that the leader was able to link later comments
to earlier comments.
- An excellent opening question to set the stage: What can you tell us about
the primary legal issue at work here, first sale doctrine.
- The application of first-sale to software and more is a complex issue,
and the leader did a good job of raising many of the complexities.
- However, too many of the complexities were raised solely in a context of
"What do you think?" It might have been useful to end each such subdiscussion
with a note as to what the courts had ruled. (There are too many relevant
cases to have the students do all the background reading, but the
"What do we think?" / "What do the courts think?" dichtomy can be quite
- I was puzzled that there was so much confusion on the concept of
Promo CD, particularly since promo CDs are described in the
article. If we were to repeat this discussion in a new class, I would
suggest that the leader bring a promo CD for discussion.
- I was sorry to see that a student's question of the form "What does the
law say?" was ignored.
- I was happy to see that this discussion combined the energy of today's
first discussion with the depth of consideration of the second. I hope
that all our future discussions reach this level of quality.
- In case it wasn't clear: For
Hot news, the issue is not so much
copyright as a new property right that the Supreme Court ended up
creating in INS vs. AP.
- In case you didn't know: First sale rights are not common rights in other
countries. Such rights are part of the
unique American perspective.
- You will find some benefit in returning to the details of the copyright
and patent laws to answer some questions and to bring some perspective.
For example, there are sections of copyright law that specifically address
software and DVDs.
- For sports equipment: Tribune article entitled "Football gear maker files for bankruptcy"; Football helmet patent (skim)
- For biopiracy: Wikipedia on commercialization of traditional medicines;
TWN article on The neem tree; "Biopiracy and Seeds: Three Case Studies"
- For gene patenting: Who Owns You? Are Genes Intellectual Property?