Volume 36, Number 2: Spring 2010:

The Copyright Act of 1976 defines copyrightable material as “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,” and requires that a reproduction be “fixed” in order to be considered a “copy.”  Although the Copyright Act explicitly defines the term “fixed,” digital reproductions held in temporary storage like Random Access Memory (RAM) and buffers are challenging the traditional understanding of the term.  In MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer Inc. , the Ninth Circuit held that reproductions contained in computer RAM were fixed and thus infringing copies, despite the fact that RAM is intended to be, and is generally considered, a temporary storage medium. While some commentators have criticized the  MAI  decision, the Ninth Circuit’s holding has not seriously been challenged until the recent Second Circuit decision,  Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, Inc.  In Cartoon Network, the Second Circuit overruled the lower court’s decision, which adhered to the  MAI analysis, and instead held that reproductions lasting 1.2 seconds in the buffers of a new type of Digital Video Recorder (“DVR”), the Remote Storage-DVR (“RS-DVR”) were insufficiently fixed to be copies.  This note argues that the Second Circuit’s analysis and interpretation of the Copyright Act is misguided and instead supports the standard developed by the Ninth Circuit in MAI.  To continue reading this article click here.

Volume 36, Number 2: Spring 2010

When I conceived the idea to start a law school-based academic journal focusing on the legal implications of computer use in the legal profession and the courts it was clear to me that it would be a challenge. I first had to get my arms around whether “computer law” was a genuine legal subject. Was the subject valid to teach as a course in law school? The ancillary question was, could an academic law journal based on “computer law” have legitimacy and succeed? I was eventually persuaded that a stand-alone course or seminar on “computer law” could be justified—and, by extension, that a quality academic journal committed to the subject could prove a worthy addition to the body of legal literature. To continue reading this article click here.

Volume 36, Number 1: Fall 2009:
 
This paper examines recent controversies in the legal and policy debate between the U.S. and the EU on the sharing of data in the implementation of transatlantic counter-terrorism measures. The nexus between law and policy in this area is particularly close, reflecting the preferences each jurisdiction has in protecting civil liberty and security interests. While the U.S. and the EU offer differing legal frameworks on data privacy, the strategic importance of data in counter-terrorism law and policy necessitates a joint approach. A failure to arrive at such an approach can result in a series of bilateral agreements between the U.S. and individual EU countries, creating unnecessary costs, inconvenience, and uncertainty for both users and processors of data.  To read the full article click here. 

Volume 36, Number 1: Fall 2009:
 
In this article, the author explores the ways that crime can be controlled in Second Life. She argues that regulation should incorporate a number of different modalities and be viewed along a continuum from self-regulation to statutory regulation. This framework contradicts the assumptions made by early cyberlaw scholars who argued that national governments could not effectively regulate the Internet; substantive arguments about national government regulation were displaced by procedural arguments that state actors lacked jurisdiction in cyberspace.  To read the full article click here.