DigitalKoans

An international group of copyright experts have launched Copyright Watch, which is hosted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

A single country's copyright law can be truly byzantine (the United States' seems to be the longest at around 130,000 words, although we're pretty sure Afghanistan has the shortest, lacking as it does any copyright regulations at all). And right now, every one of the 184 countries in Copyright Watch's database is struggling to reform their regulations to fit the difficulties and opportunities of the digital age.

It's a real challenge to map all of these laws, and all of these changes. But it's vital that we do so. Every shift in any of those countries might spread: whether it's for good or ill, maximalist or reforming. Lawmakers eagerly look for track records in other nations, or are obliged to adopt another's bad laws through treaty or trade agreement. Japan decides to model their new law's exceptions on the United State's broad fair use principles; politicians see France's three strikes laws, and decide to import them wholesale. We're hoping Copyright Watch will give the public as powerful a tool for monitoring the global copyright outlook as any private interest.

Rebecca Tushnet has self-archived the "Economies of Desire: Fair Use and Marketplace Assumptions" in SSRN.

Here's the abstract:

At the moment that "incentives" for creation meet "preferences" for the same, the economic account of copyright loses its explanatory power. This piece explores the ways in which the desire to create can be excessive, beyond rationality, and free from the need for economic incentive. Psychological and sociological concepts can do more to explain creative impulses than classical economics. As a result, a copyright law that treats creative activity as a product of economic incentives can miss the mark and harm what it aims to promote. The idea of abundance—even overabundance—in creativity can help define the proper scope of copyright law, especially in fair use. I explore these ideas by examining how creators think about what they do. As it turns out, commercially and critically successful creators resemble creators who avoid the general marketplace and create unauthorized derivative works (fanworks). The role of love, desire, and other passions in creation has lessons for the proper aims of copyright, the meaning of fair use, and conceptions of exploitation in markets.

Pamela Samuelson and Krzysztof Bebenek have self-archived "Why Plaintiffs Should Have to Prove Irreparable Harm in Copyright Preliminary Injunction Cases" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

It has become lamentably common for courts to issue preliminary injunctions in copyright cases once rights holders have shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits without going on to require them to prove that they will suffer irreparable harm unless the injunction issues. Harm is too often presumed to be irreparable if plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case of infringement. This presumption cannot be squared with traditional principles of equity, as interpreted in numerous Supreme Court decisions, particularly eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).

While a presumption of irreparable harm is inappropriate in all copyright cases, it is particularly troublesome in cases involving transformative uses of existing works, such as parodies and remixes and mashups, because free expression and free speech interests of creative users are at stake and transformative uses cases often raise plausible non-infringement defenses. Indeed, if any presumption about harm is appropriate in transformative use cases, it should probably run in favor of irreparability of harm to the defendants' free expression and speech interests under First Amendment case law which treats preliminary injunctions as presumptively unconstitutional prior restraints on speech.