“The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.” – Princess Leia to Grand Moff Tarkin (Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) “Just legalize file sharing.” This solution, long favored by peer-to-peer users everywhere, has recently been embraced by ... [show]

“The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.” – Princess Leia to Grand Moff Tarkin (Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) “Just legalize file sharing.” This solution, long favored by peer-to-peer users everywhere, has recently been embraced by many academics. Although the phrase conjures up visions of a lawless wasteland where copyright is meaningless, such is not the case. Scholars have managed to develop alternative compensation systems that both legalize file sharing and increase artists’ earnings. These plans are well constructed, but one important aspect has been given little attention: under international law, is it legal for a country to legalize file sharing? Since the United States is a signatory to several copyright treaties, all domestic reforms must accord with our international obligations. In particular, any limitations on copyright have to pass the Berne three-step test, a notoriously nebulous standard. This Article argues that a carefully constructed alternative compensation system would pass the test and satisfy international copyright law. To reach this conclusion, the paper develops a framework for the Berne three-step test that has applications beyond the file-sharing domain. [hide]

This Article seeks to solve the problem of technological change eroding privacy by developing a framework of bright-line Fourth Amendment rules. As technologies such as the Internet become increasingly important in our daily lives, we come to expect less privacy. The Fourth Amendment, which ... [show]

This Article seeks to solve the problem of technological change eroding privacy by developing a framework of bright-line Fourth Amendment rules. As technologies such as the Internet become increasingly important in our daily lives, we come to expect less privacy. The Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable government intrusions, provides increasingly less protection as technology diminishes privacy expectations. Moreover, law enforcement agencies continually develop more sophisticated surveillance technology to spy on private conduct. However, courts are unable to keep up with these rapid technological developments. Technology changes too quickly even for statutory rules, and law enforcement lobbies legislatures to protect less privacy. Also, law enforcement agencies have little incentive to regulate themselves to protect privacy. Therefore, the courts must adopt bright-line Fourth Amendment rules. Given the strictness of such rules, they should only be initially adopted for homes and human bodies, uncontroversial areas that have received longstanding, heightened legal protection. [hide]

The Fourth Circuit opinion in Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens illustrates the important role of copyright law’s transformative use doctrine in fair use cases. A secondary use of a copyrighted work is transformative if the work was employed in a different manner or for a ... [show]

The Fourth Circuit opinion in Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens illustrates the important role of copyright law’s transformative use doctrine in fair use cases. A secondary use of a copyrighted work is transformative if the work was employed in a different manner or for a different purpose. The majority opinion found the use of plaintiff’s work in documentary films of the Ravens to be non-transformative and therefore infringing, whereas the dissenting and district court judges found the use to be transformative and as such a fair use. To determine which opinion is more persuasive, this article reviews the history of transformative use, its application in recent case law, and two alternative fair use tests proposed by scholars. This article concludes that Bouchat was decided incorrectly and that the dissenting opinion properly characterized the plaintiff’s work as a historical artifact, which the defendants used out of necessity in order to create accurate documentaries. [hide]