As argued in my recent article on private copyright enforcement and feedback loops, a deficit of transparency and public participation in private copyright enforcement has fostered gross overreach by copyright owners. A recent example of copyright overreach is amply demonstrated by the so-called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which was negotiated secretly and addresses far more than mere “counterfeiting.” (See here for a law professors’ letter I’ve signed against ACTA.)

It’s good to see such concerns echoed in the Congress’ just-released Declaration. For example:

International intellectual property policy making should be conducted through mechanisms of transparency and openness that encourage broad public participation. New rules should be made within the existing forums responsible for intellectual property policy, where both developed and developing countries have full representation, and where the texts of and forums for considering proposals are open. All new international intellectual property standards must be subject to democratic checks and balances, including domestic legislative approval and opportunities for judicial review.

Along similar lines, the Declaration calls excessive IP enforcement out to task, noting that “Government and private IP enforcement are commandeering greater social resources in order to impose stricter penalties than ever before, with fewer safeguards and less procedural fairness.” The Declaration contains many other important ideas, such as making sure that new IP protections are rooted in transparent research that demonstrates the need for new IP rights, including addressing the fact that fair uses and other IP limitations also generate economic value. Other important mentions are the importance of libraries and archives, strengthening IP exceptions, rejuvenating notice-based formalities, and much more.

I’d go on, but instead you should read the full document at http://infojustice.org/washington-declaration. Even better, sign it. (I did: I’m # 95.).

Course pages are run through Lexis Blackboard, http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool.   You’ll need a Lexis ID to enroll, which will be provided to you at school.  In the meantime, the syllabus and first assignment for Civil Procedure I can be found here. 

This site, digital garbage, is my blog on law and technology, popular culture, photography, and whatever.  I also maintain a home page is at http://nathenson.org.  I post frequently to Twitter and Flickr, and much less frequently, to YouTube.

From my perspective, mandatory CLE is a waste of time: Lawyers who want to stay at the top of their game will always take courses and read articles to stay current in their field, while those who have no interest in improving will take a nap or tap away on their BlackBerrys during a CLE program.

I couldn’t agree more.  I’ve attended CLEs and served as a presenter.  I’ve found most of them to be a waste of time.  As a prof and a lawyer interested in cyberlaw, I spend a huge amount of time keeping up with the law.  Frustratingly, my state of licensure (Pennsylvania) doesn’t think that law teaching should satisfy CLE requirements.  Whatever!  Considering that I’ve prepped more new courses than I’d care to admit, that’s ridiculous.