In a recent paper written as part of a symposium in honor of Margaret Jane Radin, I offer one example of how we might approach such studies. In the paper, “Exporting DMCA Lockouts,” I compare anti-circumvention provisions in all of the post-DMCA FTAs. To do this, I ran dozens of blacklines, comparing those provisions in various FTAs with each other. This comparative approach revealed a significant amount about the negotiating position of the United States, viz., what aspects of these provisions on which the [...]]]> As Larry Helfer writes, the United States has “regime shifted” in international trade, moving from the multilateral, global negotiations in the WTO, where liberalizing trade has stalled, to bilateral or regional agreements. These agreements have received insufficient attention.

In a recent paper written as part of a symposium in honor of Margaret Jane Radin, I offer one example of how we might approach such studies. In the paper, “Exporting DMCA Lockouts,” I compare anti-circumvention provisions in all of the post-DMCA FTAs. To do this, I ran dozens of blacklines, comparing those provisions in various FTAs with each other. This comparative approach revealed a significant amount about the negotiating position of the United States, viz., what aspects of these provisions on which the U.S. would be flexible. Such an approach provides information not only for other potential FTA counterparties, but also demonstrates the extent of our commitment to largely not budge from very strong anti-circumvention rules.

The amount of material for future scholarship in such an approach is quite large. Many aspects of human endeavors are affected by these FTAs–which bind not only our trading partners, but ourselves. Thus, there is a large need for academic inquiry into what these FTAs require.

Here’s my abstract for the paper, which can be downloaded here.

In her lead paper for a symposium in her honor, Margaret Jane Radin warns that our intellectual property laws are being rewritten in ways that neglect values embedded in neighboring legal subdisciplines, such as contract, competition, and free speech law. The effect has been to aggrandize the rights of intellectual property holders, at the expense of others in society. In my comment, I apply her elegant insight to an oft-neglected realm: our spirited efforts to export our ever-strengthening intellectual property law through bilateral trade agreements. Radin critiques the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention provisions, which some companies have cleverly sought to deploy to bar competition in the after-market. Companies are seeking to exploit DMCA anti-circumvention to obtain monopolies, with varying success, in unexpected areas such as garage door openers, printer cartridges, and online multiplayer games.

I show how, through bilateral and regional free trade agreements, the United States is exporting the DMCA’s controversial and strict anti-circumvention provisions. All of the free trade agreements negotiated by the United States post-DMCA mandate the adoption of anti-circumvention provisions by our partners. A review of each of these agreements demonstrates that they carry the DMCA’s cramped vision of permissible circumvention. They thus ignore what Radin describes as the legal milieu of intellectual property, in particular, competition law, foisting upon our trading partners rules that corporations may exploit to gain monopolies in the after-market for their products. This leads to the irony that measures to free trade might lead to a legal framework that facilitates monopolies in the after-market.

And the UC Davis Law Review has made our March “Intellectual Property and Social Justice” conference available as free podcasts on iTunes.

Putting audio of academic conferences online is a tremendous advance. It makes the leading scholarship available worldwide to those with access to the Internet. At the same time, it enables scholars who cannot attend multiple sessions occurring simultaneously to listen to what they missed–or to review sessions they found especially valuable.

Law Reviews should make this a standard practice.

The obvious next step: YouTube.

I have copied here the Wikipedia entry reviewing the history of the UN Secretary General post.

The Security Council has just selected South Korean Ban Ki-Moon for the post of UN Secretary General–the leader of both the free and unfree world.

As the chart shows, the post has moved fitfully between continents.

Early on in the deliberations, many agreed that it was now Asia’s turn. However, U.S. Acting Ambassador John Bolton argued that the job should go to the best qualified candidate regardless of nationality. The United States ultimately agreed to the selection of an Asian SG, albeit one from a historic American ally. One hopes that, when it is North America’s turn, the United States will remember its earlier preference for a wholly merits-based approach. [...]]]>

I have copied here the Wikipedia entry reviewing the history of the UN Secretary General post.

The Security Council has just selected South Korean Ban Ki-Moon for the post of UN Secretary General–the leader of both the free and unfree world.

As the chart shows, the post has moved fitfully between continents.

Early on in the deliberations, many agreed that it was now Asia’s turn. However, U.S. Acting Ambassador John Bolton argued that the job should go to the best qualified candidate regardless of nationality. The United States ultimately agreed to the selection of an Asian SG, albeit one from a historic American ally. One hopes that, when it is North America’s turn, the United States will remember its earlier preference for a wholly merits-based approach. Who knows? The best person for the job then might be an African, a European, or an Asian.

This is Kwame Anthony Appiah’s injunction to the audience at a Fordham conference on global citizenship over this past weekend. Appiah, the dazzling University professor at Princeton, believes in conversations across cultures. Such conversations, he hopes, will help us to understand one another, perhaps even inculcate global feelings.

Some might argue that this might lead us to recognize what we all hold in common. But Appiah believes in difference as well. The conversation might lead us to recognize what divides and differentiates us as well.

Appiah is not a cultural relativist: tolerance, he notes, suggests a view as to what is not to be tolerated.

So here is my question for you: Have you [...]]]> See at least one movie with subtitles a month.

This is Kwame Anthony Appiah’s injunction to the audience at a Fordham conference on global citizenship over this past weekend. Appiah, the dazzling University professor at Princeton, believes in conversations across cultures. Such conversations, he hopes, will help us to understand one another, perhaps even inculcate global feelings.

Some might argue that this might lead us to recognize what we all hold in common. But Appiah believes in difference as well. The conversation might lead us to recognize what divides and differentiates us as well.

Appiah is not a cultural relativist: tolerance, he notes, suggests a view as to what is not to be tolerated.

So here is my question for you: Have you learned something from watching a film with subtitles (and, if so, what film)? Did it reveal commonality or difference?

My example, by a foreign filmmaker, but still in English (thus violating the exact terms of Appiah’s injunction, but still, I think, preserving his intent): Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain. Brokeback is the classic Romeo and Juliet story, two star-crossed lovers in a society that forbids their love. Yet, the particular forms of society’s disapproval—and especially its violent nature—are unique. Sameness and difference.