How can copyright owners enforce their rights in a challenging online and digital environment? Widespread copyright infringement remains an enduring problem, but the challenges and the solutions constantly evolve.

Copyright owners face big challenges. One problem is the contention that social norms regarding copyright have changed – that an entire generation has grown up accustomed to infringement. Another is the issue of rogue sites – offshore websites that contain massive amounts of U.S. content. Yet another problem is the fact that some of the world's most respected brands are supplying vast amounts of advertising dollars to sites that supply both infringing content and even more illicit materials.

Copyright owners also are trying innovative solutions. New private-ordering solutions, such as cooperation with internet service providers, appear promising. Creators are persuading advertisers that advertising with pirates is bad business. New business models offer great hope. Even social norms can change.

The participants on this Teleforum consider these new challenges, promising new approaches, and what the best business and policy responses might be to them.

Featuring:

• Prof. Bruce E. Boyden, Assistant Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School
• Prof. Mark Schultz, Co-Director of Academic Programs, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law and Associate Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law
• Mr. Steve Tepp, Sentinel Worldwide
• Moderator: Prof. Adam Mossoff, Co-Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar,
  Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law
• Introduction: Mr. Christian Corrigan, Director of Publications, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]

On March 19th, the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the ability of copyright owners to stop the importation of versions of their products intended for foreign markets. This holding has potentially broad implications in an era where U.S. copyright owners increasingly rely on global markets to commercialize America's publications and creative products.

In a 6-to-3 decision, the court held for Supap Kirtsaeng, a Cornell student from Thailand who made nearly a million dollars re-selling cheap international student versions of textbooks meant for sale in Thailand. Wiley, the publisher, produced the books abroad for sale to poor students in Thailand. The publisher argued that Kirtsaeng infringed copyright by making unauthorized imports of the books.

Publishers and content owners of all kinds have long engaged in this kind of market segmentation. It allows them to sell their products at the right price and at the best time, expanding their markets to countries other than the United States. They had long relied on an interpretation of the Copyright Act that provided for a broad importation right.

The Court held that copyright's first sale doctrine trumps the importation right. The question now is what happens next? Can and should copyright owners press for new, clearer legislation to restore the importation right? Will copyright owners be driven to new methods of distribution -- e.g., more sales of digital books? How will this holding affect access to knowledge in less wealthy countries? What are the implications of the the majority opinion's broad statements about copyright's purpose?

Featuring:

• Mr. Allan R. Adler, General Counsel & Vice President, Government Affairs, Association of American Publishers
• Prof. Christopher Newman, George Mason University School of Law
• Prof. Kristen J. Osenga, University of Richmond School of Law
• Mr. Ben Sheffner, Vice President, Legal Affairs, Motion Picture Association of America
• Moderator: Prof. Mark F. Schultz, Co-Director of Academic Programs and Senior Scholar of the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property and Professor of Law, Southern Illinois University School of Law
• Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]

On Monday, April 15, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a patents case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc, concerning whether human genes can be patented.  Myriad Genetics, which identified two sections of the genetic code that might indicate higher risk for certain types of cancer, obtained patents on the "isolated" or removed versions of these two genes on the basis that Myriad invented a new chemical in the process of identifying and removing these genes from the body.  The challengers claim that Myriad Genetics has created nothing new, but rather the process is an examination of a substance found in nature whose attributes remain unchanged.  What will the Court’s decision hold for a field where thousands of gene patents have already been secured?  Do such patents inhibit or promote further such discoveries, or is the evidence clear?  On this previously recorded conference call, our expert, who attended the oral argument, discusses and provides his thoughts on the case and answers questions from callers.

Featuring:

• Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
• Moderator: Mr. Christian Corrigan, Director of Publications, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]

Today, people read almost daily reports about the "broken patent system" in newspaper articles, blogs and at social media websites. Is this true? On the one hand, the high-tech and biotech industries seem awash in patent litigation, and Congress, the FTC, and the Supreme Court are considering adopting a variety of reform measures. On the other hand, the availability of patents and the property rights they secure are driving  technological innovations once imagined only as science fiction - tablet computers, smart phones, genetically modified seeds, genetic testing for cancer, personalized medical treatments for debilitating diseases, and many others - and these technological marvels are now a commonplace feature of our lives.

A panel of distinguished jurists will discuss these two conflicting perspectives on whether the patent system today promotes or hampers innovation: Arthur Gajarsa, former Judge on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Paul Michel, former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Richard Posner, Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The panel will be moderated by Douglas Ginsburg, former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and a Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law.

The panelists have combined many years of experience in adjudicating patent cases, writing and speaking on patent or IP policy, and engaging with legal and policy issues closely connected with the patent system, such as antitrust and law and economics. With wide-ranging views on the current health of the patent system and the relevant solutions, the panel discussion will be insightful and illuminating. The event is co-sponsored by the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property at George Mason University School of Law and the Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group.

Featuring:

• Hon. Arthur J. Gajarsa, former Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
• Hon. Paul R. Michel, former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
• Hon. Richard A. Posner, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
• Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit and Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law - Moderator
• Introduction by: Prof. Adam Mossoff, George Mason University School of Law 

[Watch or listen now!]