Intellectual property rights and food security

The Colour of Copyright

Contents: Volume I Acknowledgements Introduction Rohan Kariyawasam PART I WTO, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND ANTITRUST 1. Wonki Min (2000), 'Telecommunications Regulations: Institutional Structures and Responsibilities' 2. Yoshiko Kurisaki (1995), 'The Changing Role of Telecommunications in the Economy: Globalisation and Its Impact on National Telecommunications Policy' 3. Rohan Kariyawasam (2007), 'International Telecommunications' 4. Peter L. Smith and Bjoern Wellenius (1999), 'Mitigating Regulatory Risk in Telecommunications' 5. Marco C.E.J. Bronckers and Pierre Larouche (1997), 'Telecommunication Services and the World Trade Organization' 6. Lee Tuthill (1996), 'Users' Rights? The Multilateral Rules on Access to Telecommunications' 7. Lee Tuthill (1997), 'The GATS and New Rules for Regulators' 8. Mark Naftel and Lawrence J. Spiwak (2000), 'The WTO and the Reference Paper: An Ostensible Blueprint for Entry' 9. Markus Fredebeul-Krein and Andreas Freytag (1997), 'Telecommunications and WTO Discipline: An Assessment of the WTO Agreement on Telecommunication Services' 10. Timothy Denton (2002), 'Protocol Interfaces Are the New Bottlenecks: What the Internet Means for Telecom Regulation' 11. Rohan Kariyawasam (2005), 'Defining Dominance for Bits and Bytes: A New Layering Theory for Interpreting Significant Market Power?' 12. Sonali Singh (2006), 'The Telmex Dispute at the WTO: Competition Makes a Backdoor Entry' 13. Eleanor M. Fox (2006), 'The WTO's First Antitrust Case - Mexican Telecom: A Sleeping Victory for Trade and Competition' PART II THE CLASSIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC INTANGIBLES IN THE WTO 14. Peter Hill (1999), 'Tangibles, Intangibles and Services: A New Taxonomy for the Classification of Output' 15. Rohan Kariyawasam (2007), 'The Classification of Electronic Intangibles in the WTO' 16. Claude E. Barfield (2003), 'Electronic Commerce and the Gats Negotiations' 17. Harald Sander (2003), 'Electronic Commerce and Gats Negotiation (Some Comments on a Paper by Claude E. Barfield)' 18. Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (2006), 'The Internet, Cross-Border Trade in Services, and the GATS: Lessons from US-Gambling' 19. Federico Ortino (2006), 'Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US - Gambling: A Critique' 20. Maria Veronica Perez Asinari (2006), 'Internet Gambling and Betting Services: When the GATS' Rules Are Not Applied Due to the Public Morals/Public Order Exception. What Lessons Can Be Learnt?' Name Index Volume II: Acknowledgements Introduction Rohan Kariyawasam PART I WTO AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 1. Heinz Hauser and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (2000/2001), 'A Call for the WTO E-Commerce Initiative' 2. Daniel Piazolo (2001), 'Multilateral and European Responses to E-Commerce' 3. Sacha Wunsch-Vincent (2003), 'The Digital Trade Agenda of the U.S.: Parallel Tracks of Bilateral, Regional and Multinational Liberalization' 4. Michael Hart and Ramesh Chaitoo (1999), 'Electronic Commerce and International Trade Rules' 5. Olivier Cattaneo and Julia Nielson (2002), 'Regulation of Services Traded Electronically' 6. Rosemary Morris (2000), 'Electronic Commerce: A Cluster Approach to the Negotiation of Input Services' PART II INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, BILATERALISM AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 7. Keith E. Maskus (1998), 'The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Encouraging Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Transfer' 8. Olivier Cattaneo (2003), 'Intellectual Property Rights in the New Economy: Technological Changes and the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights' 9. Carlos M. Correa (2000), 'Implications of Intellectual Property Rights for the Access to and Use of Information Technologies in Developing Countries' 10. Peter Drahos (2001), 'Bilateralism in Intellectual Property' PART III DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, THE NEW ECONOMY AND THE WTO 11. Sanjeev Dewan, Dale Ganley and Kenneth L. Kraemer (2005), 'Across the Digital Divide: A Cross-Country, Multi-Technology Analysis of the Determinants of IT Penetration' 12. Lars T. Soeftestad and Maung K. Sein (2003), 'ICT and Devolopment: East is East and West is West and the Twain may yet Meet. On the Process of Implementing an ICT-Strategy in the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)' 13. Rohan Kariyawasam (2007), 'Developing Countries and Telecommunications' 14. Peter F. Cowhey and Mikhail M. Kilmenko (2001), 'Implementing Telecommunications Liberalization in Developing Countries after the WTO Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services' 15. Arvind Panagariya (2000), 'E-Commerce, WTO and Developing Countries' 16. Catherine L. Mann (2000), 'Electronic Commerce in Developing Countries: Issues for Domestic Policy and WTO Negotiations' 17. David Vivas Eugui (2001), 'Issues on the Relationship Between E-Commerce and Intellectual Property Rights in the WTO: Implications for Developing Countries' Name Index

The article is devoted to the study of the general provisions of intellectual property law in Ukraine. The article notes that the importance of protecting property rights in the intellectual sphere has been growing rapidly in recent decades. A theoretical and practical understanding of the nature of intellectual property rights was carried out based on the analysis of current legislation and available scientific, methodical and journalistic materials. The list of laws that regulate activities in the field of intellectual property, both at the national and international level, is given. It is interesting to note that in Ukraine there are quite a lot of special legislative acts regulating the above activities. Attention is focused on the adaptation of Ukrainian legislation to the legal system of the European Union. International legal acts regulating the protection of intellectual property rights are given. Scientific and regulatory approaches to defining the concept of intellectual property rights are considered. It is established that this concept can be considered in two ways: objective and subjective. In an objective sense, in the legal literature, intellectual property law is considered as a system of legal norms that regulates homogeneous social relations in the field of intellectual property. In a subjective sense, the right of intellectual property is considered as personal property and non-property rights of natural persons, which according to the current legislation belong to the authors for the results of intellectual activity. Special attention is paid to the interpretation of the concepts of property and non-property intellectual property rights. Property intellectual property is the author's rights to the results obtained from his creative activity, similar to the property rights of those who create material objects with their labor (devices, devices, mechanisms, new information technologies, etc.). Non-property intellectual property rights are a set of moral, mental, rational, intellectual and other human rights, which by their nature cannot be alienated from the owner. A comparative analysis was made between intellectual property law and property law in general, and their relationship was also analyzed.

While information technologies present organizations with opportunities to become more competitive, unsettled social norms and lagging legislation guiding the use of these technologies present organizations and individuals with ethical dilemmas. This paper presents two studies investigating the relationship between intellectual property and privacy attitudes, Machiavellianism and Ethical Ideology, and working in R&D and computer literacy in the form of programming experience. In Study 1, Machiavellians believed it was more acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Programmers and R&D workers considered violating intellectual property rights more acceptable. Programmers did not consider violating privacy rights more acceptable, but R&D workers did. Finally, there was an interaction between Machiavellianism, programming and R&D. Machiavellians who also had programming experience or worked in R&D found violations of intellectual property much more acceptable. The effect of Machiavellianism on attitudes toward violations of privacy was enhanced by working in R&D, but not by programming experience. In Study 2, idealists believed it was less acceptable to ignore the intellectual property and privacy rights of others. Relativists found it more acceptable to violate intellectual property rights, though they did not consider it more acceptable to violate privacy rights. Those with programming experience were more accepting of intellectual property rights violations, but not of privacy violations. Finally, programming experience moderated the relationship between idealism, relativism and attitudes toward these unethical information practices. Implications for diminishing unethical behavior among Machiavellians, Relativists, programmers and those in R&D are discussed.

Economic Reforms and Food Security

From a legal perspective, analyze the connotation and logical relationship of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, point out the Legal dilemma in protecting Emei martial arts intellectual property rights, and then propose solu-tions to the problems. The study believes that the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts refer to the intellectual property rights based on the intellec-tual achievements and commercial logos of Emei martial arts. The legal dilemma in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts mainly manifests as follows: the identity of the rights subject of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts and the intangible cultural heritage of Emei martial arts is the root cause of the conflict between public and private interests; to some extent, the sports nature of the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts has influenced the legal recognition of this part of Emei martial arts intel-lectual property rights in the academic community; the inadequacy of the legal system is the fundamental reason why the intellectual property rights of Emei martial arts are difficult to obtain comprehensive protection. Based on this, the study proposes that technological innovation is a logical prerequisite for the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. It can be achieved by extracting the classic techniques of Emei martial arts, constructing repre-sentative martial arts routines, and creating Emei martial arts competition pro-jects; The improvement of the legal system is the legal foundation for the pro-tection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. In this process, it is necessary to particularly strengthen the important position and role of the Sports Law in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts, and improve the basic position and auxiliary function of relevant intellectual property laws in the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts; The enrichment of theory is a powerful argument for the protection of in-tellectual property rights in Emei martial arts. Strengthening theory must be combined with the characteristics of sports, in order to build a solid legal foun-dation for the protection of the object of rights. In addition, the protection of intellectual property rights in Emei martial arts should focus on benefits, which requires balancing public and private interests and promoting the realization of public welfare through private rights protection

Intellectual property rights are legal rights that protect intellectual assets, which hold signifi cant value for individuals and even greater importance for the economy and society as a whole. Liability insurance against the infringement of intellectual property (IP) rights is becoming increasingly relevant as a mechanism for managing unforeseen risks arising from third-party proprietary claims and from unauthorized use of intellectual property rights. This paper fi rst examines the nature and scope of various intellectual property rights, alongside the advantages of liability insurance in cases of infringement of such rights. It then explores what may constitute the subject-matter of insurance coverage, based on the nature of intellectual property rights, general insurance principles, and contractual frameworks. The aim is to distinguish this specifi c type of liability insurance within the broader context of IP protection. Finally, the paper examines the scope of insurance coverage in relation to specifi c costs incurred when the insured appears as a defendant in legal proceedings, as well as when the insured takes actions to protect and enforce their intellectual property rights.

Dominance in the market gives businesses many advantages, enabling them to change business dynamics and influence customer choices. This dominance, while used improperly, can damage clients via way of means of stifling competition and innovation. The distinct rights that intellectual property rights deliver authors and inventors over their works, on the alternative hand, lead them to critical equipment for selling innovation. Abuse of dominance and Intellectual Property rights are associated while dominant corporations make the most of their intellectual property rights to stifle competition. This article attempts to examines the feasible reasons of the subject matter, which includes inflated licensing charges, unwarranted litigation, and patent hold-up tactics. The interplay among abuse of dominance with intellectual property rights (IPR) marks a pivotal factor withinside the improvement of competition law. This article captures the essence of this complicated connection and affords a window into its complicated dynamics. It further attempts to emphasise the critical factor of convergence among those fields: the sensitive stability among selling innovation and retaining marketplace opposition receives disenchanted while dominant groups use their intellectual property rights to impede competition. Such abuse of IPR might also additionally take many unique forms, from extortionate licensing charges to pointless court cases meant to save your competition from coming into the marketplace. Case studies that function an examples from across the globe provide important insights into the rational consequences of intellectual property rights violations. The difficulties in finding the appropriate stability are demonstrated by notable instances such as the legal actions related to Qualcomm's SEP and Microsoft's antitrust actions in the EU. Emerging technologies in the virtual age, like as biotechnology and artificial intelligence, raises new concerns about supremacy and intellectual property rights. One example of an increasing burden in 5G technology is Standard-essential patents (SEPs). Using well-known case studies and international regulatory reactions, this article also attempts to provide a brief discussion of the issues and headaches associated with the abuse of dominance within the framework of intellectual property rights. Strict regulatory scrutiny is necessary to prevent dominant marketplace contributors from engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. The conflict between preventing anti-competitive behaviour and promoting innovation through intellectual property rights safety is a fundamental dilemma. Finding a balance between the two needs is essential if one is to sell innovation and keep markets competitive. In this regard, the author attempts to highlight how crucial it is to handle the junction between rights to intellectual property and abuse of dominance in an appropriate manner. It draws attention to the necessity of prudent legislation that preserves innovative incentives while maintaining sincere competition. In order to fully utilize intellectual property rights for the goodness of society, it is imperative to achieve this delicate balance. In a global economic system that is rapidly changing, legislators, lawyers, corporations, and students must all comprehend and navigate the intricate relationship between abuse of power and intellectual property rights. This article lays the groundwork for additional investigation and debate in the article by offering a concise yet comprehensive synopsis of the key traits and problems in this intricate field.

This chapter examines the competition law implications of patent licensing, patent pools and patent thickets. Competition law is used in developed countries as a means of limiting the harmful effects of Intellectual Property Rights. Their competition laws are used to prevent price fixing by rights holders and predatory activities arising from a dominant market position. The important question in a food security context is the extent to which IP protection provides an incentive for agricultural innovation. It has been suggested that broad patents in the biotechnology field may have greater potential to impede innovation than in other industries. Licensing of proprietary goods or technologies could have anti-competitive effects where competitors agree to divide markets, fix prices or limit output or where the licence has an exclusionary effect, e.g. where it excludes other potential licensors of substitutable IP; or facilitates the licensee's accumulation of market power in competing technologies. An alternative to cross-licensing as a means of negotiating patent thickets is the creation of patent pools. This is an arrangement among multiple patent holders to aggregate their patents, which are shared by members of the pool and made available on standard terms to non-members of the pool. A study commissioned by the USPTO has suggested that patent pools are a solution to the problem of biotechnological patent thickets. The creation of patent pools was originally seen as an impermissible use of IPR beyond what was required to incentivize innovation. The increase in patenting in the biotechnological and other high technology industries has led to the development of 'patent thickets', which are defined as an overlapping set of patent rights requiring that those seeking to commercialize new technology obtain licences from multiple patentees. The IP Guidelines indicate that anticompetitive effects may also occur if the pooling arrangement deters or discourages participants from engaging in research and development which is more likely 'when the arrangement includes a large fraction of the potential research and development in an innovation market'. The Australian Competition and Consumer's Commission (ACCC) follows the US approach in finding that patent pools and cross-licensing arrangements could have either positive or negative implications for competition. The ACCC noted the potential for price fixing, market sharing, or agreements among competitors without any possible pro-competitive justification. It suggested that patent pools would be less likely to raise competition concerns if: they combine complementary patents; licensing arrangements do not restrict access to the pool's technology by competitors, potential entrants, or third parties; and pooling arrangements do not facilitate sharing or access to competitors' commercially sensitive information in the relevant or downstream markets.

Numerous studies predict that developing countries with low human capital may not benefit from the strengthening of intellectual property rights. The authors extend an influential theoretical framework to highlight the role of intellectual property rights in the process of innovation and structural change. The resulting theory is consistent with a stylized fact that appears in the data, namely that countries with poor intellectual-property protection may accumulate human capital without a corresponding increase in research and development investment as a share of national income. The model predicts that without minimum intellectual-property protection, additional education may result in more imitation rather than innovation. The preponderance of the econometric evidence presented in this paper suggests that interactions between human capital and intellectual property rights determine global patterns of research and development effort, and intellectual property rights tend to raise the effect of education on the incidence of research and development.

The article is devoted to the content of the concepts "intellectual property" and "right of intellectual property", as well as to the possibility to use them as equivalent concepts. The author considers the features of a broad understanding of the intellectual property concept, in which it is revealed as a complex set of social relations arising at all levels of public life. According to this approach intellectual relations are only one type of the varieties of intellectual property relations, the totality of which only occasionally acts as the subject of legal regulation. Taking into account the above facts, the difference between the meaning of the concepts "intellectual property" (in the sense of this concept as a social relation) and "intellectual property right" is reflected in the content of the structural elements of the relations that denote these concepts: 1) Subjects of intellectual property rights are determined on the basis of compliance with certain legal requirements regarding legal personality, as well as the acquisition of subjective legal rights and obligations, which are provided to them by legal norms (by using their legal personality); the subjects of intellectual property become participants of social relations of different levels, including those, which are outside the legal regulation. Such interactions may be related to realization of creative abilities of a person, mental activity, etc.; 2) In the centre of understanding of the concept "object of intellectual property rights" is the content of intellectual property rights as a totality of personal non-property and property rights. The defining aspect of legal protection is the right to the created object of intellectual property rights. At the same time the object of intellectual property is a value in socio-philosophical sense that satisfies the social, economic, cultural, mental and other needs and interests of people. In this sense, an object by its nature is a blessing for a person; 3) Social connections between the subjects of intellectual relations are revealed through corresponding rights and obligations of the participants of these relations; in the relations of intellectual property social relations manifest themselves as interaction between people in different spheres of social life, based on the corresponding social statuses and roles, in which individuals carry out creative activity, realize their mental and cultural needs, etc. Understanding the concept "intellectual property" as identical with the concept “intellectual property right” is based on a normative approach. This approach shows that the concepts of “intellectual property” and “intellectual property right” have the same sense in the legislation and can denote both objects of intellectual property right and rights to such objects.

Innovation can be of two kinds: technological and business model innovations. The goal of innovation is to create value through implementation of viable commercial solutions to customer needs, wants, challenges, problems, or business opportunities that are open to exploitation. The primary role of IPRs is to protect inventions and innovations. The question is: “Do intellectual property rights (IPRs) promote innovation?” Though many expect to receive a clear “Yes” or “No” answer to this question, the right answer might be, “It depends.” This needs insightful analysis. Not all inventions lead to innovations. In fact, inventions made without any commercial understanding are unlikely to be of business interest. Naturally, IPRs protecting such inventions of little or no business interest do not promote innovation. However, IPRs of this kind could still create an alternative stream of revenue to the firm via licensing or sale, provided the firm knows how to effectively manage its intellectual assets. On the other hand, inventions with a strong business focus have a much higher probability of leading to successful innovations. IPRs protecting such inventions and innovations become part of the intellectual capital of firms, affording unique products/services, contributing to protected growth and competitive advantage, and attracting the attention of investors and shareholders. Consequently, this leads to higher market capitalization of such firms and raises the market expectations of shareholders and investors of even higher returns on their investments. Thus, such IPRs actively promote innovation. This paper presents evidence for the above hypothesis based on examples of firms from both the USA and India and the role of IPRs (patents, designs, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and geographical indications) in promoting technological and business model innovations.

Keywords: objects of intellectual property rights, trademark, utility model, copyrightand/or related rights, industrial design, unregistered industrial design, utilitymodel, commercial name The law of the fashion industry is a branch of law that regulates publicrelations arising in connection with activities related to products of the light andcosmetic industries. Creative products, such as fashion designs expressed in products,may be protected as intellectual property rights. A design solution embodied in a particularproduct may be protected by one or more intellectual property institutions.Design solutions in the field of fashion are not directly defined in the legislation,but their properties are reflected in the features of various objects of intellectual propertyrights. The design solution embodied in the product may include copyright, industrialdesign, utility model, trademark, geographical indication, trade name. However,if the product contains several objects of intellectual property rights at once, theauthor currently registers not all, but one/two due to the cost of registration (obtaininga certificate or patent). There is an example of a bag given in the article, whichshows how protection for an industrial design and a trademark can be received immediately.But there is no procedure for providing protection by design solutions.For comprehensive protection of a design solution in the system of cross-borderprotection of intellectual property rights, foremost it is necessary to introduce the conceptof «design solution» by law. Furthermore, since design solutions in the fashion industryare seasonal and short-term, the law should give «accelerated preferentialtreatment» to design solutions in the fashion industry. This means that, after a designdecision is registered, it is protected for one year. After one year, the designerspay the fees to officially register the intellectual property rights. This way, the designerscan understand the relevance and purchasing power of the goods and avoid payinghigh fees to register intellectual property rights.

The purpose of this study was to examine the mechanisms for regulating and protecting intellectual property rights in the context of the production of personal protective equipment in the context of a threat to national security. To this end, the study analysed Ukrainian legislation and international regulations governing intellectual property rights, particularly those of manufacturers of personal protective equipment. Thus, in the context of a threat to national security, the intellectual property rights of Ukrainian manufacturers of personal protective equipment were found to be crucial due to the military conflict and the need to protect both the population and the armed forces. The state must guarantee access to vital technologies while respecting the rights of producers, which makes the issue of intellectual property particularly relevant considering the growing demand for the latest developments in the personal protective equipment sector. Cooperation with international partners in the field of technology and intellectual property protection can help develop national production of personal protective equipment and reduce dependence on imported supplies. Government agencies should focus on developing policies that promote the protection of intellectual property rights and provide mechanisms to support manufacturers in critical situations. Raising awareness of producers about their rights and opportunities to protect intellectual property is a crucial step in strengthening their market position. It is essential to strike a balance between the protection of intellectual property rights and the needs of society in the context of a threat to national security. Governments should consider temporary relaxation of rights in times of crisis to ensure overall security

Reviewed by: No Trespassing: Authorship, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Boundaries of Globalization J. G. Matthews No Trespassing: Authorship, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Boundaries of Globalization. By Eva Hemmungs Wirtén . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004. xii, 224 pp. $50.00. ISBN 0-8020-8835-X. Eva Hemmungs Wirtén's No Trespassing is an insightful exploration of the influences technological change and globalization wield on notions of authorship and intellectual property rights. The matter of cultural ownership lies at the heart of this book, and the author brilliantly shows how it describes the historical, dynamic tensions between private ownership of and public access to information. Indeed, the very term "cultural ownership" juxtaposes two concepts that might seem at odds. Broadly defined, "culture" denotes a common historical, social, and artistic heritage shared by a group. "Ownership," on the other hand, describes entitlements purchased by individuals and other entities with capital to spend. In many ways, suggests Hemmungs Wirtén, the ambivalence between private ownership and public access sponsors the development of copyright and intellectual property law and legislates who controls access to information, both nationally and internationally. Beginning with a reading of Victor Hugo's inaugural address to the 1878 Exposition Universelle and its subsequent influence upon the development of international copyright laws, Hemmungs Wirtén proceeds to skillfully weave together chapters on the English translation and publication of Peter Høeg's Smilla's Sense of Snow; the enduring impact that the development of photocopy machines have had on copyright legislation; media as commodities; the challenges of developing cultural property rights that are different from postcolonial and imperialistic paradigms of ownership and trade; and the safeguarding of public domain rights in respect to contemporary attempts (in the United States) to extend copyright privileges. As this summary indicates, Hemmungs Wirtén's breadth of inquiry isremarkable. Her ability to express clearly this complex topic, particularly its formidable legal aspects, is all the more impressive considering her academic background, which is in literature and information science. The author is most [End Page 291] compelling, however, when she focuses on a specific event, author, and/or work and considers its historical, legal, and theoretical significance to her topic, as she does in the first three and in the concluding chapters of this work. While chapters 4 and 5 are informative discussions on the economics of copyright and the cultural dimensions of intellectual property, respectively, they lack the interpretive dimension that distinguishes the other sections. Despite these criticisms, No Trespassing is a remarkably readable and judiciously documented volume. Chapter 2, "Inventing F. David: Author(ing) Translation," is particularly compelling in its consideration of the translation problem. Is translation a type of authorship? What are the publishing rights of authors and translators? Who has the "last word" on what translation makes it into print? No Trespassing is especially relevant in a day and age when individual rights are constantly compromised by aggressive privatization throughout the world. As global interdependence and technological progress shrink the planet, the gap between who controls and who has access to information treacherously widens. Hemmungs Wirtén convincingly argues that copyright and intellectual property rights litigation perpetuates postcolonial cycles of cultural imperialism that further divide and oppress individuals by treating information, including cultural property, as a commodity. In such a market even cultural goods and services traditionally held in the public domain, such as literature and art, are accessible for a fee. The title calls to mind lurid orange-and-black signs posted on fence posts and alley entrances warning people to stay out or stay away on pain of penalty. It evokes a sense of peril and punishment. Ironically, this book invites readers to consider timely, complex cultural and legal issues in lucid, respectful prose. No Trespassing deserves a wide readership, including students of cultural studies, publishing history, and new media. Readers interested in relationships between copyright and authorship as well as law and literary production will find this book a compelling resource. Likewise, librarians and information ethicists interested in copyright as well as the development of information regulation and data-sharing standards may discover new arguments to underscore freedom to information positions and policies that are...