Cornell Law Review, Vol. 95, p. 839, 2010, U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-19, NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 10-31, NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 10-26, May 14, 2010
Abstract: Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment, and responses to that article by Prof... more Abstract: Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment, and responses to that article by Professors Thráinn Eggertsson, Wendy Gordon, Gregg Macey, Robert Merges, Elinor Ostrom, and Lawrence Solum. This short Reply comments briefly on each of those responses.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
It is usually argued that the central challenge in understanding the work is to develop a sensible method for appreciating its boundaries. Those boundaries, conventionally understood as the metaphorical metes and bounds of the work, might be established by deferring to the intention of the author, or by searching for authorship (creativity or originality) or both. Or, those boundaries might be located by identifying authorship by reference to reader, viewer, or listener experience. The two perspectives might be blended.
I set authorship to the side. I argue instead that the idea of the work, and processes of interpreting it both as concept (type) and thing (token), play central roles in constructing expressive culture itself. Boundary-making and boundary-identification with respect to the copyright work are processes of community and group formation and governance.
I rely on literature exploring boundary objects, physical and intangible things that bridge distinct but complementary communities in flexible ways. I argue that copyright law adopts and uses the copyright work in several ways, all of which can be unified conceptually in the sense that the work operates as a boundary object across a number of different legal and cultural divides, clarifying the distinct status of relevant communities and practices but also distinguishing and where appropriate bridging them in the construction of culture. None of the boundaries represented in these boundary objects is fixed or impermeable. Their very dynamic and sometimes porous character is, in fact, precisely the culture to be illuminated.
How, when, and in what direction should innovation take place? Who should lead, guide, and participate? These are questions often asked in both legal education in particular and in higher education in general. Rarely are answers accompanied by specific examples, strategies, or programs. This paper offers precisely that specificity. It documents one institution’s process and output, beginning with the concept of innovation in the face of multiple challenges and proposing one set of concrete, actionable strategies, tactics, and programs. These range from school-wide interventions to ideas for use at the level of the individual faculty member and course.
The purpose of making the paper available is to note merely that if innovation is a hill to be climbed, then it can be climbed. The process and results may be more valuable if they are shared with others, even if the particular route documented here is not the only one available and may not the best for all times and places.