Remix and cultural production

Stanford Law Review

Volumn 61, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 1227-1232

  Hemphill, C Scott ^a   Suk, Jeannie ^b  

^a The Earth Institute at Columbia University   (United States)

^b HARVARD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 66749116012     PISSN: 00389765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. C. Scott Hemphill &: Jeannie Suk, The Law, Culture, and Economics of Fashion, 61 STAN. L. REV. 1147 (2009).
2. Kal Raustiala&:Christopher Sprigman, The Piracy Paradox Revisited, 61 STAN. L. REV. 1201 (2009).
3. LAWRENCE LESSIG, REMIX: MAKING ART AND COMMERCE THRIVE IN THE HYBRID ECONOMY (2008).
4. See Hemphill&:Suk, supra note 1, at 1195-96 n.196 (citing Lessig Blog, http://lessig.org/blog/2008/10/news-flash-i-dont-defend- pirac.html (Oct. 13, 2008 16:14 EST)).
5. See The Colbert Report (Comedy Central television broadcast Jan. 8, 2009), available at http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report- videos/215454/january-08- 2009/lawrence-lessig.
6. Id.
7. With some notable exceptions, most amateur remixing is tolerated. See Robert P. Merges, Locke Remixed;-), 40 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1259, 1263 (2007) ("High-value content is still worth protecting from massive market-displacing copying, but low-volume copying at the hands of dedicated remixers flourishes due to the cost of shutting them down (and, increasingly, the realization that allowing remixing on this scale adds to rather than detracts from profits)."); cf. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 383 F.3d 390, 396-97 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that reuse of brief sample violates copyright in sound recording).
8. See Patrick McGeehan, Clothier to Replace Music Store in Times Square, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 15, 2009, at A28.
9. Raustiala&:Sprigman, supra note 2, at 1209.
10. As RS suggest, however, their status-based argument can be recast as a subset of our differentiation/flocking account and is thus compatible with our framework. See id. at 1209.
11. See Fashion Originators' Guild of Am. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 312 U.S. 457, 461 (1941) (detailing activities of Fashion Originators' Guild).
12. Cf. Jonathan M. Barnett, Gilles Grolleau &: Sana El Harbi, The Fashion Lottery: Cooperative Innovation in Stochastic Markets (USC Ctr. in Law, Econ. and Org., Working Paper No. C08-17, 2008), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1241005 (collecting examples of varied mechanisms used by fashion originators to protect against design copying).
13. Compare RICHARD A. POSNER, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW 98-100 (1972) (arguing that the common law is economically efficient), with RICHARD A. POSNER, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW 252-53 (7th ed. 2007) (acknowledging that "economic efficiency does not provide a complete positive theory of the common law").
14. Cf. Christopher Sprigman, Reform(aliz)ing Copyright, 57 STAN. L. REV. 485 (2004).
15. Industrial Innovation and Technology Act: Hearing on S. 791 Before the Subcomm. on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 100th Cong. 15 (1987) (testimony of Giles S. Rich, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit); see also id. at 14, noting:I have always been greatly puzzled as to why this design protection has heretofore always died short of passage by both houses after the expenditure of great amounts of time and energy. It is my guess-and yours may be better-that it is because the multitude of small businesses who would benefit from this bill are not politically organized and are perhaps even unaware of pending legislation. Congress therefore feels no pressure from them. Then, when a bill seems on the verge of passage, very few, even one or two, very vocal strong opponents make themselves heard in the right places and action on the bill comes to a halt.
16. See Raustiala&:Sprigman, supra note 2, at 1223 n.53 (describing Raustiala's work advising an interest group opposed to protection).
17. See C. Scott Hemphill&:Jeannie Suk, The Law, Culture, and Economics of Fashion: Intellectual Property Lawsuits Against "Fast Fashion" Firms, http://hub.law.harvard.edu/fashion (last visited Apr. 4, 2009).