Providing a vital economic incentive for much of society's music, art, and literature, copyright is widely considered "the engine of free expression"--but it is also used to stifle news reporting, political commentary, historical scholarship, and even artistic expression. In Copyright's Paradox, Neil Weinstock Netanel explores the tensions between copyright law and free speech, revealing the unacceptable burdens on expression that copyright can impose. Tracing the conflict across both traditional and digital media, Netanel examines the remix and copying culture at the heart of current controversies related to the Google Book Search litigation, YouTube and MySpace, hip-hop music, and digital sampling. The author juxtaposes the dramatic expansion of copyright holders' proprietary control against the individual's newly found ability to digitally cut, paste, edit, remix, and distribute sound recordings, movies, TV programs, graphics, and texts the world over. He tests whether, in light of these and other developments, copyright still serves as a vital engine of free expression and assesses how copyright does--and does not--burden free speech. Taking First Amendment values as his lodestar, Netanel offers a crucial, timely call to redefine the limits of copyright so it can most effectively promote robust debate and expressive diversity--and he presents a definitive blueprint for how this can be accomplished.

What happens to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court when it protects 'equal justice under law'?

Human rights are paradoxical. Advocates across the world invoke the idea that such rights belong to all people, no matter who or where they are. But since humans can only realize their rights in particular places, human rights are both always and never universal. The Human Rights Paradox is the first book to fully embrace this contradiction and reframe human rights as history, contemporary social advocacy, and future prospect. In case studies that span Africa, Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, and the United States, contributors carefully illuminate how social actors create the imperative of human rights through relationships whose entanglements of the global and the local are so profound that one cannot exist apart from the other. These chapters provocatively analyze emerging twenty-first-century horizons of human rights—on one hand, the simultaneous promise and peril of global rights activism through social media, and on the other, the force of intergenerational rights linked to environmental concerns that are both local and global. Taken together, they demonstrate how local struggles and realities transform classic human rights concepts, including “victim,” “truth,” and “justice.” Edited by Steve J. Stern and Scott Straus, The Human Rights Paradox enables us to consider the consequences—for history, social analysis, politics, and advocacy—of understanding that human rights belong both to “humanity” as abstraction as well as to specific people rooted in particular locales.

All successful leaders have a secret power - where's yours? When leadership becomes a byword for control, and trust is outdated - how should YOU respond? 'Believe nothing, test everything'. This is the war cry of the maverick. This scream, an essential cornerstone of the maverick mindset. Leadership and maverick expert Judith Germain provides the blueprint to becoming a successful leader. - Discover the 5 maverick attributes all 'natural leaders' possess - Master the 8 maverick capabilities that all successful leaders demonstrate - Extend your influence by utilising the 3 key power bases - Become a transformational leader by deploying the Maverick DRIVEN Leadership(TM) Methodology 'Judith is one of those rare people who actually knows what she's talking about. She provides results based on good research and a professional approach'. Peter Clayton, author of 'Body Language at Work' and body language consultant for the BBC and ITV

Storytelling, a tradition that built human civilization, may soon destroy it Humans are storytelling animals. Stories are what make our societies possible. Countless books celebrate their virtues. But Jonathan Gottschall, an expert on the science of stories, argues that there is a dark side to storytelling we can no longer ignore. Storytelling, the very tradition that built human civilization, may be the thing that destroys it. In The Story Paradox, Gottschall explores how a broad consortium of psychologists, communications specialists, neuroscientists, and literary quants are using the scientific method to study how stories affect our brains. The results challenge the idea that storytelling is an obvious force for good in human life. Yes, storytelling can bind groups together, but it is also the main force dragging people apart. And it’s the best method we’ve ever devised for manipulating each other by circumventing rational thought. Behind all civilization’s greatest ills—environmental destruction, runaway demagogues, warfare—you will always find the same master factor: a mind-disordering story. Gottschall argues that societies succeed or fail depending on how they manage these tensions. And it has only become harder, as new technologies that amplify the effects of disinformation campaigns, conspiracy theories, and fake news make separating fact from fiction nearly impossible. With clarity and conviction, Gottschall reveals why our biggest asset has become our greatest threat, and what, if anything, can be done. It is a call to stop asking, “How we can change the world through stories?” and start asking, “How can we save the world from stories?”

Relying on a rich supply of archives and primary sources, Manley demonstrates that Dominican women participated in national and transnational politics and employed current global political discourse to become a vital component of the successes and failures of the Dominican authoritarian regime.

There is nothing new under the sun. For centuries, scholars have noted that the Romans copied the Greeks, and Shakespeare copied the works of others with wild abandon and without attribution. Most of our favorite bedtime stories and childhood cartoons were copied from works that have come before. It is well recognized that there is no completely new idea; rather, all artists are dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants. A portion of all copyright activity is derivative. Appropriation has been an integral part of our creative process since the birth of mankind. Yet, over the last several decades, Congress has been in the practice of expanding the scope of protection granted to copyright owners. Given the importance of appropriation in various fields of art and other expressive activities, the current copyright system seems at least counterintuitive. Due to the continual practice of extending copyright terms, and the broad scope of the derivative right, the present copyright regime is not in line with the constitutional mandate of the Progress Clause. Rather than incentivizing creation for the sole purpose of facilitating learning and public access to information, Copyright, in its current state, acts as a hindrance to creativity. If the primary goal of copyright is to facilitate a thriving national culture, then the only reason for granting a limited property right is to incentivize creators to share their works with society. Congress promotes this goal by striking a deal with the creator - a grant of a monopoly for a limited time, in exchange for the requirement that, upon expiration of the limited term, the product of their genius will be given to the public domain. Since the sole interest is with the public, and not with rewarding private interests of the author, Congress should work towards finding the minimum level of incentives necessary to promote creation. Copyright in its current state presents two major concerns: 1) The broad scope of the derivative right undermines the idea/expression dichotomy and adds doubt in the minds of the secondary users; and 2) The custom of extending durations of “existing” copyrights is unconstitutional and is causing a stagnate public domain. As a consequence of these problems, the free flow of ideas and dissemination of information has been thwarted. In response to these problems, I have researched possible remedies, looking to copyright systems abroad, other legal scholars, our history, and other developed areas of law. There must be some kind of mechanism to limit Congress' ability of extending existing copyright terms; otherwise the Constitutional mandate of a “limited” term will have no consequence. This comments suggests reinstating requisite formalities, the two-term copyright regime, and a new formulation of the derivative works right.