Výsledky vyhledávání - "Birnhack, Michael D."

Popis souboru: 40255 bytes; 74961 bytes; 117847 bytes; 387308 bytes; 456726 bytes; 314484 bytes; 418679 bytes; 147939 bytes; 104325 bytes; application/pdf

Relation: 壹、中文參考文獻資料; 一、書籍; 1. 工總保護智慧財產權委員會編輯，《著作權法判決彙編Ⅰ》，1999年5月。; 2. 王澤鑑，民法總則，增訂版，2000年。; 3. 吳庚，《行政法之理論與實用》，增訂六版，三民，2000年。; 4. 法治斌/董保城合著，《憲法新論》，2003年。; 5. 蕭雄淋，《新著作權法逐條釋義(一)》，修正版，1998年。; 6. 蕭雄淋主編，《著作權法判解、決議、令函、釋示、實務問題彙編》，三版，2001年。; 7. 羅明通，《著作權法論Ⅰ、Ⅱ》，第五版，2004年。; 8. Carl Schmitt著，劉鋒譯，《憲法學說》，2004年。; 9. Cass Sunstein著，黃維明譯，《網路會顛覆民主嗎？》（Republic.com），新新聞，2002年。; 二、單篇論文; 1. 何思因，〈政治學中的美國政治(六)——利益團體〉，《美國月刊》第2卷第8期，1987年12月。; 2. 林子儀，〈商業性言論與言論自由〉，《美國月刊》第二卷第八期，1987年12月。; 3. 林子儀，〈言論自由之理論基礎〉，收於氏著《言論自由與新聞自由》，1993年。; 4. 林子儀，〈新聞自由的意義及其理論基礎〉，收於氏著《言論自由與新聞自由》，月旦，1993年。; 5. 林子儀，〈言論自由與內亂罪〉，收於氏著《言論自由與新聞自由》，月旦，1993年。; 6. 林子儀，〈言論自由的限制與雙軌理論〉，收於《現代國家與憲法：李鴻禧教授六秩華誕祝賀論文集》，月旦，1997年。; 7. 林子儀，〈言論自由導論〉，收於李鴻禧等合著，《台灣憲法之縱剖橫切》，元照，2002年。; 8. 林昱梅，〈著作之引用與藝術自由——評德國聯邦憲法法院判決B. v. 29. 6. 2000 – 1 BvR 825/98〉，收於《當代公法新論（上）：翁岳生教授七秩誕辰祝壽論文集》，2002年。; 9. 林昱梅，〈藝術自由與嘲諷性模仿之著作權侵害判斷〉，《成大法學》第七期，2004年6月。; 11. 章忠信，〈「著作權法部分條文修正案」簡說〉，《智慧財產權月刊》第36期，2001年12月。; 12. 章忠信，〈九十二年新修正著作權法簡析〉，月旦法學雜誌第103期，2003年12月。; 13. 章忠信，〈九十三年新修正著作權法之析疑〉，《萬國法律》第139期，2005年2月。; 14. 陳淑美，〈我國著作權法制之今昔及其遠景〉，《資訊法務透析》，1999年7月。; 15. 馮震宇/胡心蘭，〈論美國著作權法合理使用原則〉，《中原財經法學》第6期，2001年7月。; 16. 馮震宇，〈著作權談判不應成為台美貿易談判的犧牲品〉，收於氏著《智慧財產權發展趨勢與重要問題研究》，2003年。; 17. 馮震宇，〈數位內容之保護與科技保護措施——法律、產業與政策的考量〉，《月旦法學雜誌》第105期，2004年2月。; 18. 賀德芬，〈著作權在國際法上的保護〉，收於氏著《文化創新與商業契機——著作權法論文集》，增訂再版，1994年。; 19. 賀德芬，〈言論自由與著作權的保護——兼談著作權的限制〉，收錄於氏著《文化創新與商業契機》，增訂再版，1994年。; 20. 賀德芬，〈文化創新與法制化——著作權法的現代意義〉，收於氏著《文化創新與商業契機——著作權法論文集》，增訂再版，1994年，頁7。; 21. 張懿云，〈資訊社會關於「個人非營利目的重製」之研究〉，輔仁法學第20期。; 22. 劉孔中，〈著作人格權之比較研究〉，《台大法學論叢》第31卷第4期。; 23. 謝銘洋，〈著作人格權與一般人格權之關係〉，《月旦法學雜誌》第七十九期，2001年12月。; 24. 謝銘洋，〈從相關案例探討智慧財產權與民法之關係〉，《台大法學論叢》第三十三卷第二期，2004年3月。; 25. 蘇永欽，〈憲法權利的民法效力〉，收於氏著《合憲性控制的理論與實際》，1994年。; 26. 蘇永欽，〈財產權的保障與大法官解釋〉，收於氏著《違憲審查》，1999年。; 27. 蘇永欽，〈私法自治中的國家強制〉，收於氏著《走入新世紀的私法自治》，2002年。; 三、座談會記錄; 1. 周志宏主持，〈新版著作權法——著作權保護的一大步？」座談會〉之發言記錄，《月旦法學》第106期，2004年3月。; 貳、英文參考文獻資料; 1. Alford, William P., To Steal a Book Is an Elegant Offense: Intellectual Property Law in Chinese Civilization (1995).; 2. Baker, C. Edwin, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech (1989).; 3. Baker, C. Edwin, Media, Markets and Democracy (2002).; 4. Barron, Jerome A. & Dienes, C. Thomas, First Amendment Law 19 (3d ed. 2004).; 5. Cohen , Julie E., Loren, Lydia Pallas, Okediji, Ruth Gana & O’Rourke, Maureen A., Copyright in A Global Information Economy (2003).; 6. Davies, Gillian, Copyright and The Public Interest (2002).; 7. Ginsburg, Jane C., A Tale of Two Copyrights: Literary Property in Revolutionary France and America, 64 Tulane L. Rev. 991 (1990).; 8. Goldstein, Paul, International Copyright (2001).; 9. Habermas, Juergen, The Structural Transformation of The Public Sphere: An Inquiry into A Category of Bourgeois Society (1989).; 11. Leaffer, Marshall A., Understanding Copyright Law (3rd. 1999).; 12. Lessig, Lawrence, The Future of Ideas: The Fate of The Commons in a Connected World (2001).; 13. Litman, Jessica, Digital Copyright (2001).; 14. McChesney, Robert W., The Problem of The Media: U.S. Communication Politics in The Twenty-First Century (2004).; 15. Patterson, Lyman Ray, Copyright in Historical Perspective (1968).; 16. Patterson, Lyman Ray & Lindberg, Stanley W., The Nature of Copyright: The Law of User’s Rights 23 (1991).; 17. Rose, Mark, Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (1993).; 18. Starr, Paul, The Creation of The Media (2004).; 19. Vaidhyanathan, Siva, Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity 183 (2001).; 1. Baker, C. Edwin, First Amendment Limits on Copyright, 55 Vand. L. Rev. 891 (2002); 2. Benkler, Yochai, A Political Economy of The Public Domain: Markets in Information Goods versus The Marketplace of Ideas, in Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Diane Leenheer Zimmerman & Harry First (eds.), Expanding The Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for The Knowledge Society 267 (2001).; 3. Benkler, Yochai, Siren Songs and Amish Children: Autonomy, Information and Law, 76 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 23 (2001).; 4. Benkler, Yochai, Constitutional Bounds of Database Protection: The Role of Judicial Review in The Creation and Definition of Private Rights in Information, 15 Berkeley Technology L.J. 535 (2001).; 5. Benkler, Yochai, Intellectual Property and the Organization of Information Production, 22 International Review of Law and Economics 81 (2002).; 6. Benkler, Yochai, Through the Looking Grass: Alice and the Constitutional Foundations of the Public Domain, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 173 (Winter/Spring 2003).; 7. Birnhack, Michael D., Copyright Law and Free Speech after Eldred v. Ashcroft, 76 Southern California L. Rev. 1275 (2003).; 8. Birnhack, Michael D., Copyrighting Speech: A Trans-Atlantic View, in Paul L.C. Torremans (ed.), Copyright and Human Rights 37 (2004).; 9. Boyle, James, A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net?, 47 Duke L. J. 87 (1997); 11. Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, Safeguarding Liberty in relation to Social Power, in State, Society and Liberty 246 (Berg Publishers 1991) ( J. A. Underwood tran.).; 12. Elkin-Koren, Niva, Cyber Law and Social Change: A Democratic Approach to Copyright Law in Cyberspace, 14 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment L.J. 215 (1996).; 13. Elkin-Koren, Niva, It’s All about Control: Rethinking Copyright in the New Information Landscape, in Niva Elkin-Koren & Neil Weinstock Netanel (eds.), The Commodification of Information 79 (2002).; 14. Fisher, William, Theories of Intellectual Property, in Stephen R. Munzer (ed.), New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property 168 (2001).; 15. Goldstein, Paul, Copyright and the first Amendment, 70 Columbia L. Rev. 983 (1970).; 16. Gordon, Wendy J., Do We Have a Right to Speak with Another’s Language? Eldred and the Duration of Copyright, in Paul L.C. Torremans (ed.), Copyright and Human Rights 109 (2004).; 17. Guibault, Lucie, Limitations found outside of copyright law, General report prepared for the ALAI STUDY DAYS Cambridge, September 14-17, 1998: The Exceptions and Limitations to Copyright (Published 12.01.1999); 18. Harbermas, Juergen, Further Reflections on the Public Sphere, in Craig Calhoun (ed), Habermas and The Public Sphere 421 (1992).; 19. Habermas, Juergen, Three Normative Models of Democracy, in Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff (eds.), The Inclusion of The Other: Studies in Political Theory 239 (1998).; 20. Lange, David, Recognizing the Public Domain, 44 Law & Contemp. Probs. 147 (Autumn 1981); 21. Lange, David, Reimaging the Public Domain, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 463 (WinterSpring 2003).; 22. Lemley, Mark A. & Volokh, Eugene, Freedom of Speech and Injunctions in Intellectual Property Cases, 48 Duke L.J. 147 (1998).; 23. Leval, Pierre N., Nimmer Lecture: Fair Use Rescued, 44 UCLA L. Rev. 1449 (1997).; 24. Litman, Jessica, The Public Domain, 39 Emory L.J. 965 (1990).; 25. Netanel, Neil W., Copyright and A Democratic Civil Society, 106 Yale L.J. 283 (1996).; 26. Netanel, Neil W., Market Hierarchy and Copyright in Our System of Free Expression, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 1879 (2000).; 27. Netanel, Neil W., Locating Copyright within the First Amendment Skein, 54 Stan. L. Rev. 1 (2001); 28. Netanel, Neil W., The Commercial Mass Media’s Continuing Fourth Estate Role, in Niva Elkin-Koren & Neil Weinstock Netanel (eds.), The Commodification of Information 317 (2002); 29. Netanel, Neil W., Copyright and the First Amendment: What Eldred Misses – and Portends, in Jonathan Griffiths & Uma Suthersanen (eds.), Copyright and Free Speech: Comparative and International Analyses § 6 (2005).; 30. Nimmer, Melville. B., Does Copyright Abridge the First Amendment Guarantees of Free Speech and Press?, 17 UCLA L. Rev. 1180 (1970).; 31. Robin, Edward L., Getting Past Democracy, 149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 711 (2001).; 32. Rose, Mark, Nine-Tenths of The Law: The English Copyright Debates and The Rhetoric of The Public Domain, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 75 (WinterSpring 2003).; 33. Rubenfeld, Jed, The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright’s Constitutionality, 112 Yale L.J. 1 (2002); 34. Samuels, Edward, The Public Domain in Copyright Law 41 J. COPYR. SOC’Y 137 (1993).; 35. Samuelson, Pamela, Copyright, Commodification, and Censorship, in Niva Elkin-Koren & Neil Weinstock Netanel (eds.), The Commodification of Information 63 (2002).; 36. Samuelson, Pamela, The Constitutional Law of Intellectual Property after Eldred v. Ashcroft, 50 Journal of Copyright Society 547 (2003).; 37. Tushnet, Rebecca, Copyright as A Model for Free Speech Law: What Copyright Has in Common with Anti-Pornography Laws, Campaign Finance Reform, and Telecommunications Regulation, 42 Boston College L. Rev. 1 (2001).; 38. Rebecca Tushnet, Copy This Essay: How Fair Use Doctrine Harms Free Speech and How Copying Serves It, 114 Yale L.J. 535 (2004).; 39. Volokh, Eugene, Freedom of Speech and Intellectual Property: Some Thoughts after Eldred, 44 Liquormart, and Bartnicki, 40 Houston L. Rev. 697 (2003); 三、美國法院判決; 1. Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989).; 2. Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, (1988).; 3. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).; 4. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).; 5. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942); 6. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986); 7. Dr. Seuss Enters. V. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997).; 8. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).; 9. Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprise, 471 U.S. 539 (1985).; 11. Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961).; 12. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).; 13. Pacific & Southern Company Inc. v. Duncan, 744 F. 2d 1490, 1499 (11th Cir. 1984); 14. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972).; 15. Rosemont Enterprises v. Random House Inc., 366 F.2d 303 (2nd Cir. 1966).; 16. Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970).; 17. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studies, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984).; 18. SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co, 268 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001).; 19. Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates, 293 F.Supp. 130 (SDNY 1968).; 20. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622 (1994).; 21. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997).; 22. Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff`d 273 F.3d 429 (2nd Cir. 2001).; 23. Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976).; 24. Walt Disney v. Air Pirates, 345 F. Supp. 108, 115 (N.D. Cal. 1972), aff’d in part, reversed in part, 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978).; 25. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989).; 26. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).; 27. World Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc., 227 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 958 (2001).; G0906510012; https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw//handle/140.119/32816; https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/32816/1/51001201.pdf; https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/32816/2/51001202.pdf; https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/32816/3/51001203.pdf; https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/32816/4/51001204.pdf; https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/32816/5/51001205.pdf; https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/32816/6/51001206.pdf; https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/32816/7/51001207.pdf; https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/32816/8/51001208.pdf; https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/32816/9/51001209.pdf