Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (4) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- internet (4) (remove)
We build a search-and-matching algorithm of network dynamics with decision-making under incomplete information, seeking to understand the determinants of the observed gradual downgrading of expert opinion on complicated issues and the decreasing trust in science. Even without fake news, combining the internet’s ease of forming networks with (a) individual biases, such as confirmation bias or assimilation bias, and (b) people’s tendency to align their actions with those of peers, produces populist and polarization network dynamics. Homophily leads to actions with more weight on biases and less weight on expert opinion, and such actions lead to more homophily.
This paper reexamines the current legal landscape regarding the protection of trade marks and other industrial property rights in signs on the Internet. It is based on a comparative analysis of EU and national laws, in particular, German, U.S., and U.K. law. It starts with a short restatement of the principles governing trade mark conflicts that occur within a particular jurisdiction (part 2) and proceeds to the regulation of transnational disputes (part 3). This juxtaposition yields two basic approaches. Whereas trade mark conflicts within closed legal systems are generally adjudicated according to a binary either/or logic, transnational disputes are and should indeed be solved in a way that leads to a fair coexistence of conflicting trade mark laws and rights under multiple laws. This paper explains how geolocation technologies can alleviate the implementation of the principle of fair coexistence in concrete cases.
According to the prevailing view, the purpose of digital copyright is to balance conflicting interests in exclusivity on the one hand and in access to information on the other. This article offers an alternative reading of the conflicts surrounding copyright in the digital era. It argues that two cultures of communication coexist on the internet, each of which has a different relationship to copyright. Whereas copyright institutionalizes and supports a culture of exclusivity, it is at best neutral towards a culture of free and open access. The article shows that, depending on the future regulation of copyright and the internet in general, the dynamic coexistence of these cultures may well be replaced by an overwhelming dominance of the culture of exclusivity.
Nach vorherrschender Lesart prallen im Internet Exklusivitäts- und Zugangsinteressen aufeinander. Das Urheberrecht soll diesen Konflikt in ein angemessenes Gleichgewicht bringen. Im folgenden Beitrag werden die Auseinandersetzungen um das digitale Urheberrecht anders gedeutet. Demnach ist die Online-Kommunikation von zwei koexistierenden Kulturen geprägt, die sich je verschieden zum Urheberrecht verhalten. Die Ausgestaltung des digitalen Urheberrechts wird mit darüber entscheiden, ob das dynamische Nebeneinander von Exklusivitäts- und Zugangskultur fortdauert oder ob eine der beiden Kulturen verdrängt wird. Das Urheberrecht ist folglich als Teil der Internetregulierung zu betrachten.