Challenge to Blogging Scholarship
Take a look at this recent post from 3L Epiphany wondering why no-one in the blogosphere has bothered to assemble a commentary on Hudson v. Michigan
Suppose there were a blog devoted exclusively to the case of Hudson v. Michigan (the “Blog”). This blog would become the online authority about the case and its ramifications. Every time a lower court relies on or distinguishes Hudson, the Blog could name and analyze the new decision (and link to it if it’s online). Lawyers and law professors could analyze Hudson and its consequences, and submit their research to the blog. If some form of review were desired, submitted scholarship could potentially be approved, edited, and published within a week after being received. And as state legislatures pass statutes to clarify their laws in the wake of Hudson, the Blog could follow the legislative developments. The blog could link to the online conversations already taking place about Hudson (for example, here and here). If done well, an Blog would provide immediate benefits to the entire legal profession. Prosecutors and defense attorneys across the country would rely on it as a resource, and judges might even cite the blog in a court opinion.
Okay Slaw, which Canadian cases would be worth such attention?
“If done well, an Blog [sic] would provide immediate benefits to the entire legal profession. ”
Ahh, but that’s the test, isn’t it? I looked at some of the linked discussion, and frankly, I don’t know who would have time to wade through it. It reminds me of the discussion boards on investing: you get what you pay for, and panning the tailings here is too much work for too little gold.
Since time is usually at a premium, I prefer old-fashioned peer-reviewed material and a good starting place for that is Key-Cite which provides links to secondary sources as well as the standard noteup.
This is a good idea. The tricky part is finding the right case. It should be something current that presents a change in the law or opens the door for the law to evolve.
Off hand, the only case I can think of is LSUC v. CCH 2004 SCC 13 which opens the question of “fair dealing” to further legal development and interpretation, particularly:
“Fair dealing under s. 29 of the Act for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright. “Research” must be given a large and liberal interpretation in order to ensure that users’ rights are not unduly constrained. It is not limited to non-commercial or private contexts. Research for the purpose of advising clients, giving opinions, arguing cases, preparing briefs and factums is “research”. Lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research within the meaning of s. 29. Whether something is fair is a question of fact and depends on the facts of each case. Relevant factors in determining whether a dealing is fair include: (a) the purpose of the dealing, (b) the character of the dealing, (c) the amount of the dealing, (d) available alternatives to the dealing, (e) the nature of the work, and (f) the effect of the dealing on the work.”
This would fit with SLAW’s interests. Its a Canadian case, but I think international commnent and crticism would work. I believe that the door opened by CCH will be tested in the future and there are some judicial considerations already.
This is exactly the case I was thinking of as well. Slaw readers are stakeholders from all sides of the decision. It would be an opportunity to explore the range of opinions surrounding copyright in Canada.