James Grimmelmann introduces his new article, “Speech Engines.” Recently published in the Minnesota Law Review, “Speech Engines” looks at Google, search bias, and the First Amendment.
Professor James Grimmelmann, University of Maryland, exposes the National Security Agency’s wiretapping of Santa’s elf communications.
Professor James Grimmelmann, University of Maryland, provides his take on Massive Open Online Courses, or MOOCs. He explains why he went from being enthusiastic to disappointed.
Professor James Grimmelmann, University of Maryland, provides excerpts from an article he wrote for Communications of the ACM. This piece comes out of his argument from his paper, “Speech Engines” about how best to think about search engines.
Law professor James Grimmelmann, University of Maryland, examines the basic components of the Apple ebook antitrust case.
By discussing the case of two alleged video-poker cheats being prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Professor James Grimmelmann examines the ambiguity of the concept of “circumvention” in the law.
In his latest column for Publishers Weekly, Professor James Grimmelmann examines the Capitol Records v. ReDigi decision.
My latest article, “Future Conduct and the Limits of Class-Action Settlements,” has just been published in the North Carolina Law Review. I’ve been working on this one for a long time—two and a half years—and have been struggling with the ideas for even longer—nearly five. I’ve kept it under wraps until now because I wanted to be sure I had the details right.
My latest essay for Ars Technica, “Why Johnny Can’t Stream: How Online Copyright Went Insane” is now online. From my perspective, it’s an attempt to tie together my blogging on cases like Aereo, Zediva, and ReDigi and to illustrate what they have in common. From a legal perspective, it’s the story of how the public performance right has gradually made less and less sense over the last few years.
I would like to do something perverse with the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Jones: focus on what the court actually held. Scholarly attention has focused on Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence and Justice Alito’s opinion concurring in the judgment, and their apparent willingness to embrace a mosaic theory of sustained observation, and to rethink the third-party doctrine. But in its own way, Justice Scalia’s majority opinion raises just as many deep questions as the concurrences do.