Referenties boek
ICT en recht

Referenties hoofdstuk 3
Het auteursrecht reageert

1.    S. Carlson, ‘Get Ready for An Encore of the Napster Controversy’, The Chronicle of Higher Education 21 april 2001.
2.    C. Schriks, Het kopijrecht. De ontwikkeling van het auteursrecht in Nederland, Zutphen: Walburg Pers 2016.
3.    P.B. Hugenholtz, L. Guibault & S. van Geffen, The future of levies in a digital environment: final report, Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law 2003.
4.    Supreme Court of the United States 20 november 1972, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63.
5.    R.O. Nimtz, ‘Development of the law of computer software protection’, Journal of the Patent Office Society 1979, 61, p. 3-43. 
6.    C.H. Farley, ‘The Lingering Effects of Copyright's Response to the Invention of Photography’, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 2003, 65/3, p. 385.
7.    E. Bride, ‘The IBM Personal Computer: A Software-Driven Market’, Computer 2011, 44.8, p. 34-39.
8.    G. O'Regan, Introduction to the History of Computing: A Computing History Primer, New York: Springer 2016, p. 143-149.
9.    A.S. Turnbull, ‘The Constraints of Software: Borrowable Like Books?’, Emerging Library & Information Perspectives 2019, 2/, p. 6-29.
10.    M.J. Madison, ‘Legal-ware: Contract and copyright in the digital age’, Fordham Law Review 1998, 67/3, p. 1025.
11.    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 19 september 1994, Apple Computer Inc. vs. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435.
12.    Supreme Court of the United States 16 januari 1996, Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International Inc., 516 U.S. 233.
13.    Wet van 13 maart 2008 tot herstel van wetstechnische gebreken en leemten alsmede aanbrenging van andere wijzigingen van ondergeschikte aard in diverse wetsbepalingen op het terrein van het ministerie van Justitie (Reparatiewet III Justitie) (Stb. 2008, 85).
14.    A. Huygen e.a., ‘Ups and downs. Economic and cultural effects of file sharing on music, film and games’, TNO Information and Communication Technology Series 2009. 
15.    P. DiCola & M. Sag, ‘An Information-Gathering Approach to Copyright Policy’, Layola University Chicago 2012, p. 173 en 178. 
16.    EHRM 11 oktober 2005, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:1011JUD7304905 (Anheuser-Buch/Portugal). 
17.    P. Teunissen, ‘Van interpretatie tot harmonisatie: grondrechtenafwegingen in het auteursrecht’, Intellectuele Eigendom en Reclamerecht 2018, 34, 5, p. 376-395.
18.    M. Senftleben, ‘Beperkingen á la carte: Waarom de Auteursrechtrichtlijn ruimte laat voor fair use’, Tijdschrift voor auteurs-, media en informatierecht 2003/1, p. 10-14.
19.    K.J. Koelman, ‘De nationale driestappentoets’, Tijdschrift voor auteurs-, media en informatierecht 2003/1, p. 6.
20.    M. Senftleben, ‘Overprotection and Protection Overlaps in Intellectual Property Law–the Need for Horizontal Fair Use Defences’, in: A. Kur & V. Mizaras (red.), The Structure of Intellectual Property Law, Edward Elgar Publishing 2011.
21.    B. Hugenholtz, ‘Auteursrecht contra informatievrijheid in Europa’, in: A.W. Hins & A.J. Nieuwenhuis (red.), Van ontvanger naar zender, Amsterdam: Otto Cramwinckel 2003, p. 157-174.
22.    HvJ EU 24 november 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:771, NJ 2012/479 (Scarlet/Sabam); Zie ook HvJ EU 29 januari 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:54 (Promusicae).
23.    EHRM 10 januari 2013, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0110JUD003676908 (Ashby Donald e.a./Frankrijk).
24.    A. Engelfriet, ‘Juridisch touwtrekken om een interface: bescherming van API’s in het licht van de zaak Google/Oracle’, Auteursrecht 2021/1. 
25.    Surpreme Court (United States), 5 april 2021, Google LLC v Oracle America 18-956. 
26.    L. Determann & D. Nimmer, ‘Software Copyright's Oracle from the Cloud’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2015, 30/1, p. 161-212. 
27.    HvJ EU 2 mei 2012, ECLI:EU:C:2012:259 (SAS Institute/Word Programming). 
28.    J. Laugesen, & Y. Yuan, ’What factors contributed to the success of Apple's iPhone?’, International Conference on Mobile Business 2010.
29.    A. Peyton, ‘The Connected State of Things: A Lawyer's Survival Guide in an Internet of Things World’, Catholic University Journal of Law and Technoglogy 2015, 24/2, p. 369.
30.    Hoge Raad 20 oktober 1995, ECLI:NL:HR:1995:ZC1845, NJ 1996/682 (Dior v. Evora).
31.    A. Brill & A. Packard, ‘Silencing Scientology's critics on the Internet: a mission impossible?’, Communications and the Law 1997, 19/4. 
32.    H.B. Urban, ‘The Church of Scientology’, In: E. Barker (red.), Revisionism and diversification in new religious movements, Londen: Routledge 2016, p. 65-78.
33.    Gerechtshof ‘s-Gravenhage 4 september 2003, ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2003:AI5638. 
34.    J. Griffiths & U. Suthersanen, Copyright and Free Speech. Comparative and International Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press 2005, p. 292.
35.    S. Karapapa, Defences to Copyright Infringement: Creativity, Innovation and Freedom on the Internet, Oxford: University Press 2020.
36.    F. von Lohmann, Fair Use as Innovation Policy, Berkely Technology Law Journal 2008, 23, 2, p. 829-865. 
37.    Court of Appeals (United States), 16 mei 2007, Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146.
38.    C. Geiger & E. Izyumenko, ‘Towards a European "Fair Use" Grounded in Freedom of Expression’, American University International Law Review 2009, 35, 1. 
39.    C. A. Thijm, ‘Fair use: het auteursrechtelijk evenwicht hersteld’, Tijdschrift voor Auteurs-, Media- en Informatierecht 1998, p. 145.
40.    P.B. Hugenholtz, Auteursrecht op informatie (diss. Amsterdam UvA), Deventer: Kluwer 1989, p. 150.
41.    P. Chandra, ‘Order in the Warez Scene: Explaining an Underground Virtual Community with the CPR Framework’, in: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2016, p. 372-383.
42.    C. Fairchild, Pop Idols and Pirates. Mechanisms of Consumption and the Global Circulation of Popular Music, Hampshire: Ashgate 2008, p. 182.
43.    L. Lessig, Free Culture. The Nature and Future of Creativity, Londen: Penguin Books 2004, p. 73-74. 
44.    Court of Appeals (United States), 21 februari 2001, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004.
45.    D.Y. Choi & A. Perez, ‘Online piracy, innovation, and legitimate business models’, Technovation 2007, 27.4, p. 168-178.
46.    K. McLeod, ‘MP3s are killing home taping: The rise of Internet distribution and its challenge to the major label music monopoly’, Popular Music and Society 2005, 28.4, p. 521-531.
47.    M.S.C. Bakker & S. C. van Loon, ‘Economisch recht en intellectuele eigendom’, Ars Aequi Katern 2004, 53, p. 5063-5066.
48.    HR 19 december 2003, ECLI:NL:HR:2003:AN7253. 
49.    V. Bush, ‘As we may think’, The Atlantic Monthly 1945, 176.1, p. 101-108.
50.    N. Wardrip-Fruin, & N. Montfort, The New Media Reader, Londen: The MIT Press 2003. 
51.    Gerechtshof Amsterdam 15 juni 2006, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2006:AX7579 (Zoekmp3).
52.    HvJ EU 13 februari 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:76 (Svensson e.a. tegen Retriever).
53.    HvJ EU 9 maart 2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:181 (VG Bild-Kunst/SPK).
54.    HvJ EU 8 september 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:221 (GS Media/Sanoma).
55.    J.P. Quintais, ‘Untangling the hyperlinking web: In search of the online right of communication to the public’, The Journal of World Intellectual Property 2018, 21(5-6), p. 385-420.
56.    Rechtbank Utrecht 28 augustus 2009, ECLI:RBUTR:2009:BJ6008.
57.    E. van der Sar, ‘Pirate Bay’s Founding Group ‘Piratbyrån’ Disbands’, Torrent Freak 23 juni 2010. 
58.    Rechtbank Amsterdam 22 oktober 2009, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2009:BK1067.
59.    HR 13 november 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:3307. 
60.    HvJ EU 14 June 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:456 (Brein/Ziggo).
61.    M. van Eechoud & J. Poort, ‘Hof van Justitie legt bom onder het internet’, Nederlands Juristenblad 2016, 91, p. 1886.
62.    HvJ EU 8 september 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:644 (Playboy/GeenStijl).
63.    J. K. Drevets, ‘Spotify, Piracy and Patronage: How Consumers Make Decisions Regarding Musical Consumption in the Streaming Age’, University Honors Theses 2017. 
64.    A.J. Bottomley, Sound streams. A cultural history of radio-internet convergence, Michigan: University of Michigan Press 2020.
65.    H.S. Spilker & T. Colbjørnsen, ‘The dimensions of streaming: toward a typology of an evolving concept’, Media, Culture & Society 2020, 42.7-8, p.1210-1225.
66.    R.A. Brookey, ‘The magician and the iPod: Steve Jobs as industry hero’, Leadership in the Media Industry 2006, 1, p. 107-121.
67.    E.J. Teague, ‘Saving the Spotify revolution: Recalibrating the power imbalance in digital copyright’, Case Western Reserve Journal of Law Technology & the Internet 2012, 4, p. 207.
68.    J. Riekkinen, ‘Streaming Era Digital Media Piracy: an integration of three theoretical perspectives’, Jyväskylä studies in computing 2018, p. 277.
69.    J.T. Rosch, ‘A Different Perspective on DRM’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2007, 22, 971.
70.    ‘Old-School PC Copy Protection Schemes’, Vintage Computing and Gaming 8 augustus 2006.
71.    L. Guibault & J.H.M. Mom, Evaluatie van de artikelen 29a en 29b van de Auteurswet 1912, Amsterdam: Instituut voor Informatierecht 2007. 
72.    ‘Finish court rules CSS protection ‘ineffective’, unlocking lawful’, DVD and Beyond 27 mei 2007. 
73.    H. Hietanen, ‘Court of Appeal overturned the CSS decision’, Turre 26 mei 2008. 
74.    M. Bower, ‘Keeping the DMCA away from Functional Use’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2020, 35, p. 1067.
75.    J. Koebler, ‘Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors with Ukrainian Firmware’, VICE 21 maart 2017.  
76.    G.L. Clinton, ‘Why a DVD Is Like a Garage Door Opener: The Federal Circuit Tackles the DMCA in Chamberlain Group v. Skylink Technologies’, George Mason Law Review 2004, 13, p. 1115.
77.    C. Borg-Breen, ‘Garage Door Openers, Printer Toner Cartridges, and the New Age of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’, Northwestern University Law Review 2006, 100, 2, p. 912–915. 
78.    L.M. Shinn, ‘Passwords and Keys under the DMCA: A Call for Clarification from the Courts or Congress’, Hastings Law Journal 2008, 60, p. 1173.
79.    M.A. Carrier, ‘SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP: An Alphabet Soup of Innovation-Stifling Sopyright Legislation and Agreements’, Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property 2012, 11, p. 21.
80.    J.J. Morris & P. Alam, ‘Analysis of the Dot-Com Bubble of the 1990s.’, Available at SSRN 2008.
81.    D. Glez-Peña e.a., ‘Web scraping technologies in an API world’, Briefings in bioinformatics 2014, 15(5), p. 788-797.
82.    Gerechtshof Arnhem 4 juli 2006, ECLI:NL:GHARN:2006:AY0089 (Zoekallehuizen).
83.    HR 22 maart 2002, ECLI:NL:HR:2002:AD9138 (NVM vs El Cheapo).
84.    HvJ EU 16 juli 2009, ECLI:EU:C:2009:465 (Infopaq I).
85.    M. Powell, ‘The European Union's Database Directive: An International Antidote to the Side Effects of Feist’, Fordham International Law Journal 1996, 20, p. 1215.
86.    HvJ EU 9 november 2004, ECLI:EU:C:2004:695 (William Hill/ British Horseracing Board); Zie ook HvJ EU 9 november 2004, ECLI:EU:C:2004:694 (Fixtures Marketing).
87.    Rechtbank Alkmaar 7 augustus 2007, ECLI:NL:RBALK:2007:BB1207 (Woningwebsite Jaap).
88.    J. Cobia, ‘The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Takedown Notice Procedure: Misuses, Abuses, and Shortcomings of the Process’, Minnesota Journal Law Science & Technology 2008, 10, p. 387.
89.    S.F. Schwemer & J. Schovsbo, ‘What is Left of User Rights? – Algorithmic Copyright Enforcement and Free Speech in the Light of the Article 17 Regime’, Intellectual Property Law and Human Rights 2019, p. 569-589.