Skip to main content
Skip to content
1 duplicate copy in the archive
Case File
d-35049House OversightOther

Reading list on Right to Be Forgotten and copyright history – no actionable leads

The document only provides citations and a pedagogical overview of legal topics without mentioning any specific actors, transactions, or allegations. It lacks concrete investigative leads, novel revel References to EU Right to be Forgotten cases and scholarly papers. Discussion of historical copyright wars and policy shifts. No mention of specific persons, agencies, or financial flows.

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #024260
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The document only provides citations and a pedagogical overview of legal topics without mentioning any specific actors, transactions, or allegations. It lacks concrete investigative leads, novel revel References to EU Right to be Forgotten cases and scholarly papers. Discussion of historical copyright wars and policy shifts. No mention of specific persons, agencies, or financial flows.

Tags

legal-scholarshipcopyrightright-to-be-forgottenpolicy-historyhouse-oversight

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
[OPTIONAL: Right to Be Forgotten readings] e Zoe Bedell, “Google to France: ‘Forget You’ - An Update on the Right to Be Forgotten” Lawfare (May 25, 2016) https://www.lawfareblog.com/qoogle-france-forget-you-%E2%80%93-update-right-be-for gotten archived at https://perma.cc/W9EX-5AGZ. e Google Spain v. Mario Costeja Gonzalez ECJ opinion (May 13, 2014) http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&docid=152065 archived at https://perma.cc/3ARS-3XC4. o Read paragraphs 89-99 e Brendan van Alsenoy and Marieke Koekkoek, The Extraterritorial Reach of the EU’s ‘Right to Be forgotten’ (January 19, 2015). CiTiP Working paper 20/2015. Available at SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2551838 archived at https://perma.cc/B3SF-YJ3W. o Read pages 3-22 Day 2: Copyright Copyright was once thought of as the defining battle of consumer networking. Academic technologies brought into the mainstream made it trivial to prepare and distribute perfect copies of copyrighted work without permission -- and the comparatively powerful organizations representing copyright holders saw this as an existential threat. We will read some of the “grim joy” experienced by Internet freedom types in dancing on the grave of copyright in the mid-1990s -- and immerse in some of the law and policy changes effected in the United States to deal with the problem without running up against the equities of rapidly-growing intermediaries of online and Internet service providers (turns out, there’s a difference). The copyright wars revealed a variety of strategies that we'll look at with the benefit of years of hindsight, including lawsuits against network providers, software makers, and individual users both sending and receiving files, as well as technical changes designed to make it more difficult to share items that wish not to be shared. Ultimately we are drawn to the question of whether the wars were won by one side or another, or whether it’s more accurate to say that they simply faded away. What issues today feel make-or-break, yet could simply fade rather than be resolved, and why? We'll end the day with a peek into, and practice of, a current intense if obscure debate: that of whether digital rights management hooks should be placed into standards for Web browsers. Readings: e John Perry Barlow, “The Economy of Ideas,” Wired (March 1994) htto://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/economy.ideas.html?topic=&topic set= archived at https://perma.cc/P82S-RZP3.

Technical Artifacts (9)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Domainarchive.wired.com
Phone2551838
URLhttp://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&docid=152065
URLhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2551838
URLhttps://perma.cc/3ARS-3XC4
URLhttps://perma.cc/B3SF-YJ3W
URLhttps://perma.cc/P82S-RZP3
URLhttps://perma.cc/W9EX-5AGZ
URLhttps://www.lawfareblog.com/qoogle-france-forget-you-%E2%80%93-update-right-be-for

Related Documents (6)

House OversightFBI ReportNov 11, 2025

Allegations of Political Bias in FBI Crossfire Hurricane and Mueller Investigation

The passage repeats already‑public claims that the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe was politically motivated to aid Hillary Clinton and later taint the Mueller special‑counsel investigation. It provid Claims that FBI agents initiated Crossfire Hurricane to boost Clinton's electoral chances. Suggests the investigation was an "insurance policy" to undermine a Trump administration. Argues that Muelle

1p
Financial RecordUnknown

SONY GM 02771417

DOJ EFTA Data Set 10 document EFTA01337869

89p
Dept. of JusticeAug 22, 2017

15 July 7 2016 - July 17 2016 working progress_Redacted.pdf

Kristen M. Simkins From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Irons, Janet < Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:47 AM Richard C. Smith     Hello Warden Smith,     mother is anxious to hear the results of your inquiry into her daughter's health.   I'd be grateful if you could  email or call me at your earliest convenience.  I'm free today after 2 p.m.  Alternatively, we could meet after the Prison  Board of Inspectors Meeting this coming Thursday.    Best wishes,    Janet Irons    1 Kristen M. Simkins From: Sent:

1196p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Senator Jim Kyl presses DOJ on alleged narrow enforcement of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and urges regulatory reform to curb costly federal rules

The document contains specific complaints and requests from a sitting U.S. Senator about DOJ practices and regulatory oversight, naming agencies (DOJ, OLC, OMB/OIRA) and independent regulators (SEC, C Senator Kyl requests DOJ clarification on its interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) He cites specific OLC opinion (May 20, 2011) and case law (In re Dean, In re Antrobus) to argue DO

14p
Dept. of JusticeAug 22, 2017

11 MAY 25-MAY 27 901_Redacted.pdf

Kristen M. Simkins From: Irons, Janet Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 11-29 AM To: Richard C. Smith Cc: Jeffrey T. We Subject: Meeting with Prison Society tomorrow Hello Warden Smith, I'm writing in preparation for our meeting with you and Director Hite tomorrow at 9:30 to talk about the Law Library. We have been in touch with Kim Kelmor, Assistant Director ofthe Law Library at Penn State, who has experience with prison libraries. She has helpfully provided us with some questions and guida

186p
Dept. of JusticeOtherUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01459301

BY SIGNING BELOW CLIENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT: !II CLIENT HAS RECEIVED. READ AND AGREES TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS ACCOUNT AGREEMENT, INCLUDING DIE APPENDIX WHICH CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION; (2) THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ACCOUNT AGREEMENT IS ACCURATE; AND (3) CLIENT HAS ELECTED IN SECTION IV, PAGES, HOW TO USE FREE CREDIT BALANCES. CLIENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS ACCOUNT AGREEMENT CONTAINS A PRE•DISPUTE ARBITRATION CLAUSE AT SECTION III PAGE 5. AND CLIENT AGREES TO ITS 4S (AL

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.