From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 95 08:31:14 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: anonymity review in law journal
In-Reply-To: <199508020334.UAA09787@netcom15.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9508021530.AA28462@cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Vladimir Z. Nuri writes:
> Hi everyone, someone tipped me off to a law review article by 
> Anne Branscomb entitled Anonymity, Autonomy, and Accountability: 
> Challenges to the First Amendment in Cyberspaces  104 Yale L F 1639.

I expect this is the Anne Wells Branscomb who reviewed the Rimm job for
the Georgetown Law Journal. According to
http://catalog.com/columbia/homepage/ftr/995.html, she `called the study's
methodology "academically rigorous."' She is a professor at the GWU law 
school. Alas, neither the GWU law school nor the Yale law school seems to
have any measurable presence on the WWW. A Lycos search turned up a footnote
pointing to an article she wrote for Scientific American:

Branscomb, A. W.: Common law for the electronic frontier.
   In Scientific American, September 1991, pp. 154-158. 

A paper by Norderhaug and Oberding on "Designing a Web of Intellectual
Property" at http://www.ifi.uio.no/~terjen/pub/webip/950220.html that
cites the SciAm piece mentions that:

	Branscomb [bra91] reminds us that the rigors of the market
	economy are such that it is not a viable economic policy to give
	away the results of intellectual labor without a fair and equitable
	compensation. 

Thus I would be rather surprised if the anonymity/autonomy/accountability
paper turned out to be notably sympathetic to anonymity. That would make it
all the more interesting to see....

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>