Contemporary intellectual property and information law (IPIL) scholarship is increasingly postmodern and interdisciplinary. Themes that were originally associated with the critical legal studies (CLS) movement are now making a regular appearance in legal scholarship about privacy, access, fair use, the public domain, and other IPIL topics. For example, the conceptualization of identity and the “author” as social constructs, the rejection of traditional law and economics principles, the identification of interdeterminancy and paradox in information network organization, and the renewed emphasis on collectivity as a context for scholarship about commons management are all popular themes in recent IPIL scholarship that seem reminiscent of the CLS movement.

​

CLS scholarship, although wide-ranging in substance, can be characterized as sharing at least one common notion—that the predominant discourse of rights in legal academia is a misleading and politically motivated social construct that serves special interests and impedes the progress of justice. Similarly, an increasingly common point of departure for scholars, activists, and technologists is the recognition that IPIL norms function as a tool of social control by supporting institutions of hegemonic cultural dissemination.

​

Why is the revival of CLS themes so apparent in IPIL scholarship as compared to other legal disciplines? Is it simply a manifestation of the significant cultural and historical nexus between IPIL and the humanities? Or is the re-emergence of these themes in IPIL scholarship politically motivated, as CLS scholars might posit?

​

Just as the first wave of CLS scholarship was associated with the civil rights movement, the re-emergence of CLS in the IPIL context seems closely aligned with a newly emerging form of technologically-inspired grassroots activism. Meanwhile, policy debates surrounding IPIL in Washington are increasingly politicized and subject to public participation. To what extent is the push for reform coincident or concurrent with emerging CLS themes in IPIL scholarship? Perhaps the goals of CLS are—intentionally or not—being realized in popular efforts to re-contextualize IPIL policy debates.



This symposium will focus on the following three themes: (1) the increased politicization of policy debates with respect to IP & information law; (2) the trending contemporary revival of CLS themes in IPIL scholarship, and (3) the emergence of tremendous public participation IPIL policy debates. The goal of this symposium is to discuss these topics in relation to various recent developments, some of which will surely proliferate between now and the day of the symposium.



​The Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal (ISSN 0736-7694) is run and edited by Cardozo law students. AELJ is published three times annually and covers arts, entertainment, intellectual property, First Amendment, sports, cyberlaw, and media and telecommunications law. The Journal publishes articles written by legal scholars as well as notes and “recent developments” written by Cardozo students.