1. "Moral rights" are sometimes considered to be a form of copyright and sometimes analyzed under other doctrines. Such rights attempt to recognize that the creators of works have a certain relationship with their creations, even after they have left the creator's ownership or possession. Changes to a work that would impact this relationship, such as in the form of distortions or mutilations, may violate the creator's moral rights. Do you think such moral rights have a place in the development of nanotechnology? What criticisms can you see being leveled at your answer?

2. In discussing the protection of the works, the main text asserts uncategorically that "there is no question that nanotech creations are never used as buildings." Do you agree? Is it possible that a "building" might be defined broadly as "something built or constructed" instead of a "structure for human habitation"—so that nanotech creations could then be considered "buildings" whose designs would be protected as architectural works? What if the nanotech creations housed other, smaller structures? Do you think such a broad meaning is what legislators had in mind when they provided the definition of "architectural work"?41 What is your view of attorneys who try to extend the meanings of statutes in this kind of way?

0 0

Post a comment