Where works are available only in digital form,
Where plants are available merely in digital signifier, the exclusions to and restrictions upon right of first publication pacts are about wholly established
Assess the truth of this statement, and critically measure the extent to which the international right of first publication pacts do let member province to include exclusions and restrictions to right of first publication protection within national statute law.
The impression of privateness and the protection of informations and right of first publication protection evolved from the paper beginnings that precluded the mid-late 1980s, of all time since the place computing machine became standard in the places of mass populace. Since this clip the construct of electronic information has quickly evolved to the phantom countries of internet and the compact storage constituents from memory storage keys to detachable Bluetooth devices. These devices do non merely ; enable the media to convey of import intelligence every bit shortly as possible and do concerns more efficient and nomadic ; but besides makes it a batch easier to download confidential or private information to unwrap to the imperativeness unconscionably, to steal trade secrets and illicitly transcript and forward digital right of first publication protected stuff. Therefore the new high tech media of electronic information has enabled farther complications in the state of affairs refering the freedom to leave and hive away information and the construct of privateness rights in regard to protecting copyrighted informations that is in digital format. The cyberspace is the most compelling illustration because it does non be in real-time, but is a combination of anchor computing machines which link through internet, therefore an person can link to websites all over the universe. Therefore unlike orbiter communications, overseas telegram communications, wireless communications and telephone communications there is non needfully an arising province. Alternatively there is a new dimension of communicating, a phantom dimension known as internet. Hence doing the ordinance of this country really hard to gestate and implement ; the jobs range from right of first publication breaches through to breaches of assurance, slander, invasion of privateness and condemnable offenses, such as kid erotica and incitation to hatred. There are besides websites that demo one how to kill, do bombs and demo one how to ease a offense, therefore doing the Internet an priceless plus for communicating, instruction and cognition but besides really unsafe because it is really difficult to modulate. Each province has attempted to put up ordinances but they are really re-active, as opposed to pro-active because it is merely possible to close down the pimps of the Internet sites unless the conceiver of the web sites can be determined and are in the province or a province party to a convention in modulating the given type of sites. However each province has a changing reading of different Torahs, one illustration is the right of first publication Torahs environing downloads, in the USA it is an offense to upload or download files which contravene copyright Torahs ; whereas in Canada it is an offense to upload but non download files which contravene copyright Torahs. Therefore the Internet cause a myriad of jobs because the Canadian jurisprudence does non prosecute those who procure downloads from sites based in the USA, but does prosecute those who upload sites in Canada, which seems really nonreversible. This is because the USA prosecutes those citizens who upload and download files from sites in dispute of right of first publication Torahs, which means these citizens may be downloading from sites in Canada ; hence protecting the Canadian every bit good the USA’s involvements. Therefore this is one job with protecting electronic informations ; nevertheless there are other jobs with the Internet which surrounds the individual’s privateness and the freedom of information and the freedom of the imperativeness. The jobs surround the ordinance of personal information on the Internet ; whereas if an article was published in a newspaper which could perchance represent as a breach of assurance or libel it is easy to show a instance because the suspect is easy identified to a province and a peculiar legal system. On the other manus, if an article is published on the Internet it is a batch harder to modulate unless on an established site, such as Greenpeace or The Times.
In order to find the exact jobs that will be discussed in the undermentioned geographic expedition one has to find the job of privateness, which has been summarized bySinghand Hill[ 1 ] in relation to the Internet:
“With Internet engineerings going progressively sophisticated, the issue of online privateness protection has gained considerable visibleness as consumer advocators, public policy shapers, and companies debate the best ways to protect consumer privateness while guaranting that the rights of all stakeholders are protected. However, concerns about privateness protection are non wholly new. In fact, several legal and philosophical treatises have examined personal privateness from assorted positions. Fried ( 1968 )[ 2 ]was one of the earliest modern bookmans to measure the impression of privateness ; he argued that privateness is particularly valuable since it allows people to carry on minutess that result in trust, which would non be possible in the absence of privateness. Many bookmans have even equated the right to privateness with a cardinal right to freedom. More late, Nissenbaum ( 1998 )[ 3 ]discussed privateness within the more familiar context of roll uping, hive awaying, and analysing informations on consumers, which is peculiarly of import within the context of Internet privateness. In peculiar, Nissenbaum ( 1998 )[ 4 ]described the attempts to “ profile ” people based upon such informations, which is at the bosom of electronic selling, as a cardinal assault on personal privacy.”[ 5 ]
Therefore the Internet is a large menace to the privateness of persons, whereas it is besides really of import to the freedom of look but it is the duty of the lawgivers and bench of each province to equilibrate these viing rights ; this geographic expedition will exemplify that in Europe it is normally the privateness of the person that overrides the freedom of look as illustrated in the UK’sSpycatcher Case[ 6 ] and the USA’s instance refering Gallic privateness jurisprudence (Yahoo V LICRA) [ 7 ] . In theYahoo Case[ 8 ] the opinion found Gallic Torahs within misdemeanor of the First Amendment – Freedom of Expression:
“Thursday, November 8, 2001 ‚ In a triumph for free look and an unfastened Internet, Judge Jeremy Fogel of the US District Court for the Northern District of California yesterday ruled that a Gallic tribunal order necessitating Yokel! to curtail content on Yahoo.com violates the First Amendment. The instance, Yahoo! Inc v. LICRA, centres on a difference over Yahoo! -hosted auctions having Nazi memorabilia. The Court said that the Gallic tribunal order excluding such auctions on Yahoo ‘s US-based site would non be enforced.”[ 9 ]
The instance ofYahoo V LICRA[ 10 ] illustrates non merely the differing readings and balances between the freedom of look and to leave information and the individual’s right to privateness in differing provinces, but besides the planetary nature of the Internet, i.e. , the Internet transcends and crosses boundary lines – a new force of political and economic globalisation. However the Internet does non merely do jobs in the kingdom of privateness and the inappropriate types of look but besides facilitates cognition and the cosmopolitan nature of human rights. This makes the Internet a really interesting country of treatment in regard to rights ; but besides the protection of private belongings – specifically the jurisprudence of Intellectual Property, i.e. , the protection of electronic informations and copyright jurisprudence ; and eventually the protection of private informations, confidential informations where if such informations is leaked it is either a breach of assurance or a misdemeanor under the specific state’s Data Protection Act, which includes informations such as medical, fiscal and employment information. However, as antecedently mentioned the job with the Internet is that it transcends boundary lines and can non be confined to the Torahs of ordinances of a individual province, such as the instance ofYahoo V LICRA[ 11 ] illustrates. Therefore there needs to be regional and international co-operation, the EU is an illustration of this and the Torahs of this regional co-operation will be discussed. This is particularly of import in relation to the ECHR, because the EU upholds the rights contained within. Copyrighted information is a premier illustration of the battle between private rights and the freedom to leave information, i.e. freedom of look. This is because the property’s rights are owned by a specified legal person and when it is sold in digital format it is a batch easier to leave to others, particularly if on the Internet ; nevertheless is this transgressing right of first publication Torahs. There have been efforts to accommodate the Torahs of states to the International nature of digital information and the conveyance of this information under national and international right of first publication Torahs.
International Intellectual Property Rights v National Copyright Law:
Intellectual belongings rights like belongings rights have been protected in UK, US and Canadian jurisprudence as single and non the kingdom of the authorities to infringe into them. This is different from the attack being suggested in planetary right of first publication harmonisation which considers a different attack, a useful attack which weighs up the involvements of society against the person where the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. This is against the traditional attack to rational belongings jurisprudence as the following instance survey of go throughing off will exemplify. Breach of Confidence in Intellectual Property jurisprudence normally refers to the protection of thoughts in rational belongings prior to their public release ; hence in regard to copyright it can besides mention to artistic designs of goods and jangles prior to completion, but the most of import factor is that it portrays the traditional attack of UK jurisprudence, which is similar to the US and Canada, i.e. single belongings rights should non be invaded against by authorities, i.e. they can non be treated in a useful mode, instead the personal and public concerns need to weighed and equilibrate. The most interesting country of rational belongings jurisprudence and the breach of assurance is the function or the media, hence breach of assurance v’s privateness rights will be considered because this can easy be translated to the general public assistance of society, i.e. the public nature of artistic and literary plants v’s protection a individuals private belongings rights in regard to copyright points.
The International Copyright Treaty is the latest in a long line of international copyright harmonisation. Copyright protection is afforded to literary and artistic plants that are in significant signifier, i.e. sheet music, entering or written book. The work must be original and non copied. [ 12 ] There besides has to be labour and accomplishment performed by the author/artist and the information is non pure fact, i.e. there is look of the writer within the work. It includes dramas, dances, computing machine programmes and compiled tabular arraies. The protection of right of first publication does non lie around whether the work’s originality has been breached instead the author’s economic involvements. This is a large job because it focuses excessively much on private belongings rights and the greater societal context of its handiness to all sectors of society, such as instruction. Thankfully, academics/reporters can utilize a work for mention within research every bit long as decently cited and for a legitimate ground, such as a usher to earlier beginnings ; intelligence coverage ; unfavorable judgment or reappraisal ; private research and survey ; permitted/authorized utilizations ; and most significantly public involvement. Therefore if the International Copyright Treaty had veered farther on the side of private belongings rights these legitimate utilizations may be threatened or apt to a cost that merely the affluent could afford. Harmonization has become particularly of import with the downloading of protected films, music and literary plants which have been reproduced without mandate and decidedly impacting the economic sciences of the writer. However, if International Copyright Treaty was following the useful theoretical account it would perchance reason that the free motion of information, literary and artistic plants would be protected and this is non the purpose of this pact. Rather its purpose to protect right of first publication rights, but to let for some social protection so that right of first publication works do non go entirely a portion of flush members of society. One may believe that this is non possible if one lives in the UK, Canada or the USA ; nevertheless in poorer states this is possible by curtailing entree to instruction or to literary plants but attaching a high monetary value ticket and this is a instance where the public good comes in drama which is a legitimate ground for reproduction of a work. The impression of protecting public policy is interesting and can outdo seen in the function of the media in rational belongings and the breach of assurance where privateness is viing the public good.
Case Study – EU Digital Data Protection in UK & A ; German Law:
The Data Protection Act 1998 incorporates this directing into UK legislative act, hence to the full following with the EU jurisprudence. The following EU directive is 97/66 which is no longer in force provinces is known as “Directing 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 refering the processing of personal informations and the protection of privateness in the telecommunications sector”[ 13 ]
This directive was besides incorporated into the Data Protection Act 1998 and hence exemplifying the UK’s attachment to the protection of individual’s informations in all beginnings. There have been some new directives from the EU which are of import to the protection of electronic informations, specifically in relation to the new signifiers of information such as the Internet. These directives are ; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/21 on a common regulative model for electronic communicating webs and services ; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/20 on the mandate of electronic communications webs and service ; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/22 on cosmopolitan service and users ‘ rights associating to electronic communications webs and services ; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/19 on entree to, and interconnectedness of, electronic communications webs and associated installations ; and the European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/58 refering the processing of personal informations and the protection of privateness in the electronic communications sector. Each of these directives is trying to modulate the electronic informations held on beginnings such as the Internet and protect the rights of the person. The UK has a long tradition of protecting the privateness of persons ; nevertheless the Internet is really difficult to command because of the phantom nature of internet, the fact it is based on the intangible, as opposed to the touchable. The ordinance that the EU is taking at is toward the service suppliers because they are the most touchable facet of the Internet, because each connexion has to be through a service supplier. These are a really new set of directives and required province execution by the 25Thursdayof July 2003 therefore is really new to each member province. The UK implemented the new directive, particularly in relation to the privateness directive and has ensured a high degree of protection to the individual’s security and protection in all signifiers of information protection, including the Internet. This seems to be the basic nature of the UK’s Data Protection Act 1998 and has been followed through with internet information. [ 14 ]
English Law has traditionally protected the individual’s private rights ; nevertheless there is no specific right to privateness alternatively there is a myriad of Torahs. In regard to Electronic and Paper Data Protection the UK has sufficiently upheld the commissariats found within EU directives and has incorporated the protection of persons in relation to the new signifiers of information, e.g. the Internet. In the regard to the legislative acts within the UK they follow EU jurisprudence and besides let infinite for development and flexibleness, such as the types of electronic informations because the impression and constructs of information alteration and germinate on a regular basis in the computing machine age of the 21stCentury.
This subdivision will briefly see the German Torahs and this country’s reaction to the EU Electronic Data Protection Directives. The German attack is similar to that of the Canadian attack which is to equilibrate the freedom of look with the single right of privateness. This system has been summarized byCraig and NolteinPrivacy and Free Speech in Germany and Canada: Lessons for an English Privacy Tort[ 15 ] :
“It may by and large be stated that in equilibrating the right of personality with viing free address involvements, the domain of personality involved is of paramount importance. Balancing is required merely in instances implicating the private and single domains, although invasions of the private domain will be more hard to warrant. German jurisprudence will non digest the publication of information falling within the confidant domain. Where non-intimate yet otherwise private affairs are at interest, so the Courts will look to a assortment of factors in measuring whether a privateness invasion can be justified on the footing of public involvement. These factors are similar to those present in the Canadian law, although German jurisprudence is possibly more advanced in some respects. In peculiar, it is notable that a general, multi-factored attack is employed in Canada, whereas in Germany the analysis is more… However, publications of a sensational nature, motivated entirely to foster the economic involvements of the publishing house, are by and large precluded if they infringe upon the right of personality.”[ 16 ]
Therefore supplying a system of rights which seems to perfectly supply a balance between these two viing rights ; nevertheless there has been unfavorable judgment of the German legal system which seems to protect the rights of the elite more than the rights of the mean single:
“Philip Hensher, a editorialist for the circular Independent – a newspaper which is usually no friend of tabloid surpluss – wrote of the differences highlighted by the instance between British and German political civilizations.In Germany, he wrote, “ the opinion categories exist in a province of complacent haughtiness, invariably confident that whatever their behavior, they may fall back to the tribunals, which will assist them conceal behind a specious cloak of privateness. “ ”[ 17 ]
Therefore ensuing in a system that on the head is a perfect balance between freedom of look and the right to privateness, but there is a possible intrenchment of inequality which is in dispute of the EU’s equality rule. In add-on there have been concerns over Germany’s incorporation of the EU Directions on the Protection of Electronic Data, because their Torahs have non met the necessary criterions ; as is illustrated in the German Federal Data Protection Commissioner’s study published on 7/5/2003, where it was stated that:
“Germany has non yet reached “what should be guaranteedin a broad constitutional province ” . The study warns againstleting a “surveillance civilization ” to “ develop bit by bit and about unnoticed in the state ” , partially due to a incorrect perceptual experience that a high degree of protection of personalinformations necessarily bounds province security and administrative and market efficiency.In peculiar, it criticises methods used by the province for analyzing personal informations in condemnable probes, which it says impinge on personal privateness rights.”[ 18 ]
Therefore the right to privateness and balance to the freedom of look is theoretically better within the German system ; nevertheless the category system in Germany, it has been argued, is based upon the built-in inequality of the category system that favours the elite of society. Finally, the German system does non supply a better system of informations protection jurisprudence than is provided within the UK.
In decision in relation to the Data Protection directives as handed down by the EU, the UK has committed its legal system to the protection of electronic informations protection and information protection in all signifiers. In relation to protection of privateness and data the UK, specifically English Law, has had a tradition of protecting personal information and the right to privateness ; nevertheless there is no specific jurisprudence guaranting this cardinal right. It has been this state of affairs which has caused a state of affairs of competition between the cardinal right of privateness and freedom of look. Hence one would hold to propose that both these constructs are enshrined within specific Torahs, so they have the nature of built-in rights, instead than really weak civil autonomies. This is because English jurisprudence is greatly affected by the instances of the ECtHR, but the rapprochement of the two constructs has proved to be really hard ; nevertheless the construct of privateness has to be right balanced against that of the freedom of look, every bit good as guaranting that the rule of equality is adhered to and non different in regard to the construct of category or the influences of political relations and economic sciences. In short the Data Protection Act 1998 ;Douglas V Hello[ 19 ] ; andThe Reynolds Case[ 20 ] have been the first measure towards equilibrating these rights, and protecting personal informations held by companies. A strong organic structure of national and regional Torahs are of import to guarantee that there is a sufficient damages if there is an invasion of privateness in the new information age and internet ; but this should non be at the disbursal to the freedom of look as illustrated inYahoo V LICRA[ 21 ] , because the Internet is a really of import media ; to leave and have information ; and as a forum for the imperativeness and the person to move as a watchdog in relation to the Acts of the Apostless of authorities, economic sciences and political relations ; therefore supplying a system of jurisprudence that is more rounded and holistic in nature, taking into history all influences on jurisprudence particularly in relation to the cardinal rights and freedoms built-in to the single [ 22 ] . This leads one to present a system of jurisprudence that balances freedom of look and the individual’s right to privateness as suggested by Germany, but it needs to be effectual instead than an empty shell of procedural jurisprudence, instead than substantial jurisprudence. Therefore 1 has to reason that it is necessary to advance a system of jurisprudence that expeditiously balances substantial rights as is the instance in Canada:
“It is clear that the first measure taken by Canadian tribunals in equilibrating viing free address and privateness rights is to find the weight to be assigned to each right in the fortunes of the instance. On the free speech side of the graduated tables, factors to be considered include: the nature of the information published ( i.e. is it a affair of public involvement because of its relationship to some event or affair of community concern, or is it a affair by and large considered to be personal and adumbrate? ; and the motive of the publishing house ( i.e. is the publishing house seeking to educate and inform, or to “ do a fast vaulting horse ” ? ) . One might besides anticipate a tribunal to see whether there were options available to the publishing house which could hold avoided or minimized the invasion of privateness. On the privateness side of the graduated tables, tribunals will measure whether, and to what extent, the topic of an impugned publication should be able to anticipate privateness. Relevant considerations include the mode in which the information was obtained ( i.e. was the information already in the populace sphere, possibly by ground of the topographic point where an event giving rise to the publication occurred? ) ; the position of the topic ( i.e. was the topic a figure of public involvement who courted promotion, and thereby had a decreased outlook of privateness by and large? ) ; and the badness of the publication ‘s impact on the topic ‘s privateness. When all of the relevant factors are considered, a tribunal is so in the place to find the weight of the viing rights, and to make up one’s mind which should predominate in the fortunes. On the facts in Silber[ 23 ], the free address right outweighed the viing privateness right ; the antonym was true in Valiquette[ 24 ].”[ 25 ]
Individual Rights V Collective Rights for Intellectual Property:
Therefore rational belongings is private and this is protected in the sphere of the person, it should non be weighed up against the rights of the many. This makes sense when an person has created a piece of music or written a book should this non be protected from others doing money off their difficult work? The reply is yes ; nevertheless there is a job when these plants are withheld for the wealthy and they lose their educational value for the multitudes. It is in these instances it makes sense there is a useful attack to rational belongings, particularly in regard to right of first publications where books that have been written are protected. The job is where does this terminal?
This geographic expedition purports that society must see the original human rights theory and guarantee that every homo is treated every bit in regard to our cardinal and built-in rights and freedoms. These freedoms are best interpreted by Hohfeld’s analysis of rights in to the extent the authorities can interfere and the function the bench must play in keeping these rights. However, the image is non complete if the scientific discipline in inquiry is merely considered in relation to human rights, because this isolates one to see that they are nonsubjective ; when in fact each person is influenced by other concerns. This is much the same in equilibrating the Torahs of the nation-state and the pacts on an international in finding which is the better protected within a peculiar instance, i.e. the individual’s right to leave information of the protection of the individual’s rights to the information – private belongings rights. Therefore these influences have to be taken into history to guarantee that the rights of single are being kept and the benefits are every bit reaped ; instead than the flush. This may be the attack of the new international Copyright Treaty, i.e. non a useful attack but an version of the two, such as the Rawlsian attack which was discussed before. The rigorous attack to rational belongings rights forgets about the broader societal context of rational belongings rights the educational benefits of guaranting artistic and literary plants are shared in the broader community ; instead than a method for doing money.
Grietje Baars ( 2003 )Privacy 2002 – A Review of UK Case-Law,PDP 3.3 ( 12 )
Bainbridge, 2002,Intellectual Property 5ThursdayEdition, Longman
Paula Breuning ( 2001 )Imperativeness Release: US Court finds that Gallic Law is inviolation with the First Amendment – Yahoo! Not bound by Gallic Ruling,Center for Democracy and Technology: Imperativeness Releasesfound athypertext transfer protocol: //www.cdt.org/press/011108press.shtml
K. Brinkworth, C. Noone ( 2001 )Typographic edition! Violation: some recent developments in right of first publication,Bus. L.R. 2001, 22 ( 12 ) , 286-290
JDR Craig and N Nolte ( 1998 )Privacy and Free Speech in Germany and Canada: Lessons for an English Privacy Tort,EHRLR 1998 2 ( 162-180 )
P. Craig, G. De Burca ( 1999 )The Evolution of EU Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Publius terentius afer Daintith ( 2004 )The Constitutional Protection of Economic Rights,Icon 2.1 ( 56 )
Dupre ( 2000 )The Protection Of Private Life Against Freedom Of Expression In French Law,EHRLR 2000 6 ( 627-649 )
e-government intelligence,Concerns about Data Protection in Germany ( 2003 )Europa: IDA ( 14ThursdayMay 2003)hypertext transfer protocol: //europa.eu.int/ISPO/ida/jsps/index.jsp? fuseAction=showDocument & A ; documentID=1070 & A ; parent=chapter & A ; preChapterID=140-194-308-321
Helen Fenwick ( 2002 )Civil Liberties and Human Rights( London, Cavendish )
Fried, C. ( 1968 ) “ Privacy ” , Yale Law Journal, 77, 203-22.
Nick Higham,Analysis: When Europe’s Privacy Laws Collide,BBC News: World Edition, 21stJanuary 2003,hypertext transfer protocol: //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2681463.stm
Patrick Milmo ( 1997 )Human Rights, Privacy and the Imperativeness,NLJ 147 ( 6815 )
Nissenbaum, H. ( 1998 ) “ Protecting privateness in an information age ” , Law and Philosophy, 17, 559-96
NLJ Editors, 2002,NLJ Law Reports,NLJ 152 ( 7027 )
Privacy and Data Protection,EU Data Law — On Track, But Needs Beefed-Up Enforcement Regimes( 2003 )PDP 3.6 ( 1 )
S. Rawson ( 2003 )Impact of New Communications Framework on Service Suppliers,CTLR 9 ( 7 ) 202-209
Samuelson,Intellectual Property and the Digital Economy: Why the Anti-Circumvention Regulations demand to be revised,can be found at:hypertext transfer protocol: //www.sims.berkeley.edu/ % 7Epam/papers/Samuelson_IP_dig_eco_htm.htm
Singh & A ; Hill ( 2003 )Consumer privateness and the Internet in Europe: a position from Germany,Journal of Consumer Marketing20 ( 7 ) , 634-651
WIPO can be found atwww.wipo.int
Upendra Baxi,The Future of Human Rights, ( Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2002 )
Edmund Cahn,The Sense of Injustice, An Anthropological View of the Law, ( NY University Press, NY, 1949 )
Ronald Dworkin,Taking Rights Seriously, ( Duckworth, London, 1978 )
Wesley N. Hohfeld ( 1923 )Cardinal Legal Concepts: as applied in judicial logical thinking ( ed WW Cook )New Haven, Yale University Press
Wesley N. Hohfeld ( 2001 ) ,Cardinal Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, Aldershot, Ashgate
AM Honore ( 1960 )Rights of Exclusion and Immunities against Depriving,34 Tulane Law Review
Walter Kamba ( 1974 )Legal Theory and Hohfeld’s Analysis of a Legal Right,19 Judicial Review 249
John Locke,The Second Treatise of Government, extracts from Ed. Joseph Losco & A ; Leonard Williams,Political Theory: Classical Hagiographas, Contemporary Positions, ( St. Martins Press, New York, 1992 )
John Rawls,The Theory of Justice( Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971 )
Teubner ( erectile dysfunction ) ( 1987 ( a ) )Juridification of Social Spheres, Berlin, de Gruyter
Teubner ( 1987 ( B ) )Autopoietic Law: A New Approach to Law and Society, Berlin, de Gruyter
Teubner ( 1989 )How the Law Thinks: Toward a Constructivist Epistemology of Law,23 Law and Society Review727-757
Teubner ( 1993 )Law as an Autopoietic System, Oxford, Blackwell
Teubner ( 1997 )Altera pars audiatur: Law in the Collisions Discoursesin R. Rawlings ( erectile dysfunction )Law, Society and Economy149-176, Oxford, Oxford University Press