Intellectual Property Law and Copyright Protection
EssayChat / Aug 26, 2017
Introduction
Intellectual property laws related to copyright protections have generally focused on the individual or company that creates content as opposed to the actual end user. The reason for this is that such laws have focused on the actions of companies or individuals that also create content that might attempt to infringe upon the protections that are afforded to content creators. However, because of the proliferation of the internet, such views of intellectual property and copyright of content have become outdated. The internet has made it possible for the users of copyrighted works to take control of the content and potentially violate the protections of the creators. However, the legal framework with which copyright protections are decided within the confines of the internet are limiting to users because they have the ability to limit the ability for content to be shared, which is one of the basis by which people use the internet on a regular basis.
The purpose of this paper is to examine copyright protections related to the protection of digital content on the internet. The importance of this examination is that the continued proliferation of the movement of companies to the internet means that larger amounts of content only exist in digital form. This paper focuses on both the legal and ethical issues surrounding copyright protections of intellectual property that is placed on the internet. In addition, recommendations are made for to improve the current situation involving copyright protections online because of their outdated nature. This discussion will demonstrate how current legal attitudes toward copyright protections online not only have the potential to harm companies, but also have the potential to harm the information sharing that companies generally like that help to attract new customers and increased attention for products and services by using the internet.
One of the first major legal issues that the courts had to address involving copyright protections and the internet came in the late 1990s and early 2000s involving file sharing services. Companies that produced and distributed music and movies took notice of the fact that file sharing services such as Napster and BitTorrent were allowing users to freely exchange copyrighted content between themselves. The idea of private copying is one that existed long before the internet and dictated the private use of copyrighted materials. With copyrighted printed materials or videotapes, citizens have generally been allowed to make copies for personal use in which the intent was to not make money or profit off of the work of others. File sharing on the internet, however, came to be viewed differently than simply making a photocopy of an article from a newspaper or using a VCR to record a television show for private viewing in the home. Instead, organizations such as Recording Industrial Association of America (RIAA) argued that file sharing services, and file sharing in general, harmed copyright holders because people were able to freely exchange the intellectual property of others without paying for it. In other words, file sharing moved beyond the idea of private usage.
While the Recording Industrial Association of America has pursued lawsuits against individuals who have been accused of distributing music over the internet, courts cases have also been launched against companies that make devices and software that allow for copyrighted content to be stored and shared electronically. One of the major cases involved a product manufacture was Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios sued Grokster because the movie studio claimed that the company's products allowed people to be able to violate copyrights by sharing files. The Court decided this case by creating the inducement doctrine. This doctrine states that in order for a software or hardware manufacture to be liable for copyright violates through its products, it must have created products that were intended mainly to allow users to violate the copyright protections of content creators. The inducement doctrine is important because it prevent copyright holders and industry groups such as the Recording Industrial Association of America from attempting to hold them liable for the actions of people that may use their products to violate intellectual property protections.
From a legal standpoint, however, attempting to protect the intellectual property rights of movie and music creators by pursuing lawsuits against individuals that share files over the internet has largely been unsuccessful. While a few cases have resulted in some damages being awarded to music and movie industry groups, the reality has been that file sharers are generally not caught. The internet allows for anonymity that makes it difficult or almost impossible to catch anybody except those that blatantly share large numbers of files on a regular basis. However, the use of digital content changes slightly when another company infringes upon the protection of content creators.
In the case involving International News Service v. Associated Press, the International News Service accused the Associated Press of using news copy that it had made available across its services to its users. The Court ruled that the Associated Press had indeed violated the copyright of the International News Service. More important, however, the Court stated that the Associated Press could not use the news content because the particular news story that caused the legal action on the part of the International News Service was "hot", meaning that it was current news that was relevant at the time that it had been illegally used. The conclusion that might be drawn from this ruling is that had the news story in question not be relevant or new at that moment, then the use of the story created by the International News Service on the part of the Associated Press might not have violated any copyright laws.
This immediately crates some confusion in a world in which news is constantly being posted and updated on the internet by various news outlets. The question arises as to when a news story may no longer be relevant in a world in which news is always flowing. Does news become irrelevant if another story replaces the story in question? Once again, the real result of copyright laws and protections that were created and often decided in relation to print content is confusion about how these rules impact content on the internet. Copyright laws are based on the idea that there is some creation that needs to be protected so that the right to use that creation, or to allow others to use that creation, lies solely in the hands of the creator. However, if content is available online and is used on a variety of websites and through a variety of outlets, and is deemed to only be relevant at a given moment, then the issue of the original creator holding all rights to content can become confusing, particularly if the reason for making content available online is for as many people to see it and talk about.
Adding to the confusion and questions involving copyright protections online is the idea of tranformative use versus derivative use.
Transformative use is defined as the creation of something new from the work of another person. The often used example of the transformative use of copyrighted material is the parody. When a person or company creates a parody of a song, he or she is creating something new that is based on a song that was created by somebody else. However, in the case of derivative use, a person or company is simply adding something to an original piece of content without substantially changing the original content. The idea of transformative use versus derivative use is important when discussing copyright protections online because of the idea of the fair use doctrine. Questions arise as to whether one website creator can use the content of another creator if the content is used in a smaller form simply to illustrate a point to visitors or to provide information and then allow visitors to know that the original work exists.
For example, the internet has allowed fans of television shows to use the plots and characters created by others as a basis for writing their own extended stories for those shows, particularly if their favorite shows are canceled. This idea of fans writing their own stories for shows is known as fan fiction. The question that exists is whether fan fiction might be classified as transformative or derivative use of copyrighted content. Even more, it is worth considering whether copyright violations have occurred if a person writing fan fiction of a television show places images of the characters and even a show logo on his or her website. One court case that provides some guidance on this question is Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. The issue in this case was whether the creation of a thumbnail image of a larger copyrighted image was a form of infringement. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the creation of a thumbnail image of a larger copyrighted image was transformative in nature, which meant that it did not violate the intellectual property protections of the image creator.
The decision in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp might suggest that courts are beginning to take a more lenient approach to copyright issues online in which the use of copyrighted materials is not meant to infringe upon intellectual property protections, but instead to make information and ideas available to others. While the legal issues that have been discussed thus far might seem to be of little interest to most companies, even companies that do a great deal of business over the internet, the name of one company can point to the reason why these issues are so important: Google.
Google has changed the internet by cataloging information and making it easily accessible to users. However, a debate has occurred as to whether Google is violating the copyrights of content creators because it not only points users to this content, but actually takes the content in some cases and creates specific databases in which the content exists. As more companies rely on the internet to provide information to their customers and potential customers, the way in which they are allowed to use information and content created by others, and the fine line between what is fair use or transformative use and what is actually derivative use is likely to continue. As more companies rely on the creation of digital content, they are likely to face both sides of the question of copyright protections online, both as creators of content and as users of the content that is produced by others.
While the legal issues involving intellectual property protections for the creators of content used on the internet are important, the ethical issues are also important and can impact companies. One of the ethical issues that content creators must take very seriously is the impact that decisions about how users may interact with content can have on clients and fans. For example, the music industry has gone to great lengths to attempt to scare consumers so that they are fearful that any type of online file sharing will result in legal actions being taken against them. However, the impact of these attempts may be that fans actually become disgruntled or event increase their file sharing activities simply because they feel that music producers are being unfair in how they are treated.
In order to appear to not disrespect fans, some musical groups have actually embraced the idea of releasing music online and creating an environment in which fans have some rights to share content. Some musical groups have actually made it known that they have no problem with fans making videos of live concerts and placing those videos on the internet. Even more, some songs are created purely to be freely distributed among fans as a way to generate interest and to encourage people who may not know about these bands to listen to their music. The benefit in these types of actions is that content creators work to avoid costly lawsuits that can be damaging to public relations, and that are not entirely guaranteed to be successful in terms of stopping the public from engaging in file sharing activities.
In addition, it must be remembered that content creators such as music groups rely on their fans for their existence. Allowing fans to be able to share some information is also good from a marketing standpoint. The fans help their favorite musical groups, television programs or other content creators gain publicity that might otherwise not occur, especially if all available efforts are made to stop fans from interacting with content and sharing it with their friends. While the laws that are available might generally protect content creators to the point that they could stop fans from making websites or sharing content with other fans, taking on this adversarial role with fans might be not be ethical from the standpoint that without the fans, content creators have no reason to product music, television programs, or other online entertainment.
Another ethical issues, however, involves the very nature of the internet. The internet has come to be viewed as a medium through which people are able to interact and share information in real-time. Placing content on the internet would seem to occur for the purpose of attempting to encourage as many people as possible to interact with that content. Companies such as Google have made it possible for people to easily access content that might otherwise be very difficult to find. At the same time, as people are able to access content through Google's various databases and catalogues, they are helping the content creators use may generate additional revenues by selling their content, or by selling advertisements on their websites that people find because of Google. Companies that might attempt to prevent Google from including their content in any of their catalogues and databases beyond general internet searches could find that they have fewer users and consumers of their content. The end result is that the ethics of whether a company such as Google should be allowed to place the content of others in specialized databases and catalogues can become an issue of whether content creators want to risk reducing their own visibilities and revenues.
In the end, the legal issues related to the protection of intellectual property online are different than the ethical issues. While content providers have the ability to place extensive limits on how users may interact and share content, taking such actions against the people that buy the products and read the advertisements that allow content providers to remain in business could harm their financial viability. Even more, taking such extensive actions to limit the actions of end users seems to go against the very nature of the internet and the way in which it is used. The internet is a source of instant and easily accessible information. However, limiting the ability of internet users to share information and other content can be viewed as lacking an appreciation and if an understanding of how to operate on the internet and how companies should interact with customers.
The way in which to overcome the legal issues and concerns that have been addressed is to change the nature of copyright protections in general, and with regards to the internet in particular. Copyright laws are really about providing exclusivity in the use of content to a particular party. With the proliferation of the internet, however, the view of intellectual property that qualifies for copyright protections being used to limit the use of content is outdated, and actually prevents the full use and of the internet as a source of information. Changes should be made to existing copyright laws to ensure that the idea of the intent of the use of intellectual property is the basis for determining whether infringement has occurred.
Specifically, copyright laws should be changed to allow internet users to share content for which no harm is committed to creators. This would mean that if fans use copyrighted photos to create fan sites of their favorite shows or musical artists, then this would not constitute a copyright violation because no financial harm is caused to the creator. For news and information content creators, users would be allowed to shared content as long as any source of financial revenue, such as advertisements, are left intact when the content is shared. In the case of companies such as Google that catalogue information and create specialized databases, the issue should indeed be one of time. After a specific amount of time, such as one week or one month, cataloguing content and making it available to users should be allowed. The only requirement should be that companies such as Google have to make it easily possible for their users to connect to the original content creators' websites. This would provide a link between the content and the creator, and make it possible for users to gain access to additional content from the creator in question. In turn, the creator has the opportunity to generate additional revenues for the actions of companies such as Google.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper has been to examine how current copyright laws are confusing and actually prevent the distribution and usage of information on the internet. Current copyright protections for online content are still largely based on traditional print or television content, and have not be adapted to the internet age. Existing copyright laws need to change to allow for flexibility of the usage of content on the internet while still protecting the financial interests of content creators. In addition, content creators must consider ethical issues related to the interests and interactions of fans and customers to avoid generating negative publicity and hostility. Otherwise, the loss of customers and fans, and the related loss of revenues, may be greater than anything that is achieved by attempting to enforce copyright protections.
References
Cohen, J. E. (2005). Panel 1: Intellectual property and public values: The place of the user in copyright law. Fordham Law Review, 74, 347-374.
EssayScam: Copyright and Licensing Laws. Grammarly Software Review. Online: https://essayscam.org/forum/gt/grammarly-review-user-content-ownership-licensing-6266/
Rothman, J. E. (2007). The questionable use of custom in intellectual property. Virginia Law Review, 93, 1899-1982.
Schultz, M. F. (2006). Fear and norms and rock & role: What jambands can teach us about persuading people to obey copyright law. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 21, 651-728.
Smith, H. E. (2007). Intellectual property as property: Delineating entitlements in information. The Yale Law Journal, 116, 1742-1822.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2007). The googlization of everything and the future of copyright. University of California, Davis Law Review, 40, 1207-1231.
Intellectual property laws related to copyright protections have generally focused on the individual or company that creates content as opposed to the actual end user. The reason for this is that such laws have focused on the actions of companies or individuals that also create content that might attempt to infringe upon the protections that are afforded to content creators. However, because of the proliferation of the internet, such views of intellectual property and copyright of content have become outdated. The internet has made it possible for the users of copyrighted works to take control of the content and potentially violate the protections of the creators. However, the legal framework with which copyright protections are decided within the confines of the internet are limiting to users because they have the ability to limit the ability for content to be shared, which is one of the basis by which people use the internet on a regular basis.
The purpose of this paper is to examine copyright protections related to the protection of digital content on the internet. The importance of this examination is that the continued proliferation of the movement of companies to the internet means that larger amounts of content only exist in digital form. This paper focuses on both the legal and ethical issues surrounding copyright protections of intellectual property that is placed on the internet. In addition, recommendations are made for to improve the current situation involving copyright protections online because of their outdated nature. This discussion will demonstrate how current legal attitudes toward copyright protections online not only have the potential to harm companies, but also have the potential to harm the information sharing that companies generally like that help to attract new customers and increased attention for products and services by using the internet.
Legal Issues Involving Copyright and the Internet
One of the first major legal issues that the courts had to address involving copyright protections and the internet came in the late 1990s and early 2000s involving file sharing services. Companies that produced and distributed music and movies took notice of the fact that file sharing services such as Napster and BitTorrent were allowing users to freely exchange copyrighted content between themselves. The idea of private copying is one that existed long before the internet and dictated the private use of copyrighted materials. With copyrighted printed materials or videotapes, citizens have generally been allowed to make copies for personal use in which the intent was to not make money or profit off of the work of others. File sharing on the internet, however, came to be viewed differently than simply making a photocopy of an article from a newspaper or using a VCR to record a television show for private viewing in the home. Instead, organizations such as Recording Industrial Association of America (RIAA) argued that file sharing services, and file sharing in general, harmed copyright holders because people were able to freely exchange the intellectual property of others without paying for it. In other words, file sharing moved beyond the idea of private usage.
While the Recording Industrial Association of America has pursued lawsuits against individuals who have been accused of distributing music over the internet, courts cases have also been launched against companies that make devices and software that allow for copyrighted content to be stored and shared electronically. One of the major cases involved a product manufacture was Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios sued Grokster because the movie studio claimed that the company's products allowed people to be able to violate copyrights by sharing files. The Court decided this case by creating the inducement doctrine. This doctrine states that in order for a software or hardware manufacture to be liable for copyright violates through its products, it must have created products that were intended mainly to allow users to violate the copyright protections of content creators. The inducement doctrine is important because it prevent copyright holders and industry groups such as the Recording Industrial Association of America from attempting to hold them liable for the actions of people that may use their products to violate intellectual property protections.From a legal standpoint, however, attempting to protect the intellectual property rights of movie and music creators by pursuing lawsuits against individuals that share files over the internet has largely been unsuccessful. While a few cases have resulted in some damages being awarded to music and movie industry groups, the reality has been that file sharers are generally not caught. The internet allows for anonymity that makes it difficult or almost impossible to catch anybody except those that blatantly share large numbers of files on a regular basis. However, the use of digital content changes slightly when another company infringes upon the protection of content creators.
In the case involving International News Service v. Associated Press, the International News Service accused the Associated Press of using news copy that it had made available across its services to its users. The Court ruled that the Associated Press had indeed violated the copyright of the International News Service. More important, however, the Court stated that the Associated Press could not use the news content because the particular news story that caused the legal action on the part of the International News Service was "hot", meaning that it was current news that was relevant at the time that it had been illegally used. The conclusion that might be drawn from this ruling is that had the news story in question not be relevant or new at that moment, then the use of the story created by the International News Service on the part of the Associated Press might not have violated any copyright laws.
This immediately crates some confusion in a world in which news is constantly being posted and updated on the internet by various news outlets. The question arises as to when a news story may no longer be relevant in a world in which news is always flowing. Does news become irrelevant if another story replaces the story in question? Once again, the real result of copyright laws and protections that were created and often decided in relation to print content is confusion about how these rules impact content on the internet. Copyright laws are based on the idea that there is some creation that needs to be protected so that the right to use that creation, or to allow others to use that creation, lies solely in the hands of the creator. However, if content is available online and is used on a variety of websites and through a variety of outlets, and is deemed to only be relevant at a given moment, then the issue of the original creator holding all rights to content can become confusing, particularly if the reason for making content available online is for as many people to see it and talk about.
Adding to the confusion and questions involving copyright protections online is the idea of tranformative use versus derivative use.
Transformative use is defined as the creation of something new from the work of another person. The often used example of the transformative use of copyrighted material is the parody. When a person or company creates a parody of a song, he or she is creating something new that is based on a song that was created by somebody else. However, in the case of derivative use, a person or company is simply adding something to an original piece of content without substantially changing the original content. The idea of transformative use versus derivative use is important when discussing copyright protections online because of the idea of the fair use doctrine. Questions arise as to whether one website creator can use the content of another creator if the content is used in a smaller form simply to illustrate a point to visitors or to provide information and then allow visitors to know that the original work exists.
For example, the internet has allowed fans of television shows to use the plots and characters created by others as a basis for writing their own extended stories for those shows, particularly if their favorite shows are canceled. This idea of fans writing their own stories for shows is known as fan fiction. The question that exists is whether fan fiction might be classified as transformative or derivative use of copyrighted content. Even more, it is worth considering whether copyright violations have occurred if a person writing fan fiction of a television show places images of the characters and even a show logo on his or her website. One court case that provides some guidance on this question is Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. The issue in this case was whether the creation of a thumbnail image of a larger copyrighted image was a form of infringement. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the creation of a thumbnail image of a larger copyrighted image was transformative in nature, which meant that it did not violate the intellectual property protections of the image creator.
The decision in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp might suggest that courts are beginning to take a more lenient approach to copyright issues online in which the use of copyrighted materials is not meant to infringe upon intellectual property protections, but instead to make information and ideas available to others. While the legal issues that have been discussed thus far might seem to be of little interest to most companies, even companies that do a great deal of business over the internet, the name of one company can point to the reason why these issues are so important: Google.
Google has changed the internet by cataloging information and making it easily accessible to users. However, a debate has occurred as to whether Google is violating the copyrights of content creators because it not only points users to this content, but actually takes the content in some cases and creates specific databases in which the content exists. As more companies rely on the internet to provide information to their customers and potential customers, the way in which they are allowed to use information and content created by others, and the fine line between what is fair use or transformative use and what is actually derivative use is likely to continue. As more companies rely on the creation of digital content, they are likely to face both sides of the question of copyright protections online, both as creators of content and as users of the content that is produced by others.
Ethical Issues Involving Copyright and the Internet
While the legal issues involving intellectual property protections for the creators of content used on the internet are important, the ethical issues are also important and can impact companies. One of the ethical issues that content creators must take very seriously is the impact that decisions about how users may interact with content can have on clients and fans. For example, the music industry has gone to great lengths to attempt to scare consumers so that they are fearful that any type of online file sharing will result in legal actions being taken against them. However, the impact of these attempts may be that fans actually become disgruntled or event increase their file sharing activities simply because they feel that music producers are being unfair in how they are treated.
In order to appear to not disrespect fans, some musical groups have actually embraced the idea of releasing music online and creating an environment in which fans have some rights to share content. Some musical groups have actually made it known that they have no problem with fans making videos of live concerts and placing those videos on the internet. Even more, some songs are created purely to be freely distributed among fans as a way to generate interest and to encourage people who may not know about these bands to listen to their music. The benefit in these types of actions is that content creators work to avoid costly lawsuits that can be damaging to public relations, and that are not entirely guaranteed to be successful in terms of stopping the public from engaging in file sharing activities.
In addition, it must be remembered that content creators such as music groups rely on their fans for their existence. Allowing fans to be able to share some information is also good from a marketing standpoint. The fans help their favorite musical groups, television programs or other content creators gain publicity that might otherwise not occur, especially if all available efforts are made to stop fans from interacting with content and sharing it with their friends. While the laws that are available might generally protect content creators to the point that they could stop fans from making websites or sharing content with other fans, taking on this adversarial role with fans might be not be ethical from the standpoint that without the fans, content creators have no reason to product music, television programs, or other online entertainment.
Another ethical issues, however, involves the very nature of the internet. The internet has come to be viewed as a medium through which people are able to interact and share information in real-time. Placing content on the internet would seem to occur for the purpose of attempting to encourage as many people as possible to interact with that content. Companies such as Google have made it possible for people to easily access content that might otherwise be very difficult to find. At the same time, as people are able to access content through Google's various databases and catalogues, they are helping the content creators use may generate additional revenues by selling their content, or by selling advertisements on their websites that people find because of Google. Companies that might attempt to prevent Google from including their content in any of their catalogues and databases beyond general internet searches could find that they have fewer users and consumers of their content. The end result is that the ethics of whether a company such as Google should be allowed to place the content of others in specialized databases and catalogues can become an issue of whether content creators want to risk reducing their own visibilities and revenues.
In the end, the legal issues related to the protection of intellectual property online are different than the ethical issues. While content providers have the ability to place extensive limits on how users may interact and share content, taking such actions against the people that buy the products and read the advertisements that allow content providers to remain in business could harm their financial viability. Even more, taking such extensive actions to limit the actions of end users seems to go against the very nature of the internet and the way in which it is used. The internet is a source of instant and easily accessible information. However, limiting the ability of internet users to share information and other content can be viewed as lacking an appreciation and if an understanding of how to operate on the internet and how companies should interact with customers.
Overcoming Current Legal Issues
The way in which to overcome the legal issues and concerns that have been addressed is to change the nature of copyright protections in general, and with regards to the internet in particular. Copyright laws are really about providing exclusivity in the use of content to a particular party. With the proliferation of the internet, however, the view of intellectual property that qualifies for copyright protections being used to limit the use of content is outdated, and actually prevents the full use and of the internet as a source of information. Changes should be made to existing copyright laws to ensure that the idea of the intent of the use of intellectual property is the basis for determining whether infringement has occurred.
Specifically, copyright laws should be changed to allow internet users to share content for which no harm is committed to creators. This would mean that if fans use copyrighted photos to create fan sites of their favorite shows or musical artists, then this would not constitute a copyright violation because no financial harm is caused to the creator. For news and information content creators, users would be allowed to shared content as long as any source of financial revenue, such as advertisements, are left intact when the content is shared. In the case of companies such as Google that catalogue information and create specialized databases, the issue should indeed be one of time. After a specific amount of time, such as one week or one month, cataloguing content and making it available to users should be allowed. The only requirement should be that companies such as Google have to make it easily possible for their users to connect to the original content creators' websites. This would provide a link between the content and the creator, and make it possible for users to gain access to additional content from the creator in question. In turn, the creator has the opportunity to generate additional revenues for the actions of companies such as Google.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper has been to examine how current copyright laws are confusing and actually prevent the distribution and usage of information on the internet. Current copyright protections for online content are still largely based on traditional print or television content, and have not be adapted to the internet age. Existing copyright laws need to change to allow for flexibility of the usage of content on the internet while still protecting the financial interests of content creators. In addition, content creators must consider ethical issues related to the interests and interactions of fans and customers to avoid generating negative publicity and hostility. Otherwise, the loss of customers and fans, and the related loss of revenues, may be greater than anything that is achieved by attempting to enforce copyright protections.
References
Cohen, J. E. (2005). Panel 1: Intellectual property and public values: The place of the user in copyright law. Fordham Law Review, 74, 347-374.
EssayScam: Copyright and Licensing Laws. Grammarly Software Review. Online: https://essayscam.org/forum/gt/grammarly-review-user-content-ownership-licensing-6266/
Rothman, J. E. (2007). The questionable use of custom in intellectual property. Virginia Law Review, 93, 1899-1982.
Schultz, M. F. (2006). Fear and norms and rock & role: What jambands can teach us about persuading people to obey copyright law. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 21, 651-728.
Smith, H. E. (2007). Intellectual property as property: Delineating entitlements in information. The Yale Law Journal, 116, 1742-1822.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2007). The googlization of everything and the future of copyright. University of California, Davis Law Review, 40, 1207-1231.