MICHAEL JAMES BOMMARITO, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor - Department of Political Science, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor - Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor - Center for Study of Complex Systems
Email: michael.bommarito@gmail.com
DANIEL MARTIN KATZ, University of Michigan Law School , University of Michigan at Ann Arbor - Center for Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan - Department of Political Science
Email: dmartink@umich.edu
JON ZELNER, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor - Center for Study of Complex Systems
Email: jzelner@umich.edu
JAMES H. FOWLER, University of California, San Diego - Department of Political Science
Email: jhfowler@ucsd.edu

Acyclic digraphs arise in many natural and arti�cial processes. Among the broader set, dynamic citation networks represent a substantively important form of acyclic digraphs. For example, the study of such networks includes the spread of ideas through academic citations, the spread of innovation through patent citations, and the development of precedent in common law systems. The speci�c dynamics that produce such acyclic digraphs not only differentiate them from other classes of graphs, but also provide guidance for meaningful distance measures for these networks. We apply our sink based distance measure and the single-linkage hierarchical clustering algorithm to the �rst quarter century of decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Despite applying the simplest distance measure and a straight forward clustering algorithm, qualitative analysis reveals that accurate clusterings are produced by this scheme.

JOSEPH TUROW, University of Pennsylvania - Annenberg School for Communication
Email: jturow@asc.upenn.edu
JENNIFER KING, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, University of California, Berkeley - School of Law
Email: jenking@law.berkeley.edu
CHRIS JAY HOOFNAGLE, University of California, Berkeley - School of Law, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology
Email: choofnagle@law.berkeley.edu
AMY BLEAKLEY, Annenberg Public Policy Center
Email: ableakley@asc.upenn.edu
MICHAEL HENNESSY, Annenberg Public Policy Center
Email: mhennessy@asc.upenn.edu

This nationally representative telephone (wire-line and cell phone) survey explores Americans' opinions about behavioral targeting by marketers, a controversial issue currently before government policymakers. Behavioral targeting involves two types of activities: following users' actions and then tailoring advertisements for the users based on those actions. While privacy advocates have lambasted behavioral targeting for tracking and labeling people in ways they do not know or understand, marketers have defended the practice by insisting it gives Americans what they want: advertisements and other forms of content that are as relevant to their lives as possible.

Contrary to what many marketers claim, most adult Americans (66%) do not want marketers to tailor advertisements to their interests. Moreover, when Americans are informed of three common ways that marketers gather data about people in order to tailor ads, even higher percentages - between 73% and 86% - say they would not want such advertising. Even among young adults, whom advertisers often portray as caring little about information privacy, more than half (55%) of 18-24 years-old do not want tailored advertising. And contrary to consistent assertions of marketers, young adults have as strong an aversion to being followed across websites and offline (for example, in stores) as do older adults.

This survey finds that Americans want openness with marketers. If marketers want to continue to use various forms of behavioral targeting in their interactions with Americans, they must work with policymakers to open up the process so that individuals can learn exactly how their information is being collected and used, and then exercise control over their data. We offer specific proposals in this direction. An overarching one is for marketers to implement a regime of information respect toward the public rather than to treat them as objects from which they can take information in order to optimally persuade them.

RICHARD J. WILSON, American University - Washington College of Law
Email: rwilson@wcl.american.edu

Clinical legal education has achieved widespread acceptance throughout the world, growing by leaps and bounds during recent decades in countries like Russia and China, and expanding rapidly in other areas of Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa. It is, arguably, the most significant innovation in legal education since the “invention� of the Socratic-case method in the United States, at the turn of the 20th Century. There is, however, one geographic area where the philosophy and methodology of clinical legal education has been resisted. That area is Continental Western Europe (the UK has something of a tradition of clinics, though stunted). This article examines the reasons for resistance to clinical theory and practice as part of law school curricula in Western European law schools. Some of that resistance lies in history and structure of legal education and the legal profession, particularly the organization and power of the law school professoriate. The article further suggests that the Bologna process of European integration in all fields of education may provide opportunities for innovation in clinics through law school curricular reform. The doctrinal area of international human rights law and practice may provide further inroads into that resistance.

PHILLIP G. BEVANS, Minden Gross LLP
Email: pbevans@mindengross.com
JOHN MCKAY, affiliation not provided to SSRN
Email: johnsmckay@gmail.com

The Association of Transnational Law Schools [ATLAS] is a consortium of law schools from around the world that launched an annual academic summer program, called the Agora, for doctoral students in July of 2008. The authors outline the history of the creation of the program, describe it, and consider its significance as it relates to the changing landscape of legal practice and pedagogy. The Agora both reflects and furthers a trend in legal scholarship, and as a consequence legal education, toward a focus on a set of interrelated concerns, which include globalization, international governance, transnational law, comparative legal studies, legal transplantation and the apparent conceptual challenges that these pose. In important respects these new conceptual challenges have a long pedigree in questions about the scope of legal pedagogy and theory. The pedagogical controversy is rooted in questions about the purpose of legal education, namely, whether it is trade training and should focus on practical legal skills, or whether it should be conceived of as broader than this. Intimately connected to this pedagogical controversy is a legal-theoretical controversy about the scope of legal theory (and thus the nature of law and its investigation). Does the word “law� designate the organizational instruments of state power, or should we think of “law� as referring to a more diverse set of socialorganizational systems that may have greater or less affinity and connection with state law?

GEORGE H. PIKE, University of Pittsburgh - School of Law
Email: gpike@pitt.edu

Over the last three years, a panel of government, academic and information industry experts have been studying the copyright challenges faced by libraries and archives in managing and preserving digital content. On March 31, 2008 the panel, which had been convened by the U.S. Copyright Office as the Section 108 Study Group, released its report recommending an extensive series of changes to Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act.

Section 108 was created as part of the Copyright Act of 1976 and provides limited copyright exemptions for libraries and archives. While it has been amended periodically over the last 30 years, Section 108 is very complicated and does not adequately address issues like archiving of Web content, preservation of both analog and digital works, and digital delivery of copies. The Study Group was convened to explore these challenges, and make recommendations to the U.S. Copyright Office for changes. This work reviews many of the Group’s recommendations.

KATIE FORTNEY, San Jose State University School of Library and Information Science
Email: katiefortney@gmail.com

An informed democratic society needs open access to the law, but states' attempts to protect copyright interests in their laws are a major roadblock. This article urges broader access, analyzes the implications and legal arguments for and against copyright in state primary legal materials, and considers strategies for access advocacy.