"An article in Business 2.0 entitled "Technophobia Over the Years" provides a good, albeit brief, summary of conflicts between copyright-owners' interests and technology in the United States of America since 1908." [Via] [kuro5hin.org]
A quick read and very interesting account of the "good old days." Say, remember when the cable companies were freely retransmitting TV signals and not paying license fees? When they got sued by the televisions companies whose signals they were retransmitting the court held that there was no copyright issue because the retransmission actually increased the value of their advertising revenues. I wonder what would have happened to the cable industry if the court had held that they had to pay license fees to the television companies?
A state appellate court in Texas ruled that the "actual malice" standard -- which holds news organizations liable if they publish information that's knowingly false about a public official -- can be applied to works of satire that some readers believe is true. The decision, a rare win for libel plaintiffs, troubles media lawyers who believe it undermines the freedom of the press. [Law.com]
I wish that all first amendment cases would automatically be required to be brought in federal court. I'm sure it shocks non-lawyers to hear this, but just because a case involves the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that doesn't mean it has to be heard in a federal court. In fact, if the only reason that the first amendment is an issue in the case is because the defendant raises it as a "defense" (say, to a state law libel claim -- because all libel claims are based on state law) then there is no basis for federal jurisdiction at all. That is, the case has to be heard in state court.
So what happens is a lot of run-of-the-mill libel suits (i.e. by politicians against local newspapers who say unflattering things) wind up in state court, where the politician has strong political ties. And there is often no way to get the case into federal court. The assumption is that the state courts will respect the interpretation of the United States Constitution given by the federal courts an assumption that is less likely to be true in state trial courts.
So that means that the defendant might have to go through a few appeals (which cost considerable money) to get to a higher statosphere where the law is properly applied. And sometimes you can go all the way to the state's highest court and still get an obviously bad interpretation of federal constitutional law. What's your recourse then? The US Supreme Court, which can only take a handful of all the cases that seek its review. And don't forget the time frame. I would be shocked if a case filed in state court today got to the United States Supreme Court in less than five years. So a lot of defendants with perfectly valid constitutional defenses give in and settle.
While most lawyers are innured to this, because the rule is old and settled, law students and normal people have trouble understanding this problem. I think in the vernacular it's what's referred to as a "circle jerk." I have trouble understanding it too.
New York's attorney general, Eliot L. Spitzer, urged an appeal court to reinstate a lawsuit against the gun industry. The suit alleges that gun manufacturers are liable for contributing to a public nuisance -- namely, handguns that are illegally possessed and used -- because of the way they market and sell their products. [Law.com]
There have been several suits like this throughout the country (the legal theories vary). Louisiana's lawsuit was thrown out, and appears to have been finally put to rest. I suppose it's possible to find an example of where a gun manufacturer did something wrong and would deserve to be sued, but most of the lawsuits are thinly-veiled attempts to hold gun manufacturers liable for criminal wrongdoing of third parties (i.e. criminals).
These lawsuits are part of what I see as a dangerous trend: when Congress won't outlaw something or won't regulate it to the satisfaction of a certain group that group sues the manufacturer or industry and uses litigation as a form of legislative self-help.
9:22:05 AM
My RadioLand WishList
I saw Rick's list, but all I want (for right now) is something that I know is in here. I have set up a category and I want it to display with a new theme (I know how to do all that) and then I want the new category to have none of the navigator links or any other idicia of connection with my current page.
I take it this involves some sort of modifying of the text files in the folders etc. But I'm stumped. Please help me! I'm only a lawyer for God's sake....
