 |
Moot Court
|
COPYRIGHT AND NEW TECHNOLOGY
RIAA v Howell --Kris Rowson, Jeremy Morris, Chad Bresette, Megan Goad, Jason Hubbard, Lafayette Greenfield, Kaitlin Back, Caitlin Minteer
In this case, the RIAA is moving on from a victory in A&M v. Napster (See this backgrounder). and the Grokster case. Although music sharing is legal in Canada, in the US fines of up to $750 per song have been imposed and upheld by appeals courts on people who considered themselves "inncent infringers." [See BMG Music v. Gonzalez , 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005)]
Defendant Anita Howell, a student at a mid-Atlantic university, has downloaded over 1,000 songs in her dorm room. Absent an argument for "innocent infringement," she argues that the $750,000 in fines for infringement are a violation of Eighth Amendment rights. "Ecessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Howell also argues that if the courts consider the 4th part of the copyright infringement test, in which the influence of infringement on the money making potential of a copyrighted work, and if all infringing downloads were to be fined at the $750 level, the value would exceed the entire annual income of the music industry.
PRIVACY AND PRIOR RESTRAINT
Lawrence v. American Christian Council -
Randall Holmes, Caitlyn Crum,Kathine Bebko, Elizabeth Riggan, Claudia Cervntes.Joseph Lawrence, an MD, sued the ACC under the Federal Access to Clinics Entrances law for printing details of his family life over an anti-abortion web site called "The Eichman Papers."
Joseph Lawrence, an MD, was pictured in a "Wanted for Murder" poster on a web site run by the American Christian Council, a non profit Martinsville, Va. anti-abortion group. The ACC used a picture of Lawrence, gave his home and work addresses, showed pictures of his family, explained where his wife worked and where his children went to school.
Lawrence sued under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, noting that in the past few years year there have been six murders and several attempted murders by anti-abortion militants, including the fatal shootings of three doctors shortly after they had been identified in such "wanted" posters. While ACC had applauded those murders as "justifiable homicide," it also never actually said "go murder abortion providers" or anything similar to that. The ACC said it was perfectly within its rights under the First Amendment and the Brandenburg case as it interpreted prior restraint.
The web site, called the "Eichman Papers," contains several hundred names, addresses and personal details of doctors who perform abortions nationwide.(This case is similar to the "Nuremburg" case, Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists).
TRUTH IN ADVERTISING
Swift Shoes v Virginia Consumer Council --Krista Griffiths, Samantha Burnham, Katherine Arroyo, Kristin Verwers, Mike Cote, Ashligh McClure, Ashleigh Farley
The Virginia Consumer Council alleged that Swift Shoes lied under Virginia laws prohibiting allegedly false advertising about the behavior of the shoe manufacturer with respect to its foreign operations. The case is remarkably similar to Nike v. Marc Kasky.
Starting in 1996, social activists from the Virginia Consumer Council (a private non-profit organization) began documenting the conditions of workers who made Swift Shoes in factories located in Freetown, Sierra Leone and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Photos of children chained to sewing machine tables shocked the world, and an international boycott of Swift Shoes began. By 1998, Swift Shoes sales were down 40% and the company hired several authorities on international labor to investigate. Their recommendations led to a manager being fired in Freetown for "unauthorized" use of chains. However, no other action was taken and the company said it had disproven the false charges and, moreover, that its shoe factories were paragons of opportunity, good working coditions and decent wages compared to other companies in Sierra Leone and Malaysia.
Under Virginia law 18.2-216 making false advertising a crime, the VCC sued Swift Shoes, alledging that the company knew very well that unsafe chemicals, forced child labor, deductions from company stores and low wages even for these countries amounted to slave conditions. The VCC also said they had fresh photos of children in chains. For Swift Shoes, the question is how much and how often they have to answer critics charges. Even if some of these allegations may possibly be correct, and even if the ads did promote Swift Shoes as a good corporate citizen, doesnt Swift Shoes have a right to say what it wants?
Disclaimer: All cases on this site are hypothetical They do not exist. You cannot "look up" the DP Roberts petition for cert.