 |
Moot Court
|
COPYRIGHT AND NEW TECHNOLOGY
1. RIAA v HowellIn this case, the Recording Industry Association of America wants to expand its victories in A&M v. Napster (See this backgrounder). and the MGM v Grokster. 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 is a violation of Eighth Amendment rights. The Eighth Amendment says "Ecessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Howell also argues that the courts should consider the 4th part of the Fair Use test for copyright infringement test, in which the financial impact of an infringement is considered. The somewhat innocent infringement of a college student has nowhere near the potential financial impact as the fine at $750 per instance of infringement.
The RIAA of course argues that the fine is meant to be puntive and that in practice cases are being settled for $3000 for many thousands of instances of infringement.
PRIVACY AND PRIOR RESTRAINT
2. Lawrence v. American Christian Council
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).
CORPORATE FREE SPEECH VERSUS TRUTH IN ADVERTISING LAWS
3. Swift Shoes v Virginia Consumer Council
The Virginia Consumer Council has alleged that Swift Shoes lied in advertisements. Virginia laws prohibit alse advertising. The case is remarkably similar to Nike v. Kasky which was never resolved at the US Supreme Court level.
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.
The Virginia Consumer Counsel disputed that assertion. Nothing has really changed, they said. Their own investigations showed that shocking conditions still existed in the old factories, These included continued use of unsafe chemicals, continued use of forced child labor, high costs in the mandatory company stores and extremely low wages. The consumer counsel said the "amounted to slave conditions." Swith Shoes responded with full page ads showing schools under construction and happy families in the cities where these factories had been located. There is genuine dispute about many of the conclusions, but it is clear that Swift Shoes has not fully changed its practices and is asserting that it has the right to tell its own side of the story.
Under Virginia law 18.2-216 making false advertising a crime, the VCC sued Swift Shoes, alledging that the company knew very well that school age children working at Swift Shoes factories were not attending the schools in the photos. 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 the 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.