Media Law Prof Blog

Ninth Circuit Rules That Bertelsmann Lawyers May Keep Communications Private

In In re Napster Copyright Litigation,the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court ruling that "ordered the disclosure of privileged attorney-client communications under the crime-fraud exception." Said the court, "We hold that in a civil case the district court must allow both the party seeking discovery of the communications and the party asserting the privilege to present evidence relevant to the privilege and the exception, and must weigh that evidence before ordering outright disclosure. We further hold that in a civil case, when the district court is asked to order outright disclosure, the burden of proof on the party seeking to vitiate the privilege is preponderance of the evidence. We conclude the appellees in this case have failed to make the requisite evidentiary showing to support a finding that the crime-fraud exception applies. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

The case arose out of arguments over whether funds loaned to Napster by Bertelsmann were actually used to further copyright infringements by Napster, and if so, whether Bertelsmann was "vicariously and contributorily liable for copyright infringement by Napster and/or Napster's users. Appellees charged that by lending Napster millions of dollars Bertelsmann assumed control over Napster's file-sharing service, or prolonged its allegedly infringing operations, in order to avoid dispersion of Napster's estimated 40 million users before the anticipated new licensed digital music distribution system was functional." 

Read the entire ruling here.

Tragedy on New York City Street

Read a background article on that tragic shooting in Greenwich Village. The New York Times reports that the gunman was a former Marine, had tried to break into the movie business with small acting roles and had done some producing, and had worked at the Wall Street Journal.

New Blog on Internet and Copyright Launched

Giovanni Maria Riccio, a professor of comparative communications law at the University of Salerno, has started a blog on internet and copyright law.

Von Anhalt Sues O'Reilly For Defamation

Prince Frederic von Anhalt has sued Fox News host Bill O'Reilly for defamation in a California court for calling him a "fraud" over Mr. von Anhalt's claims that he is the father of little Dannielynn Stern. Read more in a Globe and Mail article here.

British Newspaper To Apologize For Story Concerning "Cash for Honours" Allegations

The Media Guardian is running a story about the Spectator's recent story concerning the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, and the "cash for honours" investigations. The Spectator had implicated the Director in the scandal in spite of his repeated denials. Now the paper has retracted its allegations. See the front page of the Spectator here.

Conrad Black's Trial Gets Underway

As the Conrad Black trial opens in Chicago, the first witness is Gordon Paris, an investment banker and former colleague. Read an article about the trial in the Media Guardian here.

Eric Sinrod on Anonymous Postings and the Internet

Eric Sinrod opines on the possibility that all those dogs posting on the Internet may have to reveal themselves. Read more here.

"Death of a President" Apparently Not a Hit

The distributor of the film "Death of President" says some theaters have decided not to screen "Death of a President." The film, which shows the fake assassination of President Bush, has caused a great deal of controversy. Read more here and here.

Snakes in a Press Box

A black snake got the better of some reporters in the press box at a Cleveland Indians/New York Mets game in Winter Haven, Florida before a grounds crew worker removed it. I suppose it didn't have a press pass. Read more here.

Viacom Sues YouTube For Copyright Infringement

Viacom has hit YouTube for copyright infringement, demanding one billion dollars and an injunction against the popular online site. Other content providers have alleged copyright infringement against YouTube but have then come to terms with the company, signing licensing agreements, obviously seeing an advantage in having their products available online. Read more here in an article on CNNMoney.com and here in an AP article carried in the Toronto Star.