Media Law Prof Blog

Editor: Christine A. Corcos
Louisiana State Univ.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

FindLaw's Best and Worst Legal Tech HighLights of 2006

FindLaw lists its Best and Worst Legal Tech decisions and issues of 2006 in an article here. Among them: the California Supreme Court's Barrett v. Rosenthal decision, and the HP "pretexting" mess.

December 26, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Frank Stanton Dies

Frank Stanton, who worked with William S. Paley to build CBS into a powerhouse, has died at the age of 98. Read an article about his career in today's New York Times.

December 26, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Federal Judge Annoyed at Joe Wilson's Lawyer

The federal judge in charge of the case against Lewis Libby did not like what he heard from Joe Wilson's attorney on MSNBC's program "Hardball" the other day. Read the measure of his annoyance here.

December 26, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Anita Ramasastry on the Whosarat Website

FindLaw's Anita Ramasastry discusses the First Amendment defenses available to the website ( here.

December 21, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Website Listing Informant Names Has Law Enforcement Concerned

Matt Apuzzo reports on a website that lists the names of suspected police informants. Law enforcement, prosecutors and judges are concerned that it will make those named targets for violence, and make them reluctant to testify. The website is

December 21, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Fox Appeals FCC Rulings on Profanity at Billboard Music Awards

The Fox Network is appealing the FCC's rulings on four letter words uttered by Cher and Nicole Ritchie at the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards, saying that the same words said during the broadcast of the film Saving Private Ryan did not earn a sanction. Fox's attorney told a federal appellate court that such lack of uniformity leaves broadcasters without clear rules to follow. Read more in an article by CNN's Jeffrey Toobin here, and by John Dunbar of the Associated Press here. The Dunbar article quotes David Solomon, formerly with the FCC, as saying, “I think there's a significant likelihood that the FCC will lose.”

December 20, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

British Broadband Customers No Longer Need Pay to Switch

Ofcom, the British watchdog agency, has told broadband providers they may not charge their customers a fee to give them a MAC (migration authorization code) to move to another broadband provider. Beginning on February 14 of 2007, all broadband providers must provide MACs for free. Consumers had run into problems because of long delays in switching to new providers; their initial free MACs had run out and they had requested new ones, but at least one former provider had caused a ruckus by refusing to give out additional MACs without charging a fee. Said Ofcom:

"A Migration Authorisation Code (MAC) is a unique alphanumeric reference that enables customers to switch broadband provider smoothly and with minimal disruption.

"Without a MAC, customers can be left without broadband for some time while the transfer is made. Previously, MACs formed part of a voluntary code of practice supported by a number of broadband providers. However, Ofcom is receiving an increasing number of complaints from consumers who find it difficult to obtain a MAC from their provider.

"Therefore, from 14 February 2007, General Condition 22: Service Migrations will require broadband providers to supply consumers with a MAC upon request and free of charge."

Read more here. Read about Ofcom's new regulations regarding free MACs here.

December 19, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Dan Tench on the "Kiss and Tell" Decision

Dan Tench, a partner at Olswang, discusses the recent  McKennitt v. Ash decision here.

December 19, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Oxford Media Convention Announcement

The annual Oxford Media Convention takes place next month (Thursday, January 18, 2007). Here's a link to the program brochure.

December 19, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Monday, December 18, 2006

The Limits of Fair Use

Dan Burk, University of Minnesota Law School, has published "The Mereology of Digital Copyright" as Minnesota Legal Research Studies Paper 06-66. Here is the abstract.

Among the most controversial of current information technology projects on the Internet is the Google Book Search project. Google, owner and operator of a leading Internet search engine, has contracted with a variety of libraries with to scan the contents of the books held in these libraries, many of which are under current copyright. From the scanned images, Google uses search engine technology to map the relationship of words in the scanned text to the other words in the text. Access to this index is provided via an on-line interface. However, Google has not sought the permission of copyright holders, and book publishers have sued Google for copyright infringement, charging that the scanning process creates an unauthorized digital copy of many copyrighted works. While Google has asserted a defense to these claims under the doctrine of fair use, a far more difficult and more far-reaching issue for database technologies is the legal status of the index created by Google, which maps the positions of the words in the books. This metadata is not technically a “copy” of the books in questions, but the books can be recreated from such metadata. The ownership and control of such metadata is becoming an increasingly contested question in database construction, and in the resolution of the presents a difficult but critically important problem of copyright doctrine and policy.

Download the entire paper from SSRN here.


December 18, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Comparative Law of Broadcast Regulation

Lesley Hitchens, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, has published BROADCASTING PLURALISM AND DIVERSITY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLICY AND REGULATION, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2006. Here is the abstract.

Broadcasting Pluralism and Diversity is a study of the policy and regulatory measures relating to the promotion of media diversity in three jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. A central focus of the study is regulation of media ownership and control, and, taking an historical approach, it argues that early policy and regulatory decisions continue to have a significant influence on current reforms. Whilst policy and reform debates focus on ownership and control measures, the study also argues that such measures can not be considered in isolation from other regulatory instruments, and that a holistic regulatory approach is required. As such, content regulation and competition regulation are also considered. Underlying the study is the contention that much of the policy informing pluralism and diversity regulation, although making reference to the importance of the media's role in the democratic process, has also been skewed by a futile focus on the different regulatory treatment of the press and broadcasting, which is adversely influencing current policy debates. The study argues that a different approach, using the public sphere concept, needs to be adopted and used as a measure against which regulatory reform in the changing media environment can be assessed.


December 18, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Friday, December 15, 2006

Roberto Alagna Says He Plans to Sue Over "Boos"

Roberto Alagna, the tenor whose performance earned him "boos" from a La Scala audience last weekend, announced he plans to sue over the experience. His attorney said the fact that the opera house dismissed Alagna has "damaged his reputation." Read more here.

December 15, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Will British Ruling End "Kiss and Tell" Writing?

Singer Loreena McKennitt has won an invasion of privacy ruling against writer Neima Ash. A British judge upheld an injunction against Ms. Ash, who was fined five thousand pounds last year by a lower court. Ms. McKennitt had argued that Ms. Ash's book Travels with Loreena McKennitt revealed too much about her personal life, including the death of a fiance. Media lawyers are now discussing whether the ruling means that "kiss and tell" magazines such as Hello and OK will have as much leeway to publish their stock in trade and also whether the ruling was about the right to privacy or whether it was about a betrayal of confidence. Read more here in an article from CBC Arts, here from the Times Online, and here from The Guardian.

December 15, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

District Court Follows Single Publication Rule For Web Defamation

In Atkinson v. McLaughlin, Case No. 1:03-cv-091, the district court judge has ruled that 1) the statute of limitation begins to toll the day that the defamatory statement is published to the web and 2) that the single publication rule applies. Patrick Atkinson, executive director of the God's Child Project, which provides charitable assistance to the poor in Guatemala, had claimed that the McLaughlins had published defamatory statements about him on their website concerning his work at the Covenant House in New York and had "compiled a list of allegations against [him] and, with the assistance of others, filed them with various Guatemalan authorities". The McLaughlins had also sent emails about Atkinson to various persons and had "prepared and caused to be widely distributed an international press release alleging that Atkinson had been arrested on charges of sexually abusing young boys."

The judge did consider the question of updating of websites. "...[E]ven under the single publication rule, the courts have recognized that a website may be republished and create a new cause of action....if the website is substantially modified....Republication triggers the start of a new statute of limitations and occurs upon a separate aggregate publication from the original...." However, the judge ruled that "...[A]s a matter of law, that the defamation claims arising out of the McLaughlins' website are barred by the two-year statute of limitations in North Dakota."

See Atkinson v. McLaughlin, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86405; 2006 WL 3409130 (D.N.D.)

December 15, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Commercial Speech and Junk Food Advertising

David Yosifon, Santa Clara University School of Law, has published "Resisting Deep Capture: The Commercial Speech Doctrine and Junk Food Advertising to Children" in the 2006 volume of the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. Here is the abstract.

This Article analyzes the childhood obesity epidemic, and junk food advertising to children, from the perspective of “critical realism,” an approach to legal theory that seeks to incorporate important insights from social psychology and other social sciences. Exploring the First Amendment implications of a proposed ban on junk food advertising, the Article argues that the central conception of human agency implicit in the Supreme Court's commercial speech jurisprudence rests on intuitively grounded presumptions that are false, and which threaten to leave consumers vulnerable to manipulation through advertising in ways consumers do not anticipate or appreciate. However, the Article explains that a second, more accurate, conception of human agency, which takes into account non-intuitive realities concerning the sources of human behavior, is also evident in the Court's commercial speech jurisprudence. The Article concludes that by developing and exploiting this second conception in the commercial speech cases, a qualified ban on junk food advertising can be seen as normatively justifiable and constitutionally viable.

Download the entire article from SSRN here.

December 13, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Philadelphia Papers, Unions Have Reached Agreements

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the paper and the Philadelphia Daily News and their unions have reached deals after an extensive bargaining session. Read more here.

December 13, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

In a Murder Trial, Rap Lyrics Take the Stand

Prosecutors are attempting to show that rap lyrics constitute a confession in the trial of Ronell Wilson for the murder of officers James V. Nemorin and Rodney J. Andrews over three years ago. It is not a novel argument, as this article from the New York Times shows.

December 12, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Monday, December 11, 2006

Google Book Search and Fair Use

Hannibal Travis, Florida International University College of Law, has published "Google Book Search and Fair Use: iTunes for Authors or Napster for Books?" in the 2006 volume of the University of Miami Law Review. Here is the abstract.

Google plans to digitize the books from five of the world's biggest libraries into a keyword-searchable book-browsing library. Some publishers and authors allege that this constitutes a massive piracy of their copyrights in books not yet in the public domain. But I argue that Google Book Search may be a fair use for two interrelated reasons: it is unlikely to reduce the sales of printed books, and it promises to improve the marketing of books via an innovative book marketing platform featuring short previews. Books are an experience good in economic parlance, or a product that must be consumed before full information about its contents and quality becomes available. This makes new technologies that are capable of rapidly searching and previewing relevant passages from books a development that the law should encourage, not burden or restrain.

After introducing the topic, I describe Google's ambitious plan to scan and index up to 15 million library books by 2010, and provide short previews of a few lines each to help users decide whether to buy the books or check them out from a library. I then argue that the fair use limitation on exclusive rights has historically protected efforts such as Google's to address the economic problem of marketing experience goods like books, albums, movies, or games, which consumers must decide whether to buy without assessing their quality and characteristics beforehand. Fair use partially resolved this problem by permitting the unauthorized dissemination of extracts of another's work in a catalogue, review, abridgement in a periodical, or other work of criticism or commentary.

The bulk of the Article analyzes the copyright and fair use implications of lawsuits challenging Google Book Search, filed by several publishers and a putative class of up to 8,000 published authors. I contend that by reproducing excerpts from scanned books for the purpose of improving access to information about books on the internet, Google is making a transformative use of the books that should qualify as a fair use. Courts have recognized that copyright owners are not entitled to gain a monopoly over the market for information about their works, or to suppress efforts to improve the public's access to information and high-quality research tools. Google Book Search is distinguishable from prior attempts to disseminate complete copies of protected works, from newspaper articles in the Free Republic case to songs in the Napster and cases. Insofar as most works being scanned by Google have already been published, and are nonfictional and fact-based, these facts also strongly support Google's fair use arguments.

Most importantly, the evidence so far is that Google Book Search will dramatically improve, rather than detract from, the sales of books that it permits users to find, preview, and purchase. Google Book Search has tripled the sales of many books, and other online previews of books have also markedly increased sales. Total book sales are up substantially in the period after Google began scanning copyrighted books, indicating a fair use under the Sony Betamax case and other precedents.

I conclude by analyzing the antitrust implications of the struggle between copyright owners and technology companies for control over digital marketing and distribution technologies. Joint ventures between major copyright holders may be the only viable alternative for the foreseeable future to technology company search technologies such as Google Book Search, just as MusicNet and Movielink proved to be the only viable alternative for many years to peer-to-peer digital media search technologies. Such joint ventures may facilitate price-fixing and suppression of digital media output, dangers that courts considering the legality of Google Book Search should explore carefully. At the same time, I suggest reasons for courts to be skeptical about publishing industry assertions that by scanning books, Google will seize control over all the content in the world.

Download the entire article from SSRN here.

December 11, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (1)

Julie Hilden On Alternatives For Those Who Believe They've Been Defamed Online

FindLaw's Julie Hilden considers the recourse available to those who believe they've been defamed now that California's Supreme Court has issued its opinion in Barrett v. Rosenthal. Do angry plaintiffs have any remedy at all? Ms. Hilden looks at the website and other self-help approaches here.

December 11, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Friday, December 8, 2006

Former Radio Talk Show Host Indicted

Vince Marinello, known on southern Louisiana radio as a sports talk show host, has been indicted for the second degree murder of his wife Mary Elizabeth. Police say Mr. Marinello disguised himself and lay in wait for his wife as she attended an appointment. Those close to Mrs. Marinello say the motive may have been what she might have revealed about her husband during upcoming divorce proceedings.

December 8, 2006 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)