Facebook has become a fixture in pop culture, with over 500 million users to date. Its creator Mark Zukerburg has been thrust into the spotlight, seemingly not by choice, with the publication of such works such as Ben Mezrich’s “The Accidental Billionaires” and Aaron Sorkin’s The Social Network. While creating one of the most widely recognized social networking platforms in the last decade, Zukerburg always attempted to put his product in the headlines, not himself or his story. The unwelcome push of Zukerburg’s personal story by The Social Network was intended to portray him, according to Sorkin, as being a part of “a very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people…[not] the cuddly nerds in the 80′s…[people who are] very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now.” The dramatic change in the amount of privacy allotted to a person, and the liberty with which third parties can take, begs the question of what recourse is available, if any, to protect our name and our image. [More]

For years the music industry commanded a virtual stranglehold on the dissemination of music to the consumer. The median which gave birth to the record industry, the gramophone record, was relatively difficult and expensive to duplicate. That stranglehold began to loosen as many consumer products that could record or copy audio recordings were introduced into the market. Following the landmark decision in the “Betamax case” the music industry became quite concerned about home recording undercutting their profits. The introduction of digital recording fueled these fears because digital copies, unlike their analog counterparts, do not from degradation. Eventually the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) was passed to address these fears and control this dissemination, while still protecting the privileges afforded under the “Betamax case.” However, recent technological advances have led the development of home recording methods beyond the Court decided scope of the AHRA. Coupled with the rise of the Internet these new methods represent a drastic change which creates a more hostile environment to consumers and the music industry alike. It is posited here that the scope of the AHRA should be reexamined in order to protect the competing interests of the music industry and the consumer alike. [More]

I. Introduction

Jay-Z’s Blueprint II[1]I was released on September 11, 2009 with an abundance of featured artists as well known producers.[2] Exactly two months after his release date, this

huge name will be at Assembly Hall performing for thousands of students, fans, adults, and professors.[3] In 2005 there was a grave controversy about DJ Danger Mouse’s mixtape

The Grey Album[4], a compilation created by sampling Jay Z’s The Black Album[5] and the Beatles’ The White Album[6].[7] DJ Danger Mouse was sought out by record companies

who owned both Jay-Z and The Beatles’ music for copyright infringement, after his mixtape became popular all over the internet as well as the radio airwaves.[8] More about DJ

Danger Mouse and his legal troubles and how it relates to sampling will be discussed at length below. Today, on Blueprint III[9], Jay Z has producer Kanye West, who is famed,

among other things, for his use of sampling in his very popular beats.[10] On his album Graduation (2007)[11] he gave sample credit on ten out of the fifteen songs on the CD.[12] [More]

I. Introduction

In February 2008, when the Writers Guild of America (WGA) ended the acrimonious three-month strike that crippled American television production, a sense of relief spread throughout the entertainment industry.[1] Hollywood studios had achieved three years of labor peace with writers, television production would resume, and the Oscars could air undisturbed.[2] Any feelings of elation were short-lived, however, as the industry collectively turned its head toward the impending expiration of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) contract that summer.[3] Despite the express desire of both parties to avoid a reprise of the writers’ strike, the June 30 expiration date came and went without a new agreement between SAG and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP).[4] SAG members have now been working under an expired contract for over seven months, with the threat of another strike persistently looming.[5] Further complicating matters has been a power struggle between hardliners and moderates within the ranks of SAG, which has lead to a legal battle over the attempted ouster of SAG’s Executive Director, chief negotiator, and strike-proponent Doug Allen.[6] [More]

I. Introduction

For many, Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc. (Ticketmaster) is the first place that people look when they want tickets to an event. It is the largest and most well-known broker of event tickets in the industry. Ticketmaster sells tickets for more than 80% of the major arenas and stadiums in the U.S.[1] However, it has come recently been hit with a $500 million lawsuit in Toronto, Canada, after fans complained that Ticketmaster was deliberately directing customers into its subsidiary site, TicketsNow in violation of anti-scalping laws.[2] Not only is Ticketmaster now facing this class-action lawsuit, but it also is in danger of being hit with charges by the Canadian as well as the U.S. government.[3] Compounded with the recent backlash against its new merger with LiveNation, Ticketmaster is currently facing a host of legal problems.[4] [More]

I. Introduction

On September 8, 2003, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed copyright infringement lawsuits against 261 individuals for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks.[1] In the five years since, the RIAA has sued, settled, or threatened litigation against over 30,000 Americans for alleged violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.[2] These actions have attracted a great deal of public attention, largely due to the fact that the suits have hit very close to home for many Americans. Unlike prior lawsuits, which targeted software programs such as Napster and Grokster, this new chapter in the file-sharing saga has focused on ordinary people.[3] The targets of the RIAA’s legal claims run the spectrum of everyday people who are not typically the subjects of copyright actions, including children, parents, grandparents, single mothers, professors, and college students.[4]

The RIAA’s strategic offensive against music consumers has spurred a firestorm of debate concerning topics such as copyright law, technology, privacy, and legal procedure. For the first few years of the RIAA’s legal efforts, the focus of legal and social observers centered on the RIAA’s tactics for identifying and filing suit against potential defendants.[5] In the last year, however, as contested cases have made their way through district court litigation, the focus has shifted to the interpretation of black-letter copyright law. The RIAA’s “making available” theory of infringement has garnered a great deal of attention, though its acceptance by district courts has been inconsistent. To date, the few district courts to rule on the matter have each interpreted the Copyright Act differently in the context of file-sharing, indicating that there is likely to be ongoing uncertainty until appellate level courts offer clarification. For the moment, though the trend is moving away from acceptance of the "making available" theory, courts appear more willing to allow the RIAA to prevail on the basis of actual dissemination. [More]

I. Introduction

With the 2008 presidential campaign expected to break spending records, it is no surprise that both major political parties are flooding swing-state airwaves with television advertisements. While recent elections have produced the much-discussed "swift boat" and "3 a.m." commercials, the McCain campaign took a unique approach with the summer release of the so-called Barack Obama "celebrity" ad.[1] In response to the enthusiasm generated by large U.S. and European crowds at Obama's public appearances, the McCain campaign featured images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in an ad that characterized Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world."[2] Such unauthorized use of celebrity images in political advertisements has been the subject of recent debate, as any potential legal actions implicate the tension between the right of publicity and the First Amendment. [More]

I. Introduction

From the moment of its initial disclosure, the National Football League's (NFL's) so-called Spygate incident had the potential to be one of the more notorious sports scandals in recent memory. During the first game of the 2007 season, a videographer on the New England Patriots sideline was caught taping the hand signals of New York Jets offensive coaches, a violation of Article 9 of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws.[1] The intrigue was apparent: the league's modern-day dynasty had been caught red-handed, begging the question of whether the Patriots had broken league rules at any other times during its championship era. The NFL's first-year commissioner, Roger Goodell, addressed the issue quickly, fining the team and head coach Bill Belichick a combined $750,000 and taking away a first-round draft pick.[2] Despite its rapid action, the NFL's handling of the situation added to the mystery. After announcing the penalty, the league destroyed the tapes it confiscated from the Patriots.[3] Further fueling the controversy, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter publicly rebuked the Patriots, accusing the team of "stonewalling" his own investigation into the matter.[4]

The questions followed the then-undefeated Patriots to Super Bowl XLII, when the Boston Herald reported that Matt Walsh, a former Patriots employee, allegedly taped the St. Louis Rams walk-through practice the day before New England's surprise upset of the Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI.[5] Since that report, the NFL has expressed a desire to speak with Walsh regarding his knowledge of any potential wrongdoing by the team.[6] Walsh, for his part, has suggested he has damaging information, but his legal representation is demanding full indemnity before revealing his knowledge or role in any malfeasance.[7] The negotiations over the scope of an indemnity agreement have lasted for months, keeping the league in the dark as to what Walsh really knows.[8] [More]

The Writers Guild of America recently made history by striking, and bringing a halt to the production of television shows in Hollywood. The Writers Guild of America East and the Writers Guild of America West came together to gain rights in new media distribution of their work. [1] This article will look at this instance of a union strike and discuss the law surrounding union strikes in the United States. [More]

I. Introduction

When the college footballs season kicks off in August, Midwestern cable customers may finally get the chance to see what all the fuss over the Big Ten Network (BTN) is about. After over a year of tense negotiations, published reports indicate that the BTN and Comcast are nearing a deal to air the channel on the Midwest's largest cable provider.[1] Upon becoming the first conference to announce the creation of its own cable station, the Big Ten counted on the appeal of being able to guarantee its fans the ability to see nearly every game played by conference teams.[2] When negotiations commenced with Midwest cable providers, however, Comcast and its competitors balked at the BTN's high asking price and broad distribution demands.[3] The ensuing stalemate prevented most Midwest fans who do not have satellite cable from viewing the much-anticipated Ohio State-Wisconsin football game in November.[4] Additionally, the Wisconsin-Indiana and Wisconsin-Purdue men's basketball games in February were also unavailable to most fans within the Big Ten region.[5]

Months of public sparring between the BTN and Comcast seem to have finally given way to a compromise. As major sports leagues are trending toward cable broadcasting, the anticipated agreement between Comcast and the BTN is sure to impact fans and cable customers nationwide, while setting a precedent for future contractual negotiations between cable providers and athletic leagues. [More]