Damon Chetson 1

Search engines allow millions of users to locate content on the Internet, including content offered by individuals and companies who have infringed upon a copyright holder's rights. Copyright Law's contributory infringement doctrine presents a dilemma for search engines like Google, whose services may facilitate the infringement of copyrights by enabling users to locate such content on the Internet. The Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. highlights the problems associated with contributory liability doctrine in copyright law in the digital era. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court, holding that “reasonable and feasible” means were available to Google, enabling it to block access on its search engine to content that violates a copyright holder's rights. This recent development illustrates some of the problems of applying the standard of contributory liability to search engines on the Internet.

Heather M. Tonelli 1

Senator Harry Reid proposed S. 1642, an amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965. This amendment was a diluted version of his original amendment, S.A. 2314, which was proposed as an addition to the College Cost Reduction Act. Each of these amendments proposed procedures that would work to monitor copyright infringement more effectively on college campuses, especially in the areas of peer-to-peer sharing and digital downloading. Under constitutional standards established in South Dakota v. Dole, Senator Reid's original amendment would not have passed constitutional muster, as its purpose was not reasonably related to the stated governmental interest. The purpose of the College Cost Reduction Act is to make college more affordable. Cutting college costs is unrelated to the goal of effectively monitoring copyright infringement, and therefore Congress would seem to be attempting to sneak a control on peer-to-peer sharing through a seemingly innocuous and beneficial statute. The possible constitutional problem, combined with the public outcry in response to S.A. 2314, resulted in the watered-down version now sitting as a potential amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965. However, as Congress is continually trying to adjust copyright monitoring to advances in technology, the concerns voiced by the public and by Senator Reid have not been completely resolved.

Matthew Modell 1

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled in FEC. v. Wisconsin Right To Life (“WRTL”), by a 5-4 decision, that section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”) was unconstitutional.  The Court's majority, however, could not agree to why BCRA was unconstitutional. The opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts held that there is a distinction between “issue advocacy” and “express advocacy” in the context of federal elections, and it was constitutionally impermissible for them to be lumped together. The concurring opinion by Justice Scalia held section 203 never should have been upheld in McConnell v. FEC, and BCRA is facially unconstitutional. The effect of the WRTL decision is that corporations and unions may now broadcast issue ads on television and radio using their general treasury funds in the days leading up to a federal primary or general election.

Lindsay Kemp 1

Lorraine v. Markel may have a profound impact on the world of electronic evidence admissibility for its guidance to lawyers, but in the area of computer animations and simulations, it carries a mixed message. The opinion takes a progressive approach to the unfair prejudice standard, granting broad discretion to courts to admit computer animation and simulation into evidence. However, the opinion takes a conservative approach to the treatment of computer simulations as scientific evidence. Lorraine's real effect is yet to be seen, but its on-the-fence approach to computer animations and simulations may cause confusion. Lawyers should therefore use extra caution in meeting all relevant standards when introducing these forms of evidence.

Cite as 9 NC JOLT Online Ed. 16 (2007) | Download PDF