The Artful Jurist

Since last Friday when Congress shelved its two Internet anti-piracy bills (Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect Intellectual Property Act), I've heard nary a word about either or the issues the bills are about.  SOPA and PIPA, as the bills are generally abbreviated, proved to be the young year's biggest hot potato, sparking online protests and other opposition that seem to have scared off congressional supporters.

Congressional leaders are quick to point out that the bills aren't dead.  So they could be resuscitated at any time.  But, this being an election year, I suspect the heavy betting is laying odds on SOPA and PIPA staying on the back burner until at least the elections are over this November.

However, even if those bills don't make a comeback, I'd still expect some future legislation that will try to reign in Internet piracy.  The entertainment industry loses potential billions of dollars to unauthorized online file sharing.  And, with money like that on the line, don't be surprised if an anti-piracy bill becomes 2013's big political issue.

If you attempted to access Wikipedia on January 18th, you undoubtedly noticed the dark page of protest that greeted you rather than the usual home page.  It was the website's way of protesting two congressional bills designed to protect intellectual property from online copyright infringement.  Those bills are the Stop Online Piracy Act (a.k.a. SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (a.k.a. PIPA).

The legislative bills are supported by the entertainment industry, which has taken a major hit in the pocketbook because of unauthorized online file sharing of music, video, and the like.  But opponents of the bills, which includes Wikipedia, say the legislative language is vague and could result in the suppression of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Wiki's reaction was to black out its English language site for 24 hours.  Google, the Internet search engine, also joined the cause to oppose the legislation by blacking out its own name on its home page.

Every so often our highest court finds itself wrestling with that recurring legal hot potato -- censoring out the naughty bits and words from broadcast television.  Just when you think they've got it all nailed down, the issue pops up all over again.  And the thing that makes it a tough issue to pin down in terms of societal standards is that society's standards keep changing; not to mention the technology involved.

Case in point: FCC v. Fox Television Stations.  The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this case on January 10th.  At the heart of the case is whether the Federal Communications Commission is within a constitutional privilege to clamp down on, and/or fine, broadcasters who present nudity or profanity on freely transmitted broadcast TV stations (as opposed to the stations that are available only on cable).

The issue was prompted by an incident last decade in which a woman's bare buttocks was shown on the program NYPD Blue, and also where some music artists apparently just didn't see the big f***ing deal about expressing themselves in four-letter words on broadcasts of the Billboard Music Awards.

We could debate the sadness of watching multi-millionaire celebrities who seemingly don't feel any need to exercise a level of dignity when they're appearing on national broadcasts.  But the legal issue here is one that involves First Amendment free speech and protection of minors in an era when children in the vast majority of American households are never more than a click away from accessing the cable channels that aren't restricted by FCC indecency rules.

As Justice Samuel Alito put it, TVs that receive programming strictly by way of an antenna are quickly going the way of the old 8-track tapes.  So the question is whether the FCC indecency rules are really accomplishing anything.

The High Court is expected to rule on the case by this summer.  Cornell University Law School has a case brief online. 

With the beginning of this new year, the Artful Jurist celebrates its third anniversary as a law blog -- or what the American Bar Association likes to call a “blawg.”

I’m pleased to be able to use this blog…er, uh, blawg as a forum in which to present various musings about the law as it relates to the world of the arts, and I appreciate the comments and questions I sometimes get from readers.  Keep ‘em coming, and I’ll do my best to address them here, if I can.

To start off 2012, I’ve got a few questions of my own to toss out there.  These are questions regarding the TV lawyers that Hollywood presents us in all those various programs.  Let’s just call those “TV Law.”  See if any of these questions ever occur to you…

Q:  How come in TV Law all new clients just suddenly show up in person at the lawyer’s office to initiate legal representation?  I’ve never seen a client just come bursting through the door without an appointment to demand that he speak to a lawyer about taking his case.  Have these clients never heard of the telephone or email?  I guess TV Law attorneys just have a knack for knowing when a big case is going to come walking through the door, so they make sure they’re (1) in the office at that particular time, and (2) not in a meeting, on the phone, or otherwise engaged in any other case that wouldn’t permit them to see immediately an unexpected client.

Q:  How come in TV Law a case with a full-blown jury trial goes from initial client meeting to jury decision all within the same week?  Ordinarily, a defendant doesn’t even have to respond to the initial complaint for three weeks.  Never mind the months (sometimes years) it typically takes to go through preliminary motions and the discovery phase of litigation that occurs before you ever get anywhere near a trial date.  Justice is extra, extra swift in TV Law.

Q:  How come in TV Law none of the attorneys is ever working on more than one case at any given time?  Yes, they seem to be busy with some kind of legal documents when the new client walks in.  But then the new client seems to become the only client, and whatever client’s case they were working on before is never heard about again.

Q:  How come in TV Law no one ever has a schedule conflict?  In TV Law you never hear a courtroom conversation like:

“I can’t be at the hearing on Monday, Your Honor.  I’ve got a dental appointment.  What about Tuesday?”

“Tuesday’s no good for me, Your Honor.  I’m in another court all that day.  How about Friday?”

“Can’t do Friday.  I’m presiding over a trial, and we start selecting the jury then.  What about the following Wednesday?”

“Out of town all that week, Your Honor.”

“So that pushes us to the week after that, right?”

“On vacation till February, Your Honor.”

“February’s no good on my docket.  How does March look?”

And so now you see why, outside of TV Law, there’s no such thing as truly swift justice.

Okay, you closet Beverly Hillbillies fans, you all know the tune.  So hum along to…

THE BALLAD OF ELLY MAY CLAMPETT V. BARBIE

Come and listen to my story ‘bout ol’ Elly May,

Played by Donna Davis on TV a bygone day.

But then one day she was browsin’ falderal,

And up popped an Elly May Clampett modeled doll…

Barbie, that is.

Plastic gold.

Mega toy brand.

Well, the next thing ya know, bad feelings did erupt.

Her kinfolk said, “Hey, you oughta lawyer up!”

“With my image,” said Ms. Davis, “they are makin’ revenue!”

So she went to fed’ral court and filed a case to sue…

Mattel, that is.

CBS, too.

Deep pockets defendants.

Well, Mattel claimed this was a case it could refute.

The network owns the show and characters, to boot.

But ‘fore any jury could deliberate that count,

They settled the case for an undisclosed amount.

And that’s how it ended.

Y’all come back now.