latest posts

  • the archive

  • view by topic




  • Posted on Monday, November 17, 2008 at 12:27 am

    Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

    Supreme Court Rules for Navy in Use of Sonar in Training Exercises
    By Jared Frisch – Edited by Dmitriy Tishyevich
    Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
    Supreme Court of the United States, November 12, 2008, No. 07-1239
    Slip Opinion

    The Supreme Court reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and vacated in part a preliminary injunction that had restricted sonar training operations by the US Navy. The training operations were alleged to damage marine life in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”). The Court applied an equitable balancing test, determining that the likelihood of irreparable injury to the environment was outweighed by the public interest and the Navy’s interest in “effective, realistic training of its sailors.”

    Mainstream reporting on the Supreme Court decision can be found at New York Times and the Associated Press.  Further commentary following the case is available at Slashdot and ScotusBlog.

    (more…)

    RELATED ENTRIES: Environment,Supreme Court

    Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2008 at 11:40 pm

    Update: Warner Bros. v. RDR Books

    Harry Potter Lexicon Defendant Files Notice of Appeal
    Notice of Appeal (hosted by Justia)

    On November 7, 2008, defendant RDR Books filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit from the September 9, 2008 decision of the S.D.N.Y., which permanently enjoined its publication of the Harry Potter Lexicon book and awarded plaintiffs Warner Brothers and J.K. Rowling statutory damages of $6,750.

    Previously: Harry Potter Lexicon Found to Infringe J.K. Rowling’s Copyright

    RELATED ENTRIES: Copyright,Entertainment,Fair Use

    Posted on Monday, November 10, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    E.S.S. Entm’t 2000, Inc., v. Rock Star Videos, Inc.

    Court Declares “Grand Theft” Crime Free
    By Briahna Gray – Edited by Miriam Weiler

    E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc., v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., November 5 2008, No. 06-56237
    Slip Opinion

    On November 5, 2008 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Central California District Court summary judgment ruling to dismiss the case brought by the operators of a Los Angeles strip club (“E.S.S.”) against Rock Star Videos (“Rockstar”), the manufacturer of the Grand Theft Auto video games, for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, California Business and Professions Code § 14320 and § 17200 and California common law.

    E.E.S. had argued that Rockstar’s imitation of the strip club’s logo within the virtual world of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas had no artistic relevance and would mislead consumers, confusing them as to whether EES had endorsed or associated itself with the digital rendition. In resolving this claim, the court applied a balancing test to weigh Trademark interests against First Amendment rights, stating that the Lanham Act applies to artistic works “only where the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion outweighs the public interest in free expression” Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 999 (2d Cir. 1989) (emphasis in the original).

    The ruling affirming summary judgment in favor of the popular game has drawn attention from a number of commentators. The authors at Techdirt.com applaud the decision. Coverage is also offered by Gamastura.com, Techdirt.com and Filewrapper.com summarize the case. RealDealDocs.com lists other legal challenges Grand Theft Auto has faced in the past six years.

    (more…)

    RELATED ENTRIES: 9th Circuit Decisions,Entertainment,First Amendment,Trademark

    Posted on at 9:24 am

    Digest Comment – The Great Firewall Down Under

    Australia Poised to Begin Internet Filtering Program Unprecedented in Scope for Modern Democracy
    By Debbie Rosenbaum
    Editorial Policy 

    If the presumption that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions is true, then there is cause for great alarm as one of our nation’s closest democratic allies moves to drastically curtail this foundational freedom within its boarders. The Australian government will likely enact legislation that will make sweeping, compulsory Internet censorship a startling reality for all Australian citizens. Spearheaded by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, and backed by $44.2 million from the government’s $125.8 million Plan for Cyber-Safety budget, the planned filter (part of the NetAlert program) will render Internet access in Australia similar to that in Iran or China.

    Australia’s Federal Government announced its ambitious web censorship plan in December 2007. The goal of the program is seemingly well intentioned: to shield children from violent and pornographic sites. (See the Australian government’s “Children Are Sacred” report, which discusses instances of child sexual abuse in the Northern Territories). The Family First Party, a relatively minor party with only one Member of Parliament, originally championed the filter, also known as the “clean feed” policy. The Party’s proposal has earned wider support from both Senator Conroy and the Rudd-Labor Government. Senator Conroy is expected to call for bids from Australian software makers, and reportedly wants to begin live trials by the end of the year.

    (more…)

    RELATED ENTRIES: Digest Comment

    Posted on at 9:00 am

    About Digest Comments

    The JOLT Digest is proud to introduce Digest Comments! In addition to our regular updates on breaking law and technology news, the Digest will periodically publish longer opinion pieces on especially significant issues. These pieces are written entirely by members of our staff, on topics they believe warrant closer examination and study.

    While the Digest provides hosting for Digest Comments, the opinions expressed in the comments are those of the Authors alone and do not reflect any position of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, the JOLT Digest, or the Harvard Law School.

    – The Digest Staff Editors

     

    RELATED ENTRIES: Digest Comment
    « Previous PageNext Page »