background preloader

Media Law Final

Facebook Twitter

PROTECT IP Act. The PROTECT IP Act is a re-write of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA),[5] which failed to pass in 2010.

PROTECT IP Act

A similar House version of the bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), was introduced on October 26, 2011.[6] In the wake of online protests held on January 18, 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that a vote on the bill would be postponed until issues raised about the bill were resolved.[7][8][9] Content[edit] The bill defines infringement as distribution of illegal copies, counterfeit goods, or anti-digital rights management technology. Infringement exists if "facts or circumstances suggest [the site] is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities described Supporters[edit] Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.

In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.[1][2] Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users. Provisions[edit] Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions[edit] Stop Online Piracy Act. Proponents of the legislation said it would protect the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and was necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign-owned and operated websites.

Stop Online Piracy Act

Claiming flaws in present laws that do not cover foreign-owned and operated websites, and citing examples of active promotion of rogue websites by U.S. search engines, proponents asserted that stronger enforcement tools were needed. Opponents claimed that the proposed legislation threatened free speech and innovation, and enabled law enforcement to block access to entire internet domains due to infringing content posted on a single blog or webpage. They expressed concerns that SOPA would bypass the "safe harbor" protections from liability presently afforded to websites by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Overview[edit] Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. Federal Election Commission v.

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.

Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election. Background[edit] In 2002, the Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("McCain-Feingold" or "BCRA"), amending the Federal Election Campaign Act to further regulate money in public election campaigns. One primary purpose of the legislation was to regulate what were colloquially known as "issue ads. " "Issue ads" typically discussed a candidate name with regards to a particular issue, but because they did not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, they fell outside the prohibitions and limitations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

Corporate personhood. Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation, separately from its associated human beings (like owners, managers, or employees), has some, but not all, of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons (physical humans).[1] For example, corporations have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons.

Corporate personhood

Corporate personhood in the United States[edit] As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Some opponents of corporate personhood seek to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit these rights to those provided by state law and state constitutions.[2][3] Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United v.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)[dead link], is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Santa Clara County v.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad

Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) was a matter brought before the United States Supreme Court – but not decided by the court – which dealt with taxation of railroad properties. A report issued by the Court Reporter claimed to state the sense of the Court – without a decision or written opinions published by or of the Court. This was the first time that the Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons, although numerous other cases, since Dartmouth College v.