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] Legislators[edit] The PROTECT IP Act has received bipartisan support in the Senate, with introduction sponsorship by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and, as of December 17, 2011, co-sponsorship by 40 Senators.[20] 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. 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.

Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Austin v.

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections, did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court upheld the restriction on corporate speech "Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections," and the Michigan law still allowed the corporation to make such expenditures from a segregated fund. Background[edit] The Michigan Campaign Finance Act banned corporations from spending treasury money on "independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections for state offices.

" The Act had one loophole-if a corporation had an independent fund solely used for political purposes the law did not apply. Corporate personhood. Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law.

Corporate personhood

This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons.

The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, officers, and directors, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens. 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.