The Volokh Conspiracy examines the consequences of the Kelo v. City of New London decision by the Supreme Court five years ago.
h/t Instapundit
Category Archives: Legal
Spring cleaning
Summer may have officially begun, but it looks like the New York Legislature could still stand to do a little spring cleaning. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided that a police officer cannot be liable for an illegal arrest because the unconstitutional no-loitering law that he was enforcing was still “on the books.” Though it may be “hard to understand why the [New York] Legislature would continue this statute on the books, given that it is now close to 20 years since it was determined to be unconstitutional,” the Second Circuit held that the issue for the police was “whether it was objectively reasonable for [Officer] Novarro to fail to realize that the statute he was attempting to enforce against [the arrestee] had been held to be unconstitutional by the New York Court of Appeals.” Because the court thought it was reasonable for Novarro to think the law was still in effect under the circumstances, he couldn’t be successfully sued by the arrestee.
See no evil
The Wall Street Journal is reporting a summary judgment ruling in the Viacom vs. YouTube copyright infringment case (link to the opinion here).
For those of you not familiar with the case, Viacom, which owns a host of media outlets, is suing on the theory that YouTube/Google is legally responsible for Viacom clips that YouTube users post. As Judge Louis Stanton puts it, “the critical question” from a legal perspective is whether the law punishes an online service provider that has “a general awareness that there are infringements” taking place (i.e., the fact that everyone knows there are infringing videos up on YouTube) or whether YouTube is only responsible if it has “actual or constructive knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of individual items.” Closely reading the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [text] and its legislative history, Judge Stanton concludes that “[m]ere knowledge of prevalence of [infringing] activity is not enough….To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ posting infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA.”
This one’s virtually certain to be appealed. Stay tuned…
Chunga – 6/23/10 8:24 PM – The onus now seems to be on the content providers, like Viacom, to monitor which of their products are uploaded and then ask for their removal (which Google appears quite willing to do). If Viacom does not explicitly ask for a removal, YouTube/Google can keep all sorts of of copyrighted material online?
Sagescape – 6/23/10 9:34 PM – Generally speaking, that’s correct. There’s a very helpful FAQ maintained by ChillingEffects.org that describes the DMCA’s “notice and takedown” process in some detail.
Intentional grade inflation
A story in the NY Times describes how at least 10 law schools have deliberately made their grades more lenient. The reason? To have their students appear more attractive in a weak job market.
[Loyola Law School Los Angeles] is retroactively inflating its grades, tacking on 0.333 to every grade recorded in the last few years. The goal is to make its students look more attractive in a competitive job market.
In the last two years, at least 10 law schools have deliberately changed their grading systems to make them more lenient. These include law schools like New York University and Georgetown, as well as Golden Gate University and Tulane University, which just announced the change this month. Some recruiters at law firms keep track of these changes and consider them when interviewing, and some do not.
The article also discusses other interesting measures including abandoning traditional grades and paying students to take unpaid internships.
Tabling a legal career
The ABA recently picked up a story about a third-year law student who has decided to pursue professional poker rather than the practice of law:
[Pace University law student Jeffery] Papola has won more than $1 million this year and may be reconsidering his career choice.
“I’m not exactly sure what I want to do with it (a law degree),” Papola said. “I have learned a lot of things (in school), but as far as practicing law, I do not see myself being able to do that, because I really do not like the 9 to 5 thing. That’s one reason I was so drawn to poker.
Lawyers: -1. Sharks: no change.
Legally Sociable 