“This week, at the urging of prominent legal scholars, academic-library organizations, technology companies such as Google and Microsoft, and many other interested parties, the U.S. Copyright Office is holding a series of hearings to determine whether copyright law should change to allow for more liberal use of orphan works” — that is, works whose copyright holders cannot be tracked down with reasonable diligence. The Chronicle of Higher Education has a good roundup on an issue last seen in these columns Apr. 14. (Scott Carlson, “Whose Work Is It, Anyway?” Jul. 29)(via Arts & Letters Daily).
Author Archive
Technical difficulties
For the past 24 hours+ the site has labored under technical difficulties which prevented new posting and also disabled internal site functions such as search. These functions are back up again, but the situation is not yet stable and it looks like I’ll be scrambling for a bit to get the site’s technical aspects on a sounder basis.
Incidentally, if the internal site search stops functioning again at a time when the site itself is accessible, try this Google-search link.
Evan Schaeffer…
…certainly is feeding me material lately (Jul. 25).
Wisconsin ADA suits, cont’d
The Appleton Post-Crescent has now completed publishing its investigation of the Ms. Wheelchair America pageant, including the pageant’s apparent role in client recruitment strategies for the Florida-based law firm of Schwartz Zweben & Associates (see “Behind a pageant, busy lawyers”, Jul. 21). The overall series roundup can be found here; among the more topical stories in the series are “Law firm’s ties to pageant”, Jul. 16 (firm filed 54 lawsuits on behalf of Jaclyn Kratzer, Ms. Wheelchair Pennsylvania 2003, and 37 lawsuits on behalf of Jeri Wasco, coordinator of the Ms. Wheelchair Washington D.C. pageant); J.E. Espino, “Businesses settle suits out of court”, Jul. 17, and Ed Lowe, “Local lawsuits trigger debate over ADA compliance”, Jul. 24 (quotes me on the question of whether serial complainants were just really unlucky or went out in search of reasons to sue).
Kids’ do-not-email registries
New laws that went into effect in Michigan and Utah at the beginning of the month could open up substantial and surprising areas of civil and criminal liability for entities that put out email newsletters, critics say. The laws authorize parents, guardians and others to enroll minors’ email addresses in new do-not-mail registries; after 30 days’ listing, it becomes illegal for anyone to send material unsuitable to minors to such addresses even at the account holder’s request. Among material that has in various contexts been tagged as unsuitable to minors are sites such as Salon.com and discussions of various controversial public issues. (Declan McCullagh, “Why ribaldry could earn you prison time”, News.com, Jun. 27). According to one commentator, an email may be unlawful if it merely contains a link to a third party site (such as a newspaper’s or magazine’s website) which in turn displays advertising for beer, wine, betting or other products and services that are off limits to minors. (Paul Collins, “New Michigan and Utah Child Protection Registry Laws”, spamfo.co.uk, Jun. 29). Already, libertarian feminist author and FoxNews.com commentator Wendy McElroy has suspended publication of her email newsletter, citing fear of liability under the new laws (“Suspension of Emailed Ifeminist Newsletter”, History News Network/Liberty & Power, Jul. 13)(via Tom Palmer). It is contemplated that maintainers of email newsletters that wish to retain the right to discuss or link to liquor/gambling/off-color content will purchase match/purge services on a monthly basis from the registrars of the do-not-mail lists, but such cross-checking will require the payment of fees as well as raising troubling privacy questions. For details of how entrepreneurial Utah law firms have seized on earlier anti-spam legislation to generate mass litigation against legitimate businesses in that state, see my Reason Online article, “You May Already Be a Loser”, Dec. 8, 2003.
Update: suing the goal post maker
Updating our Sept. 30, 2003 item: an attorney for Andrew Bourne of Liberty, Ind., says his client will appeal a recent court ruling that found that a manufacturer of goal posts, Connecticut-based Gilman Gear, is not responsible for injuries Bourne sustained when his fellow Ball State students toppled a goal post after a 2001 football victory. (Brian Zimmerman, “Paralyzed man will appeal ruling”, Richmond (Ind.) Palladium-Item, Jul. 23).
Update: Larry Klayman and respectability
Litigious gadfly Larry Klayman (Apr. 16-17, 2002), having cut a rare publicity swath filing mostly long-shot legal actions against both the Clinton and Bush administrations, is now setting up a Florida office on behalf of a more conventional-seeming law firm, Cleveland, Ohio-based Walter & Haverfield. (Jessica M. Walker, “Ohio Firm Taps Judicial Watch’s Klayman for Miami Launch”, Daily Business Review, Jul. 15). For more on Klayman, see Jacob Weisberg, “Nut Watch”, Slate, Jun. 6, 1998 (sues own mother), Curmudgeonly Clerk, Sept. 23, 2003 (similar). But at least Alan Keyes admires him (Timothy Noah, “Larry Klayman for Attorney General”, Slate, Jan. 24, 2000).
Wisc. high court opens paint-suit floodgates
After getting thrown out of court pretty much everywhere else, trial lawyers suing companies that long ago manufactured lead paints and pigments may have finally achieved their long-sought breakthrough. They are indebted for this benefaction to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, within days of the same court’s baldly activist decision (PoL Jul. 14) to strike down the state legislature’s limits on medical malpractice awards. By a 4-2 margin, the court agreed to apply the theory of market-share liability — widely rejected by courts except in the context of suits over the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) — to hold liable any and all companies which made paints and pigments sold in Wisconsin, regardless of whether a plaintiff claiming injury can demonstrate whose product he or she was exposed to. The court did not apply any statute of limitations and impatiently brushed aside defendants’ objections that the conduct being sued over took place more than a century ago — the houses in which the teenage plaintiff had been exposed to lead paint were built in 1900 and 1905 — and was lawful according to the standards of that time. “It will be nearly impossible for paint companies to defend themselves or, frankly, for plaintiffs to lose” under the newly announced standard, predicts dissenting justice David Prosser. If he’s right, expect a gold rush by client-chasing lawyers in Wisconsin. (J.R. Ross, “Court Allows Teen to Sue Lead Paint Pigment Makers for Injuries”, AP/Law.com, Jul. 18). For more on paint litigation, see this set of links, Dec. 15, 2003, Jul. 2, 2005, etc.
Also at Point of Law
Along with a great deal of other discussion of the John Roberts nomination (for which see the site’s special Supreme Court nominations page), Point of Law has kicked off a featured discussion of the confirmation saga by two distinguished contributors, U. of Chicago lawprof Richard Epstein and Northwestern lawprof Stephen Presser (more).
Some other recent highlights at the site: Jim Copland and Jonathan Wilson on the Texas Merck trial, Wilson on Georgia’s new rule regarding “offers of judgment”, and posts from me on an expansion of ADA coverage, school finance suits, the retention by Oklahoma’s attorney general of private tort lawyers to sue chicken farmers in nearby Arkansas, an appeals court approves RICO suits against employers of illegal aliens, health care qui tam actions, the “cab-rank” principle in legal ethics (observed more in Britain than here), and Astroturf in the liability wars.
Corporate governance at Point of Law
White-collar prosecutions, securities and accounting law and corporate governance in general have come in for much attention of late at our sister site. Lyle Roberts (no relation to John that we know of), who puts out the excellent securities law blog 10b-5 Daily, dropped by as a guest the other week to contribute posts on, inter alia, the record of the PSLRA and the Supreme Court’s history of dodging questions in this area. Ted Frank discusses the Bernie Ebbers sentence as well as a new NERA study on securities lawsuits, while Martin Grace, Jonathan Wilson and I all post on different aspects of the Sarbanes-Oxley law. I’ve also got brief items on Chris Cox as Bill Lerach’s nightmare nominee and on the much-discussed Larry Thompson memo laying out ground rules for corporate prosecutions at DOJ.