The Islamic Society of Boston, which is engaged in numerous lawsuits against media organizations and critics of its activities (see Jan. 5, May 19), has now subpoenaed local radio talk station WTTK-FM “after one of its prominent hosts, Michael Graham, discussed the [ISB’s mosque-building] project on the air…. after reviewing the subpoena, attorney Harvey Silverglate, a Cambridge civil liberties specialist, described it as ‘extraordinary.'”, noting that it requests, among other things, “materials used by Graham to support his remarks about the ISB… and communications between Graham and other defendants or attorneys involved in the ISB defamation suit.” (Laura Crimaldi, “Islamic Society subpoenas WTTK in defamation suit”, Boston Herald, Aug. 27).
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Veterinary malpractice, cont’d
Mike Cernovich makes the case against “loss of companionship” damages (Aug. 23). Earlier coverage: Dec. 29, 2005, etc.; see also May 25, 2006.
“While Insurance Companies Targeted, Taxpayers Soaked”
That’s the title of my guest column for the Business and Media Institute on media coverage of Katrina litigation, on which Point of Law has continuing coverage.
Milk of RIAA’s kindness; “spamigation”
Iola Scruse, 66, of Louisville, who is on Social Security and paying bills for dialysis, “must pay $6,000 for the 872 songs her grandchildren downloaded, in addition to court fees.” Scruse “said she has no idea how she will pay the fine or what her next action will be.” Self-employed engraver Michael Brown paid $5,000 “because his teenage daughter had shared nearly 900 music files with others”. And: “No lawsuits anywhere have gone to trial, said Jenni Engebretsen, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group that files the suits on behalf of the companies. … ‘We hope that what is coming out of these lawsuits is that parents are having conversations with their kids,’ she said.” (Amy H. Trang, “Illegal downloads create unlikely defendants”, Louisville Courier-Journal, Jul. 31). The recording industry had sued a Ypsilanti, Mich. man for unlawful downloads; after he died, “the RIAA made a motion to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to ‘grieve’, after which time they want to start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury’s children”. (new blog Recording Industry vs. the People, Aug. 13; see David Berlind, ZDNet, Aug. 14).
Relatedly, Brad Templeton (Interesting People message list, Aug. 19; via Boing Boing) has coined the term “Spamigation” for litigation or threats of litigation mass-generated by automated processes:
The RIAA strategy is an example of a new legal phenomenon that I have dubbed “spamigation” — bulk litigation that’s only become practical due to the economies of scale of the computer era. We see spamigation when a firm uses automation to send out thousands of cease and desist letters threatening legal action. We saw it when DirecTV took the customer database for a vendor of smartcard programmers and bulk-litigated almost everybody in it…
The RIAA uses systems to gather lists of alleged infringers, and bulk-sues them. It has set a price that seems to be profitable for it, while being low enough that it is not profitable for the accused to mount a defence, as they do not get the economies of scale involved.
“Save a Cocktail Napkin, Win a Lawsuit”
In a 2004 case entitled Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., the Ninth Circuit ruled that federal copyright laws do not pre-empt state-law contract claims over allegedly swiped ideas for entertainment ventures, shows and products. Other federal judges have rejected that position, but a West Coast boom has ensued in idea-submission lawsuits against Hollywood and TV producers, and large plaintiff’s firms like L.A.’s Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack are getting into the field. (Amanda Bronstad, National Law Journal, Jul. 31).
Blawg Review #71
…is at QuizLaw this week, and links to Ted’s post on the $6 million smoke detector verdict. Next week the traveling carnival of law-related blog posts moves to Ernie the Attorney.
Oz: logic of “religious vilification” laws
An Australian QC has appeared in court to argue that vilifying a religion should be considered per se unlawful under the state of Victoria’s paradoxically named Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. “[Brind] Woinarski was appearing for the Islamic Council of Victoria in the appeal by Christian group Catch the Fire Ministries and pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot against a finding under Victoria’s religious hatred law that they vilified Muslims in 2002. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.” (Barney Zwartz, “Religion in the dock in Muslim vilification appeal”, Melbourne Age, Aug. 22; “Questions over ruling on Muslims”, Aug. 23). See Dec. 19 and Dec. 3, 2004, etc.
“Woodpecker mapping gets chain saws buzzing”
More unintended consequences of the Endangered Species Act, this time to the detriment of the red-cockaded woodpecker in North Carolina: “Coastal residents clear-cut to avert protected birds’ nesting” (Wade Rawlins, News & Observer, Aug. 8)(via Jonathan Adler).
Lott v. Levitt, Part VII
Since our initial coverage, William Ford and Tim Lambert have been following this case so closely that I’ve been focusing on other issues where I have more of a comparative advantage rather than doing posts that would end up being similar to theirs. It’s unlikely that I’m going to have anything new to say about the case that you haven’t seen in earlier posts, so, barring major developments, from hereon out I defer to their coverage; John Lott’s blog also has occasional coverage of the case, as does Levitt’s. One last roundup of links:
- Michael Shermer writes in Scientific American, channeling Ronald Reagan, “Mr. Lott, tear down this legal wall and let us return to doing science without lawyers.”
- Ford has given the case its own category on his blog, and has posts linking to Lott’s reply brief and a Chicago magazine profile of the case. In the latter article, GMU Law dean Daniel Polsby has a very perceptive comment on Lott that corresponds to my personal experience: “[Lott is] a man of almost unparalleled personal intensity… He is one of the most energetic, gifted econometricians of his generation, if not in history. But he seems incapable of distinguishing between large disagreements and small disagreements.”