2009 – Page 171 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Litman on the Prospect of Copyright Reform

Post author:Bruce E. Boyden
Post published:February 24, 2009
Post category:Intellectual Property Law

Jessica Litman, the John F. Nickoll Professor of Law and Professor of Information at the
University of Michigan, delivered the Twelfth Annual Honorable Helen Wilson Nies Memorial Lecture yesterday at the Law School. (Audio available here; a print version will be forthcoming in the Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review.) The subject of Litman’s fascinating lecture was “Real Copyright Reform” — the word “real” referring not to what is likely to actually occur, but rather what sort of changes would truly reform the Copyright Act.

Litman believes that yet another wholesale revision of the Copyright Act, akin to those in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976, is in the offing. The warning signs are all there — practitioners are arguing that different meanings should be given to the same terms in different contexts, industry players are opting out of the Act’s provisions in private agreements, and the current Act no longer serves any of its constituencies very well. Those constituencies include not only creators and distributors, the primary movers behind previous reform efforts, but now also device makers and, increasingly, ordinary users of copyrighted works, who in the past were treated by copyright law with benign neglect. Now, as evidenced by the RIAA lawsuits and YouTube notice and takedowns, consumers are no longer below the fray; they are getting drawn into the battles between distributors and device makers.

What can legal scholars offer the copyright revision process? Litman was not optimistic that the legislative process would produce a worthy reform, or that scholars would get to play much of a role in it, but she offered three goals the ideal “Copyright Act of 2026” should meet.

Confessions of a 3L, Installment Three: What do Brussel Sprouts and Moot Court Have in Common?

Post author:Jessica Franklin
Post published:February 23, 2009
Post category:Legal Education

They both build character.

Now, can I think of other ways I would like to spend my Sunday than having three consecutive hour-long practices of my moot court argument? Yes. Yes, I can.

Can I think of anything that has been more valuable to my legal education besides moot court? Barring internships and jobs where I have actually been working in the field (see Installment Two), no. No, I can’t.

Last semester, I had the pleasure and privilege of serving as the ASP leader for the Appellate Writing and Advocacy classes, which serve as the prerequisite for Marquette’s growing Moot Court program. As an icebreaker the first time I met the classes, I made reference to a presentation I am writing for 1L students who are interested in getting involved in Moot Court. It was entitled “WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD I WRITE A BRIEF IN MY SECOND YEAR OF LAW SCHOOL IF I DON’T HAVE TO?” The hilarity I anticipated did not ensue. I could see tiny thought bubbles popping up above the students’ heads. They read: “Ah, yeah. Wait. Why am I doing this?”

Seventh Circuit Week in Review: Terrible Tragedy=Maximum Sentence?

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:February 22, 2009
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Federal Criminal Law & Process Federal Sentencing Seventh Circuit

The Seventh Circuit had four new opinions in criminal cases last week. The court did not break new ground in any of them, but one raises some interesting sentencing issues. I’ll first discuss that case, United States v. Wise (No. 08-2794), and then briefly summarize the other three, which dealt with the definition of “crack cocaine,” disparity in the sentencing of codefendants, and the constitutionality of a gun possession statute, respectively.

First, the Wise case arose out of terrible tragedy. Wise left a loaded firearm on a window ledge in his girlfrend’s apartment, where it could be reached by children. You can already guess where this is headed: a four-year old left unattended in the room for a few minutes picked up the gun, the gun discharged, and a two-year old was killed. Wise was charged in Illinois state court with reckless endangerment of a child resulting in the child’s death. Wise, however, was a felon, and so his possession of the firearm was a federal crime, too. State charges were apparently dropped, as federal prosecutors charged Wise with the gun possession crime. Wise pled guilty. The sentencing judge decided to sentence Wise above the recommended sentencing guidelines range and give Wise the maximum, ten years. Wise challenged his sentence on appeal, and the Seventh Circuit (per Judge Evans) affirmed.