Intellectual Property Law – Page 35 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Michael Jackson v. Prince: Thinking About Copyright, Intellectual Property, and the Age of the Eighties

Post author:Kali N. Murray
Post published:June 27, 2009
Post category:Intellectual Property Law Popular Culture & Law Uncategorized

Irene’s recent post on why we love intellectual property gets at its certain power–its ubiquity in everyday life. The recent death of Michael Jackson speaks to that particular ubiquity. What was necessarily powerful about his death was that for kids of a certain generation (maybe if you were born between 1972 and 1980?), his music served, as the pundits keep saying over and over, as the “soundtrack” of our lives. I remember one slumber party where all of the Michael Jackson videos played over and over and over for 24 hours (those poor parents). The summers of 1983 through 1985 were consumed in the great debate (forget US v. USSR) of the middle 1980s: who was better, Michael Jackson or Prince! I was a stone cold Prince fan, who marshaled my arguments as if I was getting ready for battle (Purple! Let’s Go Crazy!, Purple!). I was usually in the minority in that one, as no one could top Michael’s videos (did Prince dance with zombies (No!), could Prince moonwalk (No!), could Prince rock that awesome red jacket (No!)).

This “great” debate of the Eighties morphed, though, in the Nineties, into a more interesting debate about, strangely enough, the performance artist’s relationship to copyright.

What Is So Special (to Me) About Intellectual Property?

Post author:Irene Calboli
Post published:June 25, 2009
Post category:Education & Law Intellectual Property Law

gone-with-the-wind-11 Last week I announced a future post about “why I like IP” and what brought me to specialize in this area. First, as with many-and often the most successful-things in life, IP more or less happened to me. I graduated from the University of Bologna Law School with a thesis (very much like a master’s thesis) in Antitrust Law. During my time at Berkeley and while attending my Doctorate Program I still worked on Advertising and Antitrust Law, increasingly, however, focusing on the relationship between Antitrust and Intellectual Property. As I mentioned before, my mentor and guide of my whole career, professor Vito Mangini, played a vital role in “pushing” me further and further into the IP world. In fact, IP in general, and trademarks in particular, became my main focus of both writing and practicing when, following the suggestion of my professor (who also found scholarships to support my stay and study) I moved to London to attend the Queen Mary and Westfield College and the London School of Economics. Since then, my love for IP has just grown, and I have never thought of a better field of law in which to practice, teach, and write.

$1.92 Million Damage Award for Filesharing

Post author:Bruce E. Boyden
Post published:June 19, 2009
Post category:Intellectual Property Law

Musical Notes $1,920,000 for filesharing. As reported by the L.A. Times, Ars Technica, and Ben Sheffner, that’s what a jury in Minnesota just awarded several record labels for the willful infringement of their recordings by Jammie Thomas (now Jammie Thomas-Rasset), the Minnesota woman who allegedly downloaded and uploaded copyrighted songs over KaZaA. $1.92 million is an astounding figure, seemingly out of all proportion to any harm Jammie Thomas-Rasset could have caused, or to any reasonable deterrent. Even the record labels appear to be backing away from the award; nearly the first words out of spokesperson Carla Duckworth’s mouth were that they remain “willing to settle.” Ben Sheffner, of the Copyright & Campaigns blog, correctly notes that the verdict might in fact be “too huge” for the recording industry’s own good.

This is hardly a new issue. Record companies and movie studios often sue filesharers for far fewer works than the defendant actually copied, and settle for relatively small amounts given the range of statutory damages. It’s a problem if the law that media companies use to protect their works is so draconian that they are afraid to deploy it to their full advantage. You don’t see this in other areas of the law; no one routinely files breach of contract actions for one-tenth of their expectation damages just to avoid the appearance of a windfall.

So what’s the source of the problem? I think the explanation is the massive inertia of the copyright system in dealing with the fundamental alteration of the information universe: namely, that everyone is now a publisher. And, while it’s easy to scoff at the existing situation, it’s harder than most people think to figure out how to fix it. Which is why we are where we are.