Moot Court
Radford University Mass Media Law & Ethics MSTD 400

This is a media law moot court site intended for students in the Media Law course (MSTD 400) at Radford University. All cases are hypothetical.

 

COPYRIGHT AND NEW TECHNOLOGY  
1. RIAA v Howell

Counsel for petitioners (RIAA): James Galecki, John Gilliam / jmgalecki, jmgilliam
Counsel for respondents (Howell): Beth Gilmer, James Smith / egilmer, jsmith934

In this case, the Recording Industry Association of America wants to expand its victories in A&M v. Napster and MGM v Grokster.  Fines of up to $750 per song have been imposed and upheld by several federal appeals courts, and now the case is going to the Supreme Court. Respondant Anita Howell, a student at a mid-Atlantic university, downloaded over 1,000 songs  in her dorm room over the course of four years. In explanation and support of a claim of "innocent infringement," she notes that most students at her university were also downloading thousands of songs.

Howell considers herself an "inocent infringer." She argues that the $0750,000 in fines for infringement  is a violation of Eighth Amendment rights. And she also argues that the courts should consider the 4th part of the Fair Use test for copyright infringement test involving loss, in that the punishment is excessive relative to the potential loss to the copyright owner.

The RIAA of course argues that the court has always upheld the right of Congress to regulate copyrights and patents, that the law specifically states $750 is the fine for infringement, and that it is Congress, not the Court, that must consider changing the law.

Naturally, 8th amendment cases, inocent infringement cases and others are part of the question to be addressed here.

Starting in 1996, social activists from the Virginia Consumer Council (a private non-profit organization) began documenting the  conditions of workers who made Swift Shoes in factories located in Freetown, Sierra Leone and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.  Photos of children chained to sewing machine tables shocked the world, and an international boycott of Swift Shoes began.  By 1998, Swift Shoes sales were down 40% and the company hired several authorities on international labor to investigate.  Their recommendations led to a manager being fired in Freetown for "unauthorized" use of chains. However, no other action was taken and the company said it had disproven the false charges and, moreover, that its shoe factories were paragons of opportunity, good working coditions and decent wages compared to other companies in Sierra Leone and Malaysia.

The Virginia Consumer Counsel disputed that assertion. Nothing has really changed, they said. Their own investigations showed that shocking conditions still existed in the old factories, These included continued use of unsafe chemicals, continued use of forced child labor, high costs in the mandatory company stores and extremely low wages. The consumer counsel said the "amounted to slave conditions." Swith Shoes responded with full page ads showing schools under construction and happy families in the cities where these factories had been located. There is genuine dispute about many of the conclusions, but it is clear that Swift Shoes has not fully changed its practices and is asserting that it has the right to tell its own side of the story.

Under Virginia law 18.2-216 making false advertising a crime, the VCC sued Swift Shoes, alledging that the company knew very well that school age children working at Swift Shoes factories were not attending the schools in the photos. The VCC also said they had fresh photos of children in chains. For Swift Shoes, the question is how much and how often they have to answer the critics charges. Even if some of these allegations may possibly be correct, and even if the ads did promote Swift Shoes as a good corporate citizen, doesnt Swift Shoes have a right to say what it wants? 

3. LIBEL / PRODUCT DISPARAGEMENT
Vegetarians of America v. Virginia Fish Producers
Counsel for petitioners: Christina Moore, Saskia Snuffer / cmoore95, sasnuffer
Counsel for respondents: Elizabeth Sperry, Brandon Wood / esperry, bwood24

This is a "veggie libel" case involving concerns about a fish disease and its impacts on humans.When Virginia Fish Producers started bringing in the shad catch for the 2001 season they were surprised at the low demand in the markeplace. They soon found that consumers were responding to warnings about a fish disease called "pfisteria" which causes symptoms of dimentia, loss of memory and lack of coordination in humans. The warnings came from a group called the Vegetarians of America who insisted that their opinion was based on scientific evidence. Their views were expressed in ads, in press releases, in brochures and in news interviews.

The evidence seems to have come from studies conducted in the Chesapeake Bayand Pamlico Sound by Maryland and North Carolina scientists and was concerned with waters in those states. No research has been done in Virginia. In fact, the Virginia state government has not cared to fund any research. Therefore, in the absence of both positive and negative proof with regard to product defamation, what criteria can be applied to judge whether there has been reckless disregard?

Bear in mind that Virginia Fish Producers have lost $50 million on the shad harvest and the Vegetarians have lost money defending against this lawsuit. The question is this: How far can public health advocates go in making their opinions heard when economic impacts may result and scientific evidence may not be absolutely conclusive?

4. FREE SPEECH ON CAMPUS
Van Wilder v. Dedlock and Blue Ridge State U.
Counsel for petitioners (Van Wilder): Lora Caster, Chelsea Hentschel / lkcaster, chentsche
Counsel for respondents (J.C.Forrester): Michael Nugent, Lauren Rhodes / mdnugent, lrhodes3

On Oct 23, 2008, only two weeks before the national presidential election, the BRSU Young Republicans Club put up a poster urging students to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. BRSU administrator Honoria Dedlock tore down the poster, claiming it had not been granted prior approval and did not display the required stamps from the student affairs offices that she heads.

Van Wilder, president of the YRC, is suing BRSU and Dedlock for $10 million, claiming that the YRC was damaged by an apparently official act by the university that infringed their Constitutional right to free speech on public property.

Dedlock says the college cannot maintain order without rules governing time, place and manner of speech.

Some cases are available here.

 

Disclaimer: All cases on this site are hypothetical They do not exist.