US Supreme Court holds that US states are immune from federal copyright infringement claims in case involving Blackbeard’s flagship

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 414-416
Author(s):  
Charles R Macedo ◽  
David P Goldberg
2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Arthur Kuppers

AbstractFor the sake of argument, not that this is something that you would necessarily do, picture yourself living in the USA, finally getting hold that elusive song you have been wanting for so long - via an unlicensed file sharing service. Your initial feeling of euphoria would rather quickly give way to that of concern since you are now liable for at least 750 USD in ‘regular’ statutory damages for copyright infringement - were the plaintiff copyright holder to elect to recover this statutory minimum amount from you. It would most likely cross your mind that that level of recovery alone by the plaintiff is not entirely compensatory.This article will thus seek to examine problems associated with statutory damages in US copyright law for copyright infringement by file sharing, in particular their punitive character. In order to facilitate a close and comprehensive examination of the issues involved, relevant provisions in US copyright law will be briefly highlighted. This will provide the context for an analysis and application of US Supreme Court jurisprudence relating to punitive damages, which will summarily be followed by a call to action and recommendations in this regard.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 826-829
Author(s):  
Charles R Macedo ◽  
Marion P Metelski ◽  
David P Goldberg

Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document