“Copyright is property, but like all property, the rights it grants are limited. ‘Fair use’ is one such limit, constitutionally compelled, giving critics such as Greenwald the right to use a limited amount of copyrighted material without asking permission first. Democracy depends upon such criticism. . . .” 

—LAWRENCE LESSIG, C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law, writing in the July 14 issue of Daily Variety. Lessig is advising Robert Greenwald, the director and producer of the documentary movie Outfoxed, which takes a critical look at Fox News.

 

“Many observers are hoping that this case will set standards that can be used to constrain ‘unreasonable’ executive pay— even in the corporate world. They shouldn’t hold their breath. Courts have long been wary of acting as arbiters of whether an executive’s pay is excessive. They much prefer to resolve these disputes by finding some flaw in the process by which the compensation was negotiated.” 

—JOSEPH A. GRUNDFEST ’78, W. A. Franke Professor of Law and Business, and former commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, writing in The New York Times. His May 28 op-ed raised doubts about the importance of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s lawsuit against former New York Stock Exchange Chairman Richard Grasso

 

“We don’t want to live in a country where every company, large and small, forprofit and nonprofit, must ask every Antonio Romero, including me, to prove every day that he is not a terrorist because his name happens to appear on a list.” 

 —ANTHONY ROMERO ’90 (AKA Antonio Romero), executive director of the ACLU, writing in the Washington Post. His August 17 column argued against the proliferation of government watch lists. The name Antonio Romero appeared on a U.S. Treasury Department watch list.

 

“The idea that you don’t have to give your name to the government has been one of the defining characteristics of American freedom. That’s the sense in which this is a big inroad.”

—BARBARA ALLEN BABCOCK, Judge John Crown Professor of Law, Emerita, speaking on NPR’s All Things Considered. The June 21 interview concerned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, which found that the police were acting properly when they arrested Dudley Hiibel for not identifying himself when asked to do so. 

 

“It will be viewed as another instance of the courts saving the entertainment industries from their own shortsightedness. Because a century of experience has demonstrated that new technologies end up making more money for copyright owners, once they’ve adjusted their businesses to take advantage of it.”

—FRED VON LOHMANN ’95 (BA ’90), senior staff attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation, as quoted in the August 20 edition of the San Jose Mercury News. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster that distributors of peer-to-peer software, including Grokster and StreamCast, could not be held liable for any illegal uses of the software by its users, including copyright infringement. Von Lohmann represented StreamCast.

 

“Literally dozens of law review articles have been written on the significance of the O.J. trial. . . . The truth about O.J. is that for one brief moment, the law and the media went crazy and had a lot of sex, and gave birth to a vast sprawling beast that ate us all. With the trial over, life, law, and television returned us to our previously scheduled broadcast. It was all a mistake, really.”

—DAHLIA LITHWICK ’96 writing in Slate, where she is a regular columnist. Her June 9 column, titled “We Won’t Get O.J.-ed Again,” marked the tenth anniversary of the June 12, 1994, slayings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman