1. What seemed to be important in "Blurred Lines" being found to be copyright in- fringement? 2. What did the lawyers for each side argue in the Blurred
... [Show More] Lines copyright case? 3. What did the jury conclude in the Blurred Lines case? 4. How was it differ- The case has prompted debate in music and copy- right circles about the difference between plagiarism and homage, as well as what impact the verdict would have on how musicians create work in the future. "Throughout this case they made comments about how this was about a groove, and how this was about an era," Mr. Busch said. "It wasn't. It was about the copyright of 'Got to Give It Up.' It was about copyright infringement." Thicke/Williams: Mr. Thicke's lawyers had argued that the similarity be- tween the songs — both are upbeat dance tunes featuring lots of partylike atmospherics — was slight, and had more to do with the evocation of an era and a feeling than the mimicking of specific musical themes that are protected by copyright. Gaye Family: But speaking to reporters after the verdict was announced, Richard S. Busch, a lawyer for the Gaye family, portrayed the ruling as a refutation of that view. "Throughout this case they made comments about how this was about a groove, and how this was about an era," Mr. Busch said. "It wasn't. It was about the copyright of 'Got to Give It Up.' It was about copyright infringement." The jury decided that while "Blurred Lines" infringed on the copyright of "Got to Give It Up," Mr. Thicke and Mr. Williams had not done so willfully. Clifford Harris Jr., better known as T. I., who contributed a rap in the song, was found not liable. According to an accounting statement read in court and attested to by both sides, "Blurred Lines" has earned more than $16 million in profit. "The case was unusual not only for its large damages ent for a case like award but for the fact that it reached the level of a jury the Blurred Lines verdict at all. Music executives and legal experts said that while accusations of plagiarism — and accompanying case to reach tri- al? 5. What seemed to be impor- tant in "Stair- way to Heaven" NOT being found to be copyright infringement — in comparison to the Blurred Lines case? 6. How does Antho- ny Falzone ex- plain Fair Use? demands for credit and royalties — are common in the music industry, it is rare for a case to progress so far. "Music infringement claims tend to be settled early on, with financially successful defendants doling out basically extorted payoffs to potential plaintiffs rather than facing expensive, protracted and embarrassing litigation," said Charles Cronin, a lecturer at the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California, who specializes in music copyright." The jury found that, although Mr. Page and Mr. Plant had access to "Taurus" before the release of "Stairway to Heaven," the two songs' original elements did not contain enough similarities. Before reaching the verdict on Thurs- day, the jury asked to listen to audio recordings of the introductions to both songs twice. The trial was the second major case in a year to in- volve copyright issues and the music industry, after Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were ordered to pay $5.3 million to the family of Marvin Gaye over their 2013 hit "Blurred Lines." That case, which has been appealed, has led to a wide debate in the music world over the limits of copyright protection, and whether the musical elements of homage — a song's atmospherics, rhythms and overall "feel" — can cross the line into infringement. He says, "If you think about copyright as a series of re- strictions, fair use is a set of exceptions. It protects your right to use copyrighted material in certain ways and it's not a trivial little technicality—it's a fundamental part of the copyright bargain. We don't give copyright owners unlimit- ed control over their content—we preserve a whole variety of uses and things that people get to do with copyrighted content without permission. And fair use is really, above all else, a set of factors and considerations that help us figure out which things we carve out of the copyright monopoly, and which things we let people do without permission." 7. What are the Top Four Questions to ask? 8. What is ex- plained in the note on lawsuits in the Adweek ar- ticle? 9. What are the three common myths about fair use? 1. What are you doing with the copyrighted content? If you are doing something highly transformative with the content then you will have more room under the fair use doctrine.You are more likely to be covered if you are saying something quite different from what the original creator was trying to say. 2. What is the nature of the copyrighted content you are using? Use of creative or fictional content (for example, a film or cartoon) is less frequently allowed under fair use than less creative, non-fictional material. 3. How much of the original content are you using? You should be careful to use a reasonable amount. Just use enough of the copyrighted content as you need to in order to get your point across. 4. Will your work serve as a substitute for the original? If your video will take away views or sales from the original then it is less likely to be covered under fair use. Addition- ally, you shouldn't create work that occupies markets that copyright owners are entitled to exploit. It is important to note that just because you think your work is protected under the fair use doctrine does not mean that the owner of the copyrighted content cannot sue you. They may still report you as violating copyright law and try to get your video taken down. If you are sure that you are in the right under fair use then you can counter their take down notice and try to explain your side and work things out with them to keep your video online. Myth #1: If you are making money off a video using copy- righted content, this is not fair use. Reality: Ahrens says that whether or not something is used for commercial purposes is not a factor that goes into deciding whether it is fair use or not. She says that there are many commercial enterprises that actually rely on fair 10. How important is Fair Use to what Weird Al does for a living accord- ing to the Legal Zoom article? 11. What does Weird Al do even though the key use. So if you are creating commercial work, for profit, you can use copyrighted content as long as it falls under fair use. Myth #2: As long as you give credit to the original creator then you won't be liable for copyright infringement. Reality: You are not required by law to give credit when using another person's work under fair use and, by the same token, crediting someone will not protect you from copyright infringement. That being said, it is often advised to give credit when using someone else's content. It just may help you avoid a lawsuit and sometimes all that the original creator wants is credit for his or her work. Myth #3: If I use less than thirty seconds of copyright material, I'm in the clear! Reality: There are no precise numbers dictated under the fair use doctrine when it comes to how much of a copy- righted video or song you can use. Simply put, the amount that you use just needs to be reasonably related to your purpose." The reason is that courts consider both 2 Live Crew's rap combined with pop music riffs and Weird Al's combination of everything... to be parodies, which are protected under fair use doctrine. While his work certainly qualifies as parody, if he wanted to Weird Al Yankovic could probably use a free speech defense. Despite having made a career out of parody that is for personal financial gain, he has not been sued for his antics. It is also clearly meant to be satirical social commentary, which would pass the First Amendment test. Most of the time, Yankovic avoids these issues by simply asking the original artists for permission. He often gets it, as many artists see his parodies as a type of back- elements of Fair Use tend to be on his side and how does that offer additional insight into this area of law 12. What were the key elements of the example of FTC action for deceptive adver- tising in the De- Vry Inside Higher Ed article? 13. What the did FTC emphasize in its reason for action in the deceptive advertising dis- cussed in the De- Vry Inside Higher Ed article? 14. What did the extensive study find about the im- pact of just four minutes of junk food advertising on children ac- cording to the Sil- ly Rabit! article? 15. What children as young as 2 years old could recog- handed compliment. The only person known to say no to him recently has been James Blunt, albeit through his record label.Yankovic wanted to turn "You're Beautiful" into "You're Pitiful." FTC is alleging that the for-profit institution erroneously claimed that 90 percent of its graduates, who were actively seeking employment, landed jobs in their field within six months of graduation. The complaint also charges DeVry with deceptively claiming that its graduates had 15 percent higher incomes one year after graduation on average than did the graduates of all other colleges or universities. "Educational institutions like DeVry owe prospective stu- dents the truth about their graduates' success finding em- ployment in their field of study and the income they can earn," FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said. "We do hope the action we're finding signals to institutions the importance of accuracy when it comes to these recruit- ment claims and triggers students to ask more questions as they're considering different institutions," Ramirez said. The study found that kids consumed 30 more calories when exposed to just four minutes of junk food advertising relative to control groups. The research found children 8 years and younger were most susceptible to the influence of advertising. Children as young as 2 years old could recognize food and bever- nize according to the Silly Rabit! article? 16. What has hap- pened over the past 30 years with the rates of obesity in chil- dren and in ado- lescents accord- ing to the Silly Rabbit article? 17. What were the arguments on whether junk-food ads should be reg- ulated more, if they make more children fat ac- cording to the Sil- ly Rabbit article? 18. Consider the key arguments in the debate around the ethics of ad blocking. 19. Why are some publishers experimenting with anti-ad-blocking techniques? age characters, such as McDonald's Hamburgler or Chee- tos' Chester the Cheetah. Obesity has more than doubled in children and quadru- pled in adolescents in the past 30 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC states that obese and overweight children are more likely to be obese as adults, which can lead to stroke, diabetes, heart disease and certain kinds of cancers. In Johnston's opinion, the remedy is a change in environ- ment building — how society exposes children to food — as well as a policy shift in regulating how food companies can advertise to children. Ad blocking gives users a degree of the control over the content that they see. It saves time and effort on the part of the user and the technology they use to view a webpage. However, in blocking ads, the user is inhibiting the ability of the host website to make revenue to remain running, especially for newspapers and magazines that require ads to maintain functions and keep costs for the user low. Several digital publishers, including Wired, Forbes and The Times, have begun experimenting with anti-ad-block- ing techniques, including asking visitors who use ad block- ers to "whitelist" their sites so that ads may still appear. "We need to spell this out clearly to our users. The jour- nalism they enjoy costs real money and needs to be paid 20. Why do executives in the ad-blocking industry denounce anti-ad-blocking actions like Facebook's? 21. What does the ACLU article ar- gue regarding FCC policy on broadcast inde- cency? 22. Why does the ACLU article ar- gue what it does about broadcast indecency? for," Mark Thompson, president and chief executive of The Times, said at an ad industry conference in June where he addressed ad blocking. "Advertising is a vital part of the revenue mix." Mr. Bosworth of Facebook said ad blockers were "certainly bad for the publications who are robbed of half of the value exchange between users and publishers." But rather than blocking all ads, he said, Facebook needed to find a way to serve better ads. Executives in the ad-blocking industry denounced Face- book's decision, calling it a misguided waste of time that would harm the social network's members. "It takes a dark path against user choice," Ben Williams, communications and operations manager at Eyeo G.m.b.H., the company behind AdBlock Plus, wrote in a blog post after Facebook announced the change. The move also stoked the ire of those who support ad blockers because of their ability to prevent the use of track- ing software, which is often employed to monitor users' browsing habits across the web without their knowledge or express consent. FCC's regulations have devolved into vague, overbroad, and arbitrarily enforced rules. The First Amendment requires that the government pro- vide clear lines between what is and is not permissible. The FCC's current regulations provide no such line, result- ing in arbitrary enforcement and, subsequently, dangerous self-censorship. The result has been a serious chilling effect on creative, social, and political speech over broadcast media, speech that should be entitled to full First Amendment protec- tion. For example, in 1987 PBS felt pressured to provide broadcasters with an edited version of its civil rights doc- 23. And in particu- lar, what does the ACLU arti- cle argue in rela- tion to what laws like this FCC policy mean re- garding the First Amendment right to freedom of speech? 24. How does David Pogue summa- rize the basic principle of net neutrality? 25. What do big In- ternet providers argue about big umentary "Eyes on the Prize" to avoid possible indecency charges. The edited version censored the famous state- ment by James Forman calling for a more aggressive approach to the movement: "If we can't sit at the table, let's knock the [expletive] legs off." Ambiguous regulations also lead to arbitrary enforcement. The FCC fined PBS for airing a Ken Burns documen- tary featuring African-American hip hop and blues artists swearing. Meanwhile, they decided that extensive profan- ity in in the World War II film Saving Private Ryan was acceptable for air because omitting the expletives would "alter...the nature of the artistic work and diminish... the power, realism and immediacy of the film experience for viewers." The FCC really shouldn't be in the business of drawing these inherently subjective lines between what has artistic worth and what doesn't. The First Amendment right to freedom of speech is es- pecially threatened by vague laws because they invite selective or arbitrary enforcement. They allow the govern- ment to play favorites and inevitably prompt speakers to self-censor in order to preempt enforcement. These con- cerns are all the more acute when they affect a medium that is disproportionately used by lower income and mi- nority communities. We applaud the FCC for seeking com- ments on its indecency enforcement policies, and urge it to finally adopt an enforcement posture that is clearly in line with the First Amendment. All net traffic should be equal. Major internet providers should treat all traffic the same and charge the traffic the same. Netflix is responsible for 30 percent of data going through Internet providers. Shouldn't they pay more? Shouldn't it be okay to charge Netflix and YouTube more for their users like Netflix and YouTube in the PBS video? 26. What do con- sumer groups ar- gue in response to the arguments by the big Inter- net providers in the PBS video? 27. What are the implications for small Internet startups in re- gard to net neu- trality according to the PBS video? 28. What is the source of law where copyright originates? 29. What does and doesn't copy- right protect? data to go fast and interrupted? The providers want to provide a faster lane for Internet companies that want to pay more. The providers say they need money to maintain and advance Internet infrastructure. The consumers are going to pay more on their end. The major providers like Comcast own content creators like NBC. Ending net neutrality could let Comcast make NBC high speed and slow down other content creators. Startups don't have the money and means to pay for excessive fees to use fast lanes of traffic. It can stifle startups. Startups will need more money to get into the fast lanes. Article I, sec. 8 of the United States Constitution. "Con- gress shall have the power... to promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right to their respec- tive writings and discoveries." Protects: "Original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression...from which they can be perceived, pro- duced or otherwise communicated." - 17 USC sec. 102 -Original ideas Does Not Protect: -Not original ideas -Facts or ideas -Live performances, conversations, ideas are not consid- ered fixed 30. What did the Supreme Court establish in Feist v. Rural Tele- phone concern- ing the degree of originality need- ed to qualify for copyright protec- tion? 31. How does copy- right law differ Feist v. Rural Telephone (1991) Basically established low bar for originality in copyright. Essentially that in order for a work to be original enough to be copyrightable, it must be at least more original than the listings in a phonebook. The author-creator of an original work owns the copyright in most cases for freelancers as - However, works made for hire belong to the employer opposed to per- manent employ- ees? 32. When does copy- right begin? 33. What are notice and registration -Basically, the employer owns the copyright of any work that is created as a part of an employee's job description -Employees may copyright any work that was not the direct result of their employment. Freelancers are seldom considered employees - unless they sign a work for hire contractual agreement -Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989) -Since that ruling, freelance contracts contain such provi- sions, but freelancers are free not to agree ALWAYS read contracts that you are signing Begins the moment a creative work is put in writing or otherwise recorded. -Technically, nothing more is required in order to have the copyright in one's original expressions -However, additional steps can strengthen the copyright holder's position in legal action Notice is not required by highly advisable -Provides clear warning that work is copyrighted - Eliminates claims of 'innocent' infringement Notice: - Copyright symbol (or Copyright or Copr.) in terms of copy- right? 34. What is the three-part test for determin- ing copyright in- fringement? 35. What is the four-part test for determining if a copyright in- fringement is a fair use -- and which part is specified as the most important? -Year of first publication -Name of copyright owner ( Copyright symbol 200 John Doe) Registration - US Copyright Office: -Strengthen ability to prove and enforce -Is necessary before infringement suit can be filed in a court for works of US origin Plaintiff must prove 1) Originality - the work was original enough to be legiti- mately copyrighted 2) Access- tends to rely on how original the work in ques- tion was -Miller Brewing v. Carling O'Keefe (1978) - Miller Light ads on TV ruled clear evidence of access -Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs (1978) - That song was a pop hit and ruled sufficient access -Jason v. Fonda (1981) - The few copies of novel in circu- lation was not sufficient access. 3) Substantial similarity -Universal Studios v. Film Ventures (1982) - Key elements of Great White were ruled substantially similar to Jaws - Warner Bros. v. ABC (1981) - super hero in Greatest American Superhero ruled not substantially similar to Su- perman. Courts consider: 1) Purpose and character of use -Most likely to qualify: reporting, criticism, teaching, com- mentary, scholarly research. -Advertising - unlikely to qualify -Corporate/commercial - generally not fair use -Personal entertainment - qualifies -Parody - qualifies 2) Nature of the copyrighted work -The more original and or expressive the copyrighted work is, the less likely the copying will be considered fair use -Generally, more fair use is allowed when copying from 36. What did the Supreme Court establish that can be consid- ered a legitimate purpose of fair use in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose? 37. Why is the con- cept of "trans- formative expres- sion" important? works that require little originality (dictionaries, lists, stock tables) than those that do (novels, plays, movies) -Very limited fair use is allowed when copying from songs, poems, unpublished manuscripts and letters 3) Amount and sustainability of the portion used -The greater the amount used, the less likely to be in fair use -Fair use declines as proportion of copied work increases -In some cases, if even a small amount copied is the most important part of the work copied from, fair use may not be allowed - as Supreme Court ruled in Harper & Row v. Nation ( 1985) 4) Effect upon work's potential market -Single most important factor in determining fair use -Key issues are whether profits made via the copying tend to diminish economic value of work copied from -A personal non-commercial home VCR recording would not damage the value movies/tv shows in market and might even boost market by adding more viewers (via time shifting) - time has proven that true. - Sony v. Universal Studios (1984) - Supreme Court determined that the commercial copying of course packs without permission was damaging to the marketplace value of publishers' works - Basic Books v. Kinko's (1991) Supreme Court ruled 2 Live Crew's raunchy parody of Pretty Woman has fair use purpose - establishes major precedent for even commercial parody as fair use purpose The copying of a work must add something new, be trans- formative expression. 38. How do trade- mark and copy- right differ? 39. What does trade- mark protect? 40. How can trade- marks and ser- vice marks be lost? 41. What are the two key ele- ments involved in trademark in- fringement? 42. How long does copyright last? -Protects NOT original expressions, but rather marks es- tablished in commerce as distinctive -Prevents competitors from unfairly capitalizing on invest- ment made to associate name with product/service Protects property value in words, symbols, etc., that are not covered by copyright law - signs, titles, slogans, that businesses use to differentiate themselves. Originated in common law of unfair competition. -Trademark law (Lanham Act) protects: trademarks, service marks, etc. - companies use to iden- tify themselves as the proprietors -Trademarks (products) - Burger King, Xerox, Styrofoam, TV Guide, Kleenex, etc. -Service marks (services) - Elvis, Elvis in Concert -Registration - (registration mark) or U.S. Pat & Tm. Off (or spelled out) -Exclusive use depends on distinctiveness - legal term that means - The ability to associate product/service with a company -Can be lost at any time -Must be regularly maintained and defended -Marks used only as long as used commercially - maybe lost if companies allow generic use of marks. Likelihood of confusion (among consumers) and dilution (weakening) of distinctiveness. Current law protects works after 1977 for the life of the author plus 70 years -can be willed for 70 years after the death of the author -company-held copyrights run (shorter of) 120 years from creation or 95 years after first publication Congress has changed the duration of copyright several times and has the constitutional power to do so Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) - Supreme Court upheld 1998 43. What rights does a copyright own- er have? Copyright Term extension act as within power of Congress and does not violate the First Amendment. -Right to copy work -Create or authorize adaptations - Derivative sequels, films, plays, merchandise, etc. -Control distribution and performance - How work is pub- lished, sold, rented, loaned, etc - Some exceptions are made for fair use and public li- braries - but corporate and commercial libraries must ob- tain permission 44. Fair Use -Doctrine that attempts to balance interests encourages creativity versus widely circulating knowledge and discussion of creative expression -Permits limited copying for comment and criticism without permission or payment -Originally common law, now federal statute -There are many misconceptions about it -It does not provide a blanket license to ignore copyrights - what is allowed can be much more limited than what is assumed 45. What are the two types of distinc- tiveness in trade- mark law? Inherent distinctiveness - marks are protected from use without permission by others. -Fanciful - having no meaning other than identifying cer- tain products/services (Kodak, Clorox, Acura) -Arbitrary - Unrelated words or symbols established as identifying specific products/services (Apple computers. Virgin records) -Suggestive - suggests without explicitly describing (Head and Shoulder's Shampoo, Victoria Secret lingerie) Acquired distinctiveness via second meaning -Common words that acquire related meaning that identi- fies specific products/services (American Airlines, Vogue Magazine) 46. Right to Publicity -Misappropriation Tort -Unauthorized commercial use of another's name or pic- ture involving dignity or financial grievance 47. What was the Kerr gimmick that Dr. Kerr did on March 13 to il- lustrate his point about stealing in- tellectual infor- mation? 48. On whose side is the law usually when it comes to stealing intellec- tual property? 49. What has hap- pened to the val- ue of intellectual property? 50. What was the analogy Dr. Kerr used when talk- ing about steal- ing intellectual property? -In ad, poster, PR message, etc. - Right to publicity - property interest in one's own looks, voice, talents (especially celebrities) - May be willed in some states like Oklahoma -Vanna White won Samsung robot case - Alyssa Milano won nude photos online case -Look alikes and sound alikes may be considered appro- priation if they create the impression that it is the real person, i.e. Bette Midler, Jackie Onassis, etc. -Written consent -exception -Political figures, newsworthiness situations Stealing a Marc Jacobs backpack. The owner. It has skyrocketed since any piece of intellectual property can be digitized and sent all over the world in a blink of an eye. Reels of film were not portable. Mobile video is portable and cheap. Movie rental has been devastated because of the Digital Age. Music, photos, TV shows, etc. are much easier to steal. Speeding. You might get away with it, but if not, the law is against you. 51. Who owns intel- lectual property? 52. What were the two file shar- ing platforms Dr. Kerr discussed in class? 53. Trademarks pro- tect... 54. What happened in Matal v. Tam (2017)? 55. What did Dr. Kerr say about broad- cast? 56. Which comedi- an did Dr. Kerr highlight in class when talk- ing about licens- ing and profani- ty? 57. Which cartoon did Dr. Kerr talk Everyone. Copyright is automatic, trademark is not. Fair use is the legal doctrine that allows people to use others' intellectual property. Napster and Grockster Brands. Trademark requires registration. The licensing for college brands is a $3 billion industry. A band called The Slant wanted to trademark their name. The band challenged the Patent and Trademark Office. The bedrock principle that just because something is of- fensive doesn't mean it's not protected by the First Amend- ment settled the case. The Court ruled in favor of the band even though their name was a racial slur. There is worry that this ruling could make it easier for the Washington Redskins to keep their trademark even though it is a racial slur. Broadcast uses public airwaves so it's subject to regula- tion. Cable and the Internet are not subject to that kind of regulation because they don't use public airwaves. This makes a difference in how people can speak in regard to profanity and licensing. Bill Mahr. Mahr can say whatever he wants on his show because it's on HBO and does not use public airwaves. Family Guy and it's song "Fellas at the Freakin' FCC" about in his point about the FCC? 58. Commercial speech is... 59. What was the startling statistic Dr. Kerr point- ed out in class about stats in ad- vertising? 60. In California, con- sumers can... 61. Which industry did Dr. Kerr show parody ads for? 62. Which example did Dr. Kerr use to make a point about 100% hon- est advertising? 63. Which TV show and character did Dr. Kerr high- light in regard to cigarette adver- tising? 64. The huge dif- ference in what the Supreme Court said about Advertising. Using media to get an audience to purchase something. The Federal Trade Commission often wins cases in dishonest and unfair advertising. The government can sue a company or companies can sue other compa- nies. 1 in 5 ad statistics are false. Bring suits about dishonest advertising. Cigarette/tobacco industry. Fried chicken ad from Saturday Night Live Don Draper from Mad Men. In the clop in question, Draper is helping a cigarette manufacturer figure out how to run ads that get people to buy cigarettes. Advertising is based on happiness. Draper suggests advertising that says "It's okay what you're doing." He suggests to the cigarette company president to use a slogan of "It's toasted." Valentine v. Chrestensen --> commercial speech was NOT protected by 1A First Amendment Virginia Pharmacy --> 'truthful info about lawful activity' in protection for advertising in the Valentine v. Chrestensen and Virginia Pharma- cy cases. 65. Which would be the most impor- tant First Amend- ment advertising case for adver- commercial speech IS protected Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Con- sumer Council (1976) [VIRGINIA PHARMACY] b/c set precedent that represents cornerstone of first amendment law in regard to how we define freedom com- tisers AND which mercial speech; "consumers in a free-enterprise econ- for consumers -- and why. 66. Why the Central Hudson Test is so important and what EACH of its four parts does. 67. What the impor- tant test estab- lished in Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products does omy have a public interest in the 'free flow' of factual commercial information to make intelligent, well-informed decisions" Est. advertising to be firmly in the middle on the hierarchy of what is protected by 1A MOST IMPORTANT RULING FOR CONSUMERS Government can regulate advertising more than political speech if it can pass this four-part test: 1. Speech is eligible for constitutional consideration - truth- ful/not deceptive? Not political speech? 2. Government has a substantial interest in the regulation 3. The regulation directly advances that interest 4. The regulation is sufficiently narrow - no broader than necessary to achieve objective Determines whether speech is commercial or political when it contains both elements: 1. Ad format? 2. Refers to specific product? 3. Commercially motivated? AND how it does that. 68. What the basic powers are that the FTC (Feder- al Trade Commis- sion) has to regu- late advertising. 69. What (1) the FTC is primarily con- cerned with in its regulation of ad- vertising, and (2) the two-part stan- dard involved in that concern (the basic standard the FTC uses to determine when deception oc- curs). 70. The basics through which securities com- munications can involve advertis- ing and PR prac- titioners in fraud. 71. The basis for why the First Amendment al- lows broadcast messages to be Prevent or remedy deceptive ads Halt deceptive ads Alter deceptive ads May restrict and/or punish FALSE and DECEPTIVE ads - focus on ads that are found to be likely to mislead a rea- sonable consumer with a material statement or omission. 1. Deceptive enough to mislead a reasonable consumer? 2. Is the misleading part likely to affect consumer's deci- sion to purchase? Maintain investor trust - someone is looking out for in- vestors Public corporations MUST communicate accurate finan- cial information/material information (information relevant to investors' decisions) Practitioners must reveal when they have been paid in relation to distribution of messages related to securities; involved in communicating this type of communication The physical limitations of the broadcast system justify government licensing of broadcasters in public interest regulated in dif- ferent ways from other messages. 72. What the Supreme Court established in Red Lion v. FCC that remains the most impor- tant precedent in broadcast law to this day. 73. The role of the FCC (Fed- eral Communi- cations Commis- sion) in broad- cast regulation. 74. The significance of the Fairness Doctrine. 75. FCC regulation related to tele- vision program- ming for chil- dren. 76. FCC regulation of indecency in television pro- gramming. 77. What the Supreme Court has said about Broadcasters must serve public interest through use of valuable/exclusive broadcast licenses that the govern- ment grants/enforces Enforces regulations that require broadcasters to serve the public interest Regulated public issues programming to provide opportu- nity for contrasting viewpoints Children's Television Act = requires 3 hours of 'core pro- gramming' for children and to limit commercials somewhat during children's shows V-Chip = intended to allow parental screening, not widely used Indecency = 'obscenity-light' Can be regulated in broadcast, not cable (1) Pacifica = it is constitutional to regulate BROADCAST indecency FCC regulation of indecency on broadcast and cable television in its group of cases on the sub- ject, particularly these three cas- es: (1) Pacifica, (2) Playboy, and (3) Turner Broad- casting. 78. The big differ- ence from broad- cast regulation in the way the First Amendment ap- plies to regula- tion of the Inter- net. 79. What principles have been most influential in me- dia law concern- ing the Internet. 80. The very im- portant princi- ple that the Supreme Court established in Reno v. Ameri- can Civil Liber- ties Union con- cerning the Inter- net. (2) Playboy = broadcast indecency standard cannot be imposed on CABLE (3) Turner = content-neutral (i.e. government can't touch content) regulation of cable is difficult but not impossible - government must pass content-neutral test The internet doesn't use the public airwaves. Infinite sources Lack of gatekeepers Parity among communicators Low-cost/free Libel is still libel on the internet Privacy The internet should receive highest protection under 1A (up there with press and assembly) [Show Less]