That’s the title of my guest column for the Business and Media Institute on media coverage of Katrina litigation, on which Point of Law has continuing coverage.
Kentucky fen-phen lawyers suspended
Melbourne Mills, Shirley Cunningham Jr. and William Gallion were “temporarily suspended” from the practice of law by the Kentucky Supreme Court this week. The three had taken well over half of a $200 million settlement Wyeth had given them on behalf of 440 fen-phen users they had represented. (Brandon Ortiz, “3 Fen-phen case lawyers are suspended”, Lexington Herald-Leader, Aug. 25; Andrew Wolfson, “Fen-phen case fees poured into racehorses”, Louisville Courier-Journal, May 30; Andrew Wolfson, “Judge: Fen-phen lawyers breached duty”, Louisville Courier-Journal, Mar. 10; Beth Musgrave and Jim Warren, “Fen-phen settlement is back in the courtroom”, Lexington Herald-Leader, Jan. 29, 2005 (reprint)). More: May 10, 2005 (civil lawsuit); Mar. 6 (judge who profited from approval of settlement resigns).
Mills was recently in the news because he won a suit against a secretary who claimed (with the help of a recording) that he promised her an “Erin-Brockovich”-style payment for her help in the settlement. (Brandon Ortiz, “Ruling benefits Melbourne Mills Jr.”, Lexington Herald-Leader, Apr. 4). (cross-posted at Point of Law)
UK: saving bagpipers from themselves, cont’d
To a chorus of dismay from many of those affected, health and safety inspectors have issued strict new guidelines intended to protect soldiers who play the Scottish bagpipes from suffering hearing loss. “As well as wearing ear protectors, the guidelines insist that pipers should only play for a maximum of 24 minutes a day outside, and only 15 in practice rooms….The tests were run because the military feared the possibility of having to pay compensation to soldiers who might argue that their hearing had been damaged by too much pipe-playing. The Ministry of Defence already makes special payments to personnel whose hearing has been affected by working on rifle ranges or in other loud environments.” Aficionados of the beloved Scottish instrument called the rules “silly” and “just ridiculous”; an aspiring piper who wants to excel should be spending more than 15 minutes a day on practice, said one. “The pipes should be played loudly, that’s how they inspire soldiers and scare the enemy,” said Bill Lark, 85, “a veteran Black Watch piper who led his comrades into action against the Japanese in 1944”. (Murdo MacLeod, “Army pipers can’t believe their ears”, Scotland on Sunday/The Scotsman, Jul. 23)(via Dave Zincavage). Earlier coverage: Dec. 22-25, 2000; Mar. 8-10, 2002; Jan. 12, 2004; Nov. 19, 2005.
Milk of RIAA’s kindness; “spamigation”
Iola Scruse, 66, of Louisville, who is on Social Security and paying bills for dialysis, “must pay $6,000 for the 872 songs her grandchildren downloaded, in addition to court fees.” Scruse “said she has no idea how she will pay the fine or what her next action will be.” Self-employed engraver Michael Brown paid $5,000 “because his teenage daughter had shared nearly 900 music files with others”. And: “No lawsuits anywhere have gone to trial, said Jenni Engebretsen, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group that files the suits on behalf of the companies. … ‘We hope that what is coming out of these lawsuits is that parents are having conversations with their kids,’ she said.” (Amy H. Trang, “Illegal downloads create unlikely defendants”, Louisville Courier-Journal, Jul. 31). The recording industry had sued a Ypsilanti, Mich. man for unlawful downloads; after he died, “the RIAA made a motion to stay the case for 60 days in order to allow the family time to ‘grieve’, after which time they want to start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury’s children”. (new blog Recording Industry vs. the People, Aug. 13; see David Berlind, ZDNet, Aug. 14).
Relatedly, Brad Templeton (Interesting People message list, Aug. 19; via Boing Boing) has coined the term “Spamigation” for litigation or threats of litigation mass-generated by automated processes:
The RIAA strategy is an example of a new legal phenomenon that I have dubbed “spamigation” — bulk litigation that’s only become practical due to the economies of scale of the computer era. We see spamigation when a firm uses automation to send out thousands of cease and desist letters threatening legal action. We saw it when DirecTV took the customer database for a vendor of smartcard programmers and bulk-litigated almost everybody in it…
The RIAA uses systems to gather lists of alleged infringers, and bulk-sues them. It has set a price that seems to be profitable for it, while being low enough that it is not profitable for the accused to mount a defence, as they do not get the economies of scale involved.
Virtual property, real lawsuits?
Hanno Kaiser at Law and Society Blog (Jul. 18): “Suppose you spent the last eight weeks leveling up in a massive multiplayer online game to obtain a particular armor, only to find out that two days later the online game company took away some of the protective effects of that armor. Do you have a legal remedy for the devaluation of your virtual property?” See also Dec. 30, 2003.
World Cup nastygrams, cont’d
You’ll never give testimony in this town again
“Save a Cocktail Napkin, Win a Lawsuit”
In a 2004 case entitled Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., the Ninth Circuit ruled that federal copyright laws do not pre-empt state-law contract claims over allegedly swiped ideas for entertainment ventures, shows and products. Other federal judges have rejected that position, but a West Coast boom has ensued in idea-submission lawsuits against Hollywood and TV producers, and large plaintiff’s firms like L.A.’s Engstrom, Lipscomb and Lack are getting into the field. (Amanda Bronstad, National Law Journal, Jul. 31).
Blawg Review #71
…is at QuizLaw this week, and links to Ted’s post on the $6 million smoke detector verdict. Next week the traveling carnival of law-related blog posts moves to Ernie the Attorney.
Oz: logic of “religious vilification” laws
An Australian QC has appeared in court to argue that vilifying a religion should be considered per se unlawful under the state of Victoria’s paradoxically named Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. “[Brind] Woinarski was appearing for the Islamic Council of Victoria in the appeal by Christian group Catch the Fire Ministries and pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot against a finding under Victoria’s religious hatred law that they vilified Muslims in 2002. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.” (Barney Zwartz, “Religion in the dock in Muslim vilification appeal”, Melbourne Age, Aug. 22; “Questions over ruling on Muslims”, Aug. 23). See Dec. 19 and Dec. 3, 2004, etc.