7184 research outputs found
Sort by
A Broken Record: A Statutory Solution to Fixing Music Copyright Infringement’s Biggest Problem
Full text linkIn the intellectual property space, nothing quite grabs the eye of the public like music copyright infringement. The high reputational and monetary risks associated when an artist claims infringement— especially against that of a major artist—can have huge consequences, even when no infringement occurred. The two prevailing tests for copyright infringement recognize that the hearing court can determine there is not an appropriate level of substantial similarity between two copyrightable works, however this determination relies on specialized musical knowledge, something that the typical trial judge does not possess.
This Note examines the inefficiencies in our current scheme of music copyright infringement litigation and suggests a statutory change requiring a board of musicologists to determine whether there are any extrinsic similarities prior to the filing of a complaint. Such a change would prevent frivolous litigation, create more certainty as to what could constitute an infringement, and further the goals of copyright law
What\u27s Freedom Got to do With It? Occupational Freedom and the Illusion of Choice
Full text linkThis Article critically examines the concept of occupational freedom, arguing that the legal right to choose and pursue a profession, as enshrined in many constitutional systems, remains largely theoretical for vast segments of the population. While legal frameworks recognize occupational freedom, socioeconomic barriers, systemic discrimination, and cultural norms continue to impede genuine access to professions. Using historical examples like the exclusion of women from the legal profession or racial segregation under apartheid, this Article illustrates how law can act as both an instrument of oppression and a tool for progress.
Through a comparative analysis of case law from Germany, South Korea, India, and South Africa, this Article explores how courts have interpreted occupational freedom, balancing individual rights with state interests. The study highlights the limitations of legal frameworks that fail to address the structural inequities affecting access to professions. It argues that true occupational freedom requires more than legal recognition—it demands proactive state action to address socioeconomic barriers, provide equitable access to education, and reform cultural attitudes toward different professions.
This Article argues that occupational freedom should be understood as a positive right that necessitates active state involvement in creating conditions where individuals can genuinely pursue their chosen professions. By confronting the deep inequalities that limit professional choice, the law, in conjunction with state intervention, can transform occupational freedom from a mere paper right into a lived reality for all
Is Discrimination Unfair?
Full text linkThough multiple federal laws explicitly bar discrimination in consumer transactions, many consumer transactions fall in the gaps between those laws. But recently, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have attempted to plug those gaps on the theory that discrimination is unfair within the meaning of statutes they enforce prohibiting unfair practices (UDAAP statutes). Angered by this view, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, joined by various banking trade groups, sued the CFPB in a federal court in Texas and persuaded a conservative judge to invalidate the Bureau’s interpretation. An appeal from the decision is pending.
But, the federal district court was wrong. The CFPB and FTC are correct to treat discrimination as unfair. Dictionary definitions from the era when Congress gave the FTC its unfairness power defined unfairness as showing prejudice and not equal. Congress, including in the statute under which the CFPB acted; administrative agencies; the industry itself, including some of the plaintiffs in the Chamber of Commerce’s case against the CFPB; and conservatives all use the word “fair” to mean non-discriminatory. And discrimination satisfies the criteria Congress established for unfair conduct.
The industry argument to the contrary is based in part on a mistaken view of history—that discrimination had not previously been seen as unfair—and the Major Questions Doctrine, which depends in part on an administrative agency’s claimed discovery of a new power. But, in fact, beginning in the 1960s, multiple administrative agencies found discrimination unfair under UDAAP statutes. Congress had opportunities to reject those interpretations when it amended the FTC Act to clarify when conduct could be unfair and again when it created the CFPB and gave it UDAAP powers, but it did not, suggesting that Congress approved of them. In short, the tools of statutory construction mandate that courts recognize what everyone knows: discrimination is unfair
Criminal Procedure - Probation
Full text linkThe Act includes various amendments to Georgia’s Judicial and Criminal Codes. Two changes are most notable. First, the Act permits the vacating of sentences for victims of human trafficking who were convicted under Article 3 of Chapter 8 of Title 42— Georgia’s first offender statute. Second, the Act provides enhanced privacy for these victims by restricting access to their criminal history relating to the offense
Artificial Intelligence & the Future of Law Libraries
No full textThe Southeast Roundtable Report summarizes the discussions from a day-long conference held on March 1, 2024, at Georgia State University College of Law, focusing on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on law libraries. Participants, including legal professionals, law librarians, and academics, explored AI’s implications for services, staffing, and space in legal information environments.Key takeaways highlight the necessity of proactive AI adoption, emphasizing the need for law libraries to integrate AI into operations while maintaining a human-centered approach. Discussions underscored AI’s potential to enhance access to justice, streamline research services, and optimize physical and digital library spaces. However, challenges such as staff resistance, over-reliance on AI, budget constraints, and data privacy concerns were also identified.The report outlines strategic needs, including ongoing professional development, hybrid space design, and interdisciplinary collaboration. It also proposes innovative solutions such as AI training programs, open-source AI tool development, and fostering a culture of experimentation to ensure libraries remain relevant in an AI-driven landscape. The findings will contribute to a larger white paper synthesizing insights from regional roundtables, providing actionable recommendations for law libraries navigating AI integration
Birthright Citizenship and the Dunning School of Unoriginal Meanings
No full textThis essay critically surveys the recent debate surrounding birthright citizenship in the United States, particularly in light of arguments presented by legal scholars Randy Barnett and Ilan Wurman. Under the guise of “originalism,” Barnett, Wurman, and others propose an ahistorical, revisionist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. They suggest that the term “jurisdiction” should be understood as “allegiance,” seemingly to give the veneer of legitimacy to the Trump Administration’s view that the children of undocumented immigrants may not be American citizens. The essay argues that Barnett and Wurman’s approach, which attempts to radically redefine the historical understanding of citizenship, is methodologically flawed and undermines core principles of constitutional law. The critique exposes the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in their position and scrutinizes the scholarly merit of new theories of birthright citizenship that are wildly inconsistent with constitutional text, history, precedent, and unbroken tradition. The essay concludes by examining the professional responsibility of legal scholars to engage in rigorous, fact-based historical analysis rather than politically motivated reinterpretations that threaten to destabilize fundamental constitutional rights
Parchment Rights in Treacherous Hands: The History and Future of Georgia’s “Social Status Provision”
Full text linkIn the throes of “Radical Reconstruction,” the population of Georgia remained sharply divided along racial and political lines. Three long years passed between emancipation and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, during which time the status of the state’s Black population remained uncertain. They were no longer enslaved but not yet citizens, and the bounds of their freedom were uncharted. For the first time, Black men obtained political power and participated in the recreation of the Georgia constitution. When Reconstruction came to an abrupt and violent end, most of that charter met the same fate. The Social Status Provision survived, apparently serving the ends of two regimes with irreconcilable visions for Georgia’s post-war society. This Note examines the history of the Provision to help clarify its meaning in the modern day
