7919 research outputs found
Sort by
Prof. Ed Lee\u27s Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism
Full text linkTestimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism Hearing on Too Big to Prosecute?: Examining the AI Industry’s Mass Ingestion of Copyrighted Works for AI Trainin
LegalForce v. MH Sub
No full textPLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO AMEND OR MAKE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS UNDER RULE 52(B
LEVEL UP YOUR LEGAL KNOWLEDGE: A GAMER’S GUIDE TO NAVIGATING COPYRIGHT CHALLENGES FOR VIDEO GAME MUSIC COVERS AND SHEET MUSIC ARRANGEMENTS.
No full textVideo games are a significant part of many people’s lives, offering immersive worlds, memorable experiences, and music that stays with us long after the controller has been put down. Fans and players who love video game music often express their appreciation by creating music covers, arranging sheet music, and performing video game compositions. However, the legal complexities surrounding copyright are not always top of mind for these creators. This paper explores the intersection of copyright law and fan-created video game music, focusing on covers and sheet music arrangements. It outlines how ownership of music in the video game industry is structured and how these structures affect fan permissions. The paper also examines key issues such as DMCA takedowns, copyright infringement, and licensing requirements, while considering how game companies shape policies on fan creations. By blending legal analysis with practical guidance, this paper aims to encourage law students, legal professionals, and creative communities to better understand and advocate for legal frameworks that respect copyright holders while supporting creative freedom and fan expression
CORRECTING ANTITRUST MONOPSONY THEORY AND ADDRESSING ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT IN LOW-SKILL LABOR MARKETS
No full textAddressing growing income inequality in the United States should begin with the plight of low-skilled workers, many subject to below subsistence income and stressful and dangerous working conditions. Antitrust cannot offer a comprehensive solution to this problem. It can, however, meaningfully contribute to a solution in two ways. The first is to adjust the classic definition of monopsony to address the special conditions that apply to unskilled labor markets and to clear away obstacles to meritorious antitrust claims. Under classic theory, a monopsonist lowers input prices causing some input providers to stop supplying. That premise, while it may hold for many labor markets, does not accurately describe the world of unskilled labor. Numerous historical and contemporary examples show that employers can exploit a naturally inelastic supply curve, or even shift that curve, allowing them to employ workers at low wages while increasing both labor input and downstream output. In a related second step, employers can use various tactics to lock the employee into the job. Failure to recognize this reality can hamper legitimate antitrust claims that protect unskilled and other disadvantaged workers. Possible lower prices and increased output for downstream consumers should not be a defense for genuine anticompetitive abuses of workers.
There is a second and vital change needed to improve wages and working conditions for low-skill workers: to eliminate antitrust conspiracy claims as a bar to reasonable collective action by workers facing an employer’s monopsony power. Allowing worker collectives to exercise reasonable countervailing power against a powerful employer is the central purpose behind labor laws that authorize unions and other worker collectives. Unions have lost much ground in the past half century. The issue needs to be revisited to empower unskilled and other workers, including independent contractors, options to bargain on more equal terms on wages and working conditions. The federal enforcement agencies can contribute to positive development of labor monopsony law through guidelines and rulemaking, clarifying circumstances in which a Section 2 Sherman Act claim for monopsonization would lie
WARNING: WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW MAY KILL YOU: WHY CALIFORNIA NEEDS FENTANYL-SPECIFIC LEGISLATION
No full textThe lack of fentanyl-specific legislation in California is causing an overdose crisis throughout the state. This is partly attributed to the potency of fentanyl with low doses often resulting in death. Despite this increased risk of danger, however, current legislation merely lumps fentanyl punishment with the designated punishment for other controlled substances. Yet, these criminal statutes have consistently proven unsuccessful as the use of fentanyl continues to rise and unintended consequences continue to grow.
The ineffective management of this threat by our legislative branch has caused vigilante prosecutors to use illegal tactics of prosecution. Prosecutors are now charging dealers with murder, without any legal grounds for doing so, when death results from their distribution of fentanyl. This is true even when fentanyl is distributed unknowingly. This pivot by prosecutors is not only unauthorized, but unconstitutional.
This Note demonstrates the need for California fentanyl-specific legislation by discussing sad realities of the opioid crisis. This Note begins by detailing what fentanyl is, where it comes from, and who it affects, before diving into the shortcomings of past legislative efforts. It then discusses the unconstitutional actions triggered by unsettled standards. Finally, it proposes innovative legislation that builds on current federal legislation, correctly targets high-end dealers, and attacks the opioid crisis on all fronts
