Monthly Archives: March 2012

Harley-Davidson Given the Boot

Motorcycle

The motorcycle company Harley-Davidson has settled a suit with the estate of Marlon Brando over the unlicensed use of the iconic actor’s name.  Apparently, Harley-Davidson produced and sold a boot called the “Brando” which resembled the footwear worn by the actor in the 1953 film The Wild One.  The details of the settlement are not public.  What came over the Harley-Davidson company to think selling clothing called “Brando” would be a good idea?  They license their own name for $43.2 million a year — surely they must know how copyright works.  Perhaps they thought they could fly a little closer to the sun this time, though this writer asks: is nothing sacred?

Read more at Reuters

Two Recent Negligence Settlements from Public Service Mistakes

Justice

Everyone makes mistakes, even those whose sworn mission is to protect and serve or to do no harm.  Two settlements were announced this week that demonstrate exactly that.  In Brooklyn, New York, a woman whose doctors’ negligence resulted in the amputation of her arms and legs was awarded $17.1 million.  In Tallahassee, Florida, the negligence of the police concerning a woman who was murdered during a botched drug sting operation led to a $2.4 million settlement for her family.  In both these cases, the professionals in charge, the ones whose judgement is awarded a certain amount of trust, made bad decisions that led to unfortunate consequences.  Everyone makes mistakes, but the law in general isn’t there to prevent that.  Rather, the law and the court system are intended to pursue justice among an otherwise ambivalent world.  And so, the silver lining: in Florida, a new regulation, called “Rachel’s Law” after the woman in question, was enacted to train policemen better and set up new guidelines in the use of criminal informants.

Further Reading:

 

The Latest BP Oil Spill Settlement

Oil refinery

The big news this weekend was the announcement that BP has settled the set of civil suits by residents and businesses against the company.  The settlement does not have a fixed amount, but BP claims it will likely pay around $7.8 billion.  While that may seem like a big number, this is only the most recent settlement.  In addition to this lawsuit, which covers economic and medical claims, BP has already spent about $22.1 billion on other settlements and, of course, the initial clean up of the spill.  And more is yet to come: the company still faces the US federal government and the individual states affected by the spill in court, potentially seeing criminal charges applied.  Analysts place the total amount in these cases to be anywhere between $17- and $40 billion.  BP itself has set aside $37.5 billion in anticipation of the cases.  There are a few variables in this number, which causes the range to vary so widely.  For one thing, the environmental fines depend on whether or not BP is found to have been grossly negligent, which some see as unlikely in the wake of these latest settlements.  Additionally, if the government levies criminal charges against the company, which it most likely will, the individual fines for that might be $10 billion (the highest amount of criminal fines paid by a corporation so far have only been $2 billion).  For more analysis of the numbers, check out this Wall Street Journal article that gives an excellent rundown.

The ultimate question this whole catastrophe asks is: does money really resolve the environmental problems caused by the company?  Some 5 billion barrels of oil were spilled, possibly because the company ignored safety checks in its rush to pump more oil out of the Earth.  When numbers get that high, humans have an inability to really grasp how huge they are, so use this tool to get a sense of just how much of an impact this spill had on the Gulf.  The city of Chicago and the surrounding area would be drenched in crude if the Magnificent Mile suddenly erupted.  The entirety of South Carolina would need to be cleaned if Columbia opened up and started gushing.  So does $5.4 billion, the lowest in environmental fines BP could pay, really fix anything?  I for one am looking forward to the criminal trial — let’s see if anyone will actually be held accountable for ruining a bit of the Earth.

Resources:

 

Police Detective Wins Right to a Beard

A simple shave, or a dance with death?

A Las Vegas policeman has settled a lawsuit with the city for $40,000 and the right to wear a beard on the job.  You read that correctly.  Apparently, some police departments across the country still require policemen to show up to work clean-shaven, except for a moustache if preferred.  Detective Ira Carter was given a medical waiver because of a skin condition called pseudofolliculitis barbae (warning: kind of gross pictures) that made a close shave dangerous and irritating.  According to Wikipedia, the effect of a shave on a person with the condition causes rashes, redness, papules/pustules and sometimes scarring.  In Febraury 2009, though, Carter’s supervisors ignored the waiver, requiring that he show up clean shaven from then on.  When Carter came in the next day with the beard, they threatened discipline, despite the obvious and understandable aversion to shaving.  Carter soon filed suit for discrimination, and today has established a new regulation in the city allowing an officer to wear a beard for medical or religious reasons.

I never thought the keeping of a beard would be such an issue.  Especially in the case of a serious medical condition.  Carter’s doctor apparently recommended that the detective remain unshaven for 6 whole months.  Maybe if Carter had shown his supervisors a simple Google image search for the condition they would have been swayed (though I recommend against performing the search on your own — some of the images are unsettling).  I guess it comes down to the idea of a brand.  When you think of a policeman, you most likely picture a clean-shaven, blue-clad, straight-standing officer with his hands on his hips.  Vary too far away from this, and the public no longer envisions a standard schema, which belays trust.  I’d argue for the cause of beards, though, not only for freedom of personal expression which police are supposed to uphold, but also because I know from experience that beards are fun.

Indie Record Label Group Wins $10 Million Infringement Settlement

Show me the money!

Limewire, the P2P file sharing software, has agreed to yet another settlement in copyright infringement litigation, this time with the indie label representative group Merlin.  The software company, which allowed users to transfer music and other copyrighted files between each other, previously settled with major record labels for $105 million.  As part of a court order, Limewire has been unavailable to download since October, 2010.  Today’s announcement deals with the smaller labels, who represent such artists as multiple-Grammy winning Adele.  In the much-publicized lawsuits against Napster, the indie labels were left out of the settlements due to a lack of resources, despite being affected just as much as the major labels.  The Merlin group was created to offset this imbalance, representing a multitude of labels and boosting their ability to defend themselves against copyright infringement.

As the world moves beyond physical copies of records and towards direct digital downloads, what does the future look like for record companies and copyright?  Napster and P2P networks of that ilk represented a new wave of interaction between people and music.  Free digital copies of songs, despite being illegal, were an irresistible lure for many users.  The fallout of litigation against the companies, though, did little to stop this proliferation of easy-to-use digital downloads.  After Napster came Kazaa, then Grokster, then Limewire, all fallen by mountainous legal fees.  However, a look at the current popularity and resilience of Bittorrent and the Pirate Bay reveals that free illegal downloads are not going away.  So, the problem is not simply a matter of law.  It’s a matter of customer preferences.  Record companies now have to compete with free, which to them is impossible,  leading to buckets of litigation as a solution.  Another avenue is to make buying music easier and more satisfying than the free option — a solution that Apple has capitalized on with the popularity of the iTunes music store, and which Amazon and Yahoo are now starting to explore.  Perhaps labels need to adapt to this change instead of fighting it.  Surely their legal fees will go down, if nothing else.

Read more about copyright infringement: