Professor Henry Perritt has posted a new article to SSRN titled “Competitive Entertainment: Implications of the NFL Lockout Litigation for Sports, Theatre, Music, and Video Entertainment.”
“The 2011 NFL lockout reveals profound changes in the labor and product markets for the entire entertainment industry, driven by a revolution in technology. This article explores the revolution in the professional sports, theatre, and movie-making industries and concludes that it is fragmenting production, blurring the boundaries between labor markets and product markets, and introducing new forms of competition. As a result, the labor exemptions to the antitrust laws, which featured prominently in the NFL controversy are becoming less relevant, shifting the law’s policing of competition to antitrust rule-of-reason analysis, where counterpoises such as labor unions are inactive, and making overaggressive interpretation and enforcement of copyright law a major danger to realization of the new markets’ potential.”
Download the article here.
A new article from Visiting Assistant Professor Wendy Epstein is now available for download on Bepress. The article, “Contract Theory and the Failures of Public-Private Contracting,” addresses important and unresolved issues in public-private contracting. Here is the abstract:
“The market for public-private contracting is huge and flawed. Public-private contracts for services such as prisons and welfare administration tend to result in cost savings at the sacrifice of quality service. For instance, to cut costs, private prisons skimp on security. Public law scholars have studied these problems for decades and have proposed various public law solutions. But the literature is incomplete because it does not approach the problem through a commercial lens. This Article fills that gap. It considers how economic analysis of contract law, in particular efficiency theory and agency theory, bear upon the unique problems of public-private contracting.
Public-private contracts are subject to systematic biases that cause the parties to impose a cost on service recipients in the form of low quality service. Because there is essentially no competitive market for these services, the contracting parties are not forced to internalize these costs. As a result, contracts tend to be underpriced. Thus, what appears to be a cost-saving mechanism is often, in fact, a systematic market failure. (more…)
Professor Felice Batlan's introduction to the October 2011 Chicago-Kent symposium, Women's Legal History: A Global Perspective, is now available on SSRN. The article appeared in volume 87 of the Chicago-Kent Law Review, which highlighted the symposium's presentations. Here is the abstract of Professor Batlan's introduction:
"This essay introduces the Chicago-Kent Symposium on Women's Legal History: A Global Perspective. It seeks to situate the field of women's legal history and to explore what it means to begin writing a transnational women's history which transcends and at times disrupts the nation state. In doing so, it sets forth some of the fundamental premises of women's legal history and points to new ways of writing such histories."
Download the article here.
Professor Ed Lee has posted a new article to SSRN titled "Digital Originality." The article appeared in this summer's edition of the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law. Here is the abstract:
"This Article examines the doctrine of originality in U.S. copyright law and proposes a reconfigured, three-part test that can better analyze issues of first impression involving works created with new digital technologies. The proposed test, encapsulated by the concept of digital originality, provides much needed guidance to courts to address the increasing complexities of digital creations in the twenty-first century."
Download the article from SSRN here.
Professor Joan Steinman was featured on an episode of Viewpoints Radio Podcast this week. She appeared with lawyer Anthony V. Curto in a segment titled, "Civil Suits: Can we make them move faster through the courts?" Steinman offered some possible measures to accelerate civil suits through the court system while maintaining a high level of justice for all parties involved.
To listen to this free podcast, visit Viewpoints' podcast archives and click on the August 12th program, "Civil Suits: Can we make them move faster through the courts?"
Professor Christopher Buccafusco has posted a new article, co-authored with colleague Paul J. Heald of the University of Illinois College of Law and England’s Bournemouth University, to SSRN. “Do Bad Things Happen When Works Enter the Public Domain?: Empirical Tests of Copyright Term Extention” contributes new data to the debate over copyright term extensions for existing works. Here is the abstract:
“The international debate over copyright term extension for existing works turns on the validity of three empirical assertions about what happens to works when they fall into the public domain. Our study of the market for audio books and a related human subjects experiment suggest that all three assertions are suspect. We demonstrate that audio books made from public domain bestsellers (1913-22) are significantly more available than those made from copyrighted bestserllers (1923-32). We also demonstrate that recordings of public domain and copyrighted books are of equal quality. While a low quality recording seems to lower a listener’s valuation of the underlying work, our data do not suggest any correlation between that valuation and legal status of the underlying work. We also report important pricing data.”
Download the paper here.
Visiting Assistant Professor Vinay Harpalani's latest article–"Diversity Within Racial Groups and the Constitutionality of Race Conscious Admissions," forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law–was cited several times in a recent amicus brief of the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) in the Supreme Court case of Fisher v. Texas. The brief was written in support of the University of Texas at Austin (UT), whose use of a race-conscious admissions policy to increase student diversity is disputed by the petitioner.
In addition, UT used one of Professor Harpalani's main arguments in their brief, referencing the importance of "diversity within different racial groups" in breaking down racial stereotypes in an admissions context.
Read Professor Harpalani's article on SSRN here; read SALT's amicus brief here.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Fisher v. Texas on October 10.