BLS Library Blog

As the eyes of the world turn to Brazil on Thursday, each nation will cheer on its team in pursuit of the FIFA World Cup. If you are curious about the law and rules governing FIFA or international sports and sporting events, the library has several resources to help satisfy your curiosity. Listed below are a few recent sources.

• Priyanka Motaparthy & David Seagall, Human Rights Watch, Building a Better World Cup: Protecting Migrant Workers in Qatar Ahead of FIFA 2022 (2012)
• Chapters include the winning bid: World Cup 2022, the World Cup and worker’s rights, and abuse of migrant workers.
• James A.R. Nazfiger, International Sports Law (2d ed. 2004)
• Chapters include institutional framework for international sports law, international legal regulation of politics in sports, resolution of disputes during competition, and history of organized international sports competition.
• Katrien Lefever, New Media & Sport: International Legal Aspects (2012)
• Chapters include Article 10 on the European Convention on human rights and the public’s right to information regarding sporting events, specificity of sport: the important role of sport in society, and the public in its role as citizen and consumer.
• Letizia Paolia & Alessandro Donati, The Sports Doping Market: Understanding Supply and Demand, and the Challenges of their Control (2013)
• Chapters include the role of sports body and organized crime, revenues and profits, and distribution chains and market relationships.

Lance Armstrong’s legal challenges to doping allegations seem to be over with his statement saying “There comes a point in every man’s life when he has to say, ‘Enough is enough.’ For me, that time is now.” The statement came after US District Court Judge Sam Sparks’ Order in Armstrong v. Tygart and the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) dismissing his complaint alleging due process violations. The Order is worth reading for its content on international and US entities that regulate sport, like the International Olympic Committee, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the US Olympic Committee (USOC), and USA Cycling. The court also cites to the World Anti-Doping Program (WADA ), whose site has comprehensive information on international anti-doping standards, a Digital Library with links to free educational information, and a Legal Library with links to articles on the World Anti-Doping Code, advisory and legal opinions, case law, and national legislation. Also of interest is the judge’s criticism of USADA. 

In February, after strong public opposition to the proposed Stop Online Piracy and PROTECT IP Acts, Paramount Pictures sent letters to schools throughout the country seeking an exchange of ideas with students about content theft and possible ways to address it. Brooklyn Law School took them up on the offer hosting Movies, the Internet, and Copyright on Tuesday, April 10. The featured speaker was Paramount Pictures Vice President Alfred Perry presenting the movie industry’s perspective on the problems of online copyright infringement, the recent debates over the proposed laws, and the future of regulation of IP on the internet. BLS Prof. Derek Bambauer in a post entitled Hollywood Comes to Brooklyn on INFO/LAW wrote an excellent summary of the event where Mr. Perry faced a skeptical audience as he focused on enforcement and the risk which the industry sees in infringement.

Perry argued that Hollywood faces “content theft” and that something must be done. BLS Professor Jason Mazzone, author of Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Call # KF2994 .M399 2011), responded to Perry’s position, saying that he was being disingenuous using the word “theft” which unfairly biases the discussion and ignores both the realities of copyright which is not absolute. Students were skeptical of the claims of Mr. Perry who seemed unable to grasp their perspective. Prof. Bambauer observed:

The discussion was impressively thoughtful and civil. The students evinced skepticism about the movie industry’s good faith and bona fides, particularly given the drafting of SOPA / PROTECT IP, and also given the recording industry’s history of suing its users. Perry pointed out that Paramount is trying hard to make content available widely, cheaply, and easily, and that the only other way of altering the reward calculus to users is to engage in enforcement against end consumers, which no one likes. He was repeatedly puzzled by the attitude of law students that infringement isn’t a big deal (since it’s unlawful), particularly when this attitude is justified by reference to movie industry profits. He kindly stuck around afterwards to talk with students individually.

In previous posts here and here and here, the BLS Library Blog has tracked news about the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). In what appears to be its latest victory, the RIAA convinced a jury in a Minnesota federal court to enter a verdict against Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old Minnesota woman, for illegally downloading music from the Internet. The jury fined her $80,000 each for 24 songs for a total of $1.9 million. The case was tried earlier in 2007, when a different jury assessed Thomas-Rasset a $220,000 penalty ($9,100 per song). The defendant filed an appeal and won a retrial, which resulted in this week’s conclusion.

The blogosphere is abuzz with outrage beginning within seconds after the verdict was announced. “I think $2 million for downloading 24 songs strikes almost everyone as being a little disproportionate,” says Fred von Lohmann, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in an article entitled Record Labels’ $1.9 Million Win in Thomas Retrial Constitutional?. “According to people who were in the courtroom, almost everyone inside uttered an audible gasp when that verdict came in.” 

The size of the fine was guided by U.S. copyright law, which provides for a penalty of anywhere from $750 to $150,000 per violation. It was up to the jury, however, to decide where to land within that spectrum. The problem, von Lohmann says, is that there are no meaningful guidelines on how that decision should be reached. “The copyright law entitles people to essentially pull a number out of a hat, all the way up to $150,000 per song,” he says. “If the copyright law were more reasonable–if, say, you had to make some sort of reasonable guess as to what the actual harm was–then I think juries would come in with more reasonable results.”

The Supreme Court has previously indicated that “grossly excessive” punitive damage awards are a violation of the U.S. Constitution. An award can be considered “grossly excessive” if there’s too big of a gap between the actual harm done and the amount of money being named. Courts can also consider the “degree of reprehensibility” of the defendant’s actions, along with how the penalty compares to similar ones issued in the past. It seems, then, there may be a clash between two ideals: The parameters of the copyright law and the protection provided by the Constitution. What’s more, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out, recent Supreme Court rulings suggest a jury should determine damages based only on what’s justified for the single defendant–not for the broader purpose of “sending a message” to the general public.

As for what steps the defendant Thomas-Rasset will take next, she could move to settle the case; she could ask the judge to reduce the penalty; or she could file an appeal based on the constitutional concerns. Unlike those found guilty of copyright infringement in the past when the law prevented a copyright infringeement defendant from discharging an award in bankruptcy court, Thomas-Rasset can use the bankruptcy courts to avoid having to pay the full cost. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in the case of Barboza vs. New Form, that “willful” meant one thing in civil court and something else in bankruptcy court. For more, see CNET’s article Bankruptcy Could Protect Jammie Thomas.