Cases regarding industry liabilities...

Articles, videos, and/or podcasts title :	Legal controversy described?
Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al.	Copyright infringement and fair use doctrine
Assoc. for Information Media and Equipment, ET AL. -v.-Regents University of California at Los Angeles	Legal copyright exclusivity and purpose of use, public sovereignty immunity
Lawsuit Filed over 'Bad Lieutenant' Accounting	Bad faith fiduciary accounting principles

Litigation in itself is the contesting (in the form of legal proceedings) of any suit before a referee to reach a solution. Each party has not reached agreement to settle their differences and have moved forward to the point of litigation. To this point, a lawsuit is exactly that, litigation. In the three cases that I’ve chosen to examine: Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al. (Copyright Clearing Center –vs- Georgia State University) (2011), Association for Information Media and Equipment –vs.- Regents of University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) (2011), and lastly Polsky Films and Polsky Holdings –vs- Nu Image and First Look Studios (including studio executives Avi Lerner and Trevor Short)(2011).

Each case brings an interesting perspective on a series of issues that will have a direct effect on the future of 1. How academic research may be conducted and how students may be able to access pertinent and copyrighted materials to match their instructor’s demands. Moreover, will academics who have given the financial windfall to publishers (like Cambridge or Harvard University Press) over the years because they thought that academic access would always be back and forth will now instead see this clamp down as a betrayal of faith. In order words, why give the full benefit to a system that is denying the academic community fair access over a maximum profit model? 2. They establish absolute ownership of the copyright (and ultimately what can and cannot be done to the piece in terms of presentation, changes, or performance). 3. And in one case what can a end user do with copyrighted information or content. How can and what types of legal remedies are practical and reasonable to make the plaintiff whole again is factored.

The Copyright Clearing Center-v-Georgia State case is highly perplexing as well as paralyzing. It has cast a great pall over many online academic libraries and instructors. What is fair use in the reproduction of copyrighted materials in the age of digital achieving? Administrators at Georgia State University were targeted in the lawsuit because the school moved digital files to computer servers known as E-servers containing copyrighted materials according to the plaintiffs. While in print and being shared by academics, a licensing paid for by universities was accepted by copyright holders and their agents (university presses like Harvard or Cambridge). However, the plaintiffs move that such rights do not extend to the sharing of these materials once they’re moved to a secondary archive (unlicensed) resource such as the E-server and a per use fee must be applicable. Who is ultimately liable when a copyright holder (like Cambridge University Press) or their appointed agent choses to clamp down on rights usage? This is the question. The answer as they split the apple is to find an accommodation between the parties. This case currently pending in the US Federal Court of the Northern District in Georgia

In Association for Information Media and Equipment (AIME) –vs- Regents of University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), the Federal District Court of Central California chose by dismissing the plaintiffs case outright due to the matter that there was no Federal judicial standard (constitutionally or by statute) for their lawsuit in the mind of the presiding judge. Two specific matters governed the choice, the matter of a concept called “sovereign immunity” (State and Federal institutions are immune to lawsuits in general unless they waive the protection beforehand) and the matter of lack of “legal standing” (does one have the right or ownership lawfully in order to sue) because AIME was not the actual rights owner. Therefore, the judge was unwilling to entertain the presumption of relief on behalf of AIME.

The case of Polsky Films –vs- Nu Image and First Look is one eerily similar to another precedent setting case from the early 1990s: Buchwald – v- Paramount Pictures (The Coming To America case) in the matter that the lawsuit revolves around motion picture accounting principles and what and how profits are paid. In this case, the repayment of investors and stakeholders in association fronted $1.3 million dollars to publicize and advertise the 2009 feature motion picture project entitled: ‘Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call: New Orleans’ directed by multi time Oscar™ nominee Werner Herzog and starring fellow Academy Award™ nominee Nicholas Cage.

The jest of the case revolves around the failure in the alleged estimation by the plaintiffs of the setup of and the deposit to of profits that were earmarked to be paid on their behalf in a fiduciary arrangement by Nu Image and First Look. As in Buchwald, the standards in the way major motion picture productions are accounted is at question. This alleged failure led to a lawsuit being filed in Los Angeles County (CA) Superior Court against the defendants. The suit which is still pending will answer the intent of the defendants and if the plaintiffs will be given financial relief if they are found to have been harmed.

In conclusion, the Georgia State case and redefining of the principle of what amounts to fair use is far reaching. If successful, the plaintiffs can attain a huge profits, that is if they do not drive a new underground market similar as what happened when computer users ran in droves to illegal downloads and file sharing in response to attempts by movie, television, and music distributors to keeping their older distribution chains relevant.

The AIME case shows a level of restraint that is always a danger in Federal courts, the concept of “limited jurisdiction” (is there a standard or precedent for this case to be heard in this court and why) and can it be heard? The matter of streaming video or file sharing beyond the world of interstate commerce may be addressed by statute at a later time by the Congress. Still, in the light of the chaos brought by online demonstrations in regards to SOPA, the question is highly unpredictable.

The last case regarding Polsky –v- Nu Image and First Look is the only one in a State Superior Court. The litigants are at odds and made no moves to remedy the impasse between them in settlement. One party feels that gravely injured. This means this case even if found in the favor of the plaintiffs may have a long run to the California Court of Appeals, CA Supreme Court, and ultimately in appeals to Federal Courts. The standards of relief can be found possibly in Buchwald regarding accounting standards; however those matters will only become known if the district courts cite them if the case is adjudicated.