|
|
  |
VOLUME TWENTY-TWO, NUMBER 3 -- 2002TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLES Celebrities in the entertainment and sports world now
bear most of the burden created for "all purpose public figure" libel
plaintiffs by Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. This Article suggests
that such persons were subjected to the Gertz rule virtually by
accident as lower courts expanded upon the Supreme Court's original criteria
for public figure status. The Article argues that persons found to be
all purpose public figures must be more than famous -- they must also
have, in the words of Gertz, "pervasive power and influence." The
author proposes that celebrities who are merely famous, but not powerful
or influential, should not bear the all purpose public figure's burden.
Those who do have power and influence should be required to meet the demanding
standard only if a nexus exists between the charged statement and the
celebrity's influence. NOTES & COMMENTS A tying or bundling arrangement exists when a seller
requires a buyer to purchase another, less desired product in addition
to the desired product, with the potential effect of hindering competition
in the tied product market. Traditionally, tying allegations under section
1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act were per se invalid if the accused corporation
had significant market power and used that dominance to push other products
on consumers. Such an inquiry avoided unnecessary inquiry into relevant
market conditions for potential benefits from the tying of products. Yet,
in United States v. Microsoft Corp., the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia ruled against the use of the established per se test
when platform software was part of the bundle involved. This Note argues
that the established per se analysis provided a sufficient look into the
market to guard against chilling innovation. Further, this Note contends
that by changing the tying law with respect to platform software, the
circuit court effectively granted relief to Microsoft and confused the
application of tying law in this area. MALPRACTICE DURING PRACTICE: SHOULD NCAA COACHES BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE? Practice-related fatalities raise legal issues within the context of college athletics. Lawsuits implicating negligent conduct by coaches, their staff, medical personnel, and schools indicate the growing concern for the health and safety of studentathletes. This Comment asserts that the standard of care that college coaches owe their student-athletes must be raised to avoid unreasonably exposing their players to injuries or death. The basic elements of negligence and application to college athletics demonstrate the rationales courts traditionally have used to deny plaintiffs' recovery for student-athlete deaths. However, the existence of a special relationship between the coach of a college athletic team and the student-athlete demand a heightened duty to avoid foreseeable harm. Specifically, the recruitment practices for student-athletes, the unreasonable pressure to succeed, and the public policy concerns surrounding these untimely deaths establish a necessity to enforce a heightened duty. Therefore, breach of this heightened duty should result in liability for the coaches and schools involved in negligence lawsuits. TIME TO QUIT PAYING THE PAYOLA PIPER: WHY MUSIC INDUSTRY ABUSE DEMANDS A COMPLETE SYSTEM OVERHAUL Stars are not born -- they are sculpted, manufactured, and produced. But for most record labels desperate to ensure radio airtime for their recording artists, "stardom" in the music industry comes with a colossal price tag. While record labels may be willing to pay radio stations to attain artist airplay, it is federal payola laws that stand in their way. Although these payola laws were originally designed to prevent the undisclosed payment of money or other consideration in exchange for guaranteed radio airplay, both record labels and radio stations are finding new and potentially destructive ways to circumvent the laws' requirements. Gone are the days when simple promises of "cocaine and prostitutes" could entice radio station programmers to play a particular piece of music. Today, pay-for-play thrives in a $12 billion a year business where big money talks and everyone seems willing to listen. Despite laws prohibiting undisclosed payment for broadcast, the legal loopholes within these laws have effectively created a generation of payola more dangerous than what the laws sought to prevent. This Comment addresses the need for the restructuring of federal payola laws to better accommodate the demands of a more efficient and "honest" music industry, and concludes that payola laws must be updated to better reflect the economic realities of today's music industry.
|
||
 |