It has been almost thirty years since the use of videotapes to create trial records began to gain acceptance in this country, but many questions linger about the impact of video records on issues related to appellate review. While there has been a recent movement towards the expansion of video record use in lieu of court stenographers, many states continue to use both methods and the replacement of stenography with video records is highly controversial. The argument has recently been made that the video record is both more accurate and cost-effective than stenography, but the implications of thoroughly integrating video into the court system have not been fully considered. Particularly in the area of appellate review, a theoretical framework is needed to facilitate decision-making about the integration of the video record into American jurisprudence. This Note examines the current debate over which method of creating a trial record is preferable, analyzes potential legal issues created by a switch to video recording, and argues that a transition to the video record must be accompanied by a detailed, carefully considered framework for appellate review. Finally, this Note proposes a basic theoretical framework for dealing with the most important known ramifications of a transition to the video record.
Note
Confusion and Coercion in Church Property Litigation
This Note argues that by allowing states to apply their own idiosyncratic common and statutory law to disputes over church property between supercongregational denominations and local parishes, the “neutral principles” approach that the Supreme Court validated in Jones v. Wolf inevitably creates inconsistency in the results of these disputes. This inconsistency in turn coerces denominations such as the Protestant Episcopal Church and the United Presbyterian Church into abandoning either their method of property management or traditional control over parishes. In effect, mainline supercongregational Protestant denominations are forced, in violation of their Free Exercise right to choose their own form of governance, to become either more “Catholic” or more “Baptist.” As a remedy to this problem, this Note proposes a novel solution—a federal statute to standardize and simplify the decision rules for church property disputes. Although such a statute would raise constitutional issues of its own, this Note concludes that such a statute would be within Congressional jurisdiction and permissible under both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
Internet Radio: The Case for a Technology Neutral Royalty Standard
Since its debut in the mid-1990s, internet radio (or “webcasting”) has grown rapidly and now attracts more than 69 million listeners very month—more than a quarter of all U.S. internet users. Internet radio listeners can select virtually any conceivable genre of music and listen to their selection anywhere they have an internet connection.
All digital radio providers—internet radio, digital cable radio, and satellite radio—must pay a royalty for the performance of the sound recording. This royalty is imposed by § 114 and § 112 of the Copyright Act and the rate is determined by the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB). In 2007, the CRB issued a rate determination that threatens to shut down internet radio. The royalties required by the decision would demand internet radio operators to pay rates approaching or even exceeding 100% of revenue. Meanwhile, for the sound recording performance royalties for the other forms of digital radio—cable radio and satellite radio—the CRB adopted rates of 6-15% of revenue. Thus, the current copyright regime has a strong bias in favor of certain technologies providing digital radio (cable radio and satellite radio) and against another (internet radio), resulting in disproportionately high royalties for internet radio. While a variety of agreements between webcasters and SoundExchange adopted under the Webcaster Settlement Acts of 2008 and 2009 have delayed the onset of industry crushing royalties, the threat continues to hang over internet radio’s future.
In this paper, I provide an overview of internet radio and the current copyright royalty regime, and I present and critique the recording industry’s argument that internet radio is a threat. I then analyze the economic impact of current royalty rates on internet radio and contrast it with the impact of the royalties for the other forms of digital radio. After showing the devastating impact of the current royalty rates, I analyze the source of the royalty rate inequities. I demonstrate that the disparate treatment of the different forms of digital radio has resulted from the statutory imposition of two standards for determining digital radio royalties: “§ 801(b)(1)” vs. “willing buyer, willing seller.” I then make constitutional and policy arguments for having a single, technology neutral standard for determining the royalties for digital radio. I conclude by demonstrating that the standard that should be adopted is the § 801(b)(1) standard, and I propose amendments to the Copyright Act to effectuate the change. Amending the Copyright Act to apply a consistent, technology neutral standard would ensure that all forms of digital radio continue to thrive and would ensure that the music keeps playing for the 69 million Americans who tune in to internet radio every month.
For the Appendix referenced in this Note, please see http://www.jstor.org/stable/27759978