<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The MTTLR Blog &#187; Quick Links</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mttlrblog.org/category/quicklinks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mttlrblog.org</link>
	<description>Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:42:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Are Subpoena Standards Substantive, Procedural, or Constitutional Law?</title>
		<link>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2009/03/22/are-subpoena-standards-substantive-procedural-or-constitutional-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2009/03/22/are-subpoena-standards-substantive-procedural-or-constitutional-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:37:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jason C. Miller</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal/Tech News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quick Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Erie doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Doe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mttlrblog.org/?p=157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As courts [PDF] have established standards for subpoenas to ISPs in online defamation lawsuits, they have raised new questions.
Professor Wasserman has raised the question whether these standards are a part of state substantive defamation law that federal courts would apply in diversity actions under Erie or are instead mere procedural rules.  My article from [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As <a href="http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/63a08.pdf">courts</a> [PDF] have established standards for subpoenas to ISPs in online defamation lawsuits, they have raised new questions.</p>
<p>Professor Wasserman has <a href="http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2009/03/erie-meets-the-first-amendment.html">raised the question</a> whether these standards are a part of state substantive defamation law that federal courts would apply in diversity actions under <em>Erie</em> or are instead mere procedural rules.  My <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1365326_code1142010.pdf?abstractid=1365326&amp;mirid=1">article</a> from <a href="http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/about.html">JTLP</a>, <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1365326">Who&#8217;s Exposing John Doe? Distinguishing Between Public and Private Figure Plaintiffs in Subpoenas</a>, argues that the constitutional distinction between public and private figures in defamation law should apply to certain procedural issues also.  My proposal would appear to be a substantive distinction that federal courts would apply under <em>Erie</em>.  The <a href="http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/63a08.pdf">court opinions</a> [PDF] fashioning standards also discuss substantive and constitutional issues in developing the procedural rules.</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2009/03/22/are-subpoena-standards-substantive-procedural-or-constitutional-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should Traditional Radio Stations Pay Music Royalties?</title>
		<link>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2009/03/12/should-traditional-radio-stations-pay-music-royalties/</link>
		<comments>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2009/03/12/should-traditional-radio-stations-pay-music-royalties/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:21:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jacobwal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Quick Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[royalties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mttlrblog.org/?p=139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Congressional hearings this week focused on whether or not traditional radio stations should have to pay royalties for the music they play.  Billy Corgan of The Smashing Pumpkins, was among those who testified in support of H.R. 848, The Performance Royalties Act.  Radio stations argue that the value of promotion they give artists [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/content_display/news/local-broadcast/e3i7362e28f2f8858086f3db40eab3243c5?pn=1">Congressional hearings</a> this week focused on whether or not traditional radio stations <a href="http://gigaom.com/2009/03/12/radios-right-to-free-tunes-is-on-the-rocks/">should have to pay royalties for the music they play</a>.  Billy Corgan of The Smashing Pumpkins, was <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_090310.html">among those who testified</a> in support of <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-848">H.R. 848, The Performance Royalties Act</a>.  Radio stations argue that the value of promotion they give artists outweighs the costs of any royalties due.  That&#8217;s an argument <a href="http://www.marylandiplaw.com/2007/08/articles/copyrights/downloading-music-benefits-both-consumers-and-artists-study-finds/">that</a> <a href="http://www.astonisher.com/skinny/skinny_riaa.html">sounds</a> <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/03/business/fi-p2p3">familiar</a>, and may explain some of the impetus for copyright holders to come forward now to reject such a rationale.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mttlrblog.org/2009/03/12/should-traditional-radio-stations-pay-music-royalties/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
