UCLA Entertainment Law Review

[No abstract]

India presents the American music industry with a new frontier.

Thanks to the wide distribution of cell phones, an expanding digital infrastructure,

and a growing appetite for music entertainment, India has

become an important digital music export market for the United States.

However, widespread digital piracy has hampered India's potential as

a digital music market. In the United States, anti-circumvention laws

have established a legal infrastructure that defends a digital access

right independent of copyright. As a result, the United States has witnessed

the emergence of services that offer low priced digital music

that has managed to curb piracy. This article argues that the Indian

Copyright (Amendment) Act of 2012 fails to provide for the independent

access right that serves as the legal backbone of America's digital

music marketplace. In order to unlock the gateway to India's expanding

digital music consumer base, this article advocates that the United

States make the adoption of stricter anti-circumvention laws in India

an American diplomatic priority.

Given the increased use of the Internet and social media in this

fast-moving age of information and technology, the right of publicity is

becoming more problematic at the state level. Thus, this article attempts

to persuade lawmakers and the public that the right of publicity

must be modifed to keep up with the fast-progressing times. What follows

is a detailed analysis of the right ofpublicity and an argument for

why the right should be a federal right. Drawing heavily on intellectual

property scholarship and case law, this article examines the issues

and benefits surrounding the right of publicity, and uses these to advocate

for a federal right. Various case examples are provided to assist

in exploiting the problems with the right ofpublicity remaining a statebased

right. Additionally, the article provides a detailed look at how

the right of publicity, as a state-based right, is conflicting with federal

laws. Finally, the article concludes with suggestions on how to craft a

solid federal right ofpublicity statute.

The phenomenon of Internet memes pictures with juxtaposed text

that are replicated by derivative authors to the point where the pictures

transcend the importance of the original posting and its underlying

work-has become a pervasive component of mass Internet culture.

Yet, there is little legal scholarship on the subject. This Article seeks to

fill that void or at least, a small part of it-by exploring whether or

not an Internet meme could survive an action for copyright infringement

by asserting a fair use defense. To that end, this Article considers

what Internet memes are and compares them to "actual" memes, as

the term was originally conceived in Richard Dawkins's The Selfish

Gene. Positing that Internet memes share many characteristics with

actual memes as described by Dawkins, the Article goes on to show

how those memes serve the functions of the theoretical concepts that

ground the fair use defense (namely, cultural interchange, market failure,

and productive consumption). The Article ultimately argues that a

meme user will likely prevail if he asserts the fair use defense.

It's the tape that launched a thousand clips Paris Hilton's

Celebrity Sex Video became a form of "Must See TV". Celebrities are

used to performing for the camera. But when Hilton was caught on

video, she reacted as many participants do when their celebrity sex

tapes are revealed they file a lawsuit. This article explores the

various legal tools that one can consider in response to their involvement

in a dispute over a celebrity sex tape. Copyright law presents an

important framework to consider. The torts of public disclosure of

private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, and the right of publicity may

also help protect one who wishes to nail his or her opponent.

Major League Baseball Advanced Media (MLBAM or BAM) has

created one of the most successful technology platforms for broadcasting

professional baseball games online. BAM is extremely profitable,

but its exclusive online broadcast of professional baseball games

through MLB.tv may violate antitrust law. Conventional wisdom may

suggest MLBAM would be exempt from antitrust law under the judicially

created baseball exemption, but the online broadcast of professional

baseball games likely does not fall under the baseball exemption.

Therefore, an antitrust suit could be brought against BAM for its

online broadcasts. In an antitrust suit, BAM would not be considered a

single entity because of its similarities to NFL Properties in American

Needle. BAM's MLB. tv product significantly restrains trade in a relevant

market. BAM, however, will likely prevail in arguing that maintaining

competitive balance amongst its teams is a procompetitive justification.

Less restrictive alternatives exist, however, that may yet put

BAM in violation of antitrust law.

The 360 deal has been an attractive option for music labels in the

United States to gain traction in the faltering music industry, but potential

legal obstacles may hinder the incentive to enter into the

deals both for the label and for the artist. Labels entering into 360

deals may find themselves liable for violating the Seven-Year Statute or

the Talent Agencies Act (TAA). With 360 agreements becoming more

popular, labels should turn to an existing music industry that has dealt

with the potential legal problems of 360 deals for years.

The Korean pop industry, commonly called "K-pop, " has taken

advantage of a 360-deal-like model for many years, and as a consequence,

many Korean labels have experienced the potential legal problems

that American labels may face. Particularly, the legal problems

faced by S.M Entertainment, a talent agency and music label giant in

South Korea, as a result of their contract with TVXQ, a popular and

hugely successful boy band, reveal exactly the type ofpotential liability

faced by American music labels. By analyzing and reviewing the current

legal landscape facing Korean labels that almost exclusively negotiate

360 agreements with their artists, music labels in the United

States can become more successful.