“And so the broken circle go[es], over and over again.” Like a broken record playing the same song clip over and over again, the predominant parties in the Internet radio industry have been hearing the same sound bite repeat since Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)5 in 1998. Despite arguing for more than a decade, no viable solution to the problem of setting statutory royalty rates for Internet radio under the DMCA exists. The result thus far is a slew of statutory rates, temporary settlement agreements, congressional acts, and court decisions with which none of the parties agree. It is time for the Internet radio industry and those who license the music that industry brings to the public to convene and perform a complete overhaul of the DMCA’s webcasting provisions. As it stands, with respect to Internet radio the DMCA is inefficient, and serves only to waste time and money by sending the webcasting industry into an infinite loop of fruitless negotiations, hearings, lawsuits, emergency acts of Congress, and overall public uncertainty about the long-term viability of America’s favorite new music medium.
Page 2 of 3
Municipalities in Florida and throughout the United States are battling dog and cat overpopulation issues that impact local government policy and budgets. Dogs and cats are reproducing at an exponential rate that outstrips the number of people who can provide homes for them. According to some experts’ projections, just one unaltered dog and her progeny can produce an estimated 67,000 puppies in a six-year period. A single fertile cat and her offspring can spawn approximately 420,000 kittens in seven years.
On June 12, 2006, Norris Gaynor was brutally killed by two young men with baseball bats while he slept on a park bench in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Gaynor was homeless. Two other homeless men were critically injured in this unprovoked predawn attack, which the lawyers concluded was fueled by a desire to “mess with some homeless people.”
In Citrus County v. Halls River Development, Inc., the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that the mere enactment of a statute, ordinance, or other governmental rule or regulation may satisfy the “as applied” requirement of the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act if the impact of the statute, ordinance, or other governmental rule or regulation is “readily ascertainable” upon enactment. This ruling effectively negated the plaintiff landowner’s cause of action under the Harris Act by requiring a presuit claim to be asserted within one year from the time the Comprehensive Plan amendment was adopted in 1997, instead of allowing the landowner to assert a presuit claim within one year from the time the applicable Comprehensive Plan amendment was applied to the landowner’s property in 2002.
The court’s ruling contradicts the plain language and intent of the Harris Act, which is to create a separate and distinct cause of action to provide relief (in the form of payment of compensation) when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of the state or a political entity in the state, as applied, inordinately burdens real property.
Florida’s beaches are critical to the State’s economy and pro-vide significant protection for upland property, but erosion from natural forces, coastal development, and construction and maintenance of navigation inlets threatens the beaches’ ability to provide these vital services. Of the 825 miles of sandy beach in the State, over 485 miles (about fifty-nine percent) is eroding, with 387 miles of beach (about forty-seven percent) experiencing “critical erosion.” To protect and manage critically eroding beaches, the Legislature enacted the Beach and Shore Preservation Act (BSPA), specifically directing the State to provide for beach restoration and nourishment projects.
The position of Chief Justice of the United States is an enigmatic one. The Chief Justice is the titular head of the highest court in the land, the leader of the institution empowered to say what the law is, even when doing so invalidates the actions of its coordinate branches. Unlike the heads of the other branches or departments, however, the Chief Justice retains relatively little power or responsibility that is not shared by the other members of the Court. Beyond presiding over the Court’s conferences, assigning opinions, and performing administrative and ceremonial duties, the Chief Justice’s core judicial functions are largely indistinguishable from those of the Associate Justices. Nevertheless, close observers of the Court use the identity of the presiding Chief Justice to delineate specific eras and trends in the Court’s history. The Roberts Court is no exception.
John Roberts took office as the Chief Justice of the United States on September 29, 2005. The first five years of the Roberts Court‛ have been eventful, as the Court has welcomed four new members during that period, including Chief Justice Roberts himself. Not surprisingly, the Court has handed down scores of significant decisions, many of which have generated public acclaim, disdain, or both. And the Court has, at times, found itself used as a prop in political debates about the role of courts in American democracy.
Judges at all levels of the state and federal judiciaries are expected to resolve legal disputes by examining prior positive law, such as text and precedent, and then providing transparent explanations for their decisions. Of course, there are many situations in which the binding legal text is vague, and the applicable law is unhelpful, incomplete, or even contradictory. In those circumstances, judges must, out of necessity, fill in the gaps of the law or simply extend or narrow prior law as best they can.
John G. Roberts, Jr. has now served more than five years as the seventeenth Chief Justice of the United States. He has held that position longer than Harlan Fiske Stone did and for nearly twice as many days as John F. Kennedy was President.
Although Chief Justice Roberts’ judicial opinions, and those of the Court, offer jurisprudence to analyze, it is too early to reach definitive judgments regarding his influence as Chief Justice or his success in that position. Roberts holds an office that, unique among high governmental positions, resists confident real-time assessment.
When Chief Justice John G. Roberts appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearings, he famously remarked: “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them.” The comment implies that for a judge there is really no judgment to be exercised, and hence a judge’s personal view is irrelevant.