About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 Media L. Project Newsl. 1 (1991-1992)

handle is hein.journals/medilpoy1 and id is 1 raw text is: Supplement to the New York Law School Reporter THE MEDIA LAW PROJECT I William MeredithPresident Jeryl Brunner, Vice President Monica Ashton, Vice President Marcia J. Thomas, Treasurer Adrienne Zariski, Secretary IN THIS ISSUE... Michael E. Morrah investigates urban combat over cable piracy at ACQ in Queens page 1 Fredrik Cederqvist questions the accountability of the media during the Thomas nomination hearings page 1 Prof. Seymour I. Feig offers his expert advice on the entertainment industry by Adrienne Zariski page 2 Prof. Michael Botein expounds upon the future of communications law by Gail Johnston page 2 CABLE PIRACY IN QUEENS: How Much Can You Pay? by Michael E. Morrah '94 You are sitting at home in front of the TV, furiously flicking through several channels during a commercial break. Several seconds later your screen turns black. Your cable converter box is broken. You go to your cable distributor to have it replaced, and when you arrive, you are told that you are illegally using your cable company's ser- vices and that you will be served with a $110,000 fine if you do not comply with the company's wishes. This practice, the work of American Cablevision of Queens located in Astoria, Queens, is the newest method of combatting cable theft. Fed up with the rising ingenuity and sophistica- tion of people who wish to see Pay programs without paying for them, ACQ decided to launch a voltage spike, or an electronic bullet, through the ACQ syste to short circuit illegally installed microchips. And if you return your box to ACQ to have it repaired or replaced, you will be served with a fine. However, it turns out that the microchips or pirate chips, were installed by ACQ service- men who solicited viewers by offering a one-time- only lifetime subscription to such premium pay channels like HBO, SportsChannel, foreign-lan- guage programming, PlayboyChannel, and Bravo for a one time fee of $300, cash. Upon installation, each subscriber was given a business card with a beeper number if there were any problems with the pirate chip. Unsuspecting viewers like Joan M. of Flushing, Queens thought they were getting a good deal when offered the pirate chips by ra cont'd on page 7 Jeryl Brunner on the economics behind the X rating page 3 Steven Onne rails against the FCC for abandoning the Fairness Doctrine page 3 Todd V. Lamb on television's portrayal of current legal issues page 4 MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE THOMAS HEARINGS: SETTING A NATIONAL AGENDA David Taplitz muses about obtrusive filmmaking. page 4 Rich Ballerini, our stream of consciousness writer, assesses the media's role in litigation page 5 Monica Ashton covers the damages an artist can recieve when a publisher breaches his/her contract page 6 Scott Mackoff discusses t.v. in politics page 7 The views presented in this publication are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of New York Law School, the Reporter or the Media Law Project. By Fredrik Cederqvist '94 The accusations of sexual harassment lev- ied by Professor Hill against newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gripped the attention of the nation. Staying in on a week- end evening to watch television gained a new found respectability. Aware of its power, the media took full advantage of the situation. While viewers watched endlesslyfor answers they would not receive, the media helped to shape a national agenda against sexual harassment. The accusations against Thomas first gained prominence when an unidentified staff member of a Senator on the Judiciary Committee leaked information provided by a confidential FBI report. The result was public outrage against the system that thrust an unwilling witness into the limelight and that tarnished the name of a man who had overcome poverty and bigotry to serve for the highest court in the land. Few, however, pointed fingers at the media. Allowing unidentified people to disperse information through the media shields those people from taking respon- sibility for their words, contrary to the right conferred to defendants in our courts. Leaking the FBI report to the public was illegal, after all. Some worry that the right of newspa- pers and the media to report such information will open an avenue for interest groups to un- fairly attack future nominees seeking what is designed to be a nonpolitical post. However, by showing anger only towards the government who leaked the information and not the media which reported it, the American people gave credence to the notion of the public's right to know such information if it is made available. The contradictory standards to which the public held the government and the media Continued on Page 4

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most