Computers, the Internet, and intellectual property rights continue to clash in courts as technology allows users to copy, transfer, and manipulate copyrighted materials without the permission of the owners. Unauthorized use of musical recordings has recently been at the forefront of this controversy.
In the early 1990s, Congress took action to address one aspect of the conflict between technology and intellectual property rights in the music industry. The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) made it unlawful to import, manufacture, or distribute a digital audio recording device that does not conform to the Serial Copy Management System or a similar system designed to prevent unauthorized serial copying.
The AHRA is not broadly aimed at serial copying of copyrighted music. Rather, it focuses on the means of recording through the use of a "digital audio recording device."
The AHRA defines such a device as "any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals . . . the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio recording for private use." A lawsuit recently was brought against the manufacturers of the "Rio," a compact device that allows the user to play an audio file after it has been downloaded to the Rio. The Rio can store about an hour of music, is accessible to the listener only by headphones, and has no duplication, transfer, or upload capability. The court held that the statute did not apply to the Rio and, therefore, could not restrict the sale and distribution of it.

Top of page

When sexual harassment by a supervisor creates a hostile or offensive environment in the workplace but results in no disciplinary action, an employer can avoid liability by showing:
(1) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing conduct; and (2) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. An important part of the first element of the defense is the preparation and distribution of a well-drafted policy prohibiting sexual harassment.
In fact, as a recent case illustrates, a policy that is unclear or is not comprehensive could damage or destroy an employer's ability to assert the second element of the defense. In that case, Elizabeth was promoted to the position of a team leader at a bank. Shortly thereafter, she began to report to a male supervisor. He made Elizabeth's life miserable at work for over two years, until she finally complained to management about his behavior. While the supervisor's harassment did not involve sexual overtures or other sexually provocative comments or actions, it was driven by the supervisor's hostility toward women, generally, and Elizabeth in particular. The supervisor's conduct was offensive and sometimes threatening, ranging from stereotypical remarks about the deficiencies of women as managers to an apparent reference to the O.J. Simpson trial when the supervisor told Elizabeth that he could "see why a man would slit a woman's throat."
The presence of a policy against sexual harassment and a victim's lengthy delay before complaining will often help shield an employer from liability.
In Elizabeth's case, however, the bank's policy against harassment described only sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other actions of a sexual nature. Although the conduct Elizabeth was enduring was unlawful sex discrimination, the bank's narrowly worded policy led her to think otherwise. The deficient policy would not support a defense for the employer, and its incomplete definition of prohibited harassment excused Elizabeth's delay in complaining.
Although Elizabeth's case shows the importance of having an accurate and complete policy against sexual harassment, that is only part of a policy of prevention that will minimize the risk of employer liability. Also contributing to the liability of Elizabeth's employer was the inadequacy of its investigation after receiving the complaint. The bank basically ignored the allegations of harassment, focusing instead on the supervisor's objectionable management style. No one at the bank actually asked the supervisor whether he had made any of the sexually harassing remarks, nor did anyone follow up on an allegation that another bank employee had left because of sexual harassment from the same supervisor. The only consequences for the supervisor had been a 90-day probation period and a directive to improve his management style and "smile more."