Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen's Consumer Justice Project, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Supreme Court Hears Argument in Two Consumer Protection Cases | Main | Senate Could Vote on Cordray Next Week »

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b7a769e2015437a00f59970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Medical Injustice – Contracts That Suppress Patient Comments About Their Doctors or Dentists:

Comments

D

Kudos for taking this action. The FTC should have been all over this a long time ago. And can you imagine the implications if doctors could get away with this? It's the legal equivalent to telling John Grisham he must assign the copyright in his next novel to the hospital in order to get emergency health treatment.

Bongo Jim

Does the suit go forward?

AboutTime

Congratulations on a job well done. Those agreements were clearly an abuse of copyright law. I have walked out on the few dentists requiring me to sign that form.

Lee

Couldn't possibly agree more that this type of suppression of individual free speech is not just an abuse of copyright law, it is outright perversion of it. What I don't quite,understand is the aside lamenting longer legitimate copyright protection for true artistic & intellectual property. Original protections were set when ppl lived much shorter lives, & the ease w which modern technology enables theft & piracy is a genuine problem for legitimate musicians trying to make a living. Love PubCit & all you do, but let's not conflate real artisans' valid rights with abuses by poseurs/ fraudsters like "Medical Justice."

Paul Levy

With respect to Lee, the increase in the term of copyright in the late 1990's had nothing at all to do with protecting the "real artisans" or "legitimate musicians" whom your post champions. Under the 1976 Copyright Act, the term of copyright was the life of the author plus fifty years, and 75 years for a work of corporate authorship. The Sonny Bono Act, a/k/a the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, extended that 20 years. There is no evidence whatsoever that this extension was needed to create an incentive to produce creative works. Nor is there any evidence that companies have made insufficient profits on works they had already created. And the a/k/a aptly describes what was really going on. It was simply a money grab by a corporation that couldn't bear the idea of its famous cartoons passing into the public domain

Lee

Thanks for citing specific complaint. However, my contention stands that modern technoligy, in particular the internet, has, in fact, hurt artisans, in particular musicians' ability & even will to write & produce quality original music. And I don't think that extending copyright protections for one's progeny (though I personally have none) is unreasonable. The same arguments used against copyright are used against tort in favor of "reform." As I write this billionaire corps like google are stealing from musicians rather than adopting fair & reasonable royalty agreements or paying any fees to ASCAP, etc. They can monitorywhereabouts but not youtube play. Sorry, but that's a fail.
I agree that corps abuse every law they can abuse, & remain grateful for spirit of public citizen, and maintain that too many internet users have been & remain obliviously giddy about piracy of others' work & that musicians need & deserve better protection from online theft, piracy, & plagiarism.

dentist merrillville

It's amazing to see how Yelp and other similar sites are changing business. We offer reputation management to counteract this.
[ed note: a spam link to the dentists' web site has been removed]

dental marketing

Yelp should definitely allow for dentists and other business owners to respond with "their side".

Ed note: We certainly agree. In fact, businesses often DO respond on Yelp, just as they do on this blog. However, a spam URL for this marketing business has been removed.

Royal Oak Dentist

When laws are written by lawyers you can bet that there will be legal actions -- and lawyers will benefit, regardless of which side actually "wins."

Stacy was trying to use the law for her own protection. Whether this contractual assigning of copyright would hold up in a court of law is an interesting point. But, as a potential client, Robert Lee always had the option to not sign the form. There are many good dentists to choose from.

Glad the form is "retired."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30