The Beverly Hills Bar Association is throwing a luncheon about SOPA on 12/14. Panelists include a Congressional member of the HJC (where SOPA is pending), an anti-piracy advocate, an anti-piracy attorney, an MPAA attorney, and a studio lawyer. If I didn't have an exam that overlaps with it, I'd be attending just to interrupt their [presumed] pep rally with this data and some of the more salient points on Mike's list.
The popular narrative of the case was definitely framed in a manner that made it a poster-child for tort reform, but when you hear about the way McDonald's was brewing their coffee [at temperatures it knew were far greater than necessary or even safe], the damage it did when spilled [seriously, the pictures of the woman's burns are pretty horrifying and go beyond mere clumsiness], and the fact that the jury took her contributory liability [for having spilled the coffee in the first place] into account when assessing how much McDonald's should pay, it's arguably a pretty sensible ruling.
That's pretty noxious. The RIAA is practically admitting that it's committed to abusing the public for its own gain. There's plenty of case law on fair use cutting both ways, and while the Hoehn ruling is an excellent one in favor of the principle, it's not like letting it stand means open season on sampling and unlicensed reproduction. There are plenty of countervailing interests that will crop up in other fair use analyses, especially in a more entertainment-oriented context [music rather than news articles]. If they really jump in to help out a company as cynically abusive and predatory as Righthaven simply because they can't stand to let just the other side of the aisle have a much-deserved win, they're just as despicable as the plaintiffs in that case.
I'm with you! Certainly would have livened up my first-year legal writing course. As for a tort claim, you'd have to look to the particular jurisdiction's Model Rules governing attorney conduct, but I could conceive of someone bringing a standalone suit for legal abuse (such as the vexatious litigation here) or malpractice by the same.
I really, really love TRG's writing style. "The undersigned has personally participated in email exchanges and phone calls with both Mangano and Randazza in which the vocabulary used by all parties would make a longshoreman blush ... Based on Randazza's out-of-context statements, nobody would mistake him for Ned Flanders." I've said it before, but I definitely aspire to blend that sort of flair into my legal prose. Especially when the opposition is so contemptible.
We signed. The question is whether or not we had the authority to sign without legislative approval, and if we didn't, whether Congress will care enough to say so and/or do anything about it. My guess (based on talks with some of my law profs) is it'll depend in large part how many people are sold on the USTR's go-to excuse (that ACTA allegedly conforms with existing law, a shaky proposition at best) and who would have standing to challenge the agreement on those constitutional grounds if apathy wins the day in Congress.
I wouldn't call it a myth so much as I'd say the judge gave LaChappelle the benefit of the doubt on the preliminary motions, which courts generally do when deciding whether to chuck at case at the outset. There's every chance Rihanna could have still shown an idea/expression divide at a full trial, but of course that would have been more expensive [and she probably wouldn't have been able to collect attorney's fees under Section 505, since the judge basically told the parties that LaChappelle's claim wasn't objectively frivolous]. If you're saying the idea/expression dichotomy should be beefed up to cut off claims more frequently at the summary judgment or motion to dismiss level, I might agree with you, but I wouldn't say it's nonexistent for lack of such power.
A piece of me sympathizes with this legislation, since I'm a music-lover who has read about far too many hard-working bands having their vans broken into on tour and all their equipment stolen/pawned. This might frustrate those efforts, at least with reputable pawnshops. Yet at the same time, I wonder if the old adage will come into play: "if you outlaw ___, only outlaws will have ___." Seems odd that "cash" will fill that blank here...
"Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do."
Reminds me of the human cannonball case. A news program broadcast 15 seconds of Zacchini's act to comment on it (classic fair use), but the Supreme Court denied the defense because the 15 seconds constituted too much of his act. Talk about overextending intellectual property to prop up a business model.
While I hate to say it, EMI has a point. How can the DMCA [federal law] apply to sound recordings protected exclusively by state law? Section 301 does indeed state that no rights or remedies under state law protection for pre-1972 sound recordings can be limited by federal law, and the DMCA limits those rights by excusing through safe harbors what would otherwise be infringement.
Don't get me wrong, from a pragmatic policy standpoint, it makes no sense to distinguish between pre-1972 recordings and post-1972 recordings, and would honestly undermine the entire point of the DMCA, but from a strict statutory point [and under basic principles of federalism], I'm not sure how to route around EMI's argument. And that frustrates me greatly, because they're willing to break one of the best [arguably only] good parts of the DMCA just to put a few more bucks in their pocket. But I really hope the court figures out a way to justify the judge's prior ruling.
Yep, the sexual expectations of a dance club are equal to those I have when flying to Tulsa. I know I put out on my best shirt and cologne before I swing by Screening [the hottest spot in town!] to hit on some TSA agents. Latest pick-up line: "So, how would you like your baggage handled?" Best part is, if I strike out, I can quiet my disappointment with a Cinnabon the size of my head.
Re: Re: "the wire between my DVD player and my TV is 10 feet..."
But when they rent the DVD player and hand it off to you, they are no longer the ones rendering the performance. They are merely distributing to you equipment necessary to render said performances yourself without any other potential source of control. The courts have seemed to create the distinction that if a company still has potential control over the DVD player [like by it residing in a central location, be it Zediva's warehouse or a hotel's data center for streaming to their rooms], they are assumed to have control over the performances rendered [and are thus creating such performances for any member of the public who elects to use the service]. Not the greatest feat of common sense, perhaps, but that's law for you.
On the post: RIAA Thinking Of Backing Righthaven
Re: Re: Fair Use
On the post: Why The Public Is Willing To Rally Against SOPA/PIPA, But Not For It
On the post: RIAA Thinking Of Backing Righthaven
Re:
On the post: Washington Post Column Incredulous That Congress Is Considering Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Thinking Of Backing Righthaven
On the post: Randazza Seeking Sanctions Against Righthaven Lawyer For Going Through Charade Yet Again
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Randazza Seeking Sanctions Against Righthaven Lawyer For Going Through Charade Yet Again
Re:
On the post: Randazza Seeking Sanctions Against Righthaven Lawyer For Going Through Charade Yet Again
On the post: European Trade Committee Chair Defends Continued Secrecy On ACTA
Re:
On the post: Homage Is Expensive: Rihanna Pays Up To Settle Photographer's Lawsuit
On the post: Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash For Secondhand Sales
Re: Re:
On the post: Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash For Secondhand Sales
Re:
I learn something new from trolls every day!
On the post: Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash For Secondhand Sales
On the post: NYTimes Sues The Federal Government For Refusing To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The PATRIOT Act
On the post: A Time To Reflect On Innovation
Re:
On the post: Obama Administration Trying To Move Away From Allowing Countries To Ignore Patents To Save Lives
On the post: How Confusion & Lack Of Clarity In Copyright Law Make Reviewing Poems Difficult
On the post: EMI: There Should Be No Safe Harbors For Pre-1972 Songs
Don't get me wrong, from a pragmatic policy standpoint, it makes no sense to distinguish between pre-1972 recordings and post-1972 recordings, and would honestly undermine the entire point of the DMCA, but from a strict statutory point [and under basic principles of federalism], I'm not sure how to route around EMI's argument. And that frustrates me greatly, because they're willing to break one of the best [arguably only] good parts of the DMCA just to put a few more bucks in their pocket. But I really hope the court figures out a way to justify the judge's prior ruling.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re:
On the post: MPAA So Thrilled With Zediva Ruling, It Offers To Help The Court Spread It
Re: Re: "the wire between my DVD player and my TV is 10 feet..."
Next >>