11–20 of 22 posts
This is proof, if any was needed, that judges and the law is often quite reasonable.
This is proof, if any was needed, that judges and the law is often quite reasonable.
This is for law buffs (30-page decision). It concerns an attorney who had hired a forensic firm to support his litigation matter and who felt they had overbilled and/or churned the matter. He asked a one-sentence question on a listserv forum about whether anyone else had had a bad experience with the firm. One person forwarded the question to his spouse and the spouse forwarded it to the firm whose services were bein…
The Court reproduces the whole of Plaintiff’s e-mail so that the ensuing discussion of originality and fair use is not hopelessly abstract. The Court’s “unauthorized reproduction” of Plaintiff’s copyrighted work is, as Judge Posner has succinctly put it, “a good example of the fair-use doctrine in action.”
And it's not this judge's words, but this judge had the good humor to cite this,
See Mackie v. Rieser, 296 F.3d 909, 917 (9th Cir. 2002)(holding that a plaintiff’s subjective view about the harm from copyright infringement,“which really boils down to ‘hurt feelings’ over the nature of the infringement, has no place in [the damages] calculus”)
That's why the court says this: "In setting forth the facts underlying this dispute, the Court draws exclusively from Plaintiff’s version of events, resolving all disputed facts in Plaintiff’s favor and assuming without deciding that Defendants’ evidentiary objections are to be overruled". If one misses that it is a summary judgement motion, it might look like the court is unfairly favoring plaintiff.
Edit: also note that the $750 fee the plaintiff paid to register his copyright is not normal. Copyright registration is normally $35 dollars. That's what you would pay as a US author, registering your work before publication so that you can recover damages from US infringers. (Foreign authors do not have to register to recover damages from US infringers in US courts, which is why this registration requirement does not violate US obligations under the Berne Convention).
The only $750 registration I see on the copyright office's fee schedule is for registration with expedited processing. That generally means plaintiff fucked up. :-)
Each of the four factors either support Defendants’ fair use defense or are neutral. This is unsurprising. In an age of blogs, listservs, and other online fora, a person’s short comment in cyberspace is frequently quoted in its entirety as others reply or forward it elsewhere. It would be strange, dangerous even, if every such quotation subjected the copier to liability and a federal lawsuit. Such heavy-handed tactics are akin to using a cannon to kill a mosquito; they carry the same attendant risk of collateral damage by chilling free speech. A free and vibrant democracy depends upon the unfettered exchange of ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The patient are well rewarded indeed, with asides such as note 12: 12 “Plaintiff beliefs [sic], when [White Zuckerman’s employee] used the word slander,considering the context of the comment, she really meant liable [sic]. Confusing liable [sic] with slander is a mistake people commonly make.” (2nd Am. Compl. ถ 56.) Confusing “libel” with “liable” is also a commonly-made mistake.
And this about the Plaintiff trick of a copyright app for the 1-line email: "As discussed above, Plaintiff is incorrect about the validity of his copyright because his listserv post lacks originality. Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s originality argument was not objectively unreasonable. The problem with Plaintiff’s copyright claim lies in Defendants’ obvious fair-use defense. A reasonable person, particularly one who happen…
This is proof, if any was needed, that judges and the law is often quite reasonable.
What?? This patently frivolous litigation went on for TWO YEARS and cost over a HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS and you think this is proof that the legal system is reasonable?
This case easily could have been resolved on a motion to dismiss had Plaintiff disclosed the content of his listserv post at the outset. By withholding disclosure of this information until August 2010 (see RW Mot., Farrell Decl. 2), Plaintiff substantially prolonged this litigation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What?? This patently frivolous litigation went on for TWO YEARS and cost over a HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS and you think this is proof that the legal system is reasonable?
D. 1. c. ii.: Plaintiff’s Delay In Turning Over His Listserv Post This case easily could have been resolved on a motion to dismiss had Plaintiff disclosed the content of his listserv post at the outset. By withholding disclosure of this information until August 2010 (see RW Mot., Farrell Decl. 2), Plaintiff substantially prolonged this litigation.
This is proof, if any was needed, that judges and the law is often quite reasonable.
If you simply look at the law as a legal ruling, it often (though not always) seems reasonable. However, if you look at "the law" as the process of getting to that ruling, it often seems horrendously unreasonable.
To me, the great failures of the legal system usually aren't the decisions it hands down, it's the way the brutally expensive and lengthy process itself can be used to gain leverage and/or coerce other people.