|Scrivener's Error||Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting.|
link to: 06:42 [GMT-8]
This is a tangent from the long essay in progress on the suitability of the Google Book Search settlement. Recent events have not changed my opinion of its substantive justification (which is to say almost none); instead, I am digressing back into procedureland.
As I noted last week, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider, and determine once and for all, the following question:
Does 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) restrict the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts over copyright infringement actions?
For several purely procedural reasons, the Court's decision to finally decide this conundrum indicate that all process concerning the proposed settlement in the Google Book Search matter must be stopped, immediately, pending that decision. That means suspending the deadline for opting out; suspending the deadline for filing objections; and suspending the scheduled fairness hearing.10 All of these dates need to be suspended until at least 90 days after the Court issues its opinion in Post-Tasini. (Properly, I suppose it'll get called Muchnick, but I can't resist pointing to what it actually is sort of like my continued references to 2Live Crew instead of to Campbell.) In no particular order:
Thus, without even going to the (dubious) merits of the settlement, there are compelling reasons for the actual counsel in the matter to file a deferment motion with the District Court in the Google Book Search settlement, along these lines:
In light of the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in the matter styled Reed-Elsevier, Inc., et al. v. Muchnick, et al. ("Muchnick"), No. 08-103 (cert. granted, 02 Mar 2009), which implicates the class definitions and scope of settlement in this matter, Counsel respectfully requests that this Honorable Court order that:
1. All proceedings, filings, deadlines, and other process in this matter be suspended immediately until the ninety-first day following the Supreme Court's dispositive decision in Muchnick; and
2. No further communications shall be made by any party to this matter, or any person or entity acting on any party's behalf, with any actual or potential member of the classes; and
3. All notices of "opt-out" received prior to the date established in point 1 above shall be returned to those parties with a notation that further proceedings will be required; and
4. This Honorable Court shall set a scheduling hearing promptly after the date established in point 1 above to reconsider all deadlines and filings in this matter.
I seriously doubt that will happen, though, given the... reputation of some of the counsel involved. It's the right, and ethical, thing to do; it's actually in the best interests of the absent class members; but it's simply not the style of the particular law firms and litigators, few (if any) of whom have the faintest idea of the unsophistication of the majority of those absent class members, as they're largely used to dealing with securities. (That's not to say that all holders of securities are sophisticated; it's only to say that authors, and their heirs, aren't as "sophisticated" is defined in litigation.)
Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.
All material © 200313 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.
I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.
Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.
I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
infamous threads that have appeared here
by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some
of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.
Links of Interest
Links open in a new window.
Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals
These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.
A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.