![[self-portrait]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aph-FWKPAtw/Sb7dbBwgg0I/AAAAAAAAAAU/xefH94KcXQA/S220/LawShark5204a.jpg)
Scrivener's Error| null | |
|---|---|
|
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: 12:53 [GMT-6]
The Settlement (in essay form)
The Lawsuit (in essay form)
This is a status update only; I am working on some more-substantive responses to Professor Tim Wu's recent piece, which fit in nicely with where the long-form-version of the comments on the settlement was going anyway. (Quick preview: Well considered, but ultimately fails to integrate a couple of major problems with market definition that end up driving the "correct" — or, at least, consonant with reality — outcome.)
As far as the settlement's procedural posture goes, the status hearing this morning produced few surprises. Nobody even came close to acknowledging adequacy of representation, or the elephant in the room (see the next paragraph). The lawyers who did speak anticipated providing a new settlement by 09 November 2009 (or, in all probability, 12 November 2009 — with the Veterans' Armistice Day holiday in there, I suspect it really will slip a couple of business days). They also proposed a short objection period, limited to the changes in the settlement (does that mean they're going to give us a redline? I doubt it), of about two months. Judge Chin appeared to accept this from the bench, but also requested a status update should the parties be unable to present a settlement. In a not entirely surprising response, the lawyers for the AG — further calling into question their own adequacy — indicated that document discovery is almost complete, but that "some" depositions would be required. Judge Chin has not yet issued a written order via PACER, but it looks like the revised schedule will be something like this:
Which leads to the elephant in the room: Muchnick. Oral argument was held in the Supreme Court this morning. I'll have more details once the transcript becomes available later today, if warranted; otherwise, I'll just fold them into something else. The bottom line is this: The oral argument indicated five, and probably six, votes for reversal... on some grounds.1 If that happens, though, it will almost certainly not be issued in time for the revised settlement to consider its effects by 09 November, and probably not in time for objectors to discuss it by early January. Again, I call on Judge Chin to stay the GBS cases until after the Supreme Court rules in Muchnick... if only so that the class definitions will be legally sound.
Update after reading the transcript of the oral argument It appears that my informant may have been a bit optimistic; my reading of the tea leaves shows a significant chance of a 4–4 split and no definitive decision on the jurisdiction issue. This creates a real problem with the jurisdiction/element of the claim issue that nobody grasped: The distinction seemingly made between "US works" and "non-US works"... which, as a matter of logic, should not be jurisdictional, except under the "a court always has jurisdiction to consider its own jurisdiction" meme, which — in turn — is inconsistent with the (admittedly non-self-executing) requirements of the Berne Convention. In short, it's a mess.
My approach is to look to a part of the Copyright Act of 1976 that was not codified in Title 17: 28 U.S.C. § 1338; a part of the Copyright Act of 1976 that was codified in Title 17: § 301; and the language of the ugly § 411, which is what is at issue here. In the same statute, Congress said "jurisdiction" explicitly twice (the first two) and did not the third time, which implies to me that the difference was on purpose. Further, contrary to Chief Justice Roberts' remarks during the oral argument, the language in § 411(a) is not operatively different from that in Arbaugh that was found nonjurisdictional, precisely because of duties implicitly imposed by the Berne Convention (and powers created in the Constitution) that put the Copyright Act right back in the same "box" as the employment statute at issue in Arbaugh.
Disclosure: The counsel selected to present oral argument — Professor Deborah Jones Merritt of that school in Columbus — was at Illinois when I was there, and was Associate Dean. She was also the instructor for Advanced Torts when I took it, which turned out to be largely devoted to the reputational rights: defamation, privacy, publicity. And I'm sorry, Professor Merritt, but you're in the wrong on this one... which is almost inevitable, and not your fault, because the Supreme Court appointed you to argue on behalf of a decision that all of the parties below (and even potential intervenors!) held was wrong as a procedural and constitutional matter. I think your merits brief's criticisms of the unfairness of the actual process and substance of the settlement is correct; that, however, is outside the scope of the question presented by the Supreme Court.
Labels: copyright, intellectual property, jurisprudence, politics, publishing
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 © 2003–12 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.
Sausages?
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.
| Archives |
|---|
Warped Weft
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
the more 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 # >.
Optimized for
at 1024x768.
