![[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: 10:17 [GMT-6]
In dubious celebration of World Intellectual Property Day, herewith a few updates and thoughts thereon (sorry, I've been reading 1970s-era H'wood contracts a lot over the last few days...):
Meanwhile, Professor Samuelson demonstrates that she actually read the ruling and gives it some credence with a draft paper on what a legislative solution to the problems raised in the litigation might look like (PDF). I don't agree with everything in the paper, as it still fails to grasp that the default position of the various parties — that there is a valid means of avoiding direct contact with each author/copyright holder — cannot be mechanistically evaded without a fundamental alteration of copyright law. That said, it's a helluva lot closer to business-sense workability than anything else I've seen seriously proposed... which means, of course, that it has less than zero chance of getting through Congress.
In one sense, this is a chicken-and-egg situation in which the Bankruptcy Code (in the interest of creating a uniform law) tries to say "egg comes first unless the judge says otherwise." That is, it is not logically reasonable to require such a strongly plan-shaping measure so early in the process. On the other hand, it also allows the debtor to discriminate against certain landlords, which is — in effect — like allowing the debtor to determine which creditors to pay at a higher rate. In short, this is as much about juggling chainsaws as it is about bankruptcy law and practice. Notice, too, that the primary people who could be affected by this decision — authors and store patrons — have exactly zero say in any of this. Now that's respect for World Intellectual Property Day!
Basically, what happens next is this: First the District Court judge who just issued the ruling will rule whether to stay it pending appeal; then the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will rule whether to stay it pending appeal; then the appeal of this ruling will proceed in front of the Eighth Circuit and — unless the Eighth Circuit stays both the ruling below and all other proceedings, which would be highly unusual — the rest of the antitrust matter will continue in front of the District Court. In the ordinary course of things the various stay rulings will be issued within the next week, and almost certainly less than that.
So, what is it going to take for the league to win and get the lockout reinstated? Well, it is Easter/Passover season, so perhaps a miracle will be forthcoming... but I wouldn't count on it. Many employment lawyers point to the Eighth Circuit as being pro-employer, and in that sense they're right; that, however, neglects the procedural context. In this instance, the standard of review makes it extraordinarily difficult to reverse the District Court. On one level, a judge's decision on whether to grant a preliminary injunction is always reviewed for "abuse of discretion." The most common "abuse of discretion" is using the wrong law; thus, if the Eighth Circuit determines that Judge Nelson's legal analysis was blatantly wrong, the owners win. The problem is that her legal analysis is not blatantly wrong; those areas where there's room to disagree are precisely those in which the other barrier to reversal comes into play: The balance of equities and irreparable harms, and her findings of fact. In both of those areas, there's an even higher standard of review: "Clear and convincing error," which is roughly the civil litigation equivalent of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Further, there's another procedural reason for a court to refuse to reverse this particular injunction: The injunction does not concern an ultimate remedy in the litigation, but merely preserves a previously bargained-for result pending outcome of the entire case (and American Needle, holding that the NFL is subject to antitrust scrutiny for its licensing arrangements, is a heavy hand on the scale there... and requires the Eighth Circuit to reconsider some of its prior pro-employer precedents).
Thus, if the owners don't get a stay allowing them to continue the lockout during appeal, I don't see them winning this appeal. Procedurally, there's too much of a mess. Score a touchdown for the players' lawyers.
Labels: copyright, intellectual property, internet, law practice, mass media, politics, publishing, sport
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.
