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.

20 July 2011

link to: 15:39 [GMT-6]

Link Sausages Broiled on the Sidewalk

We've had three of the hottest years in the last century in the last six. Global warming is at least more probable than the Easter Bunny... or politicians genuinely working for the public good... or Illinois governors staying out of jail.

My favorite from this list of "medical benefits" is Harry Potter Casts a Spell on Accident-Prone Children. I think someone at the Trib spent too much time surfing on the 'net yesterday to avoid going outside during the heat wave... not that I'd ever do anything like that.
The grievously underconsidered IP Finance Blog offers this fascinating perspective on handling US IP licensees in bankruptcy. I can't imagine what current news item makes me think that's relevant right now...
I will be reacting to the Borders situation tomorrow, after the judge rules on pending conversion motions. It is entirely possible — indeed, it is more probable than not — that certain aspects of the proposed "liquidation sale" that have thus far been publicized will change, and change significantly. For one thing, the docket (as of this morning) still showed this case as a Chapter 11 (reorganization) case, not a Chapter 7 (liquidation) case... and the sale cannot go forward for "all or substantially all assets of the debtor" without judicial approval and conversion.
Similarly, I'm not going to proclaim much about the rather abortive status hearing in the Google Books matter; there just isn't enough data. The parties claim to be working on an opt-in class settlement proposal... but that's not likely to proceed without other significant changes that have been punted by the various parties. Admittedly, they're still negotiating, so there's at least a tiny excuse for keeping quiet. However, it wasn't just opt-out that Judge Chin objected to; he merely said that would have been enough by itself for him to reject the settlement. As I've noted previously, the failure of adequate representation was also enough, even though he didn't emphasize it; the antitrust objections would probably have been enough, although his discussion of them was more an outline of undecided issues than anything else; and so on.

The key point is that if the parties put another settlement proposal on the table, there will be another round of solicitation of authors (and estates, etc.)... and it's going to confuse the hell out of a lot of people. I'll do my best to help people ask intelligently for advice concerning their individual situations, but that's not a solicitation — not the least due to potential conflicts of interest!
A Harvard student studying ethics has been indicted for hacking into, then massively pirating, JSTOR's academic journal database. Leaving aside the multilevel irony of "Harvard," "ethics," and "piracy," there's another issue here: The presumption that the journals that are on JSTOR are, in fact, the proper permission-granting parties under Tasini. Now, as it happens, I generally like JSTOR; the fact that its downloads are image files that preserve pagination helps those of us in anally-retentive fields that demand excrutiatingly precise pinpoint citation, even it if does require a quick trip through OCR for extended quotations and makes the individual articles nonsearchable. I also strongly suspect that the limited range of JSTOR itself largely means that the authors really do want the continuing availability of/publicity for their works, and are generally not seeking further compensation. That, however, is only a default assumption... and, as footnote 6 of Tasini tells us:

More to the point, even if the dissent is correct that some authors, in the long run, are helped, not hurt, by Database reproductions, the fact remains that the Authors who brought the case now before us have asserted their rights under § 201(c). We may not invoke our conception of their interests to diminish those rights.

New York Times Co., Inc. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483, 497–98 n.6 (2001).

Labels: copyright, culture, intellectual property, internet, 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.

Site Feed

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.

Writer Beware and the Writer Beware Blog provide essential knowledge for writers who don't want to be ripped off
Writing-World.com published by the former managing editor of the now-defunct Inklings
Agent Research & Evaluation provides both free and paid analyses of literary agents
US Copyright Office, including both registration forms and records and quite a bit of other helpful information
Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) allows searches of granted, pending, and some rejected trademark registrations
US Supreme Court Opinions from the current and past couple of terms
Law Library of Congress includes statutes for free
The Public Library of Law can help you find the law... but not use it in court, as many of its resources are not in proper form and do not provide all of the citation information needed in court papers
Legal, free e-books are available through Online Books (University of Pennsylvania) and Shakespeare (MIT)
Legal, free music is available through
- ClassicCat.net (what kind of music do you think you'll find here?)
- Music.Download.com (long-awaited successor to MP3.com)
- Janis Ian (artist)
- John McCutcheon (artist)

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 # >.

How Appealing is aimed at appellate lawyers and legal news in general. If you care about the state of the law, start here — Howard's commentary is far better balanced, better informed, and better considered than any of the media outlets. To concentrate on the Supreme Court, don't forget SCOTUSBlog.
Some academics' blawgs with a variety of political (and doctrinal) viewpoints:
- Professor Anthony Arend (Georgetown Law)
- Professor Stephen Bainbridge (UCLA Law) (aka "The Perfesser")
- Professor Jack Balkin (Yale Law)
- Professor Dennis Crouch (Missouri Law) (better known as Patently-O)
- Professor Michael Froomkin (University of Miami Law)
- Professor Eric Goldman (Santa Clara University Law)
- Professor Rick Hasen (Loyola-LA Law)
- Professor Brian Leiter (U of Chicago Law/Philosophy)
- Professor Lawrence Lessig (Stanford Law)
- Professor Michael Madison (Pitt Law)
- Professor Rebecca Tushnet (Georgetown Law)
BoingBoing, by speculative fiction writer (and 'net activist) Cory Doctorow, is quite hostile to copyright enforcement efforts, particularly regarding file-sharing
The main European IP blawg of interest remains the UK-based IPKat, on a variety of intellectual property issues, with some overlap (with a less Eurocentric view) at IPFinance
Cyberlaw (Stanford) has its agenda grounded firmly in the so-called "digital commons," which might make a bit more sense if any of the advocates of that viewpoint understood diddly-squat about population ecology
The American Constitution Society blawg is a purportedly "liberal" counterweight to the so-called "Federalist Society" (which, despite its claims, should be called "Tory Society") that has yet to establish much coherence... but maybe that's all to the good.

Searches

Optimized for at 1024x768.