U
Unknown
Guest
No, that honour belongs to our friend Mark Golodetz.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Oh. Lordy
- Thread starter SFJoe
- Start date
No, that honour belongs to our friend Mark Golodetz.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
An ex-lawyer, with a very sharp anti-Parker ax to grind, says that this is slam dunk fair use. I'm not a lawyer either and my only interest in copyright law is as a lit. professor with some vested interest in the free flow of literature, so I'd love to think this is correct. But it seems to me that internet buking and scorning is not self-evidently quoting for the purposes of criticism. It is close enough, but I can imagine judges going either way. I'd love to see Parker tested and lose, but I won't be the one to do it. It seems far less slam dunk than the absurd libel charge.
I would imagine that the chances of Parker prevailing would be low but nonzero. But in any case, what are the damages? Certainly less than the risk-adjusted NPV.
The only reason to sue, or threaten to sue, is to threaten imposing the litigation costs on the defendant, not winning.
It is simple bullying. The analysis on the merits doesn't matter so much unless the defendant has deep pockets and an ornery disposition.
The only reason to sue, or threaten to sue, is to threaten imposing the litigation costs on the defendant, not winning.
It is simple bullying. The analysis on the merits doesn't matter so much unless the defendant has deep pockets and an ornery disposition.
It also incorporates a bunch of the quotes that were required to be taken down from the other site.originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
[...]originally posted by Mike Evans:
I find it interesting that David White
Thanks for posting this. What a weird read, especially if you accept David's comments as reasonably neutral. What is going on over there? It's like reading Putin talk about European history.
Lou Kessler
Lou Kessler
I've read every post on this thread and presented myself with two Gold Stars for having no taste worth explaining. I shall continue my quest regardless of past failures on this site.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
originally posted by SFJoe:
It is simple bullying. The analysis on the merits doesn't matter so much unless the defendant has deep pockets and an ornery disposition.
This is one reason Bill Koch is such an interesting figure.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
originally posted by SFJoe:
It also incorporates a bunch of the quotes that were required to be taken down from the other site.originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
[...]originally posted by Mike Evans:
I find it interesting that David White
Thanks for posting this. What a weird read, especially if you accept David's comments as reasonably neutral. What is going on over there? It's like reading Putin talk about European history.
Yes, I imagine that was the point.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
An ex-lawyer, with a very sharp anti-Parker ax to grind, says that this is slam dunk fair use. I'm not a lawyer either and my only interest in copyright law is as a lit. professor with some vested interest in the free flow of literature, so I'd love to think this is correct. But it seems to me that internet buking and scorning is not self-evidently quoting for the purposes of criticism. It is close enough, but I can imagine judges going either way. I'd love to see Parker tested and lose, but I won't be the one to do it. It seems far less slam dunk than the absurd libel charge.
Judges would still rule it as fair use. The buking and scorning would probably help the fair use claim since it is a transformative use of the copyrighted material.
Parker's lawyers know that the claim of copyright infringement is laughable. But, they also know that most people would choose to redact rather than risk having to spend thousands of dollars in litigation fees. Frivolous litigation is a powerful way to silence people.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Yule Kim:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
An ex-lawyer, with a very sharp anti-Parker ax to grind, says that this is slam dunk fair use. I'm not a lawyer either and my only interest in copyright law is as a lit. professor with some vested interest in the free flow of literature, so I'd love to think this is correct. But it seems to me that internet buking and scorning is not self-evidently quoting for the purposes of criticism. It is close enough, but I can imagine judges going either way. I'd love to see Parker tested and lose, but I won't be the one to do it. It seems far less slam dunk than the absurd libel charge.
Judges would still rule it as fair use. The buking and scorning would probably help the fair use claim since it is a transformative use of the copyrighted material.
Parker's lawyers know that the claim of copyright infringement is laughable. But, they also know that most people would choose to redact rather than risk having to spend thousands of dollars in litigation fees. Frivolous litigation is a powerful way to silence people.
If you can predict how judges will rule, you're a better man than I am.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Yule Kim:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
An ex-lawyer, with a very sharp anti-Parker ax to grind, says that this is slam dunk fair use. I'm not a lawyer either and my only interest in copyright law is as a lit. professor with some vested interest in the free flow of literature, so I'd love to think this is correct. But it seems to me that internet buking and scorning is not self-evidently quoting for the purposes of criticism. It is close enough, but I can imagine judges going either way. I'd love to see Parker tested and lose, but I won't be the one to do it. It seems far less slam dunk than the absurd libel charge.
Judges would still rule it as fair use. The buking and scorning would probably help the fair use claim since it is a transformative use of the copyrighted material.
Parker's lawyers know that the claim of copyright infringement is laughable. But, they also know that most people would choose to redact rather than risk having to spend thousands of dollars in litigation fees. Frivolous litigation is a powerful way to silence people.
If you can predict how judges will rule, you're a better man than I am.
This isn't a close case. Dr. Vino is criticizing very specific comments made by Parker and Perrotti-Brown, and, from the context of the blog post, the quotations didn't replicate particularly large portions of the "chat" on EBob. If this is a contravention of copyright, than 99% of book reviews with quotes would be illegal.
I would be shocked if a single intellectual property lawyer in the country would think this went beyond fair use (unless they are being paid by Parker).
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
What's the cost range to file a suit like this?
It's probably time to reread Russell Baker's column, though it is more about libel than copyright.
Here is another link in case the NYT foils you.
Here is another link in case the NYT foils you.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Yule Kim:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Yule Kim:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
An ex-lawyer, with a very sharp anti-Parker ax to grind, says that this is slam dunk fair use. I'm not a lawyer either and my only interest in copyright law is as a lit. professor with some vested interest in the free flow of literature, so I'd love to think this is correct. But it seems to me that internet buking and scorning is not self-evidently quoting for the purposes of criticism. It is close enough, but I can imagine judges going either way. I'd love to see Parker tested and lose, but I won't be the one to do it. It seems far less slam dunk than the absurd libel charge.
Judges would still rule it as fair use. The buking and scorning would probably help the fair use claim since it is a transformative use of the copyrighted material.
Parker's lawyers know that the claim of copyright infringement is laughable. But, they also know that most people would choose to redact rather than risk having to spend thousands of dollars in litigation fees. Frivolous litigation is a powerful way to silence people.
If you can predict how judges will rule, you're a better man than I am.
This isn't a close case. Dr. Vino is criticizing very specific comments made by Parker and Perrotti-Brown, and, from the context of the blog post, the quotations didn't replicate particularly large portions of the "chat" on EBob. If this is a contravention of copyright, than 99% of book reviews with quotes would be illegal.
I would be shocked if a single intellectual property lawyer in the country would think this went beyond fair use (unless they are being paid by Parker).
I make a case, because no one seems to see one. First, the quotation was 100% of the material involved--the Parker comment. It is one of the principles of fair use that the copied matter is not only of reasonable length but of reasonable length with respect to the matter quoted. Now, obviously, if you quote a four stanza poem, that doesn't automatically mean copyright infringement (especially if it is from collected poems), but it does mean the purpose of use better smell right.
And there is a significant difference between reviewing--even giving a bad review--and slinging about abuse on an internet forum. This difference may look insufficiently metaphysically obvious to all us abuse slinging internet frequenters, but it is not certain that it would not look clear to a judge since not all judges subscribe to the logic chopping methods that abound here. Let's remember that "the Wind done Gone," rightly was declared fair use as satire but sampling is copyright infringement. As a non-lawyer but a mild amateur student of copyright law, I would say that Parker's chances are well below 50% but considerably above zero (enough above to make me differ from Joe). Meanwhile, there are plenty of lawyers on this bored and on Berserker. Any of them standing up to take the case pro bono?
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
I think you are preaching to the choir.
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
You guys sing bad, for a choir.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
We're choir with a disorder. What do you expect?
Jeff Connell
Jeff Connell
I haven't gone back to it frankly. Perhaps out of fear of confirming same.originally posted by .sasha:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
We should have more Buffy threads.
I am finding that the show isn't ageing well.