Imagine -- "Imagine" copyright suits are not over
This blog has a total of 29 articles (counting this one) about the federal and state "Imagine" copyright suits under the following two post-label lists (I am limited to a maximum of 20 posts per label): here and here.
A news article reported that the judge in the state court suit has (1) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and (2) required that the defendant answer the complaint. The ruling is here.
I thought that this whole thing was essentially over when the federal judge denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.I felt that the federal judge's final decision in favor of the defendants was so anticlimactic that I did not even report it on this blog. (there is no final decision yet in the federal court case -- the Uncommon Descent article and the linked press release, both dated July 17, were just greatly overdue reports of the June 2 denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction)
.
Actually, because the US Constitution gives Congress jurisdiction over copyrights and interstate commerce, I question the authority of a state court to take any kind of action to enforce a copyright, including any action that applies just to a state.
The name "supreme court" here is a misnomer -- this state court is a trial court of original jurisdiction.
Yoko Ono & sons were plaintiffs in the federal suit but not the state suit -- here the plaintiffs are just Capitol Records and EMI records. I don't know if the federal court decision has been appealed -- one probably needs a PACER account to find out.
Also, I wonder why the article did not mention the federal court suit. Also, the state court ruling did not mention the federal court suit. The new Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires all federal courts to allow citation of unpublished opinions (I presume that the final opinion of the federal case is unpublished), but I don't know the citation rules of the NY state courts.
Also, the title of the news article, "Sampling a song can be fair use, rules US court," is wrong -- it is a state court, not a US court.
There once was a lady named Yoko,
who had a mind that was quite loco.
When she tried to sue,
she later did rue,
'cause the lawyers she faced were pro bono.
Imagine there are no copyrights,
it isn't hard to do.
Nothing to cause court fights,
no reason for to sue.
Imagine all the people,
staying out of court --
Thanks to Uncommon Descent for the tip.
.
A news article reported that the judge in the state court suit has (1) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and (2) required that the defendant answer the complaint. The ruling is here.
I thought that this whole thing was essentially over when the federal judge denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
.
Actually, because the US Constitution gives Congress jurisdiction over copyrights and interstate commerce, I question the authority of a state court to take any kind of action to enforce a copyright, including any action that applies just to a state.
The name "supreme court" here is a misnomer -- this state court is a trial court of original jurisdiction.
Yoko Ono & sons were plaintiffs in the federal suit but not the state suit -- here the plaintiffs are just Capitol Records and EMI records. I don't know if the federal court decision has been appealed -- one probably needs a PACER account to find out.
Also, I wonder why the article did not mention the federal court suit. Also, the state court ruling did not mention the federal court suit. The new Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires all federal courts to allow citation of unpublished opinions (I presume that the final opinion of the federal case is unpublished), but I don't know the citation rules of the NY state courts.
Also, the title of the news article, "Sampling a song can be fair use, rules US court," is wrong -- it is a state court, not a US court.
There once was a lady named Yoko,
who had a mind that was quite loco.
When she tried to sue,
she later did rue,
'cause the lawyers she faced were pro bono.
Imagine there are no copyrights,
it isn't hard to do.
Nothing to cause court fights,
no reason for to sue.
Imagine all the people,
staying out of court --
Thanks to Uncommon Descent for the tip.
.
Labels: Yoko Ono lawsuit (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 8/23/2008 07:32:00 PM
5 Comments:
The Darwinazi element at NCSE is ever working to find ways to obstruct free thought and discussion. So I suspect that they have helped to stimulate the multiple nuisance lawsuits that have been desperately hurled at EXPELLED, an important movie which deals with the same basic freedoms that NCSE seemingly hopes to impair.
Incidentally quantum physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff, who wrote a favorable review of the intelligent design book The Design of Life by Dembski and Wells, put the trailer for the movie on his blog, and regards it as a must-see film.
I'll censor that IDist stuff.
The people might read it! It's tough
To fight on to keep
The public asleep,
And loyal to Darwin enough.
(Go to Hell, Spencer, and take Eugenie Scott and Judge Jones with you. --Jim Sherwood.)
Jim Lippard Has a couple of blog entries that might interest Larry. Apparently, FFRF and a local atheist group are putting up billboards with the slogan "Imagine No Religion"
Larry might also be interested in Jim's sidebar. He has a working "Recent Comments" section. A polite request from Larry might get him the secret. I'd even be willing to ask for Larry, if Larry is feels uncomfortable making the request.
>>>I thought that this whole thing was essentially over when the federal judge denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. I felt that the federal judge's final decision in favor of the defendants was so anticlimactic that I did not even report it on this blog.<<<
Still not paying attention, are you? You devoted a whole post to the decision discussed in that link here.
The "final decision" you think is being talked about in the UcD post is the denial of the preliminary injunction. Some updates: the plaintiffs are appealing the denial of preliminary injunction; the parties stipulated to dismiss the third claim (extended so they could focus on the copyright and injunction issues), costs to defendants; and discovery is set to close on Halloween - which means the trial would have to be set some time next year (late January or February, most likely).
BTW, Justia has the PACER documents available for free.
Post a Comment
<< Home