Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law

What the hell is it supposed to be?

I watched two episodes (maybe I should feel bad about it). If it comes across flat is because, unlike Season 1, they're trying to too hard to use the precise dialogue as the books.

Following that awful story about telling bar examinees to keep going while a test taker had a heart attack, I see a lot of takes about how this is an example of the profession's toxic culture.

But I can't of anything like this happening in the actual practice of law? Can you?

Maybe it’s an inflatable Trump? Granted it’s hard to tell the difference

i have been thinking a lot about how the entire concept of “the deal” is antithetical to transparency, fair play and rule of law, as larry notes. the deal is necessarily nonstandard, ad hoc and dependent on the whims of the dealmaker

the motion
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Despite his enthusiastic endorsement of the application of N.Y. Rule 3.6 to this case during the February 3 Hearing, Mr. Freedman resumed publicly slandering Ms. Lively’s character and credibility within a matter of days, including in friendly interviews conducted by his former clients. On February 5, Mr. Freedman appeared on TMZ to discuss the Court’s Order and whether Ms. Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, would “try to avoid a deposition,” and stated that he hoped he would not “get sanctioned as a result of” the interview but that he was “sure you guys will indemnify me. So we’ll be good.” In the following weeks, Mr. Freedman has repeatedly made public statements attacking Ms. Lively’s “character, credibility,” and “reputation,” N.Y. Rule 3.6, stating for example that she: is “afraid of the truth,” has been “testifying since the moment she auditioned for this part,” is “obviously uncomfortable . . . [with] the truth,” and is a “privileged

This is from Blake Lively's newly filed motion for sanctions against Baldoni's lawyer for violating a court order about making inflammatory public statements.

Why would Freedman think TMZ would indemnify him???

are those lemon cucumbers?

How often do you see a dissent in a decision to certify a question to a state court?

Makes me think the judge went to North Carolina

I've got chick peas. What is this dish?

3. The last argument is that the conversion claim is preempted by copyright law. It probably is, but it's the least important of Salt-N-Pepa's claims.

If UMG wins on only this one, and other claims proceed, that's a complete win for Salt-N-Pepa. 6/6

For one thing, some remixes are merely remastered versions, which might not count as derivative works. 5/6

2. UMG argues that the remixed recordings are derivative works, which are exempt from termination under 17 USC 203.

I think this might be a fact-determinative question that can't be resolved on a motion to dismiss. 4/6

It seems silly: how does the label have the rights without a grant?

But it's a consequence of the convoluted way artists signed contracts back then. There wasn't a straightforward assignment of rights from artist to record label. So we're going to arguments like this continue to arise. 3/6

1. There's no grant of copyrights. UMG argues that Salt N Pepa didn't grant the copyrights. The grantee originally obtained the rights from Next Plateau Records, "free of any claim by" the artist.

I think a court is going to be skeptical of this argument. 2/6

James v UMG - UMG Motion to Dismiss Salt N Pepa

UMG filed a motion Salt-N-Pepa's complaint, over the group's enforcing their termination rights under the Copyright Act. SnP have until August 8 to respond or file an amended complaint. 1/6
www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
UMG's arguments:

If you would stop in the middle of the bar exam to help someone in a health crisis, even if it meant a failing score after months of study/risking your job, etc - YOU are who our profession needs most. THAT is zealous advocacy. THAT is moral fiber. Don’t ever let the ghouls beat it out of you.

This past week, the 79-year-old president announced he’s ended six wars (some that have been going on for centuries), asserted that windmills drive whales insane, called for Beyoncé to be prosecuted, claimed Obama committed treason and complained a convicted pedophile “stole” teenage girls from him.

thanks for this

Oh yikes on the injuries.
Looking forward to a Rupert start!

yeah there's only one thing I think Trump would have in common with LT

Ah screw this. I was always a Carl Banks fan anyway.

Fortunately, at least two other Courts of Appeals explicitly disagreed with the 9th Circuit on this point.
Walthal v. Rusk, 172 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1999)
Korman v. HBC Fla., Inc., 182 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 1999)

I don't know if there are still decisions in 9th Circuit courts following it. 7/7

The court took a copyright provision meant to protect artists, and turned it something much worse for them. It essentially made this license a perpetual license, even though it wasn't. 6/7

That doesn't make sense. 17 USC 203 doesn't define the term of a copyright license if the license itself doesn't specify it. The 35 to 40 year time frame applies specifically to termination under the statute, not to any other termination permitted under state contract law. 5/7

The 9th Circuit held that California contract conflicts with federal copyright law. It held because under 203, a copyright license can be terminated no earlier than 35 years from the grant, the license can't be terminable at will.

What?? WHAT???
4/7

A photographer entered into an oral license to use his photos. The agreement didn't have a specified duration. Under California contract law, a license for a non-specified period of time is terminable at will by either party. So the photographer terminated the license and sued for infringement. 3/7

And if know 17 USC 203, you're probably wondering why there would be a decision applying it in 1993, when the first terminations were effective in 2013 (35 years from 1978). But this case shouldn't have even been about the statutory termination right under the Copyright Act. 2/7

Copyright people, while doing research on termination rights under 17 USC 203 I stumbled on a 1993 decision that I can't now unthink. I want to know if you're aware of it, has anyone followed it, do you agree me with on how bad it.
Rano v. Sipa Press, Inc., 987 F.2d 580 (9th Cir. 1993) 1/7