Comments on: Notice This http://madisonian.net/2006/11/29/notice-this/ a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:59:42 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Jim Gibson http://madisonian.net/2006/11/29/notice-this/comment-page-1/#comment-105457 Jim Gibson Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:04:56 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=867#comment-105457 I can't beat the winged demon, but the "notice" broadcast during Monday Night Football is ludicrous, and probably does more to convey misimpressions of copyright law to the public than any other single factor: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s consent is prohibited." I can’t beat the winged demon, but the “notice” broadcast during Monday Night Football is ludicrous, and probably does more to convey misimpressions of copyright law to the public than any other single factor: “This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s consent is prohibited.”

]]> By: Frank Pasquale http://madisonian.net/2006/11/29/notice-this/comment-page-1/#comment-105109 Frank Pasquale Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:57:43 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=867#comment-105109 There's a very good article somewhere in westlaw on lawyers suing each other for plagiarism of one another's briefs. But I forget if they actually pressed a copyright claim. Here's a paradox: perhaps, to the extent the author/owner of the notice is pressing it as a foundation of a legal claim, they are declaring it "law." And if that is the case, don't they run into Veeck problems--i.e., you can't copyright the law? Another query--what if Apple put DRM on its iTUnes license agreement that kept you from cutting and pasting it? I really wish someone would try this, because it might get some court to articulate some limits on these practices. ahhh, here's the cite: Missouri Law Review Spring 2006 *391 THE HIGHEST FORM OF FLATTERY? APPLICATION OF THE FAIR USE DEFENSE AGAINST COPYRIGHT CLAIMS FOR UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATION OF LITIGATION DOCUMENTS Davida H. Isaacs [FN1] There’s a very good article somewhere in westlaw on lawyers suing each other for plagiarism of one another’s briefs. But I forget if they actually pressed a copyright claim. Here’s a paradox: perhaps, to the extent the author/owner of the notice is pressing it as a foundation of a legal claim, they are declaring it “law.” And if that is the case, don’t they run into Veeck problems–i.e., you can’t copyright the law?

Another query–what if Apple put DRM on its iTUnes license agreement that kept you from cutting and pasting it? I really wish someone would try this, because it might get some court to articulate some limits on these practices.

ahhh, here’s the cite:

Missouri Law Review

Spring 2006

*391 THE HIGHEST FORM OF FLATTERY? APPLICATION OF THE FAIR USE DEFENSE

AGAINST COPYRIGHT CLAIMS FOR UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATION OF LITIGATION DOCUMENTS

Davida H. Isaacs [FN1]

]]> By: KeVroN http://madisonian.net/2006/11/29/notice-this/comment-page-1/#comment-104881 KeVroN Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:43:55 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=867#comment-104881 Very silly, but the alchemy people are just fine because that animated winged demon is scary as hell. Very silly, but the alchemy people are just fine because that animated winged demon is scary as hell.

]]>