Which is this: The copyright termination provisions apply only to rights grants "executed by the author." Here, she has a Marital Settlement agreement that was (per her complaint) so-ordered by the California state court
AFAICT, she should be arguing that a so-ordered stipulation identifying and providing for the distribution of community property as part of a divorce settlement is a grant *by the Court*, not "by the author", in exactly the same way a contested divorce judgment would be
This argument would have the very real benefit of allowing the Court to find that the copyright act's termination provisions simply don't apply to so-ordered divorce settlements, which Congress clearly didn't intend them to apply to in the first place
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hey, litigation disaster tourists: my trials are done or settled and I'm back to a much more normal schedule ... which means we have some time to live-read the TSR v. Wizards of the Coast lolsuit today. Will have to break this thread to get Littler Girl up and to school, but ...
Let's start here. They've filed the case in the Eastern District of North Carolina. This is an interesting choice, given that WOTC is headquartered in Washington and registered as an LLC in Delaware, for a value of "interesting" that incorporates "clownishly ignorant"
As you all may remember from such prior hits as "You Can't sue the Governor of Wisconsin There" and "No, Mr. Biss, that's the Wrong State" ... this is not, so much, a thing.
Remington's lawyer... argued that [he] had no "non-lethal options" ...
"He did have a taser, but in his mind, he couldn't use it because he didn't feel he had the proper spread to deploy it, with the wheelchair between him and Richards," Storie said.
"Oh no, my position relative to the wheelchair means I can't deploy my taser. Should I: (a) change position or (b) empty my magazine into the back of someone suspected of shoplifting and having a knife?"
Anyone acting like the Rittenhouse verdict is a travesty either doesn't understand the law, doesn't have a good grip on the facts, or doesn't care about how the law is supposed to be applied. I said day 1 that the self-defense argument was too fact-specific to be assessed from
a distance and the evidence that came in at trial made it sounder and sounder. The jury finding reasonable doubt? That's our system working the way it should, protecting the accused. That's why a DA needs to prove more than just "the defendant PROBABLY did it"
Of course, there are too many people that the system doesn't work for, and that needs to be fixed. That takes work. But that work isn't "well make it fuck over the white kid too"
Here's the thing: There's not even the slightest smidgeon of doubt that SB-8 is unconstitutional. There isn't a scintilla of an argument that it can stand under current law. And nobody even tries to make one.
The only questions are procedural, because it is *expressly & intentionally* written to try to prevent courts from addressing the unconstitutionality of the law.
Texas' state government is expressly trying to trample people's constitutional rights. And the right is cheering
The right, which used to worry about "freedom" and "government overreach" is cheering "one neat trick that lets the state take away your freedom in a way the courts can't do anything about"
Huge news in Epic v. Apple, where the judge just ruled for Epic that Apple *must* allow app developers to provide users with non-AppStore purchasing options if they want them, under California unfair competition law - but also that Apple was not a monopolist under anti-trust law
The court also found Epic breached its contract with Apple and is required to pay them millions of dollars. Time for a live-read
The court starts with a recap of the case, and a discussion of the parties' views of the "relevant market." In an antitrust case, the definition of the market can be the ballgame, because whether a defendant has monopoly power may depend on how tightly or widely you zoom in