This Thurs, April 23, at 2 pm ET, we'll host a WIPD event titled The Business of Sports and Copyright. We'll discuss everything from how #copyright applies to eSports to how model codes keep #sports events safe. Learn more and register here: us06web.zoom.us/webinar/regi...
I'm confused by this: "Roberts also claims the stay he's proposing is 'to preserve the status quo pending judicial review,' never mind that the 'status quo' was that the rule was in effect." Wouldn't the status quo be the state of things just before the challenged Clean Power Plan took effect?
When the Copyright Office registers a claim under the rule of doubt, a letter goes out. That letter says we have registered under the rule of doubt, and the correspondence box is checked so that any practicing attorney who sees a certificate that has the correspondence box checked, I would argue, should go and see what the-Copyright Office said about it. "Registered under the rule of doubt" is not stamped on the certificate. The reason is that if the court looks and finds that it is copyrightable, you have got a certificate that has a cloud on it for the rest of its life; so we do not mark the certificates. So keep in mind that we do operate under a rule of doubt.
I've been wondering why the Copyright Office didn't really register anything under the rule of doubt until 2008 under the '76 act. It turns out they did, it's just not listed on the registration. Source: Presentation by Marybeth Peters, Esq., 17 U. DAYTON L. REV. 755 (1992).
Copyright and trademark law just don't work that way. The staple article doctrine was for one scenario: unpatented parts of patented combinations. The courts were all over the map with this because of patent misuse, antitrust, and other related issues. Congress settled it in the 1952 Patent Act.
In patent law, if it's a staple article, then it can't be contributory infringement to sell it—even if the seller knows about the patent and infringement. Heck, even if they specifically intend for it to happen. Knowledge and intent are only relevant for non-staple articles. That's 271(c).
Not sure, but I would think so. And the ongoing relationship thing is important in Sony. The Court could have got the right answer (no liability) without even talking about fair use. Missed opportunity!
Sony is an easy case once you stop trying to make it about staple articles. Worth noting too that it's knowledge for contributory trademark infringement under Inwood, not intent. The decision today is the outlier.
"Sony certainly does not 'intentionally induce[ ]' its customers to make infringing uses of respondents' copyrights, nor does it supply its products to identified individuals known by it to be engaging in continuing infringement of respondents' copyrights."
The Sony Court came so close to getting it right in footnote 19: "If Inwood's narrow standard for contributory trademark infringement governed here, respondents' claim of contributory infringement would merit little discussion."
The original sin was Sony v. Universal. The staple article doctrine makes no sense in copyright law because copyrighted works are not staple articles. Staple articles are things like lumber and ink—unpatented things that are part of a patented combination. VCRs don't form part of a protected work.
They did align—before today. Contributory liability in patent law turns on knowledge, not intent. It's knowledge of the patent and knowledge of the infringement. Intent only matters for inducement. Now, in copyright law, you need intent for both contributory and inducement liability.
The Facebook page for her launch event says she's running for the 5th congressional district: www.facebook.com/events/13549...
If that's right, it's kind of weird that she's not kicking things off in that district.
The House of Lords Digital & Communications Committee just published their report on AI, copyright & the creative industries, and their conclusions could not be clearer.
🧵 1/5
Finally, last week's 2-1 Fifth Circuit opinion is required reading for understanding both sides of the issue: www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...
Judge Douglas's dissent is pure 🧠 & 🔥. [3/3]
Professor @stevevladeck.bsky.social has a great post on this: www.stevevladeck.com/p/208-the-fi...
Judge Kaplan's recent decision is great as well: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... [2/3]
The administration's reinterpretation of settled immigration law (N.B. 8 USC 1225(b)(2)(A)) isn't persuasive. But I think the main problem is procedural: We're seeing thousands of these cases b/c SCOTUS precedent requires individual habeas petitions (& prohibits classwide/nationwide relief). [1/3]
They say that someone has to hit rock bottom before they turn themself around. Maybe we’re at an inflection point? I truly hope so. This path is unsustainable.
I'm not familiar with Judge Leon's style, but he appears to like using exclamation points. I find them jarring, especially coming from a federal judge. But his use of "Horsefeathers!" (to mean "Nonsense!") is my new favorite thing ever. I'm already incorporating it into my personal lexicon.
More from @orinkerr.bsky.social at using administrative warrants to enter homes. ...
reason.com/volokh/2026/...
“DOJ’s ‘Notice of Corrections’ ought to give the justices real pause … about substituting their judgment for that of district courts at least where preliminary relief has been based upon an impoverished (or non-existant) record.”
Today’s “One First” on developments in the DOGE/Social Security case:
“The gypsies had no homes. The Doors had no bass. But don’t let that scare you, my friend. Let that liberate you! Cause when you’re free-flying with The Doors, man, what do you need a safety net for?” 😂
No such luck, unless you expressly ask for the temp and nothing else. But at least it doesn’t use the weird “more of the same” language anymore.
They need a new “reason for return” in the dropdown menu: Rufus misled me. I am enjoying Alexa+ more than the old version. The conversation mode is nice, and you can choose between a few different personalities.
A "big fat zero for ethics," but still the overall winner. Sigh.
SMH.
I had a blast discussing the Cox v. Sony case with @zvirosen.bsky.social, Ben Sheffner, & Jake Tracer. Thanks to all three panelists for the wonderful conversation!
The video from this morning's webinar is now available on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVFy...
Hope you can check it out!
Oakton, VA right now.
Tomorrow at 11:00 AM ET: I'm excited to be discussing the Cox v. Sony oral argument with my favorite #copyright geek @zvirosen.bsky.social at the "Courthouse Steps" webinar hosted by the Federalist Society. I hope you can join us!
Register here: fedsoc.org/events/court...
Please help me get the word out about the new websites for Legal Theory Blog and the Legal Theory Lexicon. Reposting here and on other social media sites is great. It would be especially helpful if law school faculty members could send an email to their colleagues with the new addresses.
