decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Accused Movie Pirate Sues for Defamation and Millions in Damages | 100 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Accused Movie Pirate Sues for Defamation and Millions in Damages
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 12:17 PM EDT
'porn can’t be copyrighted as it is not a “useful art.”'

Wow. Now that's an argument that would be highly amusing to see pass, as it
would apply to most of what the MAFIAA litigate over.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Accused Movie Pirate Sues for Defamation and Millions in Damages
Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT

I think his "useful art" argument isn't going to fly. In the Constitution the phrase isn't used to describe what is to be covered by copyrights and patents, it's used in the phrase describing why copyrights and patents should exist. What they would cover is independent of that. Most fiction of any sort wouldn't fall under the heading of "useful arts", ditto for most music, but you can't make a serious argument that works of fiction and music can't be copyrighted because of that.

Throwing stuff like that in is IMO counterproductive: it's got no realistic chance of passing muster, and it gives the judge one more reason to decide you're a loon and hand the case to your opponent.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

He'll Win
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
on a pokey technicality which will leave the bulk of his arguments
untested, and the field wide open for future trolling.

---

79. Plaintiff has failed to pay court filing fees which were due and
proper based on the causes of action Plaintiff alleged.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )