ari

Always a good sign when a complaint huffily references a coexistence agreement but doesn't (a) cite the terms or (b) actually allege the complained-of conduct breaches those terms 🙃

this goes with the dolans using facial recognition to detect and ban from their venues lawyers who are employed by firms suing them

my erudite opinion is that it's giving "evil mode"

Filing in "weird trademark hypos" for syllabus planning

p surprising that it took until 2023 to reach a coexistent agreement!

validating the axiom, "machines don't replace workers. cartoon dog bosses chomping cigars replace workers"

Excerpt from the novel Project Hail Mary: “Only when I want to.” Stratt held up a sheet of paper. “According to this international treaty, I am personally immune from prosecution for any crime anywhere on Earth. The United States Senate ratified that treaty two months ago.” She held up a second piece of paper. “And to streamline situations like this, I also have a preemptive pardon from the president of the United States for any and all crimes I am accused of within U.S. jurisdictions.” The bailiff took the papers and handed them to the justice. “This…” said the justice, “this is exactly what you say it is.” “I’m only here as a courtesy,” said Stratt. “I didn’t have to come at all. But since the software industry, patent trolls, and everyone else related to intellectual property banded together in one lawsuit, I figured it would be fastest to nip this in the bud all at once.” She grabbed her satchel and put the tablet inside. “I’ll be on my way.” “Hold on, Ms. Stratt,” said Justice Spencer. “This is still a court of law, and you will remain for the duration of these proceedings!” “No, I won’t,” said Stratt. The bailiff walked forward. “Ma’am. I’ll have to restrain you if you don’t comply.” “You and what army?” Stratt asked. Five armed men in military fatigues entered the courtroom and took up station around her. “Because I have the U.S. Army,” she said. “And that’s a damn fine army.”

this book is the worst shit i've ever read

This notice seems to state wrongly that the "entering unlawfully" fine applies to anyone who *previously* entered unlawfully and is "later encountered in the interior of the United States"—but the statute (Sec. 1325(b)(1)) requires they be "apprehended while entering." Is that a fair reading?

Text from Bartz v. Anthropic: "Section 106(1) reserves to the copyright owner the right to make reproductions. But on our facts we face the unusual situation where one copy entirely replaced the another. And, Section 106(2) reserves to the copyright owner the right to make derivative works that add or subtract creative material — as occurs in a “translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, [or] condensation” of a book, 17 U.S.C. § 101 (definitions). For some “other modification[ ]” of a book to constitute a “derivative work,” it must itself “represent an original work of authorship.” Ibid. But on our facts the format was changed but no content was added or subtracted."

i know the LLM training analysis in Bartz v. Anthropic will get attention, but don't skip Judge Alsup's maybe-unnecessary aside that digitizing and destroying a physical book results in no reproduction or derivative work:

One confusion created with the division: he's at a loss to identify an independent purpose to amassing the "central library," if not LLM dev. It's like he assumed that AI developers wanted a Borgesian universal repository just *cuz*. Then held "idk no reason" is not a valid factor 1 purpose

The evil AI from the future using capital to facilitate its own creation is probably annoyed today

fucking heavens, lol

oh yeah man how's the securities class action going! i just billed 0.4 hours screenshotting the phrase "DISCLAIMER: NO OVHOES WERE HARMED DURING THE MAKING OF THIS VIDEO." had to get the close-up shot too

Congratulations to the associates and paralegals at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP who painstakingly cataloged YouTube comments making fun of Drake storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

justice for KRANK3D

when a texas district court starts their opinion this way, you know you're in for a wild ride

Having encountered turkeys in person for the first time after moving to Cambridge, I can reliably confirm that those birds merit no interaction with the justice system beyond a few warranted traffic violations.

for some reason, unknowable to me, just decided to listen to "Not Like Us." pretty good song!

(assuming this one) iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewD...

Excerpt from In re Frozen Moments LLC v. UMG Recordings Inc., No. 161023/2024: 18. Petitioner has received information that UMG has been taking steps in an apparent effort to conceal its schemes, including, but not limited to, by terminating employees associated with or perceived as having loyalty to Drake. Indeed, UMG has demonstrated that it has no interest in taking responsibility for its misconduct. Over the past several months, Drake has repeatedly sought to engage UMG in discussions to resolve the ongoing harm he has suffered as a result of UMG’s actions. UMG refused to engage in negotiations, and insisted that UMG is not responsible for its own actions. Instead, UMG has pointed the finger at Mr. Duckworth, insisted that Drake should initiate legal action against Mr. Duckworth rather than UMG, and even threatened to bring its own legal claims against Mr. Duckworth if Drake were to pursue claims against UMG.

I desperately crave nothing more than to be a fly on that wall www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlAO...

All of Microsoft's services are down for me, an excellent reminder that it's good and smart to trust a single vendor with email, word processing, instant messaging, conferences, and calendars

Do you know if the Concord hearing will be publicly available? I can't quite tell from Judge Lee's website.

the cutest cat in the whole wide doggone world

happy almost thanksgiving everyone

Excerpt from discovery motion in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms. Plaintiffs state: "Further, the application of the crime-fraud exception does not require that the attorney intends for the crime to go through: in fact, the attorney need not even be aware that his 'advice may further an illegal purpose.'" United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 540 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Hodge & Zweig, 548 F.2d 1347, 1354 (9th Cir. 1977)). The client's intent to violate the law and reliance on counsel in furtherance of the violation are sufficient to break the privilege. See In re Grand Jury, 87 F.3d 381. fn.9 A. Meta was engaged in or planning a scheme to infringe copyrighted works for use in its LLM. Meta knowingly infringed Plaintiffs' copyrights—a fact that even Meta cannot meaningfully dispute. First, Meta knew the contents of the pirated datasets included copyrighted works. [Remainder of text redacted] n.9 Meta's fair use defense is not relevant to the crime-fraud inquiry. Meta made a business determination to pursue what it believed was copyright infringement. See In re Grand Jury, 87 F.3d at 381. Its argument that this could constitute fair use after the fact cannot negate a prima facie showing of crime-fraud. If the mere fact that Meta raised an affirmative defense to Plaintiffs' copyright infringement claim were sufficient to defeat the crime-fraud exception, then the exception would be overwhelmed. Any abuse of the attorney-client relationship could be concealed by the raising of an affirmative defense.

quite an argument in a discovery motion in the AI cases:

because counsel advised on fair use, they furthered Crimefraud so defendant must fork over the privileged docs

(this is buried on page 9 in Part IV, and is in-the-alternative, but still, woof!)

Enjoyed the first episode of SAY NOTHING but there was a conspicuous absence of a mysterious Silo

101? lol: understanding the protectability of joke structure within the Supreme Court's subject matter eligibility jurisprudence

Very curious to see the extent to which this holding constrains the follow-on action filed under the new copyright registration per fn.6 (which I think incorrectly[?] calls it a sound recording copyright).

truly the basest of balls

good morning! t-shirts should be happy to live in the dryer among their friends :) they should not shrink :(