..."it is difficult for plaintiff's attorney to call to discuss confidential and privileged matters regarding this case."
Um, if you are talking to opposing counsel, the very last thing you should be talking about is confidential and privileged matters -- regarding your client at least. Especially with regard to discovery disputes, all communications with opposition should be made with the idea that they may end up as an exhibit.
I am starting to think that Techdirt's "wow dept" may need its own separate blog.
I am also starting to long for the days when the stories were about buffoonish censorious asshattery and desperate dying business models, rather that stories of US Govt. activities that directly affect me, and would make Stalin simultaneously blush and turn green with envy.
Beat me to it. Yes, the click-wrap agreement (check the box) when you sign up for RipoffReport is almost certainly binding, and the copyright license as written is irrevocable. Regardless whether the Court had authority to transfer the copyright in the first place (questionable), the assignment of the copyright would not in itself revoke any licenses. (Could you imagine the mayhem if it could? You don't like the licenses you granted, so you assign it to your cousin ...)
I didn't see mention of the license in the Complaint -- a deliberate omission, or was Mr. End-Run only thinking one step at a time?
(Pay no attention to ootb, it knows naught of which it speaks.)
The rationale is that cell phone companies are not required by the government to create or retain this data and that citizens are not required by the government to carry or use cell phones, thus making this data subject to the Third Party Doctrine and removing any expectation of privacy.
Uh, we're not required by the government to live in a house either, but I'm pretty sure the 4th Amendment covers that, as well as our "papers and effects" which in relation to cell phones, the former being accessible or stored in the latter.
My father and I split a Westlaw bill of over $500 per month for access to various codes, cases, and practice materials. Our money of course is not for the cases and statutes, which are freely available -- it's for the annotations.
The annotations are short blurbs under headings for various legal points that show how the statute was applied in various cases. The annotations require attorneys qualified in the field to dig through each reported case that cites the statute and summarize its application to fact. That requires tons of man-hours and particular knowledge and skill sets. Annotations are incredibly helpful and save enormous amounts of research time.
So I can see why Georgia would have an issue with those kind of annotations being published for free. But ... then ... I always assumed that the annotations were drafted by the company providing them (Westlaw, LexisNexis).
I downloaded one of the uploaded documents to see what's up, and 1) the annotations are largely just quick "editor's notes" regarding the statutes and legislative histories, not much, but probably enough for copyright protection; and 2) the hard copy book which was scanned was provided by LexisNexis, but Georgia still holds the copyright. Interesting.
Sum, Georgia looks legally justified, but is probably overreacting. The books are scanned in an unwieldy list, took forever to download, and these annotations are largely useless.
I just called my congresswoman to ask her to support Amash's amendment (paraphrasing fightforthefuture.org's language). I added that, as a tech attorney, I understand what is being collected, and cannot see how NSA's data collection efforts are remotely constitutional. Dude said "we've gotten a lot of calls about that" and he'd absolutely pass it along.
She's my representative. I got a response from her last Friday to one of the "knock it off" emails I sent. It came with a multi-page pdf talking points memo too! It was so chock-full-o-bullshit (as here) that I had to take the rest of the afternoon off and go shoot billiards to avoid destroying any of my belongings or scaring my pets. Only slight exaggeration, and not about Feinstein's response.
You keep using the term "hoover" as a verb, which is 1) distinctly British terminology (I know, because I'm from California and I own the Monty Python box set); and 2) a flagrant use of Hoover's trademark generically in a public forum, risking Hoover's exclusive rights. Don't you care about Hoover's trademarks?
A Theory on the Seeming Ubuiquity of Bad Lawyering
Thing is, in law school they teach you the law, and if you're lucky, some practical skills for the real world. But it's all rather abstract until you are actually in the litigation trenches.
Used to be that most law students would get a clerking job or internship while in school, where they would be mentored by a practicing attorney on how things actually work; what kind of arguments or motions you can actually bring without looking like an idiot or failing the laugh test; and how to go about doing it. Or, would get a job at a law firm after graduation, obtaining the same guidance.
Last five years or so, I have increasingly been astounded by incomprehensible arguments, bizarre motions, and all sorts of litigation weirdness that only frustrates and wastes the time and resources of the Court and all others involved.
When looking at the attorneys' backgrounds, these are often fairly new attorneys, with no boots-on-the-ground practical law firm experience. This trend's timing ties into that whole economic crash business and law firms downsizing, and the like. So these kids just go into business for themselves right out of school, and are wreaking bizarre havoc in the Courts.
This theory was recently buttressed by the California Bar, who is working up proposed CLE practical experience requirements for new lawyers. (OK, so it isn't just me who is seeing this trend.)
An old adage was that a person who graduates from law school then hangs out a shingle should put the word "Malpractice" on it as well.
You damn sure don't want a doctor just out of school cutting into you based on his test scores. Similarly, you probably don't want a fresh new lawyer on his own representing you on anything, you know, important.
I frankly don't know what practical experience the Prenda-related lawyers had prior to opening up their own shops, but I can sure see the correlation to the above theory (with an added extra dose of ethical bankruptcy).
John Steele has done nothing more than what most copyright enforcers do and have to go on.
Satire "horse" or not, are you saying that most copyright enforcement lawyers actually own the copyrights in the porn works sued upon -- works which were likely never "published" per copyright law or ever made for sale, but instead likely posted by the same lawyer on torrent sites to bait potential defendants -- and machinate elaborate subterfuges to obscure the lawyers' ownership of the works from the Courts and public using forged documents, and simultaneously brag about all the money they make, and then respond to legitimate concerns of defendants regarding this activity by carpet bombing most anyone who would formally claim they are doing what they are doing with accusations and retaliatory lawsuits, and then lie like the dickens to the Courts and everyone to brazenly attempt to foist their own cognitive dissonance on everyone else in the face of, you know, reality? Is that what you are saying?
(I know, I know: Don't feed the trolls. But I couldn't help but post this epic sentence after it popped into my head.)
I have dealt with the CA State Bar several times regarding disciplinary proceedings (not about myself). They are way overloaded with (usually unfounded) complaints, and don't tend to countenance bull*** -- not having the time.
My take: They'll look first for the bull, and they should find it rather rapidly.