Legal decisions based on what the law is not — the “permission culture” and copyright overclaiming

One thing law students don’t get at all is the ways lawyers negotiate a world in which legal decisions are based on what the law is not.

Mike Masnick over at techdirt, , writing about the “Permission Culture” (that is, the culture that insists that sampling and quoting should only be done with permission), puts his finger directly on one of the biggest problems — the fear of even frivolous lawsuits, even by big publishing concerns, prevents writers, musicians, and artists from quoting, sampling, and appropriating parts of copyrighted works they don’t need permission to take:

The unfortunate reality these days is that publishers won’t touch such quotes without permission being granted. It’s almost impossible to find a publisher these days that would sign off on even that snippet of eight words, claiming that they don’t want the liability of a lawsuit. I’ve had this discussion a few times with authors and publishers, and they all say the same thing: due to the potential liability of a lawsuit, even if it clearly does appear to be fair use, it’s just not worth using the quote. In fact, we discussed this point here last year, where we wrote about an author who had to drop an entire section of a book, because of a few short quotes. Clear fair use… but his publisher wouldn’t touch it.

I would suggest too that one reason publishers won’t publish books without permission for the use of quotations is that they perceive it to be in their interests not to do so. That way, other publishers will ask and pay for permission to use quotations from their own books. That is why, I am convinced, the music industry never has seriously challenged lower court decisions requiring permission (and, presumably, payment) for the use of any recorded sample — the practice makes each company’s record vault’s sources of income.

The problem, of course is exacerbated considerably because the wealth and of the corporate conglomerates that own so much of our intellectual property. Who is going to fight Disney, even if he’s right? Another problem is the widespread ignorance in the media about copyright. As Richard Posner has written, the fear of litigating against rich copyright holders who place a premium on their fear of losing something of value leads to behavior based on law that isn’t at all what the law is supposed to be:

Look at the copyright page in virtually any book, or the copyright notice at the beginning of a DVD or VHS film recording. The notice will almost always state that no part of the work can be reproduced without the publisher’s (or movie studio’s) permission. This is a flat denial of fair use. The reader or viewer who thumbs his nose at the copyright notice risks receiving a threatening letter from the copyright owner. He doesn’t know whether he will be sued, and because the fair use doctrine is vague, he may not be altogether confident about the outcome of the suit. The would-be fair user is likely to be an author, movie director, etc. and he will find that his publisher or studio is a strict copyright policeman. That is, since a publisher worries about expansive fair uses of the books he publishes, he doesn’t want to encourage such uses by permitting his own authors to copy from other publishers’ works. So you have a whole “law in action” law invented by publishers, including ridiculous rules such as that any quotation of more than two lines of a poem requires a copyright license.

Viacom’s schizophrenia over YouTube: the industry cries “serial killer!”

Does YouTube threaten the entertainment industry? On the one hand, Viacom and others will scream that it threatens the very livelihood of those who produce our entertainment. On the other, Viacom and others use it effectively to promote their products. And would you really prefer a regime that required YouTube to approve the legitimacy of every video uploaded to it? Frankly, it simply wouldn’t exist if that were required. To me it makes sense that if a copyright holder believes his copyright is being infringed by an online video, he can have it removed upon request. And if the person who uploaded the video believes the request is mistaken, he can ask Google to review it and make its determination at that point whether it will allow it to remain.

Moreover, history teaches that you should view with extreme skepticism the cries of alarm from the entertainment industry. In doing so, you likely would be doing them a favor.

As I wrote the other day in connection with the decision dismissing Viacom’s lawsuit against Google alleging copyright infringement for the posting on YouTube of videos infringing Viacom’s copyrights, As I wrote above, the existing regime makes sense to me and, as I wrote in that recent post,  ”[t]he decision is a straightforward application of the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision, which insulates service providers from liability for activities by their users that infringe copyrights.” Viacom, of course, disagrees, stating in its press release:

We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the intent of Congress, and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions. We intend to seek to have these issues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible.

And those who represent the interests of large corporate copyright holders such as Viacom, like the Washington Legal Foundation (whose mission is to “champion free market principles [and] limited and accountable government”) argue that the decision allows Google “to exploit the statute’s safe harbors by designing an entire business model based on improperly profiting from copyrighted content.” Ronald Cass writes in Forbes that the decision is “broad enough to sink the protection copyright holders had enjoyed under the law.” And the Directors Guild of America claims its members’ very livelihoods are at stake:

We fear that the precedent established in this ruling, if not overturned by the appeals court, could result in a drastic rising tide of Internet theft that could decimate our members’ livelihoods, their pension and health plans, and their ability to continue creating the content that is beloved by people all over the world.

Reading these dire warnings you might not realize that as the judge stated in his decision Google took down the offending videos the day after Viacom delivered a mass takedown notice identifying the ones it claimed a copyright in. Nor would you realize that Viacom recognized the value of YouTube to its business by employing people to post its videos to YouTube to promote its productions while at the same time other Viacom employees were adding those same videos to the list for the takedown notice:

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately “roughed up” the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt “very strongly” that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Fear that directors will have their livelihoods decimated and that the decision sinks copyright protection is of course, nothing new for an entertainment industry that can profit enormously from new technologies they demonize, so Viacom’s schizophrenia is, perhaps, progress over Hollywood’s reaction to the VCR, which was 100% self-destructive. In 1982, Jack Valenti, in sworn testimony before Congress , stated “that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.” But, as Digital America explains, Valenti was not merely crying wolf — he was describing the greatest benefit to the movie industry in the last 40 years as a serial killer:

As the VCR became more important to the consuming public, the Hollywood establishment that fought it bowed to its inevitable benefits. In January 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded 5-4 that VCRs were legal products and that home taping of copyrighted works fell under the “fair use” exception to copyright. While Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA), legislative attempts to codify the Betamax decision and fair video recording rights are still pending before Congress. CEA (at that time known as the Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronic Industries Association), in cooperation with the Home Recording Rights Coalition, protected the legality of home recording and promoted the acceptance of the new technology.

Additionally Hollywood studios established home video divisions to reap the profits from a technology it once considered a threat. Blay’s idea sparked a retail revolution as hundreds of mom-and-pop video rental and sales stores popped up in every community in America. In 1987, video rental income reached $5.25 billion for the year, surpassing movie theater ticket sales for the first time. Today, movie studios regularly make more money on a film from home video sales and rentals than from the theatrical box office.

Losing $500 million was a legal win: outcomes and predictions from a lawyer’s point-of-view

In case you haven’t read it already, there’s a new study that purports to establish that lawyers consistently overestimate the chances of success in their cases (pdf). David Post of the Volokh Conspiracy takes the study and applies the typical academic condescension to practitioners: “I’m constantly amazed, given the obvious fact that half of all litigants are holding losing hands, at how easily most lawyers can persuade themselves of the rightness of their client’s cause.”

Jeff Gamso, a criminal defense attorney (and former English professor!) in Toledo, Ohio who writes a terrific blog, Gamso for the Defense, takes a much more nuanced approach to the study in his post, “Blessed are the Oddsmakers.” First, it’s important to note the difference between criminal defense and civil litigation. As Gamso reminds his readers, in his practice, “[m]ost trials result in guilty verdicts. But most cases aren’t tried; they’re resolved by pleas of one sort or another.” It reminds me of what a friend of mine, a public defender, once told my class in response to the question “what’s the hardest part of your job?” He answered, “Losing 95% of my cases.”

But Gamso reminds us that pleas, the criminal analog to a civil settlement, is a strategic move made with the best possible` estimation of likelihood of success at trial, an estimation by no means easy to make:

The idea of the plea is that it’s a compromise because trials are problematic. They’re a lot of work and they are, ultimately, uncertain. Anyone who’s been at this for a while can tell you that juries and judges sometimes surprise. We win (whatver that means) some cases we should lose. We lose (whatever that means) some cases we should win. The jury, the judge, the world sometimes just gets it wrong.

Accordingly, the decision to accept an offer from the other side is a complicated combination of prediction of an uncertain future, the ability to convey the relevant information to the client, the other side’s own predictions and resulting offer (if any), the client’s own inclinations and decision (it is his decision), and the adversary’s response to the client’s decision.

Perhaps most importantly, however, it’s fundamental to any effective legal representation to understand that lawsuits and prosecutions are not binary, win/loss situations. Overcoming binary thinking is, in fact, one of the most important and difficult tasks in teaching first year law students. It’s difficult enough to get students to understand that the outcome of a case is the only thing that matters to a client, but then also to get them to realize that the result is usually a whole lot more complicated matter than merely stating that the plaintiff or defendant won or lost. (And it’s a shame that Remedies is one of the most neglected courses in law schools these days.) Let’s get this straight: Exxon won the litigation which resulted in it paying over $500 million in punitive damages. Or, as Gamso so pungently puts it in connection with criminal defense:

[David] Dow tells of Van Orman, an innocent man on death row. He simply didn’t commit the crime. He’s also got mental retardation. Dow proves the retardation and gets him off the row. Now the innocent man will do life in prison. “But I’m a death-penalty lawyer and Van Orman won’t get executed, so I count it as a victory. One of my clients committed suicide a week before his execution. That’s a victory. Another died of AIDS. A victory.”

You bet. I had a client who died of hepatitis right after I filed the papers asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. He died before the state had a chance to reply, certainly before the Court ruled. That goes down as a win. That’s how it works when you’re doing death penalty defense. Whenever the government doesn’t murder your client, you’ve got a win.

All of which is a way of saying that in this business, winning often isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition. Confession suppressed? Win. Even if the drugs aren’t suppressed? Yep. Just not a complete win.

•Get some of the charges dismissed? Win. Even if the client’s found guilty of some things? Yep. Just not a complete win.

•Get a five year sentence? Win if the client might have gotten 8. Or 50.

•LWOP? Win if the alternative was death.

•Continuance? Hung jury? Wins. Even if they’re only temporary. (The old line is that a continuance is as good as an acquittal – it just doesn’t last as long.)

•Client goes home after a not guilty verdict? Big Win.

And on it goes.

The key isn’t that what counts as a win depends. The key is that you need to have a sense of things. (emphasis added)

Yes, the key is to have a sense of things. A win is getting the best outcome the circumstances permit you to get for a client. Do human beings tend to be overconfident in their predictions? Cognitive science establishes that does indeed seem to be the case, and as a lawyer you ought to be aware of it, and you ought to be aware that your adversary shares the same bias, and you ought to be aware of the risks associated with going to trial, and you ought to be aware of your client’s fears and desires and his ability to deal with risk and loss. You need to have a sense of an infinite number of things, and the better your sense of these things is and the better you are at communicating them to your client, the better you will be as a lawyer and the better the outcomes you will produce. Will you be able to tally those outcomes as wins and losses? Only if you have a very flexible understanding of what constitutes a win or a loss.

David Souter gives a lesson in judging and the failures of Originalism.

Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter recently gave the commencement address at Harvard. In doing so, he set forth clearly and in ways anyone can understand why it is ridiculous to suggest that interpretation of the Constitution merely requires a judge to engage in a “straightforward exercise of reading fairly and viewing facts objectively.” He makes clear that, in his words, such a simplistic view “has only a tenuous connection to reality.” In doing so, he answers “criticism that the court is making up the law, that the court is announcing constitutional rules that cannot be found in the Constitution, and that the court is engaging in activism to extend civil liberties.”

The entire speech is worth reading for anyone interested in a high-level lesson in constitutional analysis given in clear, straightforward prose. I will try here to touch on a few of its highlights.

First, Souter points out that many of the Constitution’ guarantees are phrased in such open-ended language that they necessarily will require a large degree of interpretive work to determine their application to new facts in new times: ‘The Constitution has a good share of deliberately open-ended guarantees, like rights to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and freedom from unreasonable searches.” He contrasts these provisions to provisions that provide bright lines that make decision easy — provisions such as the requirement that Senators be 30 years old.

But, as he makes clear, pointing out that determining, for example, whether a given governmental action satisfies the requirement of “due process” “hardly scratches the surface” of constitutional judging. First, provisions may be clear and yet any consideration of their real implications makes obvious that they cannot be applied literally. Second, as I’ve pointed out before (in discussing why “empathy” plays a far greater part in judging than implied those who would suggest empathy is merely soft-heartedness), determining which facts are more or less significant makes all the difference in the world of a judge:

The reasons that constitutional judging is not a mere combination of fair reading and simple facts extend way beyond the recognition that constitutions have to have a lot of general language in order to be useful over long stretches of time. Another reason is that the Constitution contains values that may well exist in tension with each other, not in harmony. Yet another reason is that the facts that determine whether a constitutional provision applies may be very different from facts like a person’s age or the amount of the grocery bill; constitutional facts may require judges to understand the meaning that the facts may bear before the judges can figure out what to make of them.

To make these points, Souter uses two examples. The first was the Pentagon Papers case, in which the “New York Times and the Washington Post had each obtained copies of classified documents prepared and compiled by government officials responsible for conducting the Vietnam War. The newspapers intended to publish some of those documents, and the government sought a court order forbidding the publication.” While the Court ruled that the newspapers had the right under the First Amendment to publish the Pentagon Papers, it did not do so on the simple basis that the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” (emphasis added.) Instead, the Court adopted the interpretation advanced by Irwin Griswold, who responded to the suggestion by Justice Black that the case was a simple one of applying the rule that “no law” means “no law” with the argument that it was not so simple:

Now Mr. Justice, your construction of that is well-known, and I certainly respect it. You say that no law means no law, and that should be obvious. I can only say, Mr. Justice, that to me it is equally obvious that “no law” does not mean “no law,” and I would seek to persuade the Court that that is true.

Thus, the [C]ourt’s majority decided only that the government had not met a high burden of showing facts that could justify a prior restraint, and particular members of the court spoke of examples that might have turned the case around, to go the other way. Threatened publication of something like the D-Day invasion plans could have been enjoined; Justice Brennan mentioned a publication that would risk a nuclear holocaust in peacetime.”

How can it be that “no law” does not mean “no law”? Isn’t that kind of “interpretation” exactly the kind of thing that gives judges a bad name? As Souter makes clear, it is nothing of the sort; it’s the reason we consider judging an activity requiring the utmost in wisdom, intelligence, and experience. The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press cannot possibly be absolute because the Constitution provides for a plethora of other individual rights and governmental obligations, no one of which is entirely consistent with the other. As the examples above illustrate, we also have to account for the constitutional authority of the President to provide for national security . As anyone who has considered matters of individual liberty at any depth know, individual liberty is often necessarily at odds with equality. Yet the Constitution guarantees both individual liberty and equality. As Souter explains, an interpretation based on merely believing “no law” in the First Amendment means “no law”

fails because the Constitution has to be read as a whole, and when it is, other values crop up in potential conflict with an unfettered right to publish, the value of security for the nation and the value of the president’s authority in matters foreign and military. The explicit terms of the Constitution, in other words, can create a conflict of approved values, and the explicit terms of the Constitution do not resolve that conflict when it arises. The guarantee of the right to publish is unconditional in its terms, and in its terms the power of the government to govern is plenary. A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty. And we want not only liberty but equality as well. These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one. The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice. And choices like the ones that the justices envisioned in the Papers case make up much of what we call law.

Souter’s second example is The Supreme Court’s decision in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Court unanimously held that racial segregation in public schools imposed violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law. As Souter explains, “Brown ended the era of separate-but-equal, whose paradigm was the decision in 1896 of the case called Plessy v. Ferguson, where the Supreme Court had held it was no violation of the equal protection guarantee to require black people to ride in a separate railroad car that was physically equal to the car for whites.”

Souter, significantly, thinks that best explanation for the differences in the results between Plessy and Brown is an explanation that is forbidden to those who would believe the Constitution means now what it did in 1789 and must always mean what it meant in 1789: “the difference between the cases is the dates they were decided.”

How can this be so? It is because the significance of facts differ from judge to judge, and, of course, the significance of facts differs over time. What seemed equal treatment of the races in 1896 — when the contrast was to the recent legality of slavery — no longer seemed equal in 1954, and it would be folly to suggest otherwise:

[T]he generation in power in 1954 looked at enforced separation without the revolting background of slavery to make it look unexceptional by contrast. As a consequence, the judges of 1954 found a meaning in segregating the races by law that the majority of their predecessors in 1896 did not see. That meaning is not captured by descriptions of physically identical schools or physically identical railroad cars. The meaning of facts arises elsewhere, and its judicial perception turns on the experience of the judges, and on their ability to think from a point of view different from their own. Meaning comes from the capacity to see what is not in some simple, objective sense there on the printed page. And when the judges in 1954 read the record of enforced segregation it carried only one possible meaning: It expressed a judgment of inherent inferiority on the part of the minority race. The judges who understood the meaning that was apparent in 1954 would have violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution if they had not held the segregation mandate unconstitutional.

As Souter so succinctly puts the matter: “So much for the assumption that facts just lie there waiting for an objective judge to view them.” And so much for the contention by John Roberts that judging is merely a matter of “calling balls and strikes.” As Souter says, such a simplistic view of what judges do “fails to account for what the Constitution actually says, and it fails just as badly to understand what judges have no choice but to do.” “Judges have to choose between the good things that the Constitution approves, and when they do, they have to choose, not on the basis of measurement, but of meaning.”

Most fundamentally, Souter sees the contrast between his view of the Constitution and the view of those who would have it that judging his way means that he is making it up along the way to evade the plain language of the law as the contrast between those who would impose certainty in a world where there is no certainty. Most importantly, Souter believes that, in the face of uncertainty, we fulfill our national aspirations best by applying reason and judgment to the application of the principles that our nation was established to uphold:

Where I suspect [I] differ most fundamentally[from the those who would apply a simple, literal meaning to constitutional language] is in my belief that in an indeterminate world I cannot control, it is still possible to live fully in the trust that a way will be found leading through the uncertain future. And to me, the future of the Constitution as the Framers wrote it can be staked only upon that same trust. If we cannot share every intellectual assumption that formed the minds of those who framed the charter, we can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way they must have envisioned, by relying on reason, by respecting all the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for living people.

That is how a judge lives in a state of trust, and I know of no other way to make good on the aspirations that tell us who we are, and who we mean to be, as the people of the United States.

What is the best preparation for law school? I’d suggest it is a liberal arts education.

I am often asked what type of undergraduate education best prepares a student for law school. Most of my life I’ve been completely baffled by the question. It never occurred to me that my very Classical liberal arts education — I double majored in Ancient Greek and Latin — would be something to recommend, and while I have always been a huge supporter of liberal arts education, I never felt confident in recommending it as preparation for law school. But neither was I ever persuaded that my students who had thought long and hard about choosing the “right” major to prepare for law school — and ended up thereby majoring in political science, business, or economics — were any better prepared than those students who had not chosen an undergraduate major based on a desire to “prepare” for law school.

I was reminded of this question in reading Rebecca Mead’s commentary on the views of certain economists that an undergraduate degree is not an economically wise way of earning a living. As Mead explains, this conclusion is based in part on the fact that the greatest opportunities to earn money in the near future are in fields in which a college degree is not required:

Economics majors aren’t doing badly . . . : their starting salary averages about fifty thousand a year, rising to a mid-career median of a hundred and one thousand. Special note should be taken of the fact that if you have an economics degree you can, eventually, make a living proposing that other people shouldn’t bother going to college. This, at least, is the approach of Professor Richard K. Vedder, of Ohio University, who is the founder of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. According to the Times, eight out of the ten job categories that will add the most employees during the next decade—including home-health aide, customer-service representative, and store clerk—can be performed by someone without a college degree. “Professor Vedder likes to ask why fifteen percent of mail carriers have bachelor’s degrees,” the paper reported.

In addition, “[a]nother economist, Professor Robert I. Lerman, of American University (Ph.D., M.I.T.), told the Times that high schools, rather than readying all students for college, should focus on the acquisition of skills appropriate to the workplace. According to the Times, these include the ability to ’solve problems and make decisions,’ ‘resolve conflict and negotiate,’ ‘coöperate with others,’ and’listen actively.’”

These opinions awoke in me a gnawing feeling that has been building in me the past couple of years — the feeling that the best educational preparation for being a lawyer is a liberal arts education.

One particular moment in the last 2 years stands out form me in considering this question. I was reviewing an exam with a student and explaining a clever argument another student had come up with in connection with the interpretation of ambiguous contract language. The contract called for the supply of sweetener to the manufacturer of a soda being marketed to the types of buyers who would be interested in “healthier” alternatives to mass market sodas. The contract provided for the supply of “sugar,” and the dispute arose when the supplier substituted high fructose corn syrup for granulated sugar as the sweetener. The other students argument was based on the greater attractiveness of granulated sugar to the buyers the soda manufacturer was targeting to argue in favor of an interpretation that would limit “sugar” to granulated sugar even though high fructose corn syrup is also, chemically, a “sugar.”  The student with whom I was meeting thought about this point, realized the argument was a good one and one she herself had not come up with, but still felt my point was objectionable because the argument was grounded in facts about the world she didn’t know. So she told me, “You’re not testing us on Contracts. You’re testing us on what we know about the world!”

I smiled, and I explained: if you don’t know about the world, you can’t understand law. Law doesn’t supply answers that exist independent of the world it answers questions about. In contract interpretation, courts are asked to determine, based on the available evidence, what they believe people  intended contracts to mean. The “rules” that govern those interpretive acts don’t work like mathematical formulas — they constitute a structured way of approaching the question of what people intended, nothing more, and therefore don’t provide any way out of answering the question; what do you think the people entering this contract intended? While the rules might limit the scope of evidence that can be considered, within that scope anything that persuades the court about the intended meaning is fair game for the court to consider. So, in the question I was considering with my student, the attractiveness of granulated sugar to the  manufacturer’s target market was a very relevant consideration — if you could show that both the supplier and the manufacturer knew and understood the marketing strategy, you could argue persuasively that they both intended “sugar” in the contract to mean only “granulated sugar” and not to include high fructose corn syrup.

And so, more and more often I have found myself telling my students that in addition to studying law they should be learning everything they possibly can about everything. I hate to be that vague, but, at the same time, I am quite serious. Would a better education in “decision making” have helped BP decision makers planning for offshore oil drilling than an education grounded in Greek Tragedy? I don’t think so.

Why would a mail carrier consider an undergraduate education worthwhile even if the tuition is economically out of balance with his earnings as a mail carrier? I hate to say it — because I hate the thought it needs to be said — but the education might make him a happier person and the money he will earn is not the only measure of his happiness.

And what should you learn to prepare for law school? Anything and everything, but learn it well.

Princeton values money-grubbing over open contribution to current political debate.

Whether or not it is merited, there is considerable political import being attributed to Elena Kagan’s college thesis, a study of the collapse of Socialism as a political movement in the U.S. in the early decades of the 20th Century. On the far right, the thesis is being touted as proof that “Elena Kagan is an open and avowed socialist.” Slightly less conclusory, the Weekly Standard acknowledges that “[o]bviously, one imagines that Kagan’s views have evolved significantly over the last three decades” since her work as an undergraduate, but asserts that “it’s certainly worth noting the radical roots of the nation’s top lawyer.”

What is this evidence of the “radical roots” of Elena Kagan’s thinking? In the conclusion of the 130 page undergraduate paper that describes the political dissolution of the organized socialist political movement in New York City during the first couple of decades of the 1900s — largely due to the conflicts the Socialists came into with the Communists —  she wrote:

In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties? . . .

Through its own internal feuding, then, the [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.

Ben Smith of Politico concludes that the thesis is written “from a general sympathetic position,” but that really what it all adds up to is her “practical minded conclusion” that “for those who . . . still wish to change America” the lesson is “[i]n unity lies their only hope.”  Smith concludes that “if there is a takeaway for the Kagan of today, I think it’s that practical-minded conclusion, and the sense that she is, in the end — and like Obama — a very practical pol.”

Andrew Leonard takes an even more pro-Kagan view of the thesis, concluding that it proves her “a superb writer who grounds her argument in scrupulous attention to historical detail.” Leonard, while he may be over-inflating the importance of undergraduate work, at least recognizes that the thesis cannot be viewed as propaganda but, instead, involves a complicated history completely ignored by those who would reduce political debate to simplistic labels like “socialist” or “fascist” or “conservative” or “liberal.” The history Kagan addressed in her thesis involved the fight against the truly atrocious labor standards faced by U.S. factory workers, and to ignore that context and how far we’ve come would be to engage in stupidity. Leonard writes:

Kagan makes a pretty good case that sectarian bickering and factionalism doomed the Socialist Party to irrelevance. The leaders of the New York Socialist Party embraced a moderate, accommodationist approach to improving worker conditions that put them at odds with rank-and-file workers who tended to be more militant. This made it easy for Communist Party organizers to infiltrate the garment worker unions and challenge the Socialist Party leadership’s control. Ultimately, a disastrously mishandled strike destroyed the credibility of both the Socialist and Communist factions, and worker demands for better conditions were sublimated into Roosevelt’s New Deal.

It would be stupid to infer what I believe now from what I wrote as an Ivy League senior in 1981. Yes, I’m Kagan’s precise contemporary. It is also stupid to run fearfully under the cover of words like “socialism” and “radicalism” without understanding that the history of a century ago that Kagan did write about nearly 30 years ago involved fights against injustice in which almost everyone in this country today would side with the “socialists” and “radicals.” I don’t think we want to return to the days when labor in this country was treated the way labor is in, say, China today.

But perhaps the stupidest thing of all is this: as Techdirt reports, Princeton has asserted that distribution of the thesis infringes the university’s copyright in it and has demanded that it be taken down from sites that have posted it.  ”The University is selling copies of her thesis, and apparently the commercial value just shot up:

It has been brought to my attention that you have posted Elena Kagan’s senior thesis online…. Copies provided by the Princeton University Archives are governed by U.S. Copyright Law and are for private individual use only. Any electronic distribution is prohibited, as noted on the first page of the copy that is on your website. Therefore I request that you remove it immediately before further action is taken.

Even assuming the newsworthiness of the thesis, its age, the youth and inexperience of its author and other factors do not make posting the thesis a non-infringing fair use, Princeton’s move is just stupid. One year ago, Princeton’s endowment was nearly $13 billion. Money-grubbing over a few bucks to be made on a new-found asset in the undergraduate work of a student from 30 years ago hardly seems a worthy of an institution that prides itself on conferring true genuine education to its student body and wisdom to the world.

Elena Kagan is no blank slate, and to say otherwise is to spout lies.

Enough already with this myth that Elena Kagan is a blank slate, typified by Michael Gerson: “The most prominent thing about Kagan is her extraordinary ability, while holding high-profile jobs in the legal profession, to say nothing on the major issues of the day.”

As I explained yesterday at some length, there’s good reason to believe Kagan will be forthcoming in her confirmation hearings about precisely what Gerson states it would “be helpful to know”: “her political, legal, and constitutional views.”

But even more importantly, this view that Kagan has been silent on political, legal, and constitutional issues is pure fiction. SCOTUS Blog, in almost 10,000 words, summarizes her career, and includes links to her legal scholarship. Eugene Volokh, no liberal, writes the following:

Kagan was a working scholar from 1991–95, and then 1999–2003. Between those years, she worked in the Clinton Administration; after those years, she was dean at Harvard Law School, a position that these days leaves its holder with very little time to do serious scholarship. In those eight years, she wrote or cowrote four major articles (linked to here), Presidential Administration (Harv. L. Rev. 2001), Chevron’s Nondelegation Doctrine (Harv. L. Rev. 2001, cowritten with David Barron), Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine (U. Chi. L. Rev. 1996), The Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality: R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Rust v. Sullivan, and the Problem of Content-Based Underinclusion (Sup. Ct. Rev. 1993). She also wrote three shorter but still substantial pieces, When a Speech Code Is a Speech Code: The Stanford Policy and the Theory of Incidental Restraints (U.C. Davis. L. Rev. 1996), Confirmation Messes, Old and New (U. Chi. L. Rev. 1995), and Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V. (U. Chi. L. Rev. 1993).

Quantitatively, this is quite good output for eight years as a working scholar. It looks a lot smaller if one looks at her career from 1991 to 2009, when she was appointed Solicitor General — but for the reasons I mentioned above, that’s not the right way to look at it.

Moreover, two of her articles have been judged to be quite important by her colleagues. Presidential Administration has been cited 305 times in law journal articles (according to a search of Westlaw’s JLR database) — an extraordinarily high number of citations for any article, especially one that is less than 10 years old. In fact, a HeinOnline list of all articles with more than 100 citations, run in August 2009, reports that her article was at the time the 6th most-cited law review article of all the articles published since 2000. Many legal scholars, even ones working in the relatively high-citation fields of constitutional law and administrative law, have never and will never write an article that is so much cited.

Chevron’s Nondelegation Doctrine has been cited 75 times, a very high number for an article’s first 10 years; I suspect that only a tiny fraction of one percent of all law review articles are cited at such a pace. Private Speech, Public Purpose has been cited 129 times, likewise a very high number. The Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality has been cited only 36 times, but that probably stems in large part from the fact that Supreme Court Review articles from that era are not on Westlaw or Lexis (ridiculous, especially for a faculty-edited journal with the Supreme Court Review’s excellent reputation, and likely stemming from a short-sighted non-licensing decision by the University of Chicago Press).

And while some articles might be heavily cited because they fit with academic ideological fashions, I don’t think these would qualify.

Blank slate, my ass.

My favorite part of her writing is her may be her reminiscence of Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked. It might be less in the scholarly mode, but it is perhaps as revealing as anything about what she would be like as a judge:

Justice Marshall thought all lawyers (and certainly all judges) should be reminded . . .  that behind law there are stories-stories of people’s lives as shaped by law, stories of people’s lives as might be changed by law. Justice Marshall had little use for law as abstraction, divorced from social reality (he muttered under his breath for days about Judge Bork’s remark that he wished to serve on the Court because the experience would be “an intellectual feast”); his stories kept us focused on law as a source of human well-being.

That this focus made the Justice no less a “lawyer’s lawyer” should be obvious; indeed, I think, quite the opposite. I knew, of course, before I became his clerk that Justice Marshall had been the most important-and probably the greatest-lawyer of the twentieth century. I knew that he had shaped the strategy that led to Brown v. Board of Education and other landmark civil rights cases; that he had achieved great renown (indeed, legendary status) as a trial lawyer; that he had won twenty-nine of the thirty-two cases he argued before the Supreme Court. But in my year of clerking, I think I saw what had made him great. Even at the age of eighty, his mind was active and acute, and he was an almost instant study.

Above all, though, he had the great lawyer’s talent (a talent many judges do not possess) for pinpointing a case’s critical fact or core issue. That trait, I think, resulted from his understanding of the pragmatic-of the way in which law worked in practice as well as on the books, of the way in which law acted on people’s lives. If a clerk wished for a year of spinning ever more refined (and ever less plausible) law-school hypotheticals, she might wish for a clerkship other than Justice Marshall’s. If she thought it more important for a Justice to understand what was truly going on in a case and to respond to those realities, she belonged in Justice Marshall’s chambers.

None of this meant that notions of equity governed Justice Marshall’s vote in every case; indeed, he could become quite the formalist at times. During the Term I clerked, the Court heard argument in Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. There, a number of Hispanic employees had brought suit alleging employment discrimination. The district court dismissed the suit, and the employees’ lawyer filed a notice of appeal. The lawyer’s secretary, however, inadvertently omitted the name of one plaintiff from the notice. The question for the Court was whether the appellate court had jurisdiction over the party whose name had been omitted; on this question rode the continued existence of the employee’s discrimination claim. My co-clerks and I pleaded with Justice Marshall to vote (as Justice Brennan eventually did) that the appellate court could exercise jurisdiction. Justice Marshall refused. As always when he disagreed with us, he pointed to the framed judicial commission hanging on his office wall and asked whose name was on it. (Whenever we told Justice Marshall that he “had to” dosomething-join an opinion, say-the Justice would look at us coldly and announce: “There are only two things I have to do-stay black and die.”

A smarter group of clerks might have learned to avoid this unfortunate grammatical construction.) The Justice referred in our conversation to his own years of trying civil rights claims. All you could hope for, he remarked, was that a court didn’t rule against you for illegitimate reasons; you couldn’t hope, and you had no right to expect, that a court would bend the rules in your favor. Indeed, the Justice continued, it was the very existence of rules-along with the judiciary’s felt obligation to adhere to them-that best protected unpopular parties. Contrary to some conservative critiques, Justice Marshall believed devoutly-believed in a near mystical sense-in the rule of law. He had no trouble writing the Torres opinion.

Elena Kagan, For Justice Marshall, 71 Texas L. Rev. 1125, 1127-28 (1993).

Confirmation Hearings for Supreme Court Nominees, Elena Kagan, and the mythical Borking of Robert Bork

During his confirmation hearings, prospective Chief Justice Roberts was questioned intensely about his respect for precedent, particularly in connection with Roe v. Wade. In keeping with the image he plainly intended to project as a true conservative, a non-activist who respects existing institutions, Roberts emphasized his respect for precedent. As I have previously written, Roberts’ purported respect for precedent didn’t prevent him recently from voting for and writing a concurring opinion in support of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, a decision that overturned 100 years of precedent supporting congressional restrictions on corporate campaign contributions.

I bring this up because of how refreshing I find Elena Kagan’s views on the confirmation process. Ever since the rejection of Robert Bork’s nomination by Ronald Reagan, right wingers have defined the verb “to bork” to refer “to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan’s nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork.” As a result, nominees since Bork have been careful to the point of absurdity to avoid revealing their views on their judicial philosophy or on particular judicial precedent.

But can anyone seriously believe that John Roberts would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade despite insisting, in connection with questions about it, on his respect for precedent? In advance of the Court’s decision in Citizen’s United, Jeffery Rosen wrote in the New York Times that Roberts could “support a narrow, restrained campaign finance decision that Republicans and Democrats can embrace, or he can hand down a broad, activist decision that turns our political system upside down.” Rosen expected the former because “when . . . Roberts became chief justice of the United States, he said that he hoped to emulate the modesty and unanimity of his greatest predecessor, John Marshall.”

We now know Roberts was lying.

It is worth keeping in mind, therefore, that  when he was nominated to the Supreme Court, Robert Bork

[P]romised to keep an open mind on the issue of abortion and the right to privacy. Liberal and moderate Democratic and Republican senators did not believe him, and they were right not to. Bork, after he resigned from the federal bench, admitted that he believed Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and all but explicitly said that had he been on the Supreme Court he would have provided the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Sheldon Goldman, Judicial Confirmation Wars: Ideology and the Battle for the Federal Courts, 39 U. Rich. L. Rev. 871 (2004-2005), citing Robert H. Bork, Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges at 71 (2003).

It’s worth noting Bork’s precise language in Coercing Virtue regarding Roe v. Wade and a later decision upholding it, Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

It is mind-boggling that citizens were admonished that accept Roe because they”must respect the “rule of law.” Both Roe and Casey are, in fact, crass violations of the rule of law; they are not rooted in any conceivable interpretation of the Constitution, and have nothing to do with “constitutional terms.”

This from the guy who said, in sworn testimony during his confirmation hearings, that he had an “open mind” about the constitutional basis for a right to privacy.

Why was Robert Bork rejected as a nominee to the Supreme Court? It was because his judicial philosophy was so out of tune with what the country expected of a Supreme Court judge in 1987 that the Senate deemed him unacceptable. We could not accept as a Supreme Court judge someone who at the time it mattered — when Congress was considering the legislation — opposed the Civil Rights Acts. We could not accept someone who once wrote passionately that the First Amendment protection of free speech did not extend to art and literature. As reported in 1987:

In 1963 and 1964, as a 36-year-old law professor, Mr. Bork wrote impassioned attacks on legislation to desegregate lunch counters and other public accommodations. He argued that the bill, by invading the liberty of proprietors to turn away blacks, was based on ”a principle of unsurpassed ugliness.” Not until 1973, when seeking Senate confirmation as Solicitor General, did he publicly renounce this view, stated with such unsurpassed surliness.

Even in his latest appearance he declined to revise his pinched view of civil rights. He has criticized some of the Supreme Court’s landmark civil rights decisions for reasons that vary from case to case. The bottom line, however, is almost always the same – unfavorable to minorities.

Free Speech. Repeatedly over the years, Judge Bork has taken a narrow view of the rights of expression. He declared that only the ”core” value of political speech was immune from government restraint. Not until 1984 did he allow as how art and literature might be protected, and then only because they sometimes relate to politics. His conversion, late, is also limited.

Even this limited liberty, in his view, remains utterly at the mercy of the majority when speech becomes advocacy of illegal action. The Court and the mainstream of public opinion have long tolerated strident dissent, reserving punishment for incitement to imminent lawless action. Judge Bork rejects this tradition. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania extracted from him a ”commitment” to apply settled law rather than his own view. But even such assurances failed to persuade the Judiciary Committee’s ablest questioner, who has decided to oppose the nomination.

So let’s get over this nonsense that Robert Bork was somehow wronged — Robert Bork was denied appointment to the Supreme Court because his judicial views were too far out of step with what the U.S. had come to expect from its Constitution in connection with protection against racial prejudice and restrictions on expression.

What does this have to do with Elena Kagan? Kagan believes that the Senate should explore a nominee’s views, that the confirmation hearings should not continue to be what they have been since the days of Robert Bork — silly, ritual dances that permit the likes of John Roberts to evade completely straight answers to questions that are of central importance to the operation of the Court. As Kagan has written:

The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the Court, and the views of the nominee; that discussion at once educated the public and allowed it to determine whether the nominee would move the Court in the proper direction. Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis. Such hearings serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government. Neither can such hearings contribute toward an evaluation of the Court and a determination whether the nominee would make it a better or worse institution. A process so empty may seem ever so tidy–muted, polite, and restrained–but all that good order comes at great cost. And what is worse even than the hearings themselves is a necessary condition of them: the evident belief of many senators that serious substantive inquiry of nominees is usually not only inessential, but illegitimate–that their insistent questioning of Judge Bork was justified, if at all, by his overt “radicalism” and that a similar insistence with respect to other nominees, not so obviously “outside the mainstream,” would be improper. This belief is not so often or so clearly stated; but it underlies all that the Judiciary Committee now does with respect to Supreme Court nominations. It is one reason that senators accede to the evasive answers they now have received from five consecutive nominees. It is one reason that senators emphasize, even in posing questions, that they are asking the nominee only about philosophy and not at all about cases–in effect, inviting the nominee to spout legal theory, but to spurn any demonstration of what that theory might mean in practice. It is one reason that senators often act as if their inquiry were a presumption-as if they, mere politicians, have no right to ask a real lawyer (let alone a real judge) about what the law should look like and how it should work. What has happened is that the Senate . . . has let slip the fundamental lesson of the Bork hearings: the essential rightness–the legitimacy and the desirability–of exploring a Supreme Court nominee’s set of constitutional views and commitments.

Elena Kagan, Confirmation Messes, Old and New, 62 U. Chi. L. Rev. 619, 941-942 (footnotes omitted), reviewing Stephen L. Carter, The Confirmation Mess (1994).

So Kagan doesn’t have much of a paper trail. David Brooks therefore writes that she “is a person whose career has dovetailed with the incentives presented by the confirmation system, a system that punishes creativity and rewards caginess.” Consequently, he finds her “kind of disturbing.” It’s almost funny. Brooks wrote when John Roberts was nominated that

I love thee with the depth and breadth and height my soul can reach. I love thee freely, as men strive for right. I love thee because this is the way government is supposed to work. President Bush consulted widely, moved beyond the tokenism of identity politics and selected a nominee based on substance, brains, careful judgment and good character.

What inspired this poetic passion from Brooks? According to Brooks, Roberts “is principled and shares the conservative preference for judicial restraint.” And “[a]nybody who is brilliant during Supreme Court grillings, as Roberts is, will be impressive at confirmation hearings.” Finally, Roberts “has shown that character and substance matter most.”

So Kagan — who has put on the record her belief that Supreme Court nominees should address the issues that will come before the Court — is “disturbing,” but Roberts, who lied about being a conservative consensus builder with a deep respect for precedent has “substance, brains, careful judgment and good character.”

Yeah, right. Here’s my suggestion to all those who think Kagan’s a “blank slate” — why don’t you withhold judgment until the confirmation hearings. Let her answer questions, questions she’s on record stating she thinks are legitimate and should be answered. It’s more than we got from John Roberts.

New force for the irreparable harm requirement in copyright preliminary injunction decisions? And might we see the Holden Caulfield sequel after all?

One week ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit issued a very interesting ruling (inserted below)  in the case in which J.D. Salinger sued Frederik Colting, alleging that Colting’s work, 60 Years Later Coming Through the Rye, infringes Salinger’s copyright in Catcher in the Rye. First, and perhaps most importantly, the 2d Circuit stated that “we conclude that the District Court properly determined that Salinger has a likelihood of success on the merits.” In other words, the 2d Circuit concluded that based on the evidence already presented to the trial court, it is likely Salinger (who, since his death, has been replaced as the plaintiff by Coleen Salinger and Matthew Salinger as trustees of the Salinger Literary Trust) it has concluded that 60 Years Later is likely an infringement of Catcher in the Rye.

Nevertheless, the 2d Circuit vacated the trial court’s preliminary injunction forbidding U.S. publication of 60 Years Later and instructed the trial court to reconsider whether a preliminary injunction should issue because, according to the 2d Circuit, the trial court did not apply the appropriate standard in determining whether a preliminary injunction should have been issued. Most importantly, the trial court had not considered whether, assuming it prevails in the end in the case, the Salinger Trust would suffer harm that it could not be compensated for at final judgment in the absence of the preliminary injunction.

It is important to note that a preliminary injunction is an order that someone should do or not do something that is in effect only until the final verdict is rendered in a case. A preliminary injunction is intended to preserve the status quo during trial of a case in situations in which the failure of the court to ensure the preservation of the status quo would somehow damage the party seeking the injunction in a way that would prevent him from being made whole by a final judgment.

Thus, the trial court in the Salinger case only determined that Salinger’s infringement claim had a likelihood of success on the merits. That means that the court leaves open the possibility that after the parties have had a chance to fully develop their evidence and the court has had the opportunity to see witnesses testify live (rather than just via the written affidavits the court earlier considered), it might change its mind on whether Salinger in fact has successfully established an infringement.

More importantly, perhaps, the 2d Circuit made clear that the trial court also needs to consider factors other than the likelihood of the success of the infringement claim. The 2d Circuit stated that the trial court must reconsider whether to grant the preliminary injunction under the standard the U.S. Supreme Court applied in determining the legitimacy of a permanent injunction (that is, an injunction issued at the end of a case as a final judgment) a patent infringement action in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). That standard (the typical standard applied in most injunction cases) requires the court to consider four factors: “(1) that [the party seeking the injunction] has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”

No single factor is dispositive, nor are the factors given equal weight and considered together in any easy formulaic way. All the factors are considered in a holistic evaluation. Interestingly, however, the right to non-monetary, injunctive relief typically requires that the availability of monetary relief be inadequate to make the party seeking the injunction whole. It may be possible for Colting to argue on remand that even should, his work be found to infringe the Salinger Trust’s copyright in Catcher in the Rye, should he be able to publish 60 Years On during the pendency of the case, the Salinger Trust can be made whole by recovering whatever profits have in the meantime been made on the book. The Salinger Trust, in the meantime, is likely to argue the mere publication of the book in the U.S. will harm the Trust in a way that cannot be remedied by money because the mere presence of the book will detract from the value of the Trust’s copyright in the character of Holden Caulfield.

William Patry, in his treatise on copyright, has noted that courts in copyright cases have in the past rarely given real consideration to the “irreparable harm” argument in issuing preliminary injunctions “The gutting is accomplished definitionally: rather than reject the requirement outright, courts define the adequacy of legal remedies in such a way that those remedies can never be considered a substitute for plaintiff’s alleged losses.” William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright, §22:12, citing Douglas Laycock, The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 687, 692 (1990). Thus, Patry writes, “Preliminary injunctions are issued far more often than they should be, at least from a review of available decisions.”

It makes me wonder whether the 2d Circuit is taking a stand here and insisting that the trial court give real consideration to the requirement that the Salinger Trust could not be made whole, even if it eventually prevails on its infringement claim, in the absence of a preliminary injunction. If so, we may yet see 60 Years On published in the U.S., even if for only a brief time.

Salinger v Colting 2d Circuit Appeal of Prelim Injunction Decision

There is no shortcut to thoughtful decision making. It requires critical thinking and discussion, and PowerPoint not only doesn’t help, it hurts.

My points yesterday were about much more than PowerPoint and its inadequacy to convey information or analysis effectively. This isn’t the first time I’ve brought up Edward Tufte’s work, but many have pointed out to me what, in fact, had inspired yesterday’s post – The New York Times article 4 days ago discussing the diagram below, part of a PowerPoint presentation made last summer to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the leader of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. As the article explained, McChrystal’s said, when he saw the slide: “When we understand that slide, we’ll have won the war.” The room “erupted in laughter.” The article also quotes Gen. James N. Mattis of the Marine Corps, the Joint Forces commander, saying last month that “PowerPoint makes us stupid,” which, of course, is a paraphrase of the headline of the 2003 article on Tufte and the Columbia space shuttle I discussedyesterday. More to the subjects my post yesterday was about, the article states: “Commanders say that behind all the PowerPoint jokes are serious concerns that the program stifles discussion, critical thinking and thoughtful decision-making.” The most obvious conclusion to draw from an examination of the slide below is one I made yesterday, quoting Tufte — to convey any effective analysis that the slide’s creator intended to convey would have required an extensive written document.

John Stewart last night got into the topic last night too:

Challenging automated YouTube takedowns (and don’t forget to think through the ramifications)

Chris Walters at The Consumerist provides an excellent account of the whys and wherefores of takedowns of YouTube videos.  In addition to explaining why YouTube’s automated Content ID tracking system results in the kind of baseless deletions I referred to the other day, Walters also explains that “[Y]ou can dispute any Content ID claim. If you have a clip that’s been targeted, you’ll see a notice about it on your YouTube account page. From there you can access a dispute page where you can affirm that you believe your clip falls under fair use, and the clip will immediately become public again. The copyright holder will receive notice that you’ve disputed the clip, and must then decide to leave you alone, send a DMCA takedown notice, or sue.”

Importantly, too, he explains that you want to give some thought to the ramifications of disputing an automated takedown: “There are legal ramifications to this, which YouTube hints at and the EFF explains very clearly. If you decide to fight copyright abuse by a large company, you should make sure that you’re on the right side of the fight, that you have a sensible chance of winning a possible lawsuit, and that you’re willing to assume the financial risk. All three of those determinations probably require some serious meetings with a lawyer.”

On the other hand, any copyright owner sending a takedown notice ought to consider the legal ramifications of doing so, since a baseless one relying on the power to outspend an individual fair use claimant might have its own legal downside.

What if corporate decision makers lost money when they made bad decisions?

Back in January, criticizing the Supreme Court decision equating the free speech rights of corporations with those of individuals, I pointed out the insanity of considering corporate and other business entities as rational actors of the sort many economists consider people to be. The problem is that corporate decisions are made by individuals and are therefore driven to benefit those individuals, not the corporations (and their shareholders). As I wrote:

Individuals at AIG were making individual fortunes based on the income they were bringing into AIG for selling credit default swaps. Those individuals were making and would retain those fortunes even if, as turned out to be the case, AIG might not have sufficient funds to pay off the obligations those credit default swaps imposed on AIG. In other words, if one treated AIG as a rational person, one would suppose AIG would never expose itself to a real risk of obligating itself to pay more than it had in reserve. But AIG is merely a corporation, and the individuals actually making the decisions on behalf of AIG had every incentive to get what they could, subject AIG to irrational risk, and be able to walk away with their tens of millions of dollars.

I wasn’t just engaging in paranoia. I spent too many years with investment bankers to entirely forget their reality. And I have data to back me up:

In a study late last year, three Harvard Law School researchers examined public documents to assess whether one “standard narrative” of the crash was true — that “the meltdown of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers largely wiped out the wealth of their top executives.” It turned out to be a fairy tale. “In contrast to what has been thus far largely assumed, the executives were richly rewarded for, not financially devastated by, their leadership of their banks during this decade,” the Harvard Law team wrote. The top five executives at both Lehman and Bear collectively took home $2.4 billion in bonuses and equity sales — that’s nearly a quarter-billion dollars each — between 2000 and their 2008 demise.

Last week, William D. Cohan made much the same point in connection with the entire Wall Street ethic:

What if the biggest rewards on Wall Street went to those who thwarted dangerous and excessive risk-taking instead of to those who enabled, approved or simply ignored it?

What if every senior Wall Street executive had to worry that he could lose his entire net worth at any moment — including his mansions in Greenwich, Conn., and Palm Beach to say nothing of his job — if the revenue he was generating turned out to be unprofitable or excessively risky?

Wouldn’t that combination of potential rewards and fear of calamitous personal loss instill in every Wall Streeter a zealous desire to insist that the products his firm was peddling were safe for others to buy?

If such simple incentives had been in place on Wall Street, wouldn’t the latest crisis — as well as the multitude of others that have been perpetrated on us in the past 25 years — been largely avoided? . . .

The obvious answer to these questions is that human beings always do what they are rewarded to do and always have, especially on Wall Street. Rewarding prudent risk-taking on Wall Street while punishing recklessness would result in a new ethic on Wall Street, one not solely driven by generating as much revenue as possible in a given fiscal year with no regard to the long term.

To that end, shareholders must demand that corporate boards of directors revamp the entire compensation structure on Wall Street away from one based on revenue generation to one that rewards long-term profits. For goodness sake, what other business on the face of the earth, aside from Wall Street, pays out between 50 percent and 60 percent of each dollar of revenue generated to employees in the form of compensation!

And yet the Wall Street Journal’s stance on financial reform is the same as its stance on health care reform: “Once ObamaCare becomes law, the next big legislative rush is going to be for financial reform, but as we look at Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd’s latest draft we can’t help but wonder: Why the hurry?”

Indeed, why? There’s money still to be made . . .

Law isn’t about what’s legal and illegal; it’s about serving clients.

Law students, too many lawyers, and most non-lawyers think that lawyers tell clients what they can do and what they can’t — what’s “legal” and what’s not. This caricature is so far from the truth it’s laughable. Lawyers serve clients, and there is so, so much more that drives client decision making than what the law states (except, perhaps, in those exceedingly rare instances when the law mandates a certain decision).

So it’s refreshing that Settlement Perspectives reviews the kinds of questions clients want to hear from their lawyers but don’t hear often enough. Perhaps the most important one is this:

What is an acceptable outcome in this matter?

The article goes on to list a number of other questions of particular import to clients, including this one, perhaps most immediately comprehensible to my first year students:

In the case of a litigated matter, on the continuum between winning and losing, what is considered acceptable? Is there a possibility for success short of complete victory? Prevailing without success? Not prevailing but not losing?

(Hat tip to What about Clients?)

Chief Justice Roberts has no respect for precedent that doesn’t suit his purposes.

One of the less noticed parts of last week’s Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court overturning precedent that had supported over 100 years of congressional restrictions on corporate campaign contributions was precisely the question of the strength of precedent. During his confirmation hearings, prospective Chief Justice Roberts was questioned intensely on the question of his respect for precedent, particularly with respect to Roe v. Wade. In keeping with the image he plainly intended to project of a true conservative, a non-activist who respects existing institutions, Roberts emphasized his respect for precedent.

Thus, it should not be particularly surprising that Roberts wrote a separate concurring opinion in Citizen’s United to supplement his support of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. Roberts’ concurrence focused on the need to follow Court precedent — or, rather, the need to depart from precedent in this particular case.

Roberts’ concurrence should leave people convinced he would overturn Roe v. Wade and that his persona as a non-activist “umpire” who merely calls balls and strikes is a fraud. First, Roberts wrote, upholding precedent “is not an end in itself. It is instead ‘the means by which we ensure that the law will not merelychange erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.’”

So why would Roberts depart from precedent? First, if he thinks it’s wrong: “[I]f the precedent under consideration itself departed from the Court’s jurisprudence, returning to the ‘ “intrinsically sounder” doctrine established in priorcases’ may ‘better serv[e] the values of stare decisis than would following [the] more recently decided case inconsistent with the decisions that came before it.’”

Merely overturning precedent because a judge thinks it’s wrong, of course, does away entirely with what court’s call “stare decisis,” the rule that compels them to follow precedent (except when they don’t). If all that mattered was a judge’s determination of what is right, then there would be no need for stare decisis — a judge will always uphold precedent he or she believes is right.

So Roberts has to come up with something better. What does he come up with? To me it’s plain: precedent ought to be overturned if its justification is difficult, if using it to decide future cases is difficult, and if its original justification is open to question:

[I]f adherence to a precedent actually impedes the stable and orderly adjudication of future cases, its stare decisis effect is also diminished. This can happen in a number of circumstances, such as when the precedent’s validity is so hotly contested that it cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases, when its rationale threatens to upend our settled jurisprudence inrelated areas of law, and when the precedent’s underlying reasoning has become so discredited that the Court cannot keep the precedent alive without jury-rigging new anddifferent justifications to shore up the original mistake.

Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v. Wade has been under attack by both supporters of the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and those who oppose the right to choose since the day it was issued in 1973. And in fact, our courts should and do uphold precedent if there is any legitimate justification to uphold — that’s a central truth about legal interpretation (and one law students have a very difficult time gaining an understanding of). But Justice Roberts and his allies on the Court now have authority to cite as support for overturning Roe v. Wade because its original justification may not gain widespread support — this opinion of in Citizen’s United.

Finally, Roe v. Wade fits that other justification Roberts advances for overturning precedent —  it is “hotly contested,” and no doubt he and his allies would argue it therefore “cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases.”

One thing I do know — Roberts has no respect for precedent that doesn’t suit his purposes.

SNAFU, anyone?

It’s not for nothing the word “snafu” is a military coinage. Ars Technica reports that “militants [in Iraq and Afghanistan] have been intercepting US Predator drone video feeds using laptops and a $30 piece of Russian software, and that the military has known of this vulnerability since the Nineties. But at least we have our priorities straight:

Operating system vendors have built entire “protected path” setups to guard audio and video all the way through the device chain. TVs and monitors now routinely use HDCP copy protection to secure their links over HDMI cables. Game consoles are packed with encryption schemes to prevent copied games from playing. Microsoft even goes out of its way to add encryption when Windows Media Center records unencrypted over-the-air TV content. Even the humble DVD, with its long-since-breached CSS encryption, offers more in the way of encryption.

But US drones, which spy on militants and rain down death from a distance, have none. The mind boggles, as it seems like the situation should be totally reversed: no encryption on legally-purchased content, more encryption on devices designed to watch and kill human beings.

But the fact Obama didn’t immediately bow down to the military and order up General McChrystal’s 40,000 troops the moment they were demanded was “dithering.” Too bad Johnson didn’t follow Kennedy’s lead and dither himself in Vietnam:

In November 1961 Kennedy sent Gen. Maxwell Taylor and foreign policy adviser Walt Rostow to South Vietnam. On their return they reported that it was possible for the South Vietnamese to defeat the Communist insurgents without an American takeover of the war effort if the United States provided strong political backing for the South Vietnamese government and provided substantially in-creased military and economic assistance. They further recommended that President Kennedy send 8,000 combat troops to South Vietnam. Kennedy decided against sending combat troops but authorized the deployment of up to 15,000 military advisers. By the time of Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963 the U.S. effort in Vietnam was costing $400 million a year, and about 12,000 military advisers were providing assistance to the South Vietnamese military effort. By the end of 1963 there had been only 70 American casualties.

Of course, in “January 1964 the Joint Chiefs of Staff had sent President Johnson a memo urging him to increase the U.S. commitment and to consider a bombing campaign against North Vietnam. By following these two strategies the military hoped that the war could be won more quickly. The commitment of U.S. troops was doubled; by the end of 1964 there were 23,300 Americans serving in Vietnam.”

Nesson continues to blame others for his lousy job of lawyering.

The  Harvard Law Record reported yesterday on Charlie Nesson’s address to : a room full of HLS students to explain his motivations and methods as the lawyer representing Joel Tenenbaum in Sony BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, the case that resulted in a $675,000 judgment against his client.

I have on more than one occasion expressed my harsh views regarding Nesson’s lawyering in the case (here and here). But the Harvard Law Record’s story only adds fuel to my fury at Nesson’s lawyering skills. According to the story, “When the case first came to his attention, Nesson knew that there was little chance of victory on the merits, with the only truly viable strategy at trial being the minimization of damages.” (emphasis added)

The RIAA cannot have been happy about the way it looks after winning a judgment of $675,000 from a kid, especially since, as Nesson with some degree of accuracy explains, “[w]hat Joel did in downloading and sharing songs was what just about every kid in his generation did and which I bet a great many of you did.” The RIAA was anxious to settle a similar case in which it won $1.92 million from Jammie Thomas-Rasset for illegally downloading 24 songs. As Mike Masnick wrote, the RIAA “seems to recognize that the insanity of the $1.92 million doesn’t do it any favors. Even the musicians whose music was part of the case are embarrassed by the amount. . . . the RIAA would love to settle the lawsuit for some lower amount so it can run around touting the ‘risks’of file sharing without having people laugh outloud when hearing that someone had to pay $1.92 million for potentially sharing 24 songs that could be bought for $1 each.”

And Tennenbaum quite plainly had the ability to minimize damages through settlement rather than by means of Nesson’s tactic of going to trial. In February, Ars Technica reported that the “RIAA’s initial offer to settle, made way back in 2003, was for $3,500. Joel offered $500, which was declined. After the case went to court in 2007, the judge ordered the parties to settle and work it out between themselves. Joel offered $5,000. The RIAA demanded $10,500.”

And yet Nesson, realizing that “there was little chance of victory on the merits” and that the only viable way of representing his client’s best interests was to minimize the amount of his liability, failed to settle a case that at most would have cost his client $10,500 (assuming, contrary to any notion of common negotiating sense, that the RIAA would not have moved off of its last offer).

The Harvard Law Record’s story goes on to state that “the evidence presented by the RIAA . . . made it look like Tenenbaum blamed others and lied,” thereby interfering “with his effort to appear credible and sympathetic.” The problem is that the evidence didn’t merely make it “look like” Tenenbaum lied. He admitted in trial that had lied in sworn statements he had made before trial that he had not used peer-to-peer file sharing networks to download and upload recordings.

I’ve said it again and again. I’m no fan of the RIAA. The recording industry’s business and legal responses to the technological revolution that has deprived them of their former monopoly on the means of mass producing and distributing recorded music have been, to my legal and business mind, idiotic. But Nesson was Tenenbaum’s lawyer. His professional judgment as a lawyer was that any legal defense to the RIAA’s claims had little chance of success and that the best lawyering job he could do for his Tenenbaum was to minimize the damages he would be liable for. Nesson clearly had the opportunity to do so. That he passed up that opportunity in a quixotic fight for a principle might be something a lot of people admire, but it’s terrible lawyering.

Can we force a prisoner to be medicated in order to be competent enough to be executed?

Truly only Franz Kafka could do justice to some of the questions that arise in our justice system. In Singleton v. Norris, 319 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 2003), the defendant argued that he could not be executed because he was not mentally competent and that he could not be forced to take medication to make him medically competent because to do so would make him eligible for execution and therefore could by no means be in his “best medical interest.” The 8th Circuit disagreed, requiring the question whether the medication to make the defendant competent  to be answered “without regard to whether there [was] a pending date of execution.” Id. at 1026. Both the death sentence and involuntary medication regime had been lawfully imposed. The defendant thus could no longer assert either a life interest nor a liberty interest.

Now, though, the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog suggests that more recent U.S. Supreme Court precedents “may collectively stand for the notion that the execution of an inmate who is competent only by virtue of forced medication might violate the Eighth Amendment’s evolving standards of decency.”

I find the suggestion encouraging, but I am skeptical. We seem loathe to find reasons not to execute people these days.

Shepard Fairey and Manny Garcia: is Garcia lying, or is Tom Gralish(?)? Or is there some other explanation?

As much as law students and law professors want legal questions to resolve into nice, neat abstract questions, they seldom do.

Legal questions are only answered definitively by courts when those questions are necessary to resolve lawsuits, and lawsuits necessarily involve all the messy reality of human life, a messy reality which seldom allows one to merely hone straight in on some nice, neat question (like, hey, what is fair use (in some nice, easy-to-follow rule so we can definitely predict what we can and can’t do)?

One problem — the most important one for lawyers — is figuring out what happened. It’s amazing how people take the facts for granted, as if we have God’s videotape to play to a jury or something. Instead, we have conflicting evidence. And the court has to decide what it all means.

So, when Manny Garcia first learned Shepard Fairey had used his photograph for the Obama Hope poster, did he think what Fairey had done was cool and not even conceive of getting involved in a lawsuit, or was he angry at Fairey and already contemplating legal action?

Last January 23, Tom Gralish, a photographer for the Philadelphia Inquirer who also writes the blog Scene on the Road, wrote that, in a conversation with Manny Garcia two days earlier, Garcia “was quick to add he is not mad at Fairey, and he’s not looking at any lawsuits. ‘I know artists like to look at things; they see things and they make stuff. It’s a really cool piece of work. I wouldn’t mind getting a signed litho or something from the artist to put up on my wall.’”

In paragraph 45 of his Answer to Fairey’s Counterclaim, filed on September 8 in the lawsuit between himself, Fairey, and the Associated Press, Garcia “denies he stated in interviews that he was not ‘angry with Fairey or interested in joining any lawsuits.’”

Does that mean he never stated precisely those words? Or does it mean he did not express to Gralish what Gralish reported? It certainly seems to be the latter. And, if that’s the case, then is he calling Gralish a liar?

Welcome to the law.

ADDENDUM: Tom Gralish’s series of posts chronicling his efforts to identify the photograph that served as the source of Fairey’s Obama Hope poster are here. The posts re-enforce something I have suggested before: Garcia’s photograph just isn’t that original. Since the nature of the copyrighted work is relevant to any fair use analysis, and since the copyrighted work is entitled to less protection to the extent it is less creative, the generic nature of the photo militates in favor of Fairey. But I still think Fairey’s work is so obviously “transformative” that it constitutes fair use. Why? Because it had a resonance in the nation that none of the photos Gralish examined would have had on their own. If Fairey’s ability to confer that kind of power upon the source photo isn’t transformative, I ‘m not sure I know what is. And, incidentally, most of my previous posts on the case are here.

Teaching legal imagination: Harvard dean calls for it, I am grateful, but a lot of work remains.

Kristopher Nelson of in propria persona graduated from Harvard Law School in May and now is a graduate student in the history of science. He astutely observes that law school emphasizes training its students to practice law but does a rather poor job of actually doing so: “Law school . . . while pushing the prac tical, does not teach it.” As I’ve made clear, I think his criticism is particularly well placed when it comes to Harvard.

So I am happy to see that Nelson points to an article written by co-written by Martha Minow (pdf), the new dean of Harvard Law School, in which Minow and her co-author, Todd Rakoff, explicitly acknowledge that law students need more. What do they need? I think Minow and Rakoff are right to identify it as “legal imagination”:

[S]tudents need more, and they need more not for arcane or unusual careers, but simply to be good lawyers. While an expert in differentiating mental skills could probably produce a raft of labels for what they also need, when we think of what students most need that they do not now get, we think: “legal imagination.” What they most crucially lack, in other words, is the ability to generate the multiple characterizations, multiple versions, multiple pathways, and multiple solutions, to which they could apply their very well honed analytic skills. And unless they acquire legal imagination somewhere other than in our appellate-case-method classrooms, they will be poorer lawyers than they should be.

How will they be taught this legal imagination? By being given “cases” more like students are given in business school than students are given now in law school: complex problems in which the students are required to generate real world alternatives, recommend the best, and be evaluated on the quality of their judgment:

[T]he type of materials we have in mind can be described in general. Students ought to be presented with relatively dense materials that lay out a situation, experienced as a problem for a person, or group of people, for legal treatment. Students should face a choice that challenges them to identify options and that permits multiple resolutions, sometimes within a relatively tight ambit. Such resolutions might include issues such as which settlement offer would make it sensible to forego litigation. Sometimes these choices might be within broader (but still specifiable) alternatives, such as whether trying to get particular legislative language adopted would be feasible and preferable to private ordering. The problems ought not to be situated in one doctrinal area, but should present opportunities for mental maneuvering around the legal universe. Teaching should emphasize generating alternative solutions as well as appropriate grounds for choosing among them. And criteria for resolution should include legal, normative, and practical considerations.

Of course, Minow and Rakoff also believe that “following the business school model, we think that case writers will need to get their materials from practitioners.” Why isn’t this already going on throughout law school? One reason, I’ve always believed, is that law professors are those who have done best in law school (not necessarily, or even usually, as lawyers), so they perpetuate the existing institutional model in their belief that if law school has identified them as the best and brightest it must be well designed. Law professors are not unique in this tendency. Anyone who succeeds in an institution has a vested interest in believing the institution’s promotion procedures are very good at judging genuine merit. 90% of law firm partners will tell you their firm is better than most at judging associates. And Minow even recognizes this impediment to the change she calls for:

Law professors were good law students, and given the history of legal education, this means that they almost universally feel comfortable handling appellate opinions in the classroom even if they have no experience doing so in practice. By contrast, for many of us, the arenas of the legislature, the agency, the political movement, the media— perhaps even the trial courts—are ones we may only remotely watch. Ideally, case studies and teachers’ notes could be crafted so that they could be taught by professors as we know them in law schools as we know them. But, frankly, many of us will need to learn some new things.

I am thrilled that the dean of Harvard Law School is making these arguments. As goes Harvard, so goes virtually every law school in the country. But there is also another piece of the puzzle that needs to be put into place, as I’ve previously written about: how in the world can we measure whether we are effectively teaching “legal imagination”? In many ways I think I’m ahead of Minow in trying to do what she calls for. But until I can prove that what I am doing in fact teaches students how to be lawyers better, I’m afraid that I won’t have a ton of influence. Fortunately, Minow, merely because she is the dean of Harvard Law, can have influence even without first proving what she is arguing for works.

How do we decide how a long buried corpse would want his art treated? And is the corpse’s former intent all we care about?

My post last week about art museums and the doctrine of deviation provoked in the comments precisely the kind of discussion/argument that I tried to point out is the whole point: how do we decide how to apply rules or other written expressions when they are applied in contexts that have radically changed. To literally apply the words written by a donor that restrict the use of a gift by an art museum when doing so would threaten the entire point of the gift (a thriving art museum) seems pretty absurd to me. If what we’re trying to do is discern a donor’s intent, shouldn’t we be a little more flexible?

Thus, I am particularly pleased to note Donn Zaretsky’s reference to the Philadelphia Inquirer’s conclusion that the new Barnes Foundation building (the subject of a couple of those comments to my original post) shows “obvious respect for Barnes’ legacy – for his idiosyncratic view of how art should be displayed and appreciated – should reassure supporters of the move.” That’s precisely the point: Barnes’ original bequest might have forbidden the move, but the result of his restriction, 60 years after his death, was the closing off of a multi-billion dollar collection of art to the wider public, strife between the Foundation and its neighbors, and a threat to the very existence of the Foundation itself. Isn’t it at least arguable that satisfying much of Barnes’ obvious intent — precisely how the art is housed and shown — while making it accessible to the world in a location where it is welcome is a reasonable effort to accommodate what he would have wanted? And isn’t it appropriate that we have institutions like courts to decide whether that reasonable argument or the opposing one (Barnes stated in his bequest the collection should never be moved, so it should never be moved, even if there are circumstances now that he did not anticipate and we could not predict his reaction to)?

And that’s not even to mention that there is a public interest involved. Are we to so honor “property” rights that we would sacrifice billions of dollars of the world’s culture to the whim of the owner? As Zaretsky asks in another post:

What if Barnes’s Will had provided that the works were to be exhibited in Merion for exactly 50 years — and then were to be burned in a big bonfire?

Should we honor donor intent in that case?

Or can we agree that sometimes the public interest trumps the donor’s intent?