Collage is art, not theft

From Negativland:

No one much cared about the centuries old tradition of appropriation in classical music as long as it could only be heardwhen it was played live in front of your ears. But now all music exists as a mass produced, saleable object, electronically frozen for all time, and seen by its owners to be in continuous, simultaneous economic competition with all other music. The previously interesting idea that someone’s music might freely include some appropriated music of another has now been made into a criminal activity. This example is typical of how copyright laws now actually serve to inhibit or prevent the creative process, itself, from proceeding in certain interesting ways, both traditional and new.

This has become a pressing problem for creativity now because the creative technique of appropriation has jumped from the mediums in which it first appeared (principally in the visual fine arts of painting, printmaking, and sculpture) to popular, electronic mass distributed mediums such as photography, recorded music, and multimedia. The appearance of appropriation techniques in these more recent mass mediums have occasioned a huge increase in owner litigations of such appropriation based works because the commercial entrepenours who now own and operate mass culture are apparently intent on oblitering all distinctions between the needs of art and the needs of commerce.These owners of mass produced cultural material claim that similarly mass produced works of appropriation are a new and devastating threat to their total control over the exclusive profits which their properties might produce in the same mass marketplace. They claim that, art or not, an unauthorized appropriation of any kind can not be allowed to directly compete in the appropriated material’s avenue of commerce, as if they were equal in content, and equal in intent. The degree to which the unique nature and needs of art practice do not play any part in this thinking is more than slightly insane.

Consider the starkly stupid proposition that collage has now become illegal in music unless the artist can afford to pay for each and every fragment he or she might want to use, as well as gain permission from each and every owner. Consider how this puts a stop to all independent, non-corporate forms of collage in music, and how those corporately funded collage works which can afford the tolls had better be flattering to the owner intheir usage. . . .

Please consider the ungenerous and uncreative logic we are overlaying our culture with. Artists will always be interested in sampling from existing cultural icons and artifacts precisely because of how they express and symbolize something potently recognizable about the culture from which both they and this new work spring. The owners of such artifacts and icons are seldom happy to see their properties in unauthorized contexts which may be antithetical to the way they are spinning them. Their kneejerk use of copyright restrictions to crush this kind of work now amounts to corporate censorship of unwanted independent work.

Justice Department: Torture Memos were “insane” but not the product of professional misconduct

From Jurist

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] has overruled the findings of a report [DOJ Ethics Report] released Friday concluding that two Bush administration lawyers committed professional misconduct when they wrote memos [JURIST news archive] authorizing the use of certain interrogation techniques that critics have called torture. Instead, the DOJ said that John Yoo [academic profile; JURIST news archive], and Jay Bybee [official profile; JURIST news archive] were only guilty of “poor judgment” in writing the memos. An internal ethics investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that Yoo had committed “intentional professional misconduct when he violated his duty to exercise independent legal judgment and render thorough, objective and candid legal advice.” The report also found that Bybee had committed professional misconduct when he acted in “reckless disregard” of his duty to exercise independent legal advice. However, David Margolis, an associate deputy attorney general, released a separate memo [DOJ Margolis Report] overruling the OPR’s report, finding its analysis was flawed because it did not have a clear definition of what constitutes professional misconduct.

Back in August of 2008, when I began writing this blog, I explained my then long-held conviction that the White House Office of Legal Counsel — and in particular Jay Bybee (now a federal judge) and John Yoo (a tenured law professor) had acted immorally and in violation of their professional duties as lawyers in writing the so-called “torture memos” that gave legal approval to the torture the Bush Administration began. Both the DOJ Report and the DOJ Margolis Report confirm the details of  what I wrote back in 2008 — the memos were plainly written to justify a pre-determined conclusion. As I wrote then:

Somehow a justice department lawyer who is now a tenured professor at Boalt Hall Law School at U.C. Berkeley, along with his boss, who is now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, thought they could get away with this utterly fictional definition of “severe pain.” And they did. Plainly, though, Yoo does not believe in constraints. In December 2005 he stated in a Chicago debate that there is no law that could prevent the President from theoretically ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.”

And now the DOJ Margolis Report concludes that “the’ evidence of the knowing violations . . . led us to conclude that Yoo put his desire to accommodate the client above his obligation to provide thorough, objective, and candid. legal advice, and that he thereforecommitted intentional professional misconduct.”

Mr. Margolis in the DOJ Margolis Report also stated:

While I have declined to adopt O.P.R.’s findings of misconduct, I fear that John Yoo’s loyalty to his own ideology and convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client and led him to author opinions that reflected his own extreme, albeit sincerely held, view of executive power while speaking for an institutional client.

The reports really are remarkable testaments to how far the Bush Administration went to force its desire to torture within a rule of law that does not permit torture. Among other things, the DOJ Ethics Report quotes other Bush Justice Department appointees stating that John Yoo needed “adult supervision” and describing the torture memos as “insane,” a “one-sided effort to eliminate any hurdles posed by the torture law,” “plainly wrong,”  and “slovenly”:

Our view that the memoranda were seriously deficient was consistent with comments made by some of tlie former Department officials we interviewed, even though those individuals would not necessarily agree witl! some of our findings in this matter. [Daniel] Levin stated that when he first read the Bybee Memo, “[I had} the same reaction I think everybody who reads it has - 'this is insane, who wrote this?'". Jack Goldsmith found that the memoranda were "riddled with error," concluded that key portions were "plainly wrong," .and characterized them as a "one-sided effort to eliminate any hurdles posed by the torture law." [Steven G.] Bradbury told us that Yoo did not adequately consider counter arguments in writing the memoranda and that “somebody should have exercised some adult leadership” with respect to Yoo’s section on the Commander-tn-Chief powers. [Michael] Mukasey acknowledged that the Bybee Memo was “a slovenly mistake,” even though he urged us not to find misconduct.

” Insane” about sums it up. You’re not acting as a lawyer if the research and analysis you do is insane. But, I guess, “insane” is not a sufficiently firm legal standard for Mr. Margolis. The funny thing is that I’d expect any reviewing official who didn’t see discern a standard in the report he was reviewing to state the proper standard and make his own determination whether the facts set forth satisfied or did not satisfy that standard. Or he could have sent the matter back to the ethics people with instruction to set forth a clear standard. Instead, he plainly was looking for a way to find no ethical violations here. Honestly, if the flat out lies about the law contained in the torture memos is permitted, then anything is permitted in the “war on terror.” Which, of course, is exactly Yoo’s position.

Cuckoo Kookabura — Culture as the Language of Art

I wrote in November of the claim by the owners of the copyright in the Australian chestnut Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree that Men at Work had infringed Kookabura’s copyright in their 1981 #1 hit Men Down Under. The claim is ridiculous. As the Sydney Morning Herald reported at the time, “[t]he key, harmony, structure and rhythm of Down Under’s famous riff changed the sound of it so much that nobody – not the band, [the managing director of the company that owned the copyright to Kookaburra], or even five out of six [of the game show] panellists . . . noticed it until someone turned it into a quiz show question.”

But now, as Celebrity Justice (among others) reports, “[a]fter a 3 year fight, a federal court in Australia has ruled against favorite sons Men At Work saying they plagiarized one portion of the Kookaburra tune and will now owe some of their royalties to the publishing group who bought the rights to that song in 1990.”

As CNN reports, the judge in his decision wrote that “I would emphasise that the findings I have made do not amount to a finding that the flute riff is a substantial part of Down Under or that it is the ‘hook’ of that song.”

Whether the judge’s decision will withstand appeal under Australian copyright law is beyond my expertise, but the suggestion that the quotation of a copyrighted song in a new work constitutes copyright infringement would make a travesty of the notion of fair use under U.S. law. My zealousness on this question is not merely the result of the argument that I made in my November post — that the “transformative” nature of Men Down Under is proven by the way it alters the melody it takes from Kookabura and the failure of anyone to recognize the borrowing for 29 years. It is also because that being able to “quote” works that have resonance and meaning in our culture is fundamental to artistic creation. Kookabura is fundamental to Men Down Under as a song because Men Down Under, from its title to its performers to its lyric to its video is about Australia, and the use of a musical phrase from Kookabura is as resonant a way to convey Australia as there is.

Instead of recognizing what Lewis Hyde calls the “Cultural Commons,” many people have the knee-jerk impulse people have to identify cultural creations as “property” and thereby equate them to real estate or cars or something. Beside the rather large fact that property rights are limited in all sorts of ways in order to advance social goals (you can’t have a pig farm in the middle of a suburb, you can’t paint your house fuschia in most places, and the government can take your property if it pays you a fair (and rather low) price for it, etc.), that knee-jerk reaction entirely ignores how cultural creations draw (and must draw) on existing cultural creations, and how those creations then achieve meaning in the social sphere and are used to convey meaning in the social sphere. Copyright exists to feed, not hinder, creation, and the sooner we under what creativity really involves the more creative a culture we’ll have.

You be the judge: are Men at Work plagiarists or composers?

True innovation in health care: no-fault insurance for bad medical outcomes.

We would make genuine and profound progress in “fixing” our health care system if we replaced the existing malpractice system with (1) no-fault insurance to compensate patients for the long-term medical and personal costs of bad medical outcomes and (2) an effective mechanism by which the medical profession policed the quality of the care provided by its members.

One political war that never seems to wane is over the medical malpractice system. On the one hand there are the doctors, the insurance companies, and right-wingers screaming that it is medical malpractice that is bankrupting us; on the other, there are the malpractice lawyers and the rest of us who want protection against the risk of suffering unexpectedly from medical treatment.

The critique of the malpractice system has a lot of validity — it’s a lottery in which those patients who have gone to the trouble of hiring lawyers under circumstances smelling sufficiently of medical negligence make out well and the rest of those injured by bad medical outcomes are left with nothing. As a result, too, doctors practice defensive medicine, driving up medical costs for all of us.

But that’s not the entire story. Our health insurance system is a failure, and patients who suffer bad medical outcomes often won’t have coverage sufficient to provide them the care required by the bad outcomes. The only alternative is to sue for malpractice, but the premise of malpractice is that there is no recovery unless the patient is able to prove the doctor was negligent.

Is it any wonder, then, that in a close case, given the choice between, on the one hand, compensating a badly injured patient from with money provided by an insurance company and, on the other, declaring the doctor to be without fault, a jury of human beings will tend to do the merciful thing and find the doctor acted negligently?

Doctors, of course, hate that question. They look at malpractice cases as judgments on their talents, not as tests of mercy. A jury that finds a doctor liable for malpractice has, in the doctor’s eyes, found the doctor to be a bad doctor. To the doctor on trial, The patient’s injuries –as opposed to the doctor’s efforts — are irrelevant.

The dilemma is obvious. First, bad medical outcomes are inevitable regardless of the adequacy of care. As a result, bad medical outcomes are risks we all face. Second, our existing insurance scheme does not spread this risk — rather, those who suffer bad medical outcomes and are not compensated by the malpractice system themselves bear all the costs of that risk.

Wouldn’t we be better off if everyone who suffered a bad medical outcome was compensated for the costs that arose out of that bad medical outcome regardless of the quality of the medical care? No one would be over-compensated, everyone would be fairly compensated, and the abilities of doctors wouldn’t be judged by juries of lay people who are motivated to disregard good judgment regarding those abilities by an entirely understandable and praiseworthy sense of human sympathy.

Such a scheme does raise one problem that the critics of the malpractice system also ignore — we really do enjoy a remarkably high standard of care in this country precisely because of the malpractice system. Doctors have never gone to the trouble of instituting an effective means of policing the quality of medical practice. To some degree they haven’t needed to do so because the risks posed by the malpractice system have forced insurance companies to take on that role. To replace the malpractice system with a no-fault insurance system, therefore, would require some genuine quality control imposed by the medical profession itself.

But if we simply gut the malpractice system and ignore the costs of bad medical outcomes and the need for some genuinely effective means of quality control, we would instead have the worst of all worlds.

AP shoots itself (twice) in the Copyright Wars.

The Associated Press occupies a controversial place in the so-called “Copyright Wars,” and it certainly isn’t making many friends anywhere in recent news. First, on December 31 of last year, AP filed its Amended Answer to Complaints, Crossclaim, Counterclaim., and a cross claim against Mannie Garcia. In that document, AP contends that it, not Garcia, owns the copyright in the photograph Garcia took of then candidate Obama that Shepard Fairey subsequently used as the source material for the (in)famous Hope poster. AP’s contention rests on the assertion that Garcia was acting within his the scope of his duties as a staff photographer for AP when he shot the photo and that it therefore constituted a “work for hire.”

There are, I think, two sets of allegations in AP’s latest filing that are interesting in terms of whether Fairey’s use of the photograph as source material for the poster constituted a non-infringing fair use. First, AP states that Garcia was sent to the event at which he shot the photo by AP in order to take photos such as the disputed one. Second, AP states that Garcia sent “several” of those photos to AP and that AP chose the photo it decided ultimately to publish. One might think these allegations reduce the extent to which Garcia can claim the shot was one so much of his own choosing. He was assigned to take the shots he took, he took a lot of them, and AP, not Garcia, chose the one that fit its purposes best.

AP also goes right after Garcia, accusing him in its counter-claim of committing fraud in registering his own copyright in the photo on the grounds that AP’s ownership of that copyright under the work for hire doctrine was so plain that Garcia knew he at the time he filed the copyright registration that he wasn’t entitled to do so. It might not be the only accusation of dishonesty hurled at Garcia in this case.

Meanwhile, AP, of course, has been quite vocal about voicing its contention that “news aggregators” infringe AP’s copyrights on a regular basis. No matter your view on the legitimacy of the infringement claim, there’s lots of reason to believe that AP’s stance is bad business. Google seems to have been a principal target of AP’s complaints, and yet shutting Google off (something, incidentally, AP could do at any time) would seem likely to drive traffic away from AP’s stories.

Well, Google seems to have called AP’s bluff. The Guardian reports that “it has become apparent that new Associated Press stories are no longer appearing on the site, which has hosted them since 2007. Google hasn’t added new AP content since December 24.“

Vengeance breeds vengeance; we are a country of laws, not torture.

There’s creativity in legal thought, and then there’s “interpretation” utterly unhinged from any logic or authority to justify evils such as torture. Eric Martin at Obsidian wings points out another stupid mistake in any argument in favor of torturing in order to obtain information to aid the so-called “war on terror” — it discourages people from coming forward with information. People applaud “the underpants bomber’s father, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, who had the strength of character to report his son’s activities to U.S. authorities despite the possible legal repercussions for his son.” But if a father knows his son will be tortured, he’s far, far less likely to turn him in. And, of course, if we’re trying to win the hearts and minds of, among others, Afghanis, aren’t we undercutting our purposes by betraying our morality and our laws? Martin writes:

Alienated Muslims that feel guilty for nothing other than being Muslim are less likely to cooperate with U.S. authorities in thwarting plots. Parents, siblings and friends will not be as quick to intercede if they think their loved one will be brutalized, psychologically scarred beyond repair and denied basic rights. Innocent victims of military strikes will be radicalized as enemies, not converted to allies.

Yet, despite the stakes, certain pundits would have us sacrifice potentially life-saving assets for the sake of maintaining a torture regime – a morally reprehensible practice in its own right, one that corrupts prisoner and questioner alike, and that produces inferior, unreliable intelligence regardless. Not only do they want to keep employing these self-defeating policies that sully our principles, they intend to demagogue the issues relentlessly. Dick Cheney and the GOP leadership – as well as their media enablers – use Obama’s refusal to torture and profile as political cudgels when, in reality, the blows will they attempt will fall most heavily on the American people in the end.

At the end of The Libation Bearers, the second play in the Oresteia trilogy, the story of the seemingly endless cycle of guilt and retribution that plagued the noble House of Atreus, Aeschylus asks:

Where will it end? When will it all/ be lulled back into sleep, and cease,/ the bloody hatred, the destruction?

The answer is the culmination of the third play, The Eumenides: Athena establishes a court of law as the remedy, in place of vengeance, for criminal guilt. At bottom, I think that vengeance is all the advocates of torture can legitimately claim we are getting from torture, and we’ve understood for thousands of years that vengeance does nothing but breed vengeance.

Addendum: I realized that in discussing the Oresteia in connection with torture and the rule of law, I was “betraying” my liberal arts background. But, of course, our blindness to the consequences of abandoning the rule of law because of the alleged necessities brought on by the 9/11 attacks goes hand in hand with a culture that has decided that money is the only valid measuring stick of value and that “free” markets are the best means of making all our choices, even our choices about war.

And the market is governing our choices about education, making liberal arts undergraduate majors so unpopular they’re beginning to disappear. Thus, according to an annual survey by the University of California, Los Angeles, of more than 400,000 incoming freshmen:

In 1971, 37 percent responded that it was essential or very important to be “very well-off financially,” while 73 percent said the same about “developing a meaningful philosophy of life.” In 2009, the values were nearly reversed: 78 percent identified wealth as a goal, while 48 percent were after a meaningful philosophy.

People don’t read the Oresteia anymore. I would bet only a handful of my students even know what it is. So I’m afraid the only thing I don’t agree with when Glenn Greenwald writes the following is any particular sense of being astounded:

It’s truly astounding to watch us — for a full decade — send fighter jets and drones and bombs and invading forces and teams of torturers and kidnappers to that part of the world, or, as we were doing long before 9/11, to overthrow their governments, prop up their dictators, occupy what they perceive as holy land with our foreign troops, and arm Israel to the teeth, and then act surprised and confused when some of them want to attack us. In general, the U.S. only attacks countries with no capabilities to attack us back in the “homeland” — at least not with conventional forces. As a result, we have come to believe that any forms of violence we perpetrate on them over there is justifiable and natural, but the Laws of Humanity are instantly breached in the most egregious ways whenever they bring violence back to the U.S., aimed at Americans. It’s just impossible to listen to discussions grounded in this warped mentality without being astounded at how irrational it is. What do Americans think is going to happen if we continue to engage in this conduct, in this always-widening “war”?

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.

Trademark madness

From Legal Pad: “Sand Hill Advisors, the Palo Alto wealth management company, is suing Sand Hill Advisors, the commercial real estate company in Los Altos, for trademark infringement.” I am, apparently, one of the 3 people Legal Pad asserts did not know that “Sand Hill Road is the iconic stretch of pavement near which the sainted feet of venture capitalists tread daily to their places of work.” There was a time I would’ve known the signifiers that mattered to venture capitalists. I suspect I’m better off no longer knowing.

Apparently the wealth management company claims it’s been using the name since 1995 and that the real estate company is profiting off the value that the wealth management company has created in the name. There would be some merit in the claim if people really are using the real estate company because they think it’s somehow associated with the wealth management company, but that would seem to be a difficult set of facts to establish. Typically, a trademark cannot be enforced against someone using it in a different market because in doing so the alleged infringer typically is not capitalizing on value in the trademark created by the claimant.

In addition, the real estate company claims (it its motion to dismiss (pdf)), that the trademark claim is deficient because the wealth management company “doesn’t even have an enforceable service mark, since the government rejected a trademark application because the name was descriptive of a place.”

Legal Pad, though, is dead on in its prediction: “Sand Hill Advisors has it in the bag.”

But who will win the lawsuit filed by Mickey Mouse against Donald Duck?

Homeland uber alles.

I’m not Hannah Arendt’s biggest fan, but the prominence she gave to “banality of evil” is an accomplishment that ought to be honored through the ages. As Wikipedia explains her thesis as well as it can be concisely described, “the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.” The role of the legal profession in Nazi Germany is, I think, a relatively neglected topic, but one can recognize when judges engage in specious reasoning to transform ugly, degrading, murderous, and unspeakable acts into the “normal” way of protecting our homeland.

I’ve compared the case of Maher Ahar to The Trial. I’m afraid that comparing it to fiction was my own effort to deflect the ugliness. As Glenn Greenwald describes Arar’s nightmare:

Maher Arar is both a Canadian and Syrian citizen of Syrian descent. A telecommunications engineer and graduate of Montreal’s McGill University, he has lived in Canada since he’s 17 years old. In 2002, he was returning home to Canada from vacation when, on a stopover at JFK Airport, he was (a) detained by U.S. officials, (b) accused of being a Terrorist, (c) held for two weeks incommunicado and without access to counsel while he was abusively interrogated, and then (d) was “rendered” — despite his pleas that he would be tortured — to Syria, to be interrogated and tortured. He remained in Syria for the next 10 months under the most brutal and inhumane conditions imaginable, where he was repeatedly tortured. Everyone acknowledges that Arar was never involved with Terrorism and was guilty of nothing.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Arar’s lawsuit (pdf) alleging, among other things, that his treatment by U.S. officials violated his constitutional rights to due process. Why? Because he couldn’t name the people who did what they did to him:

Arar alleges that “Defendants” — undifferentiated — “denied Mr. Arar effective access to consular assistance, the courts, his lawyers, and family members” in order to effectuate his removal to Syria. But he fails to specify any culpable action taken by any single defendant, and does not allege the “meeting of the minds” that a plausible conspiracy claim requires. He alleges (in passive voice) that his requests to make phone calls “were ignored,” and that “he was told” that he was not entitled to a lawyer, but he fails to link these denials to any defendant, named or unnamed. Given this omission, . . . we agree with the District Court and the panel majority that this Count of the complaint must be dismissed. Slip op. at 24-25 (emphasis added).

So next time you’re hauled in off the streets, held incommunicado, and sent to Syria to be tortured, be sure to get down the names of the “officials” doing this to you. Otherwise, you have no constitutional protections against this treatment. It’s all in the name of national security, and that trumps all, right?

This is “judging”?

Blackberry as ball and chain.

When I left practice, the firm I worked for, like every one I knew of, was still too paranoid about security to be online. And I didn’t have a cell phone. I should be grateful. Technology is, like every advance, both a blessing and a curse. I hate when I have lunch with my former colleagues and their attention is on the Blackberry under the table. But at least I understand the dilemma they face. At Quinn Emanuel (the firm a good friend recently moved to), Above the Law reports, a partner’s email made very clear to all that one is on call every waking hour, adding in for good measure a firm-wide swipe at an associate who had actually done a good job but hadn’t checked his email after 7:30 p.m. The email, in part, reads as follows:

You should check your emails early and often. That not only means when you are in the office, it also means after you leave the office as well. Unless you have very good reason not to (for example when you are asleep, in court or in a tunnel), you should be checking your emails every hour. One of the last things you should do before you retire for the night is to check your email. That is why we give you blackberries. I can assure you that all of our clients expect you to be checking your emails often. I am not asking you to do something we do not do ourselves. I can assure you that John Quinn, Peter Calamari, Mike Carlinsky, Faith Gay, Fred Lorig, etc. all check their emails often.

Yesterday I was working with a relatively new associate on a project which both he and I knew was a rush. It was for a relatively new client whom we were trying to impress. The associate did a nice job under pressure. Before I left the office at about 7:30 I sent an email to this associate asking him to perform a task—fax a draft letter for review and comment. I assumed the task was done. Turns out the associate left the office and did not check his emails until this morning. I assumed the task had been completed. It had not been. In this case it was no harm no foul, but I think we can all imagine scenarios when this could be a disaster.

Using the legal system to intimidate — Cook County Prosecutor and Northwestern’s Medill Innocence Project

Before beginning my teaching career, I was a commercial litigator for almost 12 years. As a result, many think I’m one of those people ready to sue at the drop of a hat. But I think that litigators might be among the most litigation-averse people around — we know the price litigation extracts, and we know it’s one of the least desirable means of dispute resolution around. (That’s not to say it isn’t crucial — one has to resort to bold and difficult measures when others fail.)

So litigators know too that suing people — forcing them into litigation — is a powerful weapon. Sometimes it is used flat out to intimidate. An example of litigation being used for, apparently, nothing but intimidation is pointed out by techdirt:

The Medill Innocence Project at Northwestern University “gives undergraduate students firsthand experience in investigating wrongful convictions.” The Project’s efforts have freed 11 prisoners, including 5 who were on death row. But now, according to the Chicago Tribune, in preparation for a hearing the Project’s efforts have won for another prisoner, “[t]he Cook County state’s attorney subpoenaed the students’ grades, notes and recordings of witness interviews, the class syllabus and even e-mails they sent to each other and to professor David Protess of the university’s Medill School of Journalism.”

I can’t say I disagree with Northwestern’s lawyer, who said the prosecutors subpoena is “an unwarranted fishing expedition that focuses on the messenger — rather than on the possibility that an innocent man has spent more than three decades behind bars. Prosecutors, he said, ’seem to be peeved’ at the Innocence Project for uncovering a wrongful conviction.”

The new economy, the billable hour, and law school tuition — change is afoot.

When things change, things change.

I’ve written at length before about the perversities created by the hourly rates charged by lawyers. Hourly billing has been the standard practice in most of legal practice for the past 50 years or so. The practice on its face is troubling — just as our current health insurance scheme provides incentives for doctors and hospitals to do and bill more (and, conversely, to engage in less preventative medicine), so too does the billable hour provide incentives for lawyers to do more and, therefore to bill more.

The system has maintained itself in the same way many of our economic practices have maintained themselves — by means of an every increasing pie. And from the provider end the inflation worked its way down to every level — bills, salaries, hours, and law school tuition all skyrocketed. The tuition rise could be paid for by loans that could be paid with inflated salaries. The inflated salaries were paid by inflated bills, which were produced by inflated hours.

And in 2008 the whole edifice came crashing down. Now, all the talk is about different billing practices.

We’re all still waiting for the change, however. One outcome of a change would be, I hope, a decrease in the use of sheer economic weight to out-litigate an economically disadvantaged adversary. As things stand, as much as I hoped always to be efficient for my client, the adversary would require me to do more than I otherwise would if the adversary chose to contest every matter and to thoroughly investigate every single piece of discoverable evidence (no matter how trivial or irrelevant).

And U.S. students are desperate for relief from the tuition costs the billing practices have raised. Legal jobs are scarce, and those that exist are at depressed salaries. But tuitions have not yet come down. They’re going to have to.

Want to become a practicing lawyer? Don’t go to Harvard! Nesson and Tenenbaum again.

Some of my favorite and most respected former colleagues in practice went to Harvard Law School, but, based on what I’ve been seeing out Charlie Nesson in his role defending Joel Tenenbaum in Sony BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, I have to seriously wonder what Harvard is teaching about the actual practice of law.

I took Nesson to task recently for using his role as lawyer in the case to fight a crusade against the music industry, not to give his client the best defense possible. That attitude alone destroys my confidence in Nesson’s ability to train anyone to be a lawyer.

Now Nesson has proven he can’t write a brief. Yesterday on behalf of Tenenbaum he filed in the court that produced the $675,000 judgment against his client a document entitled Defendant’s Opposition to Entry of Judgment and Injunction (pdf)(the “Brief”). There are some non-frivolous arguments somewhere in that self-righteous screed, but they’re so buried in Nesson’s preference for rhetorical flourish over lawyerly detail that, as a responsibility to the students I am teaching to be lawyers, I have to call him out on his incompetence. A lawyer’s job is to win the judge to his client’s side through persuasive reason and argument; it is not to throw a mess at the judge that may or may not contain winning arguments and leave it to the judge to find those winning arguments.

It’s a dirty little secret that lawyers don’t like to make too much of: lawyers, not judges, win and lose cases. Lawyers don’t like to make too much of it because they want judges to believe they’re the ones from on high pronouncing judgment. But if you convince the judge you’re right and give him the tools to rule your way, you’ll win. It is remarkably pleasing to get an order from a judge ruling in your client’s favor and realize the order is merely a cut-and-pasted version of your brief. Why shouldn’t the judge steal my words if they explain his result as well as he can figure out how to explain them, and why should he trouble himself trying to find better ways to do so?

But Nesson doesn’t give the judge he’s seeking to persuade anything to work with. First, he’s asking the judge not to enter an order that would impose the jury’s verdict and the injunction against his client. But on what basis? Is he asking for judgment notwithstanding the verdict? What procedural rule is he filing his opposition to the entry of the judgment on? His Brief sure doesn’t explain the basis. Nor does it explain what he is asking the judge to do in lieu of entering the order? Dismiss the case? Lower the damages? Lift the injunction? Any or all?

Listen, students: when you write to the judge make sure she knows what you’re asking her to do and the legal basis she has for doing it.

I won’t get into all of the merits of Nesson’s arguments. I think he may well have a due process argument on the excessiveness of the statutory penalties, but even that one is a stretch.

But the argument he considers “first and foremost” is that “the statute in question does not permit a lawsuit against an individual consumer for statutory damages.” Brief at 1-2 (emphasis added). Having not graduated from Harvard myself, perhaps I am missing something. The operative statute, 17 U.S.C. Section 504(c), provides that “the copyright owner may elect . . . to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, . . . .” (emphasis added)

Nor is there anything in any authority to suggest that Nesson’s incomprehensible conclusion that the statute does not contemplate imposing statutory damages on individuals is founded in sources to obscure for me to know.

Nimmer on Copyright, Section 14.04[a] provides: “Under the current Act, the copyright owner may elect to recover statutory damages, instead of actual damages and defendant’s profits. He may, moreover, make such an election regardless of the adequacy of the evidence offered as to his actual damages and the amount of defendant’s profits, and even if he has intentionally declined to offer such evidence, although it was available. . . . The availability of statutory damages under the current Act, even under circumstances in which plaintiff’s damages or defendant’s profits are susceptible to precise evaluation, represents a departure from the pertinent provisions of the 1909 Act.Under that former law, the availability of statutory damages was to a degree discretionary with the court and turned largely upon the proof of actual damages and defendant’s profits.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)

Patry on Copyright, Section 22:153 states: “Statutory damages are damages whose assessment has been fixed by the legislature. They have existed in U.S. copyright laws since preconstitutional days and stand in contrast to common law actual damages and an accounting of defendant’s profits. Recovery of actual damages or profits varies according to the harm suffered or the benefit received, without an upper limit on the recovery. Statutory damages have been believed to be particularly valuable where such relief is difficult to prove. The purpose of statutory damages has been noted a number of times by the Supreme Court.”

Thus, the court in In re Mann, 410 B.R. 43, 49 (Bkr. C.D. Cal. 2009), quoting Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Nimmer at § 1404[A] ), stated: “However, a plaintiff may elect statutory damages for copyright infringement ‘regardless of the adequacy of the evidence offered as to his actual damages and the amount of defendant’s profits.’” In Raydiola Music v. Revelation Rob, Inc., 729 F. Supp. 369, 374 (D. Del. 1990), the court explained that “the purpose of statutory damages is to remedy a wrong which would otherwise go unremedied if actual damages could not be proven.” See also Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Papa John’s Inc., 201 U.S.P.Q. at 305 (”Statutory damages were provided by Congress to create a remedy where actual damages [or profits] are not provable at law, but yet where it is proven that a violation of the copyright has occurred.”).”

In short, the plaintiff in a copyright infringement case has an alternative: he can prove and recover actual damages or seek the amounts allowed by statute. Such alternatives are common in situations in which it might be difficult for plaintiffs, even after having established statutory violations, to quantify their economic harm. It might even be argued that illegal downloading is precisely such a case — how can Sony BMG possibly quantify the sales, if any, it lost as a result of Tenenbaum’s unauthorized downloading of copyrighted songs.

Could I be wrong? Of course, but Nesson hasn’t begun to explain to me why. Instead, he’s made himself out to be someone who makes arguments that are patently false.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m not on Sony BMG’s side. I think the music industry’s legal and business approaches to the technological revolution that has entirely undermined their old business models have been disasters, and I certainly don’t think Joel Tenenbaum should have to pay Sony BMG $675,000.

My problem is that Nesson is Tenenbaum’s lawyer and he hasn’t given me a good reason to believe he can get Tenenbaum free from that monumental verdict.

Lawyers do the best they can for clients; I wish law professors realized that’s what lawyers should always do.

As someone who has practiced over ten years and taught over ten years I am particularly sensitive to the divide between legal practice and legal academia, and I am partial to the legal practice side of the debate. It’s not that a lot of law professors don’t do a lot of good things; rather, it’s that too many law professors and too much legal education proceeds as if the world of practice is irrelevant. In fact, I am convinced that legal education and legal theory divorced from the application of law in practice is meaningless. Law does not exist except as it has the potential to affect the real world (unless you’re talking about religious law).

And it is fundamental to the practice of law that the first and primary responsibility of the lawyer is to the client’s best interests. When you start treating the client merely as a means to raise intellectual issues you find of greater interest you’re doomed to get in trouble.

Charles Nesson is a good example of a law professor who doesn’t understand how to be a lawyer. Nesson ignored the advice of many who are sympathetic to the plight of file sharers in conducting his defense of Joel Tenenbaum, a case which resulted in a $675,000 verdict against his client. There were many who considered Nesson’s defense bad lawyering, including myself. Blue Mass Group even asked whether he was “the worst lawyer ever” in a post that supported the legitimacy of the question with examples from the case:

[T]hrough the course of the litigation, Tenenbaum gave sworn statements that he then contradicted at trial. And in a dramatic moment, it seems that at the end of his testimony, just before the verdict, he actually admitted liability, causing the judge to find him liable and the leave only question of damages for the jury to decide. Who prepared Tenenbaum to testify? Did anyone bother?

It also seems that Professor Nesson made audio-recordings of depositions in the case–perhaps for use in the classroom?–without the knowledge of the lawyers on the other side of the case. This is potentially a crime, as well as an apparent violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which require a lawyer taking a deposition to notify the other side of the method to be used to record it (though perhaps if Professor Nesson was recording depositions taken by the other side, he would not be in violation of the rule–I’m not sure).

Now, Professor Nesson says he will appeal on the judge’s failure to instruct the jury on fair use. I’m not a copyright law expert, but I’ve heard others describe this issue as likely to lose.

In any case, it seems clear to me that Professor Nesson did not really act to protect Tenenbaum’s interest. This twenty-something graduate student is now facing bankruptcy when he could have settled the case for next to nothing.

More support for the criticism of Nesson’s job defending Tenenbaum comes today with the news that the judge in Tenenbaum’s case ordered defendants who did not even bother to defend file sharing charges to pay the minimum penalties allowed under the Copyright Act, prompting Ars Technica to point out that Tenenbaum and others like him “would have been far better off monetarily if they had simply ignored the complaint altogether and failed to show up in court.”

The sad part is Ars Technica is right — sometimes bad lawyering is worse than no lawyering.

Nesson’s response to criticism that he ignored defenses and other strategies he might have used to minimize Tenenbaum’s liability? He writes, without an ounce of apparent regret: “these defenses do not join the fundamental issues. this trial was not an exercise in getting joel off the hook.”

That’s precisely my point. If you treat a case as a means to an end and are willing to sacrifice the client’s best interests to get to that end, you are not doing your ethical duty as a lawyer. If you insist on a jury, make legal arguments there is no good reason to think will prevail, allow your client to lie in pretrial testimony and go ahead and put him on the stand anyway, flout good sense in recording hearings without having gotten the judge’s permission to do so, and then go and post those recordings on line, is it any wonder your client ends up paying a big price?

As I indicated in my last post (and numerous times on this blog and elsewhere), I am convinced the RIAA’s campaign to sue file sharers is misbegotten as a practical, business matter. I’ve even gone out of my way to try to help Nesson. (See also here.) That doesn’t mean that Nesson is a noble guy in sacrificing his client to what he considers a greater cause, and a lawyer should know better.

Let’s get straight the historically profound benefits of making information available online — Scribd this time.

Two days ago I wrote about the court decision holding that the video hosting service Veoh is protected by the ”safe harbor provisions” of the Digital Protection Millennium Act from liability if any of the service’s users upload videos that infringe existing copyrights. One of the reasons Veoh is entitled to those protections is that it uses adequate technological safeguards to police the content its users upload.

So I don’t expect there is much of a chance that a new lawsuit against Scribd, a web site that hosts documents uploaded by its users, will will succeed or even survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a procedural device that ends the lawsuit at its very beginning by means of a court determination that even if everything the plaintiff alleges is true she is not entitled to legal relief. As Geek.com reports, the lawsuit alleges copyright infringement by Scribd not because it hosts copyrighted materials but because the software it uses to detect copyrighted materials before they are published on the site allegedly uses copyrighted materials:

A children’s author in Texas has leveled a strange lawsuit against the company, claiming that the company infringes copyright, but not by hosting infringing works on its service.

No, her claim is even weirder: she maintains that Scribd prevents copyrighted material from being placed on the site by copying the text of copyrighted books and other publications into its copyright infringement detection software, which therefore infringes copyright itself!

The claim may not be as weird as Geek.com believes, though it is likely not to survive long. The original legal challenge to the Google Books Project by the Authors Guild and individual authors holding who were identified was premised largely on the contention not that Google was going to make those authors’ copyrighted works available. It wasn’t. It was only going to make those works searchable so that snippets could be brought up by researchers who could thereby identify and by library loan or purchase obtain relevant works they never otherwise would have found without traveling from Palo Alto, California to Ann Arbor, Michigan to Oxford, England. So what was the problem? The authors alleged that the fact Google was copying their works in their entirety to create the database that would yield the snippets constituted copyright infringement.

And in A.V. v. iParadigms, LLC, 544 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Va. 2008), aff’d in part and remanded, F.3d 630(4th Cir. 2009), plaintiffs were students who alleged that iParadigm’s Turnitin plagiarism detection system — used by schools throughout the country to detect plagiarism committed by students — constituted copyright infringement. Schools that use Turnitin require each student turning in a paper to submit it through Turnitin. Turnitin then compares the paper to its database and prepares a report that rates the similarities of the paper to papers in its database. In addition, Turnitin adds the paper it is rating to the database, thereby constantly growing and increasing the effectiveness of that database.

The students alleged that they owned the copyright in their papers and that IParadigms was infringing those copyrights by copying those papers and using them as part of the Turnitin database. But last March the federal court hearing the lawsuit dismissed it.

There are several interesting points to make about the decision. First, I read the trial court decision (that was later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit) on Scribd (here). Scribd is a tremendous resource for me — a lot of legal documents are not available online, and a lot of valuable ones that are available online are behind paywalls even though they cannot be copyrighted (including a lot of court decisions). Scribd is a solution to this problem, providing a central clearinghouse where lawyers can upload legal documents to make them available to the general public.

The value of resources like Scribd is one of the reasons I find criticisms like that Chris Castle directed at the decision in the Veoh case so maddeningly unhelpful. If one looks at sites like Veoh and Scribd as doing nothing but making available for free works that people would otherwise pay for, then it is much easier to rant and rave that those sites are nothing but distributors of stolen merchandise and to rationalize a stubborn refusal to admit that copyright must be balanced against strong competing interests in free speech and the exchange of ideas. But if you see these sites as profoundly gratifying resources that make the internet the greatest innovation in the history of information technology, the fact that media companies (and even independent writers, artists, and musicians) can readily identify infringing uses that do slip through detection programs does not seem so profoundly troubling. Those copyright owners can quickly employ the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown procedures, which many criticize as too friendly to the copyright holders.

Why would you use copyright to stifle marvelous new innovations? Copyright exists to encourage, not stifle, invention.

So a legal attack on Scribd, even if it is not as “weird” as it might seem on first blush, is something I will scrutinize carefully.

Second, it seems odd that Scribd would be attacked for committing copyright infringement resulting from a mechanism it is employing to minimize copyright infringement by its users and for which it is rewarded by the immunity conferred by the DMCA safe harbor provisions.

Third, a spokesperson for Scribd, as Wired reports, explains that Scribd does not copy works in their entirety as part of its copyright detection system; rather, it “creates a digital fingerprint, or a ‘hash,’ to identify infringing copies.”

Most importantly, even if Scribd did copy the entirety of the copyrighted works only to use those copies to prevent users from uploading and making available to readers those copyrighted works, the decision holding that Turnitin’s similar use of copies copyrighted materials to detect plagiarism is illuminating. The trial court, affirmed in this reasoning by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, explained that “iParadigms, through Turnitin, uses the papers for an entirely different purpose [than those the plaintiff did or could], namely, to prevent plagiarism and protect the students’ written works from plagiarism . . . by archiving the students’ works as digital code.” Thus, while the court recognized that iParadigms profits from its use of the student works, the court found that iParadigms’ use of plaintiffs’ works was “highly transformative” because it adds a “further purpose or different character” to the copyrighted works and “provides a substantial public benefit through the network of educational institutions using Turnitin.” Slip op. at 14.

In affirming the trial court’s decision, the 4th Circuit added to this reasoning and described as “clearly misguided” the argument that   Turnitin’s  use of the plaintiff’s copyrighted papers cannot be considered transformative “because the archiving process does not add anything to the work — Turnitin merely stores the work unaltered and in its entirety”:

The use of a copyrighted work need not alter or augment the work to be transformative in nature. Rather, it can be transformative in function or purpose without altering or actually adding to the original work. See, e.g., Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that Google’s use of copyrighted images in thumbnail search index was “highly transformative” even though the images themselves were not altered, in that the use served a different function than the images served). [Turnitin's] use of plaintiffs’ works had an entirely different function and purpose than the original works; the fact that there was no substantive alteration to the works does not preclude the use from being transformative in nature.

562 F3d at 639.

So let’s get it straight: what Scribd is doing is of tremendous value to society as a whole. It’s use of copyrighted works to minimize the availability on its site of copyrighted works is entirely different than and in no way diminishes the value of the copyrighted works to the owners of the copyrights. A copyright is not ownership of property like title to a car is — it does not give the owner control over any use of that car the owner doesn’t approve. There are a lot of good reasons for these differences. First, if someone else uses your car, you can’t. If someone else uses your copyrighted work, you can still use it too. If they use it for a use you never would have, what’s your problem? And if that other person’s use is doing a lot of good, why should the law confer on you a power to stop it? (Even your ownership of physical property is limited by restrictions imposed for the social good.) Finally, copyrighted works are works of expression, and we have a constitutional right to free expression. The limitation on copyright imposed by fair use is precisely a means of balancing the copyright holder’s interests against this profound social interest in free expression.

It’s an amazing world. In the name of legal rights that exist to promote progress and innovation, people everywhere are trying to stop revolutionary innovations they plainly don’t realize the value of. One of these days I’ll have to talk about the Google Book Project settlement and the fights raging in connection with it. Some are more legitimate than others. But let’s be clear: Google is trying to make available online for research purposes (not in ways that would displace the markets for the works themselves) the contents of major research libraries from around the world. Doesn’t everyone realize what an amazing and unprecedented advance this is for the life of the mind, for anyone anywhere who ever has had an interest in doing research?

Few people read them, but some online agreements are enforceable, and some aren’t; it’s a mess.

Just 3 days ago I wrote about two conflicting decisions concerning the enforceability of online contract provisions that do not require consumers to affirmatively click an “I agree” button. Well, today techdirt points me to a new court decision invalidating such a provision: according to MediaPost, the court “ruled that Internet retailer Overstock can’t enforce the manadatory arbitration agreement set out in its online terms and conditions because there is no evidence that consumers read the policy.” According to the decision, the plaintiff  ”lacked notice of the terms and conditions because the website did not prompt her to review the terms and conditions and because the link to the terms and conditions was not prominently displayed.”

As I wrote the other day, under all the court decisions I am aware of online sellers can ensure that their contracts are not invalidated on these grounds merely by requiring the affirmative act of clicking on an “I agree” button. As I read all of these decisions, online agreements that require the consumer to click “I agree” are enforceable despite the fact that consumers generally do not read the agreements.

To rule otherwise would overturn ages of decisions imposing on the consumer a “duty to read” that binds them to agreements they express agreement to even if they don’t understand what they are agreeing to. It would also leave open to dispute any online transaction that the consumer decided he or she didn’t like, a result that would mire our economy and courts in a mess to deep to contemplate.

There is a solution, however, and it’s one that hit a high gear 50 years ago only to peter out in the wake of our more recent passion for unregulated free markets — consumer protection laws that dictate what terms can and cannot be imposed on consumers. As the situation now stands, we are left with a patchwork effort to find traditional contract rules to come up with fair results (such as invalidating mandatory arbitration clauses that deprive consumers of any meaningful remedies for wrongdoing by online sellers).

In the meantime, I can only repeat what I wrote the other day:

Online sellers: if you want to be maximize the likelihood your agreements are enforceable, do what most online sites do — require your customers to click on a button that expresses their agreement before the transaction is complete.

Online buyers: be careful. Don’t believe that you’re getting what you think you’re getting. You’re only getting what the fine print says you’re getting. But if you do get screwed, remember too that even when you sign something it might be so unfair it is unenforceable.

I don’t think Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl, but why won’t he deny it?

Arts Technica reports that 2 days after the site glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com Beck’s media company “had contacted the domain registrar demanding that the “‘highly defamatory domain name’ glennbeckrapedandmurdered- ayounggirlin1990.com be deleted, that the WhoisGuard privacy protection service be revoked, and that the owner’s contact information be turned over to the lawyers.”

This is a classic case of an effort to “chill” speech you don’t like. Parody and political speech are protected by the First Amendment, but who wants to take on the costs of litigating against a media giant? One of my students asked the other day if there were any way for an individual to get funding to litigate against a large corporation. I explained that there really isn’t. If you’re really, really poor, you might get legal aid, but not likely even if you’re really, really poor to defend against a lawsuit like Beck’s. We have a brilliant legal system, but it’s been entirely distorted by inequalities of wealth and the expense that has become accepted as part of litigation. Someone with little legal merit to their claims or defenses can prevail merely by wearing down and exhausting the resources of their adversary.

I myself wouldn’t begin to conclude from seeing the domain name that there was any real evidence Glenn Beck had raped and murdered a young girl, but one expert in the article thought Beck’s lawsuit had enough merit that it can’t merely be brushed off:

“I don’t think ‘Ha ha it’s a joke’ at the end gets you off,” he says; if the parodic information is defamatory, it’s risky for the defendant in such cases. That’s complicated by the fact that the original domain name made the allegedly defamatory claim against Beck—and of course no one stumbling across the site in a search engine or elsewhere would see any disclaimer. In such cases, the domain name itself is a standalone piece of content; the disclaimer may help regarding the website content, but it won’t necessarily transfer a cone of protection to the domain name as well.

This is what we get when we take seriously allegations like the one that Obama wants to euthanize my mom (would she be so lucky! — sorry, that’s an entirely different and very personal topic).

ADDENDUM: Beck does want to beat Rep. Charles Rangel to death with a shovel, and he wants to kill other people, right?

ADDENDUM 2: This guy Beck may or may not be a rapist and murderer (but why won’t he just prove his innocence?), but he is definitely a first-rate parodist, pointing out the Communist propaganda hidden in New York City. Who knew John D. Rockefeller was really a communist, and that Isaiah’s timeless call to beat swords into plowshares is really an ancient “progressive” plot? He’s hilarious. Everyone does just laugh at this stuff, right?

Doing justice is not calling balls and strikes, and to say it is is un-American.

Law is not a matter of “calling balls and strikes.” Rules in baseball define the strike zone, and there is no reason to suppose those rules should change from game to game or batter to batter.

As I need to begin explaining on Monday to my new law students, to suppose that all one needs to do is know the rules and apply them to the infinite complexities of life to come up with decisions, they are sorely mistaken. Edward H. Levi, in a 1948 law review article later expanded into a seminal book, An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, introduces the complexities of legal analysis as well as anyone I have ever read. As he explains, rules announced in earlier cases are applied as is or changed depending on the degree to which the later case is similar or different than the earlier case in which the rule was originally announced:

Thus it cannot be said that the legal process is the application of known rules to diverse facts. Yet it is a system of rules; the rules are discovered in the process of determining similarity or difference. But if attention is directed toward the finding of similarity or difference, other peculiarities appear. The problem for the law is: When will it be just to treat different cases as though they were the same? A working legal system must therefore be willing to pick out key similarities and to reason from them to the justice of applying a common classification. . . .

Edward H. Levi, An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, 15 U. Chi. L. Rev. 501, 501-03 (Spring 1948)(emphasis added; citations omitted).

So if it turns out that a court is ruling in a case in which a criminal defendant who has been convicted of murder but in the twenty years since the crime “[seven] key witnesses have . . . recanted, and several people have charged that the main prosecution witness was the shooter,” it would seem worthwhile before executing the defendant to hold a hearing to determine whether in fact he is innocent. Certainly there must be some amount of evidence that could turn up years after a murder conviction that would convince just about anyone of the convicted man’s innocence.

Would it make sense in a country that requires “due process of the law” to refuse consideration of the new evidence, no matter how strong? Of course not. It is a justice system. It is fair to say, I think, that it is fundamental to American values that we do not execute people for crimes we know they are innocent of.

But what if a court had never permitted a hearing to prove a convicted man’s innocence before? Should that stop the court from permit the new hearing in the new case? Levy’s account of how the law works makes plain that is not the case. The new case is different than the old one in that the post-conviction evidence of innocence is so strong that it simply isn’t similar enough to all the cases in which new hearings were denied to conclude the court could never order a new hearing.

That, however, is exactly what Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, wrote yesterday:

This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. (emphasis in original)

My point is that it is irrelevant as a matter of legal analysis that the court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted murderer who can convince a court (via the constitutional right to a writ of habeus corpus) that he is innocent. Scalia, Thomas, and commentators like Andrew Sullivan are simply wrong on this one. The implication of their logic is that if we knew we were executing an innocent man for a murder he had been convicted of the overriding concern with procedural rules, not justice, would prevent our justice system from doing anything.

That’s bullshit. I apologize for my language, and I hope I would never use it in the classroom, but this particular reasoning by Scalia and of those who would justify it is no part of a justice system, and it is no part of the way U.S. courts have always operated.

Amazon, EULAs, and Orwell’s memory hole.

Can Amazon take back from y0ur Kindle a book you thought you’d purchased? Well, it did exactly that — Kindle owners who’d obtained ebooks of George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm discovered last week that Amazon had simply deleted those books from their Kindles. No one seems to have known Amazon could do that — the fact the Kindle connects electronically to the internet has until now always been considered a reason the Kindle is better than competing ebook readers.

But did Amazon have the contractual right to do what it did?

The first thing to note is that you don’t “buy” ebooks from Amazon. As the Kindle’s End User License Agreement (”EULA”) states, you merely purchase a “license” to use the ebooks. The license is the right to use the ebooks under the terms of the EULA.

But does the EULA allow Amazon to unilaterally take back a book? I’m not so sure. I think likely Amazon is in breach. Nowhere in the agreement do I see any provision that gives Amazon the right to do what it did. Moroever, the EULA states that the license is one to keep a “permanent” copy of the text you are obtaining and to view, use, and display that text an “unlimited number of times”:

Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times.

The fact Amazon refunded the price of the Orwell books would not excuse its breach. You can’t enter a contract and then unilaterally tell the other side to the deal you want to undo it.

So Amazon may indeed be in breach. But does it matter? First, it would be difficult to prove any damage over and above the “purchase” price, which Amazon has refunded. But there are two more important points. First, as I’ve written before about EULAs, anytime you enter one online you are probably agreeing that the agreement can be amended at any time without even any notice to you. Amazon may simply argue that its recall of the books was an amendment of the agreement.

Second, what are you going to do, sue? You can’t. The EULA requires any dispute arising under it to be arbitrated in Seatlle! Are you going to go to the trouble of hiring a lawyer in Seattle to start an arbitration proceeding so that you might be able to recover a few more bucks? Of course not.

Actions like these are why class actions exist — where a company engages in actions that cause small amounts of damage to many people, it’s not worth any individual’s time or money to pursue a remedy, and even if it were the remedy is so small that the company’s gains from the improper conduct are worth it. As Wikipedia explains:

[A] class action may overcome “the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997) (quoting Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 388, 344 (7th Cir. 1997)). “A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone’s (usually an attorney’s) labor.” Amchem Prods., Inc., 521 U.S. at 617 (quoting Mace, 109 F.3d at 344). In other words, a class action ensures that a defendant who engages in widespread harm – but does so minimally against each individual plaintiff – must compensate those individuals for their injuries. For example, thousands of shareholders of a public company may have losses too small to justify separate lawsuits, but a class action can be brought efficiently on behalf of all shareholders. Perhaps even more important than compensation is that class treatment of claims may be the only way to impose the costs of wrongdoing on the wrongdoer, thus deterring future wrongdoing.

But you can’t bring a class action in arbitration. That’s why all these EULAs require arbitration — so that there’s no opportunity for a class action that would impose on the company the real damages it would be liable for to all the people it has wronged by its conduct.

Pretty clever, eh? Just remember, when you push for “tort reform,” you’re really looking to benefit wrongdoers, not to right the defects of a “broken” litigation system.

ADDENDUM: Maybe there is hope after all – in Harris v. Blockbuster, a federal district court in Texas ruling under Texas state law refused to enforce an arbitration provision precisely because the contract provided a unilateral right to amend. I’ve got to research this point more, but it seems on its face to be consistent with Texas law. I see reason, though, to think it wouldn’t be under the law of many states. The court says the agreement to arbitrate is “illusory” because it can be amended without notice. I would think that in most states the un-amended contract would be enforceable and terms that were added by amendment MIGHT be deemed illusory.