Stanford Law School yesterday announced a settlement in the litigation over unpublished materials by the Joyce Family that we discussed last year.
The case resulted in a settlement not in the sort of authoritative court ruling that many had hoped for.
The work that had been cut from the book on Lucia Joyce will be published here – but it's not live yet.
But at least one of the world's most aggressive copyright plaintiffs has been pushed back somewhat.
Respond: make a comment | read the 2 comments
Share:
Email
|
Save as PDF | Print
|
Bookmark & Share
|
|
More: in Substantive Law | from Simon Chester
|
the count:
8219 posts | 11403 comments
recent comments  
When you need to collaborate on a document displayed on your screen, it’s great to have a colleague from down the hall come into your office and look over your … »»Technology You should assess whether you can accept the financial risks associated with taking the matter, just as clients will assess whether they can (and will) pay your fee. Spend time at the beginning of the. […] »»Practice Today’s Tip is a simple reminder to view by “latest activity date”. The Parliament is back in session and those Slaw Tips readers for whom monitoring legislation is a regular … »»Research
-
Available online today are four new chapters of the publication Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report, which explores the socio-demographic and economic circumstances of Canadian women in general.
-
The bill amends the Constitution Act, 1867 by readjusting the number of members and the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons.
-
-
Blueseed plans to buy a ship and turn it into a floating incubator anchored in international waters off the coast of California.
-
Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the flow of information out of Ottawa has slowed to a trickle.
-
-
"…the IPC has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a record is in the custody or control of a university in the context of an access request…"
-
-
John J.L. Hunter, Q.C. of Vancouver has been elected President for 2011-2012
-
Detailed results from 321 members.
These summaries of selected recent cases are provided each week to Slaw by Maritime Law Book.
More information.
-
Banks and Banking - Liability of banks to third parties - Negligence - General
The plaintiffs were the former shareholders of a company that failed. They sued the defendant bank alleging that it breached its contract with the company and the plaintiffs and breached a duty ...
-
Actions - Cause of action - General principles - New or extended cause of action - Opening of floodgates
The plaintiff and defendant worked at different branches of the same bank. The defendant’s common-law husband was the plaintiff’s ex-husband. Over a four year period, the defendant ...
-
Aliens - Definitions and general principles - Immigration consultants
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) had been designated as the sole regulatory body of immigration consultants in Canada from 2004 until June 2011. On June 30, 2011, Bill C-35 came into force, which significantly amended ...
-
Criminal Law - Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct - Public morals - Obscenity - Possession of child pornography
The accused was convicted of making child pornography available and two counts of possession of child pornography (see [2010] Sask.R. Uned. 197). Subsequently, he was sentenced ...
-
Criminal Law - Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding pleas or evidence of witnesses, co-accused and accomplices
Rowe was convicted by a jury of five offences. He appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed ...
-
Narcotic Control - Offences - Possession - General
The accused wished to access marijuana for medicinal purposes but did not have an authorization to possess marijuana issued under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations. He was notified that a package of marihuana addressed to him had been ...
-
Narcotic Control - General - Legislation - Exemptions - Medicinal marijuana
McCrady, who had an application pending under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) to possess and grow marijuana, was convicted of possession of marijuana (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), s. 4(1)). Hearn pleaded guilty ...
-
Criminal Law - Sentence - Trafficking in hashish or marijuana (incl. possession for purposes of trafficking)
The accused pleaded guilty to one count of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. He was sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment to be served intermittently and 11 months’ ...
-
Municipal Law - Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Imposition and collection of taxes or fees
Catalyst Paper Corp. operated a paper mill in the District of North Cowichan. Catalyst objected to the tax rate that it paid compared to residential ratepayers. In 2009, the ...
This is a listing of a few upcoming events in Canada of interest to lawyers, law students, legal librarians, and others involved in the practice of law.
Clicking on any event in the list below will give you access to more information and to links allowing you to see the full entry and to add the event to your own calendar.
Click this link for a fuller version of the TalkLaw/ParLoi calendar of events and for instructions as to how to add events and calendars to your own calendar.
|
…Nowhere is this more clear than online. The internet, that hotbed of innovation, has given rise to many modern copyright controversies, not only infringements such as napster (A&M Records v Napster 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001); decision; wikipedia here and here) and grokster (MGM Studios, Inc v Grokster Ltd 545 US 913 (2005); decision; wikipedia here and here | recent discussion here), but also less straightforward and still undecided issues such as google books (which I have already discussed here) or Viacom's suit against YouTube (discussed by Daithí here). Whatever about the merits of the individual cases, it is becoming increasingly clear that the the internet's culture of innovation is running squarely into the brick wall of expansive copyright protection, extended online by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1988 in the US (text | wikipedia) and the EU's copyright policy for the Information Society (monitored here by fipr). Developments on the internet are demonstrating by the minute that the balance has tipped too far in favour of the monopoly reward, and too far away from encouraging innovation. In particular, the US fair use doctrine is too narrow, and the fair dealing exception in other common law countries is quite frankly unfair. As the recent litigation by the Joyce Estate demonstrates (background: William Patry; Funferal; Fergus Cassidy. Outcome: Lessig; Concurring Opinions; Fergus Cassidy here and here; Slaw; Stanford CIS, here and here), they barely work offline. Neither can do the work required to maintain an appropriate balance between monopoly and innovation. This is beautifully illustrated in John Naughton's column in the Observer yesterday: The very model of a modern creative society? I don't think so (he blogged it on Memex 1.1; commented upon by Daithí on Lex Ferenda).
[...] Nowhere is this more clear than online. The internet, that hotbed of innovation, has given rise to many modern copyright controversies, not only infringements such as napster (A&M Records v Napster 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001); decision; wikipedia here and here) and grokster (MGM Studios, Inc v Grokster Ltd 545 US 913 (2005); decision; wikipedia here and here | recent discussion here), but also less straightforward and still undecided issues such as google books (which I have already discussed here) or Viacom’s suit against YouTube (discussed by Daithí here). Whatever about the merits of the individual cases, it is becoming increasingly clear that the the internet’s culture of innovation is running squarely into the brick wall of expansive copyright protection, extended online by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1988 in the US (text | wikipedia) and the EU’s copyright policy for the Information Society (monitored here by fipr). Developments on the internet are demonstrating by the minute that the balance has tipped too far in favour of the monopoly reward, and too far away from encouraging innovation. In particular, the US fair use doctrine is too narrow, and the fair dealing exception in other common law countries is quite frankly unfair. As the recent litigation by the Joyce Estate demonstrates (background: William Patry; Funferal; Fergus Cassidy. Outcome: Lessig; Concurring Opinions; Fergus Cassidy here and here; Slaw; Stanford CIS, here and here), they barely work offline. Neither can do the work required to maintain an appropriate balance between monopoly and innovation. This is beautifully illustrated in John Naughton’s column in the Observer yesterday: The very model of a modern creative society? I don’t think so (he blogged it on Memex 1.1; commented upon by Daithí on Lex Ferenda). [...]