Saturday, May 16, 2009

Sentence of the week (via Team Tenenbaum)

It would be a bizarre statute indeed that offered two completely unrelated remedies within the same section: we imagine, for example, that the Court would be baffled by a statute that granted a plaintiff the choice between two remedies, one of which granted actual damages and lost profits, and the other of which granted plaintiffs the right to drive a flock of sheep across federal property on the third day of each month.
Joel Tenenbaum's (proposed) Reply to the United States of America's Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and in Defense of the Constitutionality of the Statutory Damage Provision of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).

So would we!

1 comment:

Comments here are moderated. I appreciate substantive comments, whether or not they agree with what I've written. Stay on topic, and be civil. Comments that contain name-calling, personal attacks, or the like will be rejected. If you want to rant about how evil the RIAA and MPAA are, and how entertainment companies' employees and attorneys are bad people, there are plenty of other places for you to go.