Post 1 (Bill)To be continued...
Post 2 (Ben)
Post 3 (Bill)
Post 4 (Ben)
Post 5 (Bill)
Friday, August 14, 2009
More back and forth will Bill Patry
My dialogue with Bill Patry continues on his new blog. Here's the full set of posts so far:
2 comments:
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Perhaps I am overlooking points, but after perusing all of the comments I am hard pressed to find where you and Patry may disagree on substantive law. Disagreement perhaps on factual matters and what significance, if any, could/should be ascribed to such matters (e.g., makeup of JRT and JT jury panels)? Yes, reasonable minds will always differ to varying degrees. But the substantive aspects of Title 17? I am not really seeing any.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 8:26:
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for Bill, but I think you are largely correct. One thing I always liked about his former blog is that it almost always referenced the actual language of the statute, and the cases that interpret it. Too much blogospheric discussion of copyright (especially by non-lawyers) consists of pontification totally unmoored by the statute or case law, and often consisting of simply false paraphrases of it.
Reasonable people can certainly disagree about what the statute and case law mean, and how they apply to a particular set of facts. But I think it's important to start from a place where reasonable people really can't disagree: what the statute and the cases actually say. And it's why on this blog, I cite and link to statutes, cases, and documents wherever possible (despite the hefty PACER bills this policy generates).