Free for a Fee

Did you know that Paris Hilton recently abandoned her trademark exclamation “That’s Hot!” for “That’s Huge!” We can barely believe it either, but it’s like totally true! Watch it here if you don’t believe us.

We’re of half a mind to end this post right now, but, alas, there’s a legal hook to this all-too-important Paris Hilton news which, in our minds, gives new meaning to the phrase “intellectual property”: The Ninth Circuit earlier today made a ruling in a lawsuit concerning Hilton’s use of the phrase “That’s Hot!” A three-judge panel ruled that Hilton could proceed with her lawsuit against greeting-card maker Hallmark in which she alleges Hallmark misappropriated her picture as well as her use of the “That’s Hot!” saying. Click here for the Reuters story, here for the opinion, written by judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/08/31/thats-hot-paris-hilton-wins-hallmark-decision-at-ninth-circuit/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

By Eric Goldman

United States v. Drew, 2:08-cr-00582-GW (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2009)

Almost 2 months ago, the judge presiding over the Lori Drew trial orally announced that he intended to rule in favor of Drew, but it was a little hard to decipher his statements without a written ruling. On Friday, the judge issued his written ruling, which indicates that he granted Drew’s FRCP 29(c) motion for a post-verdict acquittal. I haven’t seen any announcement of the prosecution’s response and whether they plan to appeal. This ruling also has no direct bearing on any civil claims against Drew. Nevertheless, for now, Lori Drew has been fully acquitted of the criminal charges brought against her.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/08/lori_drew_crimi.htmand was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

Jammie Thomas-Rasset, who was hit with a $1.92 million damage award earlier this year for sharing songs through peer-to-peer networks, has again asked the judge in the case to reduce the damage amount on the grounds that it is simply plucked from the air. What kind of “due process” did she receive during her two trials when the first jury fined her nearly $10,000 per song and the second jury chose $80,000 per song?

“The concerns that trigger the due process inquiry—arbitrariness, variability, and unpredictability in awards—are here in spades; of this, the nearly order-of-magnitude difference between the verdicts in the first and second trials of Mrs. Thomas is unquestionable evidence,” say her lawyers in a new court brief. “An arbitrary award imposed pursuant to a statute is still arbitrary.”

The content in this post was found at http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/BAaf and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/california/cacdce/2:2004cv09484/167815/#20090809

The content in this post was found at http://feeds.feedburner.com/FairlyUsed and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

Cambridge University Press v. Patton is a publishers’ suit against a public university that makes electronic copies of course readings available to students without paying royalty fees. #copyright Court docs courtesy of Justia. http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/georgia/gandce/1:2008cv01425/150651/

The content in this post was found at http://feeds.feedburner.com/FairlyUsed and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.