Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: Judge Rakoff  (Read 6466 times)

Engel Nyst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Rakoff
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2016, 10:56:38 PM »
I don't know if that's the case lol but the incursion is fun. Rakoff appears to be a textualist, one extremely attentive to formalistic details and not easily swayed by stuff even impressive facts - usually. A recent case, on unenforceable contract with Uber, seems the exception. His decision there was called "judicial activism".

Hard to guess if that's good or bad for our case.

Engel Nyst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Rakoff
« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2016, 06:54:46 PM »
Speaking of textualism, same goes for his decision on retroactive licenses, discussed in Palmer/Kane v Rosen. One thing was that Judge Rakoff seemed to believe that he had to rule this way, because the 2nd circuit has spoken.

Quote
this Court is not of the view that it has the discretion to narrow the scope of Davis's holding on the basis that Davis was animated by a set of considerations that are arguably not relevant here. That, of course, begs the question whether what Davis described as its holding — "that a license or assignment in copyright can only act prospectively" — was truly its holding in the precedential sense. . .

Quote
The Second Circuit might one day limit the scope of Davis in the manner [defendant] seeks. But until such time, this Court cannot disregard Davis's categorical conclusion "that a license or assignment in copyright can only act prospectively.

I should note, as the decision itself does, that four (FOUR!) other district judges have interpreted Davis to not say "a license can only act prospectively" in all cases, but only in co-ownership context, or otherwise narrower.

Engel Nyst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Rakoff
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2016, 08:48:59 PM »
In Cammeby's v Affiliated and Alliant, the judge writes:
Quote
The resolution of the pending motion seeking judgment as a matter of law or a new trial is long overdue, but in one respect it presents a close call that has given the Court much hesitation. Hamlet, however, is not a good model for a judge (or, perhaps, anyone else), and so the Court hereby rules, and grants the motion in part — though still not without hesitation.

He granted the motion for a new trial, after a jury trial that decided some of the issues, because one issue remained, where instructions for the jury didn't fully express NY law on the matter.

Engel Nyst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: Judge Rakoff
« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2016, 09:06:29 AM »
Quick timeline:

2000-2003

In some of the MP3 series of cases, judge Rakoff held that, given the law as it is, retroactive licenses from a co-owner of the copyright are fine, and they extinguish claims of infringement from another co-owner.

Copyright.Net v. MP3.com, and
Country Road Music v. MP3. Com.

For example,
Quote
the unambiguous language of this release creates a retroactive reproduction license that cures any past infringement by MP3.com of these works.

It seems clear he accepted it, as that was the law - there were some precedent cases already.

2007
The Davis v. Blige case in the Second Circuit held that between co-owners, no there can't be a retroactive license or transfer done after an infringement occurs. The court didn't decide only that, though; it also stated its conclusions in broad language, which sounds like it applies to all situations, sole ownership and co-ownership, not only co-ownership.

Such as,
Quote
Licenses and assignments [...] are prospective.

2016
In the Palmer/Kane v Rosen case, judge Rakoff takes this language to mean what it says: that there are no retroactive licenses as a matter of law in the Second. In sole ownership situations, as well as any.
Quote
what Davis described as its holding — "that a license or assignment in copyright can only act prospectively" —
[...] is unambiguous and the result of full judicial consideration.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Judge Rakoff
« Reply #19 on: September 27, 2016, 03:28:54 AM »
Yes, Engel Nyst, is on fire with his contributions. I really can't keep up with all the new information.  :-)

One has to appreciate your "gung ho-ism"!
 8)
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

 

Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.