brianlfrye.bsky.social
Dogecoin Professor of Law & Grifting. Securities artist & conceptual lawyer. Legal scholarship's #1 plagiarism apologist. https://linktr.ee/brianlfrye
1,132 posts
3,680 followers
660 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
The spirit of Warhol? But it seems to me that a lot of infringement actions are actually unsuccessful authors suing successful ones.
comment in response to
post
I’m not sure that “We should protect authors who can’t compete with generative AI” is a theory that’s going to have legs. I mean, “you can infringe by creating non-infringing works” is not a winner.
comment in response to
post
What totally isn’t scammy? Filing shakedown lawsuits.
comment in response to
post
That would be a truly Pyrrhic victory for the plaintiffs class.
comment in response to
post
But I also think the hard nose policy response is the one Alsup offered: you got the economic benefit you reasonably expected, that’s all you get. And the backdrop to torrents was always efforts to extract maximum rent, rather than market clearing prices. Hurts the fairness angle.
comment in response to
post
By contrast, I think it’s very unlikely courts are going to say “Oh well, I guess we have to hamstring a trillion dollar industry (& hand it over to China) because copyright owners don’t like it.” I guess I could see a new, statutory mechanical licensing fee for training as a compromise.
comment in response to
post
Fair. But I think that in both cases the infringement action should be (& as a practical matter almost always is) against the torrenting company that provided the download. Maybe training was always the paradigmatic fair use?
comment in response to
post
I see it the opposite way: He wanted to be Solomonic & had to make something infringing. He just didn’t do it very convincingly, because his acquisition rule is nonsensical.
comment in response to
post
I mean, IMO, if you take Warhol at its word, these AI cases are pretty easy. With the exception of infringing outputs, the AI companies aren’t making any uses that compete with the economic expectations of the copyright owners.
comment in response to
post
I think the problem here is that his acquisition rule is nonsensical. If I use an image from a book in an article, it’s a fair use if I bought a used copy of the book, but not if I didn’t? Come on.
comment in response to
post
You might consider stealing one of Raymond Roussel's writing strategies. archive.org/details/howi...
comment in response to
post
It should be. But some courts don’t get it. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
comment in response to
post
But I will keep trolling. bsky.app/profile/bria...
comment in response to
post
Amen. When a rent went uncollected, Jesus wept.
comment in response to
post
We are all landlords now. 😔
comment in response to
post
lol been there.
comment in response to
post
Justice means making sure landlords can collect their rents. 😔
comment in response to
post
But Chris, justice means making sure landlords can collect their rents.
comment in response to
post
PS if you don't sue me I will file amicus briefs in your infringement actions.
comment in response to
post
I would prefer not to be at war with anyone.
comment in response to
post
I’ll take artisanal film exhibition, any day.
comment in response to
post
IMO “grading” is not the right framework for something like this. You don’t grade Mein Kampf.
comment in response to
post
Ok. I think that in the English sense, it is perfectly possible for a government action to be legal but unconstitutional.
comment in response to
post
If you have a different definition, you should share it?
comment in response to
post
Well, I agree with you about impeachment. www.jurist.org/commentary/2...
comment in response to
post
I think a state court or administrative court would do.
comment in response to
post
Well, that’s definitely not the law. And I don’t think it would be remotely workable.
comment in response to
post
Well, that’s definitely not the law.
comment in response to
post
Dunno, I think there is such a thing as a legitimately political question, although I agree that more things should be treated as justifiable than currently are.
comment in response to
post
No. It’s that the argument is not convincing.
comment in response to
post
Those cases are being litigated & won.
comment in response to
post
Yes. But unfortunately we can’t do it.
comment in response to
post
Respectfully, I think that complaining about the illegality/unconstitutionality of presidential action, without the legal or political ability to do anything about it merely undermines the legitimacy of those claims. Just say it’s wrong & bad. That’s enough.
comment in response to
post
I guess I’m too much of a positivist for that position.
comment in response to
post
Yes. This is why I find it worrisome.
comment in response to
post
“There is no right without a remedy.”
comment in response to
post
The thing about Area Person Constitutionalism is that it depends on what Area People actually think. Thankfully, I don't think very many people agree with this guy.
comment in response to
post
He's no Derrick Bell.
comment in response to
post
I could see an argument along the lines of "if the Constitution can mean anything, it can also mean this." But that's not at all what's happening here.
comment in response to
post
I think it is fine to say, in the historical English sense, that it is "unconstitutional, but legal." Which is to say, he shouldn't do it, but he can, unless the people who oppose it have the political capacity to stop him. At the moment, it looks like they don't. The cause of action is impeachment.
comment in response to
post
The struggle is real. 🙃
comment in response to
post
Hey, he got a book award.
comment in response to
post
Agreed. I'm trying to be as charitable as possible to the viability of their claim. But the government isn't stopping them from speaking, it just isn't promoting their speech.
comment in response to
post
I encourage you to file a complaint based on the UN charter. You might want to add an admiralty & UCC claim as well.