Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Archiving the Blog

It may sound trite to say I am overwhelmed by the response to ending the blog, but I am. I have read all the requests to either restore old posts or create an archive of them. As much care as I gave to the posts (well, most of the time), I regarded them as ephemera. In the past I weeded out old ones I thought unsuccessful. This time, I deleted them one by one, rather than just killing the blog in its entirety since if I had killed the blog in its entirety, that would have simultaneously killed the last post announcing the end of the blog too. But because I eliminated the posts one by one, to restore them, I would have to restore them one by one, by URL, rather than by name of the post. That's way too much work for something I am not wild about anyway.

But, since so many people asked, I am doing this: I am creating a file with most of the posts (weeding out really trivial one). I will organize them by subject matter too, like registration issues, or infringement issues, architectural works, photographs, or discrete policy issues etc. I will finish in a number of days and will happily send the file to anyone who wants it. (You can email me at: williampatry@yahoo.com). I am happy if anyone wants to take the file and host it. I am also happy for anyone to copy any or all of the cached copies and do whatever they want with it. I will also revisit the issue of posting again after I have had a break and if I can figure out the answer to the problems I noted.

Thank you all very much for your comments and support. I still have my day job doing copyright, I still have the treatise which I update twice a year, and I may have a book on copyright discourse if I can find something constructive to say.


Bill

18 comments:

Krakovianka said...

I have visited your blog often to read the voice of good, calm, rational sense on this subject. I'm very, very sorry that it is going away, and dismayed that my bookmarks to specific posts will no longer work. I'll be watching to see how I can get your archive, because I do want it. Thanks for your sharing as you have.

Kevin Wimberly said...

I would LOVE to get the file. I'm lucky because I have some of my favorite posts saved via my RSS reader, but a more complete archive would be great. I'm sure you'll get better offers to host it, but I'll offer, too!

kevin AT kevinwimberly DOT COM

Anthony Halderman said...

I am truly sorry to see this blog go. I am just beginning my 2L year in a few weeks now, and I will be taking my first IP class, something I am heartily looking forward to. A friend turned me on to your blog only a few months ago, and in the short time I read it it seemed both incredibly knowledgeable,and very reasonable. I'm sorry to lose it from my daily trawl. I would love to get a copy of your file, but I currently have no hosting capacity. Thank you.

deathsausage at hotmail dot com

Anonymous said...

I wonder what those crazies will read into the fact that you have a Yahoo email address instead of a Gmail one? :-)

In all seriousness though, thank you!

- IDBIIP

King Rat said...

I'd love to get a copy of the file. I already miss being able to refer back to those posts just so I can get a clue.

I would also love to host an archive of the site, though I can't do much more than that. I.e., I am just a techie, not a lawyer.

reading [at] kingrat.biz

William Patry said...

Good news on the archive hosting front: Rick Mason has agreed to host it here: libology.com

I will post when it is done and hosted. Thanks Rick.

Morris Rosenthal said...

Bill,

I've been a reader of your blog since my lawyer pointed it out when I became involved in copyright litigation in 2005. If you're interested in putting the archive in print as a book, with either yourself as the publisher or somebody else, I'd be happy to explain all of the options available with print-on-demand. If you've only heard of POD in a negative light, it's by folks who confuse the technology with the subsidy publishers who have adopted it as a cheap way to put authors in print, But the biggest uses are academic presses, trade backlist, and independents like myself.

Just google my name for contact info if you're interested, though I'm signed in with my gmail account so you you might get my e-mail with the post notification

Morris Rosenthal

BirgitteSB said...

Thank you for making the archives available. They have served as guidance for me in the past and a topically organized file of them will be a real treat for future questions. Of course, no where near the sort of treat your return to blogging after this break would be! Good luck with any path you choose to follow and again, thank you for all you have shared so freely.

Bryan Huang said...

I have been subscribed to this blogs for months, thanks for all your insights and clear non-biased thoughts. It is one of the best site on copyright issues.
I am sorry to hear that you end this blog. Still, thanks for archiving the articles.

Ben D. Manevitz said...

Morris --

I am compelled to point out, particularly in this context, that Professor Patry should NOT, under any circumstances, "google [your] name."

Rather, he should search for your name on Google.

--Ben

Reid Dammann said...

Thank you for keeping it alive. It has been a wonderful resource.


reiddammann AT gmail DOT COM

HJLaw said...

Thank you for the offer, I will take you up on it by email.

You have been a voice of reason and passion, academic precision and real-world experience--a rare combination. You will be sorely missed. As a solo practitioner, I can't afford your treatise, but your analysis of past cases will continue to enlighten me.

Jonas said...

All is not lost!

While I can your frustration with the copyright law in its current state, things may be soon to change:

http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/11/4barack.html


As a fan of the blog, I am looking forward to reading the archive.

Morris Rosenthal said...

Ben,

I thought that the Google trademark had long since been diluted into verb form, but I'm one of the non-legal minds on the blog.

Morris

Anonymous said...

Some postings are available here:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://williampatry.blogspot.com/

Greg Weeks said...

Thank you for allowing an archive to go up.

Right after you pulled your blog I wanted to send somebody to one of your old posts. (one of the Happy Birthday ones)

Greg Weeks

Ray Beckerman said...

I would be delighted to have an opportunity to host the file on my site http://beckermanlegal.com

GoldySJSU said...

Please check my information regarding a curious matter:

10th Cir.: Court reporters do not own a copyright in the transcripts that they prepare

United Transp. Union Local 1745 v. City Of Albuquerque, 2009 WL 2573815 (10th Cir. 2009)

There was an interesting little unpublished decision issued by the Tenth Circuit (McConnell, Tymkovich, O’Brien writing) this past Friday. An attorney represented a group of plaintiffs in a suit against the City of Albuquerque. The district court appointed a Special Master to conduct hearings, for which the City of Albuquerque ordered and paid for transcripts. The attorney for the plaintiff used the Inspection of Public Records Act, N.M. Stat. § 14-2-1 to 14-2-12, to obtain copies of the transcripts directly from the City, instead of paying the court reporter a higher fee.

The City and the court reporter complained to the district court and, after the case settled, the district court ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to pay the reporter a little over four thousand dollars. The attorney for the plaintiffs appealed in his individual capacity. The 10th Circuit overturned finding that to require the counsel to pay the fee would effectively give the court reporter a copyright in his transcripts:

In broad terms, [the court reporter's] fee claim rests on the tacit premise that court reporters in some legal sense own the content of the transcripts they prepare, such that they are entitled to remuneration whenever a copy of a transcript is made (even if they played no role in making the copy). [B]To accept this premise would effectively give court reporters a “copyright” in a mere transcription of others’ statements, contrary to black letter copyright law. See 2 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright, Ch. 4 Noncopyrightable Material, § 4.88 (Updated Sept. 2008) (court reporters are not “authors of what they transcribe and therefore cannot be copyright owners of the transcript of court proceedings”).[/B]

That seems pretty clear to me. The California Legislature broke copyright law in passing:

69954. (d) Any court, party, or person who has purchased a transcript may, without paying a further fee to the reporter, reproduce a copy or portion thereof as an exhibit pursuant to court order or rule, or for internal use, but shall not otherwise provide or sell a copy or copies to any other party or person.

This is a false claim of copyright law written by the legislature and thus is a crime under:

17 U.S.C. § 506 : US Code - Section 506: Criminal offenses
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than 2,500.

Since the Court reporter made a false claim of ownership as cited by her email:

Dear Mr. Goldstein,

I am in receipt of your email, dated September 3, 2009. In it, you ask my permission to reproduce the transcript I prepared for you of your traffic proceeding to a public website.

I must advise you that I do not give permission to reproduce my proprietary work product. This includes requests to copy, or disseminate, or post in any manner to the internet. Such actions are prohibited by GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 69954.

Accordingly, I must deny your request to post my transcript in its entirety or any part thereof to any website, for any purpose, or in any other way cause it to be reproduced or disseminated.

I regret that I could not be of assistance to you.

Pam Cardiff

This is a claim of false copyright and must be punished by the letter of the law.