Here's my report on the actual ruling which is being reviewed: 2nd Circuit affirms denial of plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion in WNET v Aereo

I guess it would take a litigator to notice this, but it's quite unusual that a preliminary injunction denial would be getting this kind of appellate attention.

In the first place, it was unusual for an interlocutory appeal to be granted from the denial of the preliminary injunction motion. In federal court usually you can only appeal from a final judgment.

Similarly, apart from the fact that it's always rare for a certiorari petition to be granted, it's especially tough where the appeal is not from a final judgment, but just from a preliminary injunction denial which does not dispose of the whole case.

So, ARs are universally "cheap." Their ownership needs to be "justified." They're "SHIT unless you need to kill people," which naturally makes them a terrible choice for "self defence." You either don't know what "semi-automatic" means, or you're appallingly ignorant of gun regulations.

What made you think you're "part of the gun crowd," or even qualified to have an opinion? If you actually do own a firearm, you should be ashamed of not knowing the laws you're supposed to be following.

And that is exactly why you could film a new Oz film, just as long as nothing's called "Oz."

You're right; my biases got the better of me. Disney was making another Oz movie, and, in a refreshing change of pace, Warner was being a jerk.

You still have to be very careful with things that are in the public domain. Reprints of images from the movie posters (now in the public domain) were found to be infringing, and Warner thinks it's entitled to a trademark on anything involving the word "Oz."

While that's true in theory, you're forgetting that copyright law exists only to benefit Disney. The Wizard of Oz is also in the public domain, but Oz the Great and Powerful needed Disney lawyers on set to approve what shade of green they painted the witch.

If you had the audacity to attempt filming a Snow White movie without the Mouse's explicit, written consent, their legal team would relish driving you to bankruptcy--even though you'd be perfectly within your rights.

Do you mean to tell me that Canadians buy homes from cash on hand?

That might have something to do with the fact that most Canadian homes don't cost over a million dollars.

I think Boston is America's Madagascar.

You're comparing three minutes of frivolous background noise to the written word as if they were of equivalent value?

Seriously?

This really is a problem, though. I used to do phone interviews for my employer, but I stopped after a couple of months. It's really, really awkward to try to interview someone you simply cannot understand, no matter how many times they repeat themselves.

You and people like you have done far more damage to this country than any terrorist could ever hope to achieve.

Funny, I had the same reaction when I read it. He seemed like a salesman for Google or something.

Dear Prince Bernard, If you're talking about my bank account, you're barking up the wrong tree :)

Fair use cases are very fact specific. If you start monkeying with the facts, Judge Chin might not feel the same way about it.

I don't know but please hire me as your lawyer when you do.