This Week's Blawg Busts

The recent vice raid was a great success, although the agents are exhausted and things in the holding cell are getting a little scary. It's been a slow week as the new inmates are processed, but Robert Fortuno decided to come quietly. His blog is brand new and he has hit the ground running. Also, Agent Salisbury put her badge to good use and brought in two renegade blawgers: Fritz Schrank of Sneaking Suspicions, who had the post on the new pet-friendly policy at the House I so enjoyed via Ann's pointer, and William Sulik of Blithering Idiot, who writes of law and politics and judging from his title has a healthy sense of the important contributions we bloggers are making to Humanity.

Agent Steffens lets us know his News For Christians [update: Antioch Road] updates more frequently than his Random Notes. Also, the syndicate that is i330 has gone more anonymous with its contributors, so our link at right will behave accordingly (formerly "Hensley").

You Need This

After finishing up the work week everyone could use a chuckle or three, and Ann provides some gems.

Two Artists Consider Creative Commons

Fishrush may decide to drown me in kelp for using the "A"-for-Artist word about him, but you and I know this is one incredibly talented guy, who manages to combine a wide-ranging intellect with a sharp wit and turn them into writings and visual works any self-respecting SpongeBob fan could love. The "A" word also fits Andrea James like a proverbial catsuit, when it comes to both her written and more technical creations. So it's particularly appropriate that the two of them have been discussing Creative Commons and how it might or might not prove useful to artists. Andrea points out the value of creating a convenient and simple way for artists to navigate the legal landscape concerning the use of their works by others. Fishrush raises several good questions, including: How does Creative Commons plan to handle the situation of an artist who generates a Creative Commons Custom License for a work or series of works, and decides later to revoke that license? How will those who may be using the work per the (now superseded) terms of the license be notified? Must they then stop using the work(s) or face liability for royalties and/or infringement? Same questions, except suppose the artist initially chooses the Public Domain Option and changes his or her mind down the road?

These are eventualities Creative Commons is sure to have considered in detail, and since it is quite open to feedback I'll forward an email and follow up here as appropriate. Also, Andrea encourages your input on the discussion she has blogged.

Thanks, Frank, for letting me know and for your superb interview with Andrea.

Stats (courts, not blogs)

Howard is 100% right on this, and I appreciate the clarification. The outcome of any given appeal depends on the reviewing court's evaluation of the correctness of the decision below, and I didn't mean to suggest a fixed number of appeals considered on their merits (e.g., 90% or so) fail to obtain the relief they seek because courts have set targets or limits on the number of cases to be reversed. Each case is considered independently by a reviewing court, and if all of its cases in a given year call for reversal under the applicable law and standards of review, then all of those appellants will go home victorious. Courts probably hate to see sweeping statistical generalizations about themselves as much as you or I do. But statistics, flawed as they are, provide a historical overview. It's impossible to say in any given case what will happen, but -- owing to the conscientious efforts of trial judges, and the appellate courts' deference to them in many instances, among other considerations -- as an appellant in most jurisdictions (including the Third Circuit), Vegas would give you long odds. Of course, that doesn't mean you don't have the legs to win the Derby.

Congratulations, It's An Appeal

The Reuters report widely circulated today about the recent Third Circuit filing is a little off (see below). As RAIN: Radio And Internet Newsletter explains (and the Third Circuit docket confirms), the Appellant's brief was filed yesterday in Bonneville Int'l. Corp. v. Peters, Third Circuit docket no. 01-3720, in connection with the appeal initiated in October, 2001. The RAIN article also provides links to the brief and a summary -- available as PDFs here on the National Association of Broadcasters site -- and Kurt Hanson offers his take on "How does this logic relate to Internet-only radio broadcasters?"

Thanks to Kevin Marks, the brains behind , for spotting this on Slashdot, where there is much discussion about whether Internet-only radio broadcasters may be harmed or helped if the appellants prevail; see, e.g. here (FCC licensed broadcasters benefitted) and here (discussing licensing options for Internet-only broadcasters). Given the long odds on appeal, however -- for example, the Adminstrative Office of the U.S. Courts reports that only 10.5% of appeals resolved on the merits in the Third Circuit between 9/30/00 and 9/30/01 resulted in a reversal of the challenged judgment or order -- regardless of what the appeal could accomplish, Judge Schiller's decision is likely to stand.