« More Debate Responses | Main | Author's Note »

October 02, 2004

Comments

What is your hourly rate, need to copyright a title for newsletter?

Von, if you have a minute, could you offer some advice to Josh Marshall on how to write teasers?

What is your hourly rate, need to copyright a title for newsletter?

I don't want to give out my specific rate over the web, but it's in the low-to-mid-200s. You probably don't need me to protect your newsletter, however -- and a trade- or servicemark, rather than a copyright, may in fact be the best route to go. E-mail the ObWi site if you'd like to chat regarding this -- there's no fee, obviously, if I can't help you and certainly no fee for an initial phone call prior to retention. (Typical disclaimers apply: Your e-mail is not protected by the attorney-client privilege, I'm not your attorney, nothing in this exchange creates an attorney-client relationship, etc.)

Thanks, Liberal Japonicus.

von

Von,

Mind if I ask you about a theoretical RICO suit that I've been entertaining in the back of my legally ignorant mind?

The RIAA, which consists of all major record labels, got Congress to apply some surcharges to all CD burners and blank CDs sold with the notion that pirating of music would take place and they deserved some sort of compensation. It seems to me that there are plenty of businesses at least, who used CD-ROM for backups and general storage, who could prove no piracy of any sort took place. This seems to be nothing more than outright theft, a kind of racketeering on behalf of major record labels, who assume that we're all out there illegally duplicating their material and deserve to be paid. The difference between this and mob coming by and demanding "protection money" I can't see.

Is that a case? Or am I hopelessly wrong?

Point of clarification for TTWD, because I was unintentionally imprecise: Copyright is perfectly appropriate to protect the contents of your newsletter, but trademark protection may be better suited for the title of your newsletter, depending on your precise circumstances.

Jonas, I don't want to comment on such a suit for a variety of reasons, but I can say that a claim based on "abuse of legal process" (regardless of how phrased) is extraordinarily difficult to bring in and of itself -- and making it part of a RICO claim would make it that much tougher. In other words, without getting into the (very complex) particulars, I don't think that dog will hunt.

(I make it a practice to never say never, however.)

but I can say that a claim based on "abuse of legal process" (regardless of how phrased) is extraordinarily difficult to bring in and of itself...

That's what I figured. Thanks for clearing that up for me...

The comments to this entry are closed.