Mark Jaffe, 5 Bridges Law

I quote-posted the right account but the wrong decision because I mixed up all the decisions finding that ICE is abusing constitutional rights. Here's the correct one:
bsky.app/profile/kyle...

From the opinion:
"This isn’t how things are supposed to work in America.
Unquestionably, the laws of human decency condemn such villainy."
(Judge is a Trump appointee, for what it's worth. Brooklyn born.)

ICE agents, after learning they had the wrong guy and that this guy was authorized to work in the US, continued to detain him and have removal proceedings agains him.

I am back in D.C. to hear from cruel Kristi Noem on why she is complicit in the chaos happening at DHS, vote on a War Powers Resolution to rein Donald Trump in, and vote against a DHS funding bill that does nothing to address the reckless actions we’re seeing from ICE.

The work continues.

Undergrated comment

To recap, Salt N Pepa shought a declaration that their termination notices were valid so that the sound recording copyrights would revert to them under 17 USC 203. But the district court held they couldn't exercise the termination right because they never owned the copyright.

Salt N Pepa notice appeal Form C

Salt N Pepa have appealed the decision against them in James v. UMG, as expected.

Interesting that the lawyer on this appeal is new. Richard Busch, best known for his victory in the Blurred Lines trial, filed the appeal on their behalf.
www.documentcloud.org/documents/27...

You can't possibly think this is a good point.

It's interesting that filing an amicus brief supporting the interpretation of birthright citizenship that has existed for over a century is a point for partisanship, but setting up a farm system for exclusively conservative judges is not

'UNIMAGINABLE CRUELTY': Judge Gary Brown, a Trump appointeee from NY, thrashes DHS' treatment of a man who came to the US at 9 as an abuse/neglect victim, has no criminal record and became a college grad.

"The laws of decency condemn such villainy." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 25A914 NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, ET AL. v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY No. 25A915 PETER KOSINSKI, ET AL. v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [March 2, 2026] The applications for stay presented to JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and by her referred to the Court are granted. The January 21, 2026 order entered by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Index No. 164002/2025, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the New York state courts and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the issuance of the mandate of this Court.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting from grant of stay. The Court's 101-word unexplained order can be summarized in just 7: "Rules for thee, but not for me." Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not interfere with state-court litigation. Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not meddle with state election laws ahead of an elec-tion. Today, the Court says: except for this one, except for this one, and except for this one. Ignoring every limit on federal courts' authority, the Court takes the unprecedented step of staying a state trial court's decision in a re-districting dispute on matters of state law without giving the State's highest court a chance to act. Because that order violates basic principles of jurisdiction, federalism, and equity, I respectfully dissent.

BREAKING: SCOTUS blocks New York state court redistricting order, over the strong dissent of the Democratic appointees.

So a copyright infringement can sound like a plagiarism dispute, because sometimes we’re asking similar questions. But they’re necessarily different, and copyright lawyers usually avoid that term (except when we’re citing Sheldon v. MGM). 17/17
(as with all my threads, asterisks everywhere)

Additionally, the similarities in the works are often used as evidence of copying. The theory is that these works are so similar in material ways for a jury to reasonably to infer it’s from copying. That’s often called “striking similarity”. 16/17

Plaintiff will try to introduce circumstantial evidence that their work was copied. In lawsuits where someone claims a movie infringed their screenplay, that evidence is often something like “I showed my screenplay to someone else who must have given it to defendants” 15/17

Because actual copying must be proved, sometimes a key issue is whether the alleged infringer had access to plaintiff’s work. After all, if defendant never saw or heard plaintiff’s book/screenplay/song, they couldn’t have copied it. 14/17

To prove copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant copied original expression from plaintiff’s work. It must be “actual copying.” If it was independently created, there’s no infringement. 13/17

Another reason it’s tempting to discuss plagiarism when we’re discussing copyright infringement cases is that sometimes it seems like a plagiarism issue. 12/17

The principle in that decision is important. If someone is infringing, then “but this how much of the work I didn’t use” isn’t a defense. *
11/

One reason we’ll see the p-word arise in copyright law regardless: it’s the chosen language in a court decision that’s often cited: “no plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate”. Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 56 (2d Cir. 1936)
10/17

On the other hand, someone uploading an entire movie to YouTube without the authorization of the studio, that’s probably copyright infringement. And probably not plagiarism because the infringer isn’t holding themselves out as the movie’s director. 9/17

So, if a college student pays someone else to write their paper for them, it probably meets the university’s definition of plagiarism. It’s probably not copyright infringement because the person who wrote it likely consented to the plagiarist’s use. 8/17

Notice that Oxford’s definition of “plagiarism” says “with or without consent of the original author”. Copyright infringement, by contrast, means use of another’s work without authorization. No infringement if there’s consent. 7/17

Also, someone might be plagiarizing if they pass someone else's ideas as their own without giving credit can be plagiarism. It’s not copyright infringement because copyright doesn’t protect ideas. 6/17

In many ways, plagiarism sweeps more broadly than copyright infringement. If someone submits Shakespeare sonnets as their own, that’s plagiarism. It’s not copyright infringement because those works are in the public domain. 5/17

Oxford University’s definition is “Presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement.” 4/17

Merriam-Webster’s definition of “plagiarize” is “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source”. 3/17

“Plagiarism” is not a term with legal significance in copyright law. It doesn’t appear in the Copyright Act. The Copyright Office Compendium is nearly 1400 pages and it doesn’t use term even once. 2/17

A few words about plagiarism and copyright infringement. The quick answer is that they are different concepts, and that we should usually avoid the term “plagiarizing” when discussing copyright infringement. But it’s helpful to understand the difference, and why we’re tempted to use that term. 1/17

what was that part about they're being all finished up in a few months?

1. Good thing he's asking the internet instead of his advisors and legal counsel, just like a sharp president should do.

2. I thought he was convinced that he could force tariffs through other laws so why is he pushing this?