Friday, December 26, 2008

So Jeffrey Denner thinks he has actionable damages for copyright infringement? Better think again.

According to a recent court transcript pp 13-15 prominent Boston Attorney Jeffrey Denner believes that he has a cause of action against Derrick Gillenwater and/or Boston Bob for copyright infringment.

Well against Mr. Gillenwater, he has bupkis. Mr. Gillenwater shut down his blog shortly after the Court Unconstitutionally ordered him to do so with a ruling that was a heinously overbroad form of prior restraint.

As to me, the best he could get is a restraining order on a good day for using "dennerlaw.blogspot.com" because he uses "dennerlaw.com" as his portal. But even if he wins on that, I could be ordered to change the URL but the Court can't stop me from linking his public website in every post should I so choose.

But more importantly, he has no damages. I exposed some facts about his activities and issued a comment and opinion about them. He can open up a page on his website and address it if he likes because you fight speech with speech, not censorship.

But that's a losing battle because it just draws more attention to his questionable activities. Best he just settles with Derrick Gillenwater and who knows, I'll probably pull the blog anyway, its point and purpose having been satisfied. When I call the courthouse I just want to hear the docket clerk tell me, "Sir, this case has been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice." As to Attorneys Denner and Barron being upset about all of the people who saw this blog along the way, that's life in a Free Society. They should have settled this case a long time ago, they know what they did and they've known that for 4 or 5 years now; this is a 2005 case for Pete's sake. You snooze, you lose.


Besides, this blog is not for commercial gain. It's here to expose some serious legal issues, nothing more and nothing less. So that's yet another copyright hurdle that Denner can't leap.

I've got my IP lawyer on retainer and he's no dummy. Here's some commentary from Eugene Volokh's Volokh Conspirary on a similar issue.

No comments: