<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Golan v. Gonzales</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/200/feed</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Lessig on the Continuing Question of © and the First Amendment</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5669</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;On January 4, the Supreme Court denied the &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5634&quot;&gt;petition for cert in Kahle v. Gonzales&lt;/a&gt;.  On that same day, in a victory for CIS, the 10th Circuit refused the &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5633&quot;&gt;government&#039;s petition for rehearing in Golan v. Gonzales&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5669&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5669#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales">Golan v. Gonzales</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/kahle-v-gonzales">Kahle v. Gonzales</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:13:24 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Brandy Karl</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5669 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Government Seeks Rehearing in Golan</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5633</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;After our &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5518&quot;&gt;win in Golan v. Gonzales&lt;/a&gt;, the government has petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a rehearing of the case, which decided that the Uruguay Round Agreements Act altered the &quot;traditional contours&quot; of copyright and therefore triggers First Amendment Review.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Attorney General&#039;s office seeks a standard - that First Amendment review is only triggered by changes in the idea/expression dichotomy or in fair use - that the Supreme Court has already rejected in &lt;i&gt;Eldred&lt;/i&gt;.  Our response to the petition for rehearing urges the Tenth Circuit adhere to its carefully reasoned opinion in this case.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5633&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5633#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/374">Fair Use Project</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales">Golan v. Gonzales</category>
 <enclosure url="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Golan+-+Appellees+Petition+for+Rehearing.pdf" length="1498029" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:09:19 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Brandy Karl</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5633 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Victory In The 10th Circuit:  What Enters The Public Domain Stays In The Public Domain</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5518</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The Tenth Circuit handed us a momentous victory today, holding that the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (&quot;URAA&quot;) altered the &quot;traditional contours of copyright protection&quot; by resurrecting copyright protection for works that had fallen into the public domain, thus contravening the &quot;bedrock principle of copyright law that works in the public domain remain in the public domain.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;While this decision does not invalidate the URAA, it does hold that the URAA must pass either strict or intermediate First Amendment scrutiny on remand. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Read the full decision &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Golan+v.+Gonzales.pdf&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5518&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5518#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/374">Fair Use Project</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales">Golan v. Gonzales</category>
 <enclosure url="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Golan+v.+Gonzales.pdf" length="188769" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:09:36 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Anthony Falzone</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5518 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Golan v. Gonzales -- The First Amendment Lives!</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5517</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;It&#039;s almost midnight here on the east coast, but I&#039;m wide awake -- happily -- because I have some truly *great* news to report.  The 10th Circuit just handed down its ruling in the appeal of Golan v. Gonzales.  And we have won!  The First Amendment lives! (at least in the 10th Circuit).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5517&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5517#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/374">Fair Use Project</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales">Golan v. Gonzales</category>
 <enclosure url="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/05-1259-1.pdf" length="187761" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:05:28 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Christopher Sprigman</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5517 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Golan v. Gonzales Briefed And Argued In Tenth Circuit</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5519</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Golan v. Gonzales has been briefed and argued in the Tenth Circuit, and we are awaiting a decision.  Government&#039;s brief is &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/govt_response.pdf&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5519&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5519#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/374">Fair Use Project</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/taxonomy/term/378">intellectual property</category>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales">Golan v. Gonzales</category>
 <enclosure url="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/govt_response.pdf" length="213976" type="application/pdf" />
 <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:52:32 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Anthony Falzone</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">5519 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Opening Brief Filed</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/003188.shtml</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Today we filed the opening brief in our appeal to the Tenth Circuit.  We argue that the URAA – by restoring copyright to materials that are in the public domain – departs dramatically from the “traditional contours of copyright protection” by violating a fundamental design of the Constitution’s Progress Clause (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 8): that works passing into the public domain stay there.  Download the brief &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/archives/GolanAOB.pdf/Appellants%20Opening%20Brief.pdf&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/003188.shtml#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales">Golan v. Gonzales</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:05:37 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Jennifer Granick</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">2418 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Disappointing ruling</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/003074.shtml</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Last week, the District Court &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/MSJ%20Ruling%204-20-05.pdf&quot;&gt;ruled&lt;/a&gt; on the parties&#039; pending cross motions for summary judgment.  The Court denied Plaintiff&#039;s motion for partial summary judgment, and granted the government&#039;s summary judgment motion on all claims.  This means the case is over at the trial court level.  Although Plaintiffs had collected and produced much evidence of the harms associated with the enactment of the URAA, the Court was unpersuaded that the factual issues should preclude summary judgment or enter its analysis of the parties&#039; claims.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/003074.shtml&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/003074.shtml#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales">Golan v. Gonzales</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:56:02 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Colette Vogele</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">2309 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Joint pretrial order &amp; pretrial conference</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/003073.shtml</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;At the end of March, the parties jointly filed a &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/Pretrial%20Order%203-25-05.pdf&quot;&gt;Pretrial Order&lt;/a&gt; in preparation for trial in June.  A pretrial conference was held before Magistrate Judge Boland on April 11.  Our new lead trial attorney, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.townsend.com/attorneys/biodetails.asp?o=3367&quot;&gt;Ted Herhold&lt;/a&gt; of the law firm Townsend &amp;amp; Townsend, appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/003073.shtml#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales">Golan v. Gonzales</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:42:31 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Colette Vogele</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">2308 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Plaintiff&#039;s summary judgment motion</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/003072.shtml</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;In February, Plaintiffs filed a &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/Plaintiffs%20MSJ%20Re%20514%202-16-04.pdf&quot;&gt;summary judgment motion &lt;/a&gt; on the Copyright Clause claim.  The motion has been fully briefed.  Here is the Government&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/Gov%27ts%20Opp%20to%20Partial%20MSJ%203-11-05.pdf&quot;&gt;opposition&lt;/a&gt;, and Plaintiff&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/Plaintiffs%20MSJ%20Reply%203-28-05.pdf&quot;&gt;reply&lt;/a&gt;briefs.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/003072.shtml#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales">Golan v. Gonzales</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:24:44 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Colette Vogele</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">2086 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Government&#039;s reply brief on summary judgment</title>
 <link>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/002760.shtml</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The Government&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/GovtReply ISO MSJ 11-24-04.pdf&quot;&gt;reply brief&lt;/a&gt; in support of summary judgment was filed on Nov. 24, 2004.  No hearing date is presently scheduled for this motion.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/002760.shtml#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales">Golan v. Gonzales</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:30:00 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Colette Vogele</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">463 at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
