Brian L. Frye
Brian Lawrence Frye is an American independent filmmaker, artist, and law professor. His work includes Our Nixon, for which he… more
Source: Wikipedia
H-index:
6
Headed to @MaybellRomero’s first Bastard Film Encounter tonight!
Has anything great happened in your life because of social media?
Sure. I’m in favor of citation. I just don’t think it should be mandatory. We should cite out of love, not obligation.
Thanks! Yes, I wrote about it here, among other places. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... The upshot is that I think the possibility of helping readers is great, but doesn’t justify making attribution mandatory.
Plagiarize This Paper
Plagiarism is the ultimate academic crime. But why? This essay reflects on academic plagiarism norms and concludes that they are not only unjustified, but also
papers.ssrn.com
Marmite. By the spoon.
Reposted by: Brian L. Frye, Larry W. Hunter
What foods do you love that you fully acknowledge make you a pervert for loving them?
by Brian L. Frye — Reposted by: Mark A. Lemley
Here's a link to the @marklemley.bsky.social & @patentscholar.bsky.social essay. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Plagiarism, Copyright, and AI
Critics of generative AI often describe it as a “plagiarism machine.” They may be right, though not in the sense they mean. With rare exceptions, generative AI
papers.ssrn.com
I just posted to @ssrn an essay titled Aspirational Attribution: A Response to Lemley & Ouellette, "Plagiarism, Copyright, and AI." papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Aspirational Attribution: A Response to Lemley & Ouellette, <i>Plagiarism, Copyright, and AI</i>
This is a short response to Mark A. Lemley and Lisa Larrimore Ouellette's essay "Plagiarism, Copyright, and AI," which will be published in the Univer
papers.ssrn.com
If we had conspired to make it happen, it wouldn’t have worked. That’s the secret.
You’d be surprised how lacking in rigor most 70 page articles are. It takes a lot of hot air to pump up 10 pages of content that much.
Indeed. It would be interesting to reflect on how it became the norm. The cynic in me suspects that part of the answer is that it makes it hard for practitioners & scholars in other disciplines to compete for prestige law journal placement.
Because that’s what we tell our students legal scholarship is supposed to look like.
So then I ask them, if this essay were submitted to your law journal, would you accept it? They look puzzled. And then say no. Why not? Too short, not enough footnotes, too colloquial. So, why do law professors write long, boring articles with lots of footnotes?
True. But it’s our fault, or at we least we create the conditions that maintain the norm. A story: In my seminar, I assign Fred Rodell’s 1936 essay “Goodbye to Law Reviews.” The students love it. “So true! All the same problems still exist today! Too long! Too many footnotes!”
Reposted by: Brian L. Frye
it may be hacky to comment on, but seriously, law review articles are too damn long. trying to read two articles today and they are 71 and 89 pages 😭
Also, the Supreme Court still does fact finding in all its original jurisdiction cases, although it usually appoints a special master.
Jury empaneled by the court. See Georgia v. Brailsford (1794). supreme.justia.com/cases/federa...
Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (1794)
Georgia v. Brailsford, Powell & Hopton
supreme.justia.com
There is such a thing as a Supreme Court jury. It’s just very rare. None in the last 200 years.
Yeah, I think that’s totally fair. And a question not really answered by the obvious precedent. There’s a pretty strong reliance interest here.
Or to put it another way, saying the government can’t refuse to register marks because it disapproves of their message doesn’t mean it has to affirmatively subsidize them.
I don’t think Iancu v. Brunetti is really on point b/c it’s about discrimination in a ministerial act, not providing funding. I’m pretty confident the court would say the government can condition ongoing funding on not supporting terrorist orgs, even if the speech is otherwise protected.
I think there’s a lot hanging on whether the court is willing to treat the conditions as a pretext for viewpoint discrimination, which I don’t think is a slam dunk. Maybe what we need is *more* “lochnerizing”?
I agree that the Court could distinguish Finley if it wants, but I also think it cuts pretty hard in favor of the position that conditional grants aren’t a 1a problem.