<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Will Lower Courts Find Ways Around Cox v. Sony? You Betcha	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/04/will-lower-courts-find-ways-around-cox-v-sony-you-betcha.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/04/will-lower-courts-find-ways-around-cox-v-sony-you-betcha.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 18:43:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: DanLifschitz		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/04/will-lower-courts-find-ways-around-cox-v-sony-you-betcha.htm#comment-4586</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DanLifschitz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 18:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=28771#comment-4586</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/04/will-lower-courts-find-ways-around-cox-v-sony-you-betcha.htm#comment-4585&quot;&gt;DanLifschitz&lt;/a&gt;.

I&#x27;m not sure that link came through and can&#x27;t seem to edit my comment, so here&#x27;s the full URL -- the case is Chosen Figure LLC v. Kevin Frazier Prods., No. 22-06518, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125669 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2023):  &lt;a href=&quot;https://business.cch.com/ipld/ChosenFigureKevinFrazierProds20230719.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow ugc&quot;&gt;https://business.cch.com/ipld/ChosenFigureKevinFrazierProds20230719.pdf&lt;/a&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/04/will-lower-courts-find-ways-around-cox-v-sony-you-betcha.htm#comment-4585">DanLifschitz</a>.</p>
<p>I&#x27;m not sure that link came through and can&#x27;t seem to edit my comment, so here&#x27;s the full URL &#8212; the case is Chosen Figure LLC v. Kevin Frazier Prods., No. 22-06518, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125669 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2023):  <a href="https://business.cch.com/ipld/ChosenFigureKevinFrazierProds20230719.pdf" rel="nofollow ugc">https://business.cch.com/ipld/ChosenFigureKevinFrazierProds20230719.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: DanLifschitz		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/04/will-lower-courts-find-ways-around-cox-v-sony-you-betcha.htm#comment-4585</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DanLifschitz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 18:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=28771#comment-4585</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I know several attorneys, myself included, who&#x27;ve had trouble with Judge Frimpong on copyright matters. In my case, she thought the Second Circuit had adopted the server test ( &lt;a href=&quot;//business.cch.com/ipld/ChosenFigureKevinFrazierProds20230719.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow ugc&quot;&gt;see page 9&lt;/a&gt; ) &lt;i&gt;and &lt;/i&gt;that it was a fair use consideration rather than a failing of the prima facie case (same link at page 11). I successfully disabused her of both notions on a motion for reconsideration, and although it didn&#x27;t change her ultimate ruling (which I also think she botched), she at least fixed her worst doctrinal mistakes.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know several attorneys, myself included, who&#x27;ve had trouble with Judge Frimpong on copyright matters. In my case, she thought the Second Circuit had adopted the server test ( <a href="//business.cch.com/ipld/ChosenFigureKevinFrazierProds20230719.pdf" rel="nofollow ugc">see page 9</a> ) <i>and </i>that it was a fair use consideration rather than a failing of the prima facie case (same link at page 11). I successfully disabused her of both notions on a motion for reconsideration, and although it didn&#x27;t change her ultimate ruling (which I also think she botched), she at least fixed her worst doctrinal mistakes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
