So I don’t care much about Paris Hilton and her sex video, but I did stumble across this article in which one part struck me as funny:

In court papers, Marvad’s lawyers argued that the case should be thrown out because Salomon was not the sole copyright holder as he apparently had claimed in registration documents.

"Unfortunately for Salomon, the video also depicts Ms. Hilton participating fully in the creation of the video," the motion said. "Ms. Hilton offered directorial comments and physically controlled and directed the camera."

So if I’m reading this correctly, the argument is that the certification of registration of the movie is invalid because Paris Hilton gave "input" into the project as evidenced by her actions within the porn flick. Does that mean some judge is going to have to sit and watch the thing trying to decide how valuable her "Input" was into the creation of the video from a “directing” standpoint? (“Hmmm, I think I need to view this one more time in order to properly weigh all of the issues). And I wonder just exactly what her "directorial comments" were?

On a related topic, last week, the late Justice Harry A. Blackmun's notes were released to the public. They were a treasure trove of educational as well amusing US Supreme Court moments.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001871854_blackmun05.html

> Blackmun recounted how, when the justices watched films
> to determine if they were pornographic, Justice John
> Harlan, who was nearly blind, kept asking his clerk, "What
> are they doing now?" Upon being told, Harlan would
> exclaim, "You don't say."

There's audio of this interview which led me to roll out of bed laughing when it aired.

-brendan