Re: [dvd-discuss] Life vs. profits -- the court thinks profits are more important

["James S. Tyre" <jstyre(at)jstyre.com>]

At 12:33 PM 12/20/2001 -0500, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>At 05:16 PM 12/19/01 -0700, John Zulauf wrote:
> >"speech may not be punished just because it makes it more
> >  likely that someone will be harmed at some unknown time
> >  in the future by an unrelated third party."
> >
> >This is from the "Nuremberg files" case where names and address (and
> >status, killed or not) of abortion providers were filed on the internet.
> >
> >Compare and contrast this with the DeCSS rulings in before the lower and
> >appeals courts and the Sklyarov case.  These courts seem to think that
> >actions taken by an "unrelated third party" that may infringe a
> >copyright allows the banning of the CSS related speech.
> >
> >Here is a question -- if the addresses were instead links to mapquest,
> >would they be functional and thus subject to lower scrutiny?  Isn't an
> >address "functional" in the sense of a recipe or software?
>
>Great hypothetical.  (no chance you were a law prof in a prior life?)

It is interesting, but ...

The Ninth recently reheard en banc the Nuremburg Files case, so the 
original three judge opinion is a nullity.  No clue, of course, when the 
new Opinion will be done, or which way it will go.

(JZ, I haven't forgotten about the other thing, just totally swamped, sorry.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Tyre                               mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project             http://censorware.net