Re: [dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''

[Roy Murphy <murphy(at)panix.com>]

'Twas brillig when microlenz scrobe:
> The problem is that Sara seems to have licensed it to everybody
> and now wants to unlicense it....(and Sara doesn't seem to
> understand what a non-de-plume is....)

I wouldn't conclude that she has licensed it to everyone.  She's
certainly licensed it for use in Usenet.  She likely hasn't consented
for its inclusion in a dead-tree compilation of Usenet spanking
stories.  Whether a web archive of Usenet postings exceeds the
implied license is not a question of fact, but one of law.  Without
any precedents (and I'm not aware of any) it is an unsettled area
of law.

> I'm rusty on the UCC but more modern contracts do not require
> the classical "meeting of the minds". They require that certain
> sets of conditions be satisfied and a contract exists. 

I don't think that any of the traditional elements of contract have
ever been abrogated by the UCC.  Contracts of adhesion (contracts
where the language is not negotiable such as Insurance contracts
which often *may* *not* legally be altered other than to customise
them by inserting the name of the insured and beneficiary.) have
a long standing history in contract law.  The point of the basic
element is that there is an actual agreement of conduct that both
sides can be held to.

Having read the complaint on chillingeffects.org, it seems that the
"irreparable damage" claim is not the central damage claim.  The
primary claim is one of copyright.  "Irreperable damage" seems to be 
a ploy to raise the stakes.

-- 
Roy Murphy      \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses
murphy@panix.com \  http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html