RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 7 Aug 2002 at 9:22, Richard Hartman wrote:

From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
Date sent:      	Wed, 7 Aug 2002 09:22:33 -0700 
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 6:18 PM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
> > 
> > 
> > On 6 Aug 2002 at 9:18, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
> > To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
> > discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> > Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Copyright ranges
> > Date sent:      	Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:18:03 -0700 
> > Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > 
> > > Interesting question.  I think there is a 
> > functional/expressive difference
> > > here.  The output of the compilers is generated from input 
> > created by a
> > > person especially  to be converted by the compiler.  The 
> > output of a search
> > > engine is the result of a mechanistic process -- nothing is 
> > really _generated_
> > > by this, it is _collected_ and presented.  I would say that 
> > the results of
> > > Google searches would not be copyrightable.
> > > 
> > > Otoh, if the courts had been led down this line of 
> > reasoning it should also
> > > follow that Google searches could not be held as 
> > _violating_ copyright, and yet
> > > it has (requiring Google to remove certain URLs from the 
> > results of certain
> > > searches).  
> > 
> > ESTOPPEL! That's the way the internet works. If you don't 
> > like it don't get on 
> > it. It's like trying to pass a law that people should look at 
> > someone naked in 
> > public.
> > 
> 
> 
> (I assume you meant to say "shouldn't look" ...)

Yes...of course the argument is valid either way.

> 
> Are you saying that Google could/should have fought the Scientologists
> and Sara Glover with an estoppel argument?  I wonder if their laywers had 
> thought of that and rejected it for some reason, or hadn't thought of it ...
> 

Actually I am. (and think I did ) 

> (What ever happened in the Sara Glover case, anyway?  Vivian's Vow
> still shows up on top of a Google search for Sara Glover ...)
> 

As for estoppel..."Gee Sara...you put this story out there for all to see. It's 
on the network. The network has computers. The network has storage. People have 
harddisks...now Sara...don't get too excited....that's just the technical 
term...but you have one of those yourself. It's going to be stored 
EVERYWHERE!...so Sara WHY would you think that it WOULD go away and disappear. 
Clearly your intent at the time was that it wouldn't or else WHY did you write 
that story?...Sara you can't undo what you already did"

> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
>