[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] FW: SJ MercuryNews, Ruling a blow for DVD indus try (11-02-2001) (Emailing: dvdsuit02.htm)
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] FW: SJ MercuryNews, Ruling a blow for DVD indus try (11-02-2001) (Emailing: dvdsuit02.htm)
- From: Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 16:27:56 -0800
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
...
>
> Yes. I think that's a true danger. What is particulary
> gauling
OhMiGod! The DVDCCA is _FRENCH_ ?!?!? No wonder they hold
the rest of us in so much contempt!
:-)
>about the
> DVDCCA is their argument that "they had it therefore they
> stole it!" and
> that the lower court didn't say.....give me proof...show me evidence
> before putting ANY injunction. If the DVDCCA can't provide
> EVIDENCE, the
> court should not even bother listening to them....
D'accord. Even if proof is a matter for the trial, there
should be at least enough evidence that theft occurred to
call the question. I believe that was lacking in this case.
>although I
> do realize
> that shrinkwrap licenses did play a part in the argument.
>
... and shrinkwrap licences have been invalidated just about
every time they come before the court. It shouldn't have played
any part in the argument!
--
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!