[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

(Fwd) Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scienti

It's not a slam dunk but it does raise the issue regarding the 
arbitrary nature of DMCA enforcement (which is discussed quite 
nicely in the recent filings by the defense in the Skylarov case).

Of course, I can see the DoJ claiming "well what Felton did wasn't 
REALLY that great [sour grapes] but what Joe Schmo Did was 
really a lot nastier and could affect a lot more companies so we 
gotta prosecute"....with a good judge you might get back "so how 
is Joe Schmo to know when you will or when you won't? "

To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scientific Censo rship Case 
Date sent:      	Wed, 06 Feb 2002 21:10:00 -0500
From:           	"Peter D. Junger" <junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Eric Seppanen writes:
> : On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:30:32PM -0500, Peter D. Junger wrote:
> : > : > >San Francisco - Citing assurances from the government, the
> : > : They _believed_ them !??!? 
> : >  
> : > It's not so much a matter of believing them as estopping them.
> : 
> : Can someone clarify exactly how estoppel works in this case?  Do RIAA's
> : informal assurances provide a solid legal defense for the next academic
> : who wants to publish RIAA's dirty secrets?
> No. There's no solid legal defense.  But do you think that the DOJ
> will want to have to explain to a judge why they are prosecuting
> someone for doing something that they told Felten that they would
> not prosecute him for?  And how do you think that a right-minded
> judge is going to react to that explanation?
> --
> Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
>  EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu   
>         NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists

------- End of forwarded message -------