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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

Lets see..."Sara Glover" published a story on alt.sex.spanking PUBLICALLY and 
now claims copyright infringement when they link to it PUBLICALLY but it's not 
copyright infringement that anyone can download the story from public 
sources.....is it dark outside..no...it's quite light...I'm not dreaming....I 
must be in a virtual reality tour of Alice in wonderland...that's it..!

ESTOPPEL! She cannot now repudiate her actions and ...errr ahhh....conduct 
or...whatever from that time


On 25 Apr 2002 at 11:26, Scott A Crosby wrote:

Date sent:      	Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:26:10 -0400 (EDT)
From:           	Scott A Crosby <crosby@qwes.math.cmu.edu>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	[dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Well.... The rampaging floodgates google takedown notices have commenced,
> and they seem to be successful.
> 
> I was fairly sure after the Scientology case (and its success) there'd be
> more. Lots more.
> 
> The most recent one is from 'Sara Glover', who appears to be upset that
> upon a search for her name, her alt.sex.spanking story 'Vivian's Vow' from
> about 4 years ago is the first search result. Her lawyer is claiming that
> its copyright infringement to have her story in the cache, and also
> claiming that the link to the *publically published on usenet* story is
> contributory infringement.
> 
> They claim 'irreparable damage'... After reading it, I can see why! :)
> 
> But seriously, what next? Google (and other search engines) won't be able
> to survive these incessent letters, if anyone gets into their mind that
> they can make the past dissapear at their whim. (How many people have old
> usenet posts, mailing list flames, or mirrored copies of embarassing
> webpages they wish would go away?)
> 
>      http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=273
> 
> One wonders how one can require freedom of the presses and freedom of
> speech, yet allow easy regulation of what books can and cannot be put in
> a card catalog index.
> 
> Scott
>