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

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

So...is this an argument that the headers constitute access control? As 
the two bytes in a font file are claimed to be? Or the don't read me bit?

BTW - I'd say the "irreparable damage" was done in 1997




Ron Gustavson <rongusss@attbi.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
04/26/02 10:19 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''


On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:51:03 -0700, "Michael A Rolenz" wrote:

>if it is a license then who did she negociate it with?...If USENET, then 
>usenet has a whole set of conditions (as another post pointed out) and 
>republishing stuff is part of it.....If it's a implied non exclusive 
>license then she can't later try to make it an exclusive one. ...

Another thought-- although we can't now check the removed post,
did she use the Distribution: and Expires: headers?


______________NO-&infin;-DO_____________
7607 6FA2 6485 3707  42D1 99AD 7E20 52FD