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

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

Perhaps not access control per se, but they could constitute
a declaration by the author of a limited license, as opposed 
to an unlimited one implied by posting w/o an "Expires:" header.

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:42 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] ``irreparable damage to my client''
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>