Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600's request for rehearing en banc denied

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

I think many of us who have been dvd-disgusting for sometime have come to 
realize that Corley and 2600 was not picked at random by the MPAA but targeted. 
It was in the right venue for "strong intellectual property protection". It was 
"HACKER intent upon rape, pillage and plunder of the sacred intellectual 
property of the nation". It was a journalist (something convenienty overlooked 
by the court) fomenting trouble and critical of the courts. While I would hate 
to not see an appeal, I'm afraid that there's enough issue here that given the 
biases of the court they will get sidetracked onto extraneous ones-"hacker" 
rather than journalist. Trafficker rather than reporter. THief of intellectual 
property THe USSC will split up and make no credible decision.

THe "intellectual property" <I HATE that phrase!>  community has spent so much 
time constructing a theory of intellectual property that they have lost sight 
of what the purpose of it is. It is NOT property but manifestations of ideas. 
It is encouraged not to create new monopolies and weath but progress - the 
devils bargain. I'm very much afraid that nothing will happen until something 
so egregious occurs that people are shocked into action.
On 19 May 2002 at 12:13, Ernest Miller wrote:

From:           	"Ernest Miller" <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600's request for rehearing en banc denied
Date sent:      	Sun, 19 May 2002 12:13:57 -0400
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 1. There is no preliminary injunction issue - there is a final injunction.
> 2. There will be more software cases in the future.
> 3. Which court ruled opposite how?
> 4. We don't know how SupCt will decided Eldred.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "someone somewhere" <chaos755@hotmail.com>
> To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 9:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600's request for rehearing en banc denied
> 
> 
> > I agree that it would have been better to wait for eldred, however it
> seems
> > that if they want to appeal it, it has to come in 90 days.  I do think
> that
> > this is a good case to use because :
> >
> > 1. with the preliminary injunction, it becomes a free speech case, which I
> > think could get kennedy and o'conner to look at it. (stevens and breyer will
> > probably take it anyway) 2. it's about software, which will be a whole lot
> > easier than a case about
> a
> > hardware 'cracker'.
> > 3. there's a direct conflict with a californian appeals court, which ruled
> > exactly oppossite. 4. in eldred, I think there's a good chance that they will
> > rule that fair use is required by the 1st amendement, however in eldred it's
> > only about : is there or not a 1st amendement right of fair use. It doesn't
> > address to which extent there is. The 2600 case can give them the chance of
> > defining that too.
> >
> >
> > >From: "Ernest Miller" <ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu>
> > >Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > >To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> > >Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] 2600's request for rehearing en banc denied
> > >Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 08:27:43 -0400
> > >
> > >I am optimistic that Eldred will win, but it not clear to me how decisive or
> > >broad the win will be.  Considering how screwed up the 2600 case has become,
> > >I think it probably best to wait for another case or at least until
> Eldred
> > >has been decided.
> > >
> > >If Eldred is decided as favorably as I hope (not expect) it will be, then the
> > >next DMCA case will give the defense a whole lot more ammo.
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "someone somewhere" <chaos755@hotmail.com>
> > >To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> > >Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:23 AM
> > >Subject: [dvd-discuss] 2600's request for rehearing en banc denied
> > >
> > >
> > > > Wired is reporting that 2600's request for rehearing en banc for the
> 2nd
> > > > circuit court of appeals is denied.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,52609,00.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Declan McCullagh seems to suggest that it might be better not to
> appeal
> > >to
> > > > the supreme court, my guess on this is that with scotus recently
> > >accepting
> > > > to hear eldred, they are willing to go against the ever increasing
> > >strenght
> > > > of copyright law.
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>