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

Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scientific Censo rship Case

To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scientific Censo rship Case
From: Eric Seppanen <eds(at)reric.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:47:54 -0600
In-reply-to: <200202061930.g16JUW314447@samsara.law.cwru.edu>; from junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu on Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:30:32PM -0500
Mail-followup-to: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
References: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC9D6971@mail.onetouch.com> <200202061930.g16JUW314447@samsara.law.cwru.edu>
Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu

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?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scientific Censo rship Case
  - From: "Peter D. Junger" <junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu>

References:
- RE: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scientific Censorship Case
  - From: Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
- Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scientific Censo rship Case
  - From: "Peter D. Junger" <junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu>

Prev by Date: RE: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scientific Censo rshipCase
Next by Date: RE: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scientific Censo rshipCase
Previous by thread: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scientific Censo rship Case
Next by thread: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF: Security Researchers Drop Scientific Censo rship Case
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread