[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] How many bits is a technical protection measure?
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How many bits is a technical protection measure?
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:13:14 -0700
- In-reply-to: <20020424211659.A19096@steelballs.org>
- References: <3CC7026A.24563.260433@localhost>; from microlenz@earthlink.net on Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 07:07:22PM -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Juries are used in civil cases...I was premptory challenge number one on a
malpractice case about 10yrs ago. Surprisingly the lawyer on that panel was
not...
IANAL but yes that seems to be it. Tell us now if what we are doing is "bad" if
not then we can continue doing it without penalty. If it is...then we can
appeal and be nice about it.
OTOH...consider this..this goes against them. THey appeal. Appelate court takes
its time about things and several years pass. "P"s were really nice about
accepting the lower courts verdict. They stopped and found other work to pay
for the appeal. Appeal successful. COurt rules that that the lower court was so
full of it that they can't see why the SFBs couldn't rule properly. Company is
out of business-too late-no new products-start up costs high. No reason to
invest in something that may not win and legal fees have exhausted
capital.....MPAA etc have won. THeir intent was not to creat a legal
vindication but economic devistation. That's game theory....odd that the most
useful application to Society of game theory may not be economics but an
understanding of how the legal system can and will fail if the judges let
themselves be manipulated...
On 24 Apr 2002 at 21:16, Charles Ballowe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 07:07:22PM -0700, microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > BTW - I noticed in the 321Studios case they want a jury trial.....probably
> > wise..
> >
>
> I didn't think they used jury trials for civil cases? maybe i missed
> something, but isn't their case basically a "we want you to guarantee
> that our actions are legal so you don't file charges against us later"
> type case.