[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] More news from the EFF on slashdot
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] More news from the EFF on slashdot
- From: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
--- Tim Neu <email@example.com> wrote:
> It seems so slanted, I doubt the RIAA could have done any better itself!
> They start out by completely ignoring the threatening letter that was sent
> to Felten, and top it all off by alleging that we all have to wait until
> our speech has actually been snuffed before we can do anything about it.
It's a rather odd argument. They claim that the works that have been published
cannot be adjudicated to be chilled because they were published, while they
simultaneously claim that the works that have not been published cannot be
adjudicated to be chilled because we don't know what they are.
Basically, nothing could ever be adjudicated to be chilled under this
magnificent logic. They fluff it up by mixing it's core logic with quotes and
feigned references to the matter at hand only as a smokescreen for their real
argument which is that a Court can never provide relief for any chilling
If it's spoken it is 'axiomatic' that wasn't chilled and if it's unspoken we
can't know it's within the scope of the legislation.
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.