[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting 1st sale-shrinkwrap-EULA-(c) infringementcase
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Interesting 1st sale-shrinkwrap-EULA-(c) infringementcase
- From: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 14:09:15 -0800 (PST)
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
--- Jeme A Brelin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> My girlfriend is a law student and in her Contracts course, she's been
> studying the ProCD case.
> We've been marvelling over the gymnastics (legal and linguistic) that the
> judges had to go through in the decision to make this sound like a real
> contract. Essentially, they were just trying to twist the law to
> compensate for a common business practice and claim that there is really
> "no other way" to do business. Poppycock.
ProCD also rules that such contracts are not preempted by the Copyright Act.
Your girlfriend might be interested in Nimmer's dismantling of ProCD's
> The most stupid and frustrating bit is that it puts BOTH sides of the
> contract deal (offer and acceptance) on the customer. It's almost like
> the retailer and the manufacturer are not even parties to the deal.
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.