[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] An interesting case from 9th Circuit Appeals court
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] An interesting case from 9th Circuit Appeals court
- From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee(at)rahul.net>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 10:08:50 -0800 (PST)
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
This decision bothers me.
If someone had a painting hung in their room and a big open window where people
could look in and see the painting, I wouldn't be violating the right to
display by pointing to the window and saying "Hey, look at the painting in
Nor would I be violating copyright if I charged people for tours of the
neighborhood and in the process pointed out many windows where tourists could
look through and see paintings.
In a non-computer context, it's blatantly obvious that any judge would say
"if you don't like it, put curtains on your window".
Those images are on the Internet and publically accessible. Telling someone
where to go look at them isn't "displaying" thenm; they're already being
displayed to everyone.