RE: [dvd-discuss] Re: Another Poster Child for DeCSS?

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

Why would the purchaser have to go to court to show
that the claim is invalid.  Could not the purchaser
make his own counter-claim and the Schroedinger's cat
nature of the law would protect him unless the publisher
tried to pursue it in court -- at which point the publisher
is as likely to be on the wrong side of the quantum
state collapse as the purchaser is . . .


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 9:26 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Another Poster Child for DeCSS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Shrinkwrap?....and how can a legal contract be made 
> involving illegal acts.
> > Works in the PD are everyones. DRM removes this work from 
> those purchasing it
> > now and in resale. As PD "I" own the work. The have 
> reformated it and I have
> > paid for that. They deserve nothing more. Now I attempt to 
> reclaim my work and
> > cannot. This is fraud. Although only a tortured 
> sado-masochistic contracts
> > expert might revel in the nuances here regarding "OH...they 
> signed away their
> > rights...rights which can never be signed away" PD is PUBLIC DOMAIN.
> > 
> 
> I spoke to one our company lawyers. What he said was "lawyers get to
> lie" -- if they can find an *arguement* (valid or not) to defend their
> position, they can assert any rights they want.  The *purchaser* then
> would have to show in court that the claims are invalid.  
> But, since it
> takes a court to determine the validity of the claim, the lawyer can
> state almost anything, because until the court rules, the law is just
> "Schroedinger's cat" -- and any claim about it's quantum state is
> equally valid.
> 
> My follow-up was what about areas that have been litigated.  
> The seller
> can always claim that they *could* possibly win (overturning precedent
> is possible) and thus the shrink-wrap claims go back in the box with
> Schroedinger's cat.
> 
> .002
> 
>