[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Churches sue critic for linking and posting a C&Dletter
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Churches sue critic for linking and posting a C&Dletter
- From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:33:01 -0800
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Maybe we should look at this as reductio ad absurdum. If EVERYTHING is
copyrighted at the Berne Convention, CTEA and certain members of the
"Intellectual Property" intelligensia, then EVERYTHING becomes copyright
infringement. Personally, I don't think, a C&D letter satisfies the
originality requuirement for copyright.
BTW - Since the Ds lawyer had to make a copy for his files, whey don't
they sue him/her for copyright infringement too :-)
Noah silva <email@example.com>
Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
02/28/02 09:39 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Churches sue critic for linking and posting a C&Dletter
I think... (totally not based on law, just commen sense). If they send it
to me, for free, without me asking, and it is a personal thing, I have the
right to post it wherever I like. What if my company sent me a letter
saying "you're fired, and fuck you with a big broomstick". I couldn't
post it to show how unprofessional they were? They are going to copyright
-- noah silva
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
> This case looks like a nasty cat fight and I'm not sure linking is
> the biggest issue. But one part of the case may be of interest.
> Plaintiffs had previously sent defendants a cease and desist e-mail.
> They claim that e-mail included a copyright notice. Defendants posted
> the letter to their web site (without the copyright notice, but the
> long page it's on http://www.archbishops.org/cjthree.htm includes
> their own copyright notice). It their suit, plaintiffs complain that
> posting their letter violated their copyright.
> Since notices are not required for copyright, this raises the general
> question of whether it is permitted under copyright law to post
> hostile legal notices you receive, e.g. under section 512.
> Arnold Reinhold
> At 12:22 PM -0500 2/27/02, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> >Status: U
> >Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:17:43 -0500
> >To: email@example.com
> >From: Declan McCullagh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Subject: FC: Churches sue critic for linking; EFF Arriba framing brief
> >Sender: email@example.com
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >The relevant excerpt from the complaint alleges that Tony Begonja
> >links to the Plaintiffs' registered copyrighted material and
> >copyrighted material," and also that he is "publishing deceptively
> >links which misrepresent and cast the target copyrighted material of
> >Plaintiffs into a false light."
> >Background on the right to link freely (or not):
> >Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:31:08 -0600
> >From: "The Rev. Tony Begonja" <email@example.com>
> >To: Declan McCullagh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Subject: FYI: CJ3 finally actually sued me
> >CJ3 finally actually sued me.
> >See http://www.ind-movement.org/lawsuit/ for info.
> >The EFF helped me get a lawyer.