[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss]DMCA and the Church Of Scientology
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss]DMCA and the Church Of Scientology
- From: "Dean Sanchez" <DSanchez(at)fcci-group.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:12:01 -0400
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcHl8g9zCmO5VWidRxK+RevtsTG7pAAFtc6A
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss]DMCA and the Church Of Scientology
I think that it is referring to the part of the DMCA that was added to indemnify ISPs from copyright infringement - the takedown notice.
From: Steve Hosgood [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 5:26 AM
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]DMCA and the Church Of Scientology
Michael Rolenz wrote:
> KEY POINTS
> Most popular and independent
> search engine is not infallable
> Digital Millennium Copyright Act
> being levered
> Anti Church of Scientology website
How on earth can the Scientologists argue a way to misuse the DMCA so
thoroughly as to get it into a case like this? There's surely no issue of
Google somehow "bypassing a TPM" protecting a copyright work of the
Scientologists is there?
This is a straightforward-looking trademark dispute if it's anything. The
only thing that seems vaguely "digital" about it is that it's a cyberspace
dispute rather than a realworld one.
Or is there more to it?
Whatever, the more sad-git misuses of the DMCA, the better. It will help
reduce the respect given to it - even by judges eventually.
Steve Hosgood |
firstname.lastname@example.org | "A good plan today is better
Phone: +44 1792 203707 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow"
Fax: +44 70922 70944 | - Conrad Brean
http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" )