To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.publishOpen lugnet.publish in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Publishing / 2364
2363  |  2365
Subject: 
Re: 2001 Set info
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.publish
Date: 
Sun, 20 Aug 2000 05:43:26 GMT
Viewed: 
4883 times
  
Todd - what the judge said appears to be totally useless and irrelevant to
the case that was being judged.  I reckon they'll appeal though.

Cheers ...

Geoffrey Hyde


Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:FzKMoI.92M@lugnet.com...
In lugnet.lego.direct, Matthew Miller writes:
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
It may be and it may not be.  Intellectual Property case law is • changing
every day.  Months ago, it was not illegal to post links to things
containing illegally obtained information.  I seem to remember hearing • or
reading somewhere recently that some court somewhere recently decided • the
opposite.

No such decision yet. The DeCSS case is in progress right now, and those • of
us who care about freedom of speech and the web in general sure hope • it'll
come down the other way. In fact, an important question in that case is
whether source code is speech, with the strong implication (from both • the
defendants and the court) that if it is decided to be speech (as opposed • to
being equivalent to a mechanical device), prohibiting linking runs • against
first amendment issues.

James Powell mentioned the bad news already on another thread (or was it
another sub-branch of this huge thread?), but it bears repeating here for
posterity...

Here's a link to the Slashdot story for those who haven't seen it yet:

   http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/17/1827208

--Todd



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: 2001 Set info
 
(...) Yeah. They were actually expecting this ruling. One advantage of having this before the Supreme Court is that any ruling will be effective nationally, not just in New York. (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: 2001 Set info
 
(...) James Powell mentioned the bad news already on another thread (or was it another sub-branch of this huge thread?), but it bears repeating here for posterity... Here's a link to the Slashdot story for those who haven't seen it yet: (URL) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.publish)

176 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR