Slashdot Mirror

Maybe they did and just wanted to keep it to themselves after the trailers circulated for a bit.. build the hype before making demands?

Unless Fox learned of this production through said hype, Warner could use this as evidence of Fox's prejudicial delay. It's probably not enough for estoppel by laches, but it might convince the judge to rule less favorably to Fox. But aren't Fox Warner's attorneys anyway?

Check out this blurb: http://www.arentfox.com/publications/alerts/alerts 2003/alert2003-10-03ravitz.html

What are the Feenicksian lawyers lake?

Pretty tough, given that they have the full backing of Lucasfilm and News Corporation.

Could we take them?

Given that both those who are Fox and those who aren't Fox are out to get us, I don't think we have much of a chance against a movie studio.

And what, for example, would happen if you signed all those people up for their own email alerts, here:
http://www.arentfox.com/cgi-bin/alert.pl

And what, for example, would happen if you signed all those people up for their own email alerts, here:
http://www.arentfox.com/cgi-bin/alert.pl

Check out their site, www.arentfox.com. You'll find info on the sections of law that they cover. One such section is E-Commerce. As you can see from the info on their site, they are representing the interests of AOL in conjunction with Network Solutions. Since providing false information about client representation would be frowned upon by the Bar, it does appear to be legit.

Of course, the fact that the above info falls under E-Commerce on their site shows that they may still be stuck operating under the old E-conomy.

Check out their site, www.arentfox.com. You'll find info on the sections of law that they cover. One such section is E-Commerce. As you can see from the info on their site, they are representing the interests of AOL in conjunction with Network Solutions. Since providing false information about client representation would be frowned upon by the Bar, it does appear to be legit.

Of course, the fact that the above info falls under E-Commerce on their site shows that they may still be stuck operating under the old E-conomy.

Interesting. Somebody re-posted my e-mail. Quite flattering. :)

If you're going to hit them, do some REAL damage and check out this Perl driven bio page:

http://www.arentfox.com/cgi-bin/bioEditor.pl

They'll probably sue /.

In the meantime, they also have forums. Not that I'm suggesting anything.

See if we can Slashdot the legal weasels. Everybody hit the link.

Arent Fox

Why not drop them a line.

Arent Fox

Why not drop them a line.

Here is more information (in a PDF file) about a similar case. As far as I'm concerned, what's the problem restricting kids from this type of content? If the parents think its cool, let them sign a waiver.

Simple problem, simple solution.

You merely bought the media, the actual content is licenced (buying a piece of paper with a copyrighted work printed on it doesn't mean you've bought the rights to that work)

But buying a piece of paper with a copyrighted work printed on it does grant you fair use rights and first sale rights in your copy of the work, and for computer software, such rights include the right to copy the software into RAM and to make backups. However, if a contract presented before the sale specifies that instead of buying a copy, you are perpetually renting one, then you are not "the owner of a copy," and none of this applies. Also, none of this applies outside the United States.

if you don't agree to the terms of the EULA, you have the right to resell the software, but not to use it. You still have to agree to the EULA if you want to use the software.

In the United States of America, use of software is a right that comes along with ownership of a copy under 17 USC 117. If you own a copy, you can use it unless using it requires circumventing copy protection. However, in a sotware rental situation, the lessee is not the "owner of a copy" (the lessor still owns the copy, and by 17 USC 109(b), the lessor has to be authorized by the copyright owner), and some courts are more likely to apply the rental rules than others.

because in the absence of explicitly stated agreement the copyright holder by default reserves ALL rigts and you can do nothing at all with that piece of software, not even run it :-(

Wrong. 17 USC 117 makes it lawful for U.S. residents to load into RAM and back up software that they own a copy of. However, in some jurisdictions, mere possession of a copy does not necessarily constitute owning a copy; this can happen in a software rental.

In the U.K., loading and backing up software may or may not be protected as "fair dealing".

As far as I know, the fist sale doctrine has never been applied to software. I don't think that any of the "no resale" clauses of many EULAs has been contested in court.

Unfortunately, it has. This very flawed decision set a precedent in some jurisdictions that 17 USC 117 applies only when the owner of a particular copy says it does. If you merely "possess" a copy of software, but somebody else owns the physical copy (in cases such as rental), some jurisdictions say that the owner of a copy of a work has the right not to license the rights under 17 USC 117 to the person merely in possession of the copy. And software publishers claim under some EULAs to transact a perpetual rental rather than a sale of a copy.

"MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer" held the defendent liable for copyright infringement, not for contract breach.

Copyright infringement is MUCH more serious BTW, statuatory damages and criminal charges are even possible.

Here is a web page explaing why 17 USC 117 is essentially useless

See this web page explaining why 17 USC 117 does not protect you in all jurisdictions.

Be careful, copyright infringement can (and has) resulted in huge damages being awarded. 60K pounds total or approx $96K US in the case mentioned in this article.

The above web page mentions "MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer", which was an incredibly bad decision which basically says 17 USC 117 only applies if the copyright owner allows it to apply (by selling rather than licensing the software). In other words, it is useless for keeping the courts from stealing your money and giving it to the plaintiff.

Also, the fact the defendent in the Sony vs Channel Technology case lost on summary judgement is scary. What about the RIGHT TO A TRIAL? Here in the USA, we have it in the Constitution - the 7th Amendment for civil cases - but that part of the Constitution has been de facto suspended for a long time (anyone know how old "summary judgement for plaintiff" is in the US?)

Section 117 of the Copyright Act was supposed to prevent this kind of idiocy by clarifying that users can make copies of software if that is an "essential step" in its use (like copying to a hard drive or RAM). Unfortunately as this article shows, copyright holders have managed to convince some judges that the law doesn't mean what it says.

It would be great if the EFF could take up this issue, although I suppose they have their hands full at the moment dealing with other insane copyright laws.

It gets a lot worse...

The Long Long Arm of the Low

Basically in this case, the judge applied the "effects test" set forth in the Supreme Court case Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)(reporter and editor, both Florida residents, were subject to personal jurisdiction in California for a defamatory article they had written in a national magazine about Shirley Jones, who lived and worked in California, on the grounds that the allegedly tortious actions were "expressly aimed at California")

The reasononing is, if the defandants actions are not "random, fortuitous, or attenuated" the court reasons they can exercise it's jurisdiction.

In Pavlovich's case, he was guiltly of targeting California because he held the common knowledge that the major studios are located in Holywood, and that Silicon Valley is considered to be a software and hardware center.

Have fun reading the rest... :)


"Q. . . . Are you aware -- do you have any understanding where the major motion pictures studios [sic] are located?

"A. [by Pavlovich]. By 'major' I'm just going to go out on a limb here in that you mean some of the larger motion picture producers or production companies.

"Q. That's correct. The sort of plaintiffs that were the plaintiffs in the matter that you were just an expert witness in.

"A. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. Yeah, they make a lot of movies in California, Hollywood, yeah.

"Q. Right. So what's your understanding of the term 'Hollywood'?

"A. Hollywood is the big area in California where they make a lot of movies and a lot of movie stars live and whatnot.

"Q. Is it fair to say that Hollywood, California is the center of the motion picture industry?

"A. I wouldn't know. Whether or not like all their offices and buildings are there, I don't know specifically, but I guess the general common idea is that Hollywood is the area for that . . . ."

As to California's dominance in the computer industry, Pavlovich testified in the same deposition, as follows:

"Q. Do you have any understanding of whether or not a significant number of hardware manufacturers are located in California?

"A. [by Pavlovich]. I believe . . . there is a lot of technology companies out in California . . . . Yeah, there's several hardware manufacturers located in California.

"Q. Have you ever heard of Silicon Valley?

"A. Yes.

"Q. What does that refer to?

"A. That's an area where there is a lot of technology-related companies, software writers, hardware manufacturers, programmers.

"Q. And that's in California; is that correct?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Based on your expertise in the computer industry, is there another state besides California that you could name has more or a higher concentration of hardware manufacturers?

"A. I don't know the exact numbers that are in the Silicon Valley. You know, I do know there is a lot now in Texas. We have got the Silicon Triangle is what we call it. There's three major cities in Texas with a lot of technology and telecommunications companies. Whether or not - I don't know the numbers between the areas, but there is a lot of technology hot spots around the world.

"Q. What would you describe as the top three technology hot spots in the United States?

"A. Silicon Valley, Texas, and - I have no idea where I'd get the third one from.

"Q. And as far as - for lack of a better term, hot spot of technology, is Silicon Valley - it's your understanding that Silicon Valley is such a hot spot of technology with respect to hardware or software and programmers? Is that the things you identified before; is that correct?

"A. Yeah."

Because Pavlovich knew that California is commonly known as the center of the movie industry, and knew that Silicon Valley in California is one of the top three technology "hot spots" in the country, he knew, or should have known, that the DVD republishing and distribution activities he was illegally doing and allowing to be done through the use of his Web site, while benefiting him, were injuriously affecting the motion picture and computer industries in California. The question is whether Pavlovich's lack of physical and personal presence in California incapacitates California courts from jurisdictionally reaching him through its long-arm statute. We hold it does not.

Instant access provided by the Internet is the functional equivalent of personal presence of the person posting the material on the Web at the place from which the posted material is accessed and appropriated. It is as if the poster is instantaneously present in different places at the same time, and simultaneously delivering his material at those different places. In a sense, therefore, the reach of the Internet is also the reach of the extension of the poster's presence.

Hey look everybody, AOL's legal team has a discussion forum. Bullying people who can't afford to defend themselves must be stressful, let's all head over there now and post supportive comments.