-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -> As I recall, Dark, INS v. AP is copyright/First Amendment case, not a privacy case. (International News Service was cribbing from AP stories.) What does Brandeis say in this case that seems to be a reservation about privacy rights? <- Although the basis for the case was superficially a copyright case, because it involved injunctive relief, the Justices had to reach for a protection of property rights to uphold the injunction. This was my point, that privacy should be linked to property rights so as to open the way for more than simple forced transactions by entitlement and monetary damages in relief. Consider Justice Brandeis' comments at the beginning of his dissent: No question of statutory copyright is involved. The sole question for our consideration is this: Was the International News Service properly enjoined from using, or causing to be used gainfully, news of which it acquired knowledge by lawful means [...] _International News Service v. The Associated Press_, 248 U.S. 215, at 249 (Brandeis, J., Dissenting). As for the hook in on property and privacy, consider: The general rule of law is, that the noblest of human productions - - knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas - become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use. Upon these incorporeal productions the attribute of property is continued after such communication only in certain classes of cases where public policy has seemed to demand it. _International News Service_, 248 U.S. 215 at 250 (Brandeis, J., Dissenting). This is just in 1918. Even here we see the public sphere taking the lead role. Enter the progressives of the 20's. This was a touch beyond my point, however. My focus was more that even back then there was a recognition that intellectual production had to be guarded with property rights. Applying the law of capture to intellectual pursuits like the news? If privacy rights existed, why go so far? Business and proprietary news protected by a long stretch of property rights? To me this is just a bridge to jump the missing privacy rights gap. Granted this is not an ideal case, but it illustrates the attitude (and it was the only Brandeis case that jumped to mind when replying quickly to your note :) ) - -uni- (Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLONAHRibHbaiMfO5AQFiGAP/Ud06AWsAgqXQSYX5P3DNxtTgqv7HO+OJ QZnj93GuzQSETJmWNBaVCEbD/5xPQC3MKt1h9gbPY9Fai9rx+8djiocWKWF1UXFH i/4tkKEUN4YwcOJWPoO6EFS/ykgLo25NRiJkLEbhxm4ge/34VX3CxQ5FfNSdRI3o m5Be07dvFJk= =fsg8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----