nobody writes a very nice, non-confrontational and well thought out letter supporting his case (and ignoring the oddness of copyrighting religous materials). but i have some questions that weren't discussed when i took business law 101 a few years ago: nobody@replay.com (Name withheld on request) writes:
applicable. Damages and an injunction against further unauthorized copying and distribution may be obtained against infringers and, all unauthorized copies and all materials and equipment by which the unauthorized copies may be reproduced can be impounded. Unauthorized disclosure of the confidential Advanced Technology materials also violates applicable trade secrets laws.
i know there has been much chatter on this subject, but are there truly any precedents that could hold on the anonymous distribution of copyrighted material? are remailer-ops truly in legal danger? what exactly constitutes a trade secret, and what sort of laws apply?
clients' property rights. Courts are holding such contributory infringers liable. Two examples are: Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1921 (N.D. Cal. 1994) and Playboy Enterprises v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1152 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
what of these cases? is this just an example of typical lawyerly intimidation tactics? how do you remailer-ops plan to react? my first instinct (were i running a remailer) would be to ignore it, on grounds that i wouldn't examine any mail passing through. but if there really were valid precedent in this matter... (has anyone seen any well-written lay-person evaluations of the steve jackson case? i read the ruling, but much of it went in one eye and out the other). i think the censorship thing is building steam, and we should start preparing (and informing) ourselves... -avi