Hey folks, let's be real clear about this: The ITAR do NOT apply to books. Repeat: The ITAR do NOT apply to books. On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Mark M. wrote: [...]

This isn't quite analogous to the original problem of a software company making good-faith efforts to prevent a program from being exported. AFAIK, MIT did not try to prevent the book from being exported (of course, the State Department never did approve or deny their request to export the book). Sandia

State told Karn that it did not have jurisdiction over books.

could claim that MIT came very close to violating ITAR, but the same claim

"The ITAR do not apply to books"

could not be made if the issue was a software program which was export-controlled.

A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin@law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's hot here. And humid.

Michael Froomkin writes: : : Hey folks, let's be real clear about this : : : The ITAR do NOT apply to books. : : Repeat : : : The ITAR do NOT apply to books. The only trouble with this claim is that it does not conform to the language of the ITAR or with the whimsical practices of the Office of Defense Trade Controls. There is no exception for books, except for those that are in the public domain because they are sold in book stores and at newstands or are found in libraries, and the ODT insists that one cannot put a book into the public domain by putting it into the public domain or by selling it in a bookstore. : State told Karn that it did not have jurisdiction over books. Not quite. They decided in their unreviewable discretion that they would not exercise jurisdiction over a particular book, but such decisions are made on a case by case basis, based on no established criteria, and are without any precedental value. In fact, in some of the material filed in the Karn case the representative of the ODT said that waiving jurisdiction over that book of software may have been a mistake, and that in the future they might have to come to a different decision. In the Karn case the ODT did make a distinction between a book and a CDrom; but that it what makes their decision nonsensical. The only problem was that the decision was held to be unreviewable. : "The ITAR do not apply to books" They do to. (Unless one takes the position, which the ODT would not agree with, that the ITAR do not apply to the means of communicating information.) That's why they violate the first amendment. Or is the idea that they only apply to articles? (That would certainly give a new meaning to the phrase ``defense articles''.) -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu

At 5:49 AM -0700 7/14/96, Peter D. Junger wrote:

I wrote:

: : The ITAR do NOT apply to books. : : The only trouble with this claim is that it does not conform to the : language of the ITAR or with the whimsical practices of the Office of : Defense Trade Controls. There is no exception for books, except for : those that are in the public domain because they are sold in book stores : and at newstands or are found in libraries, and the ODT insists that one : cannot put a book into the public domain by putting it into the public : domain or by selling it in a bookstore.

Whereas I meant to say:

: cannot put a book into the public domain by putting it into _a : library_ or by selling it in a bookstore.

I hope that this did not cause any confusion.

Let's see if I understood what you said. Is "a" the operative word--that is, are you telling us that a book is in the public domain if it is widely sold in bookstores or held in libraries, but that you can't put it in the public domain by selling it in one bookstore or depositing it in one library? If so how many are enough? If not, please clarify further. Thanks; David