Sameer should sue the SPA
Let's see, what can Sameer sue the SPA for... 1) Filing a frivilous lawsuit, of course. 2) Extortion. "Sign this or we'll sue." 3) Libel and Defamation. "SPA's false statements about Mr. Parekh have harmed his reputation as a software publisher, and cost him profits..." 4) Conspiracy to violate the ECPA by demanding logs and records which may contain private/confidential information. (Dunno about this one, but it's worth a shot.) 5) Anything else? How much $ in damages do you think he can get? Also, SPA is going after C2 because one of their customers allegedly had a link to a pirate site - but they have (apparently) not gone after the pirate site itself! Could someone explain to me how there can be a finding of contributory copyright infringement, when there is no direct copyright infringement? Fonovisa v. Cherry Auction is an often-cited case here. In this case, a lawsuit was brought against the swap meet operators only after action had been taken against the vendors of the illegally copied material. It does not seem logical that c2 could be liable for contributory infringement when no actual infringement has (yet) been shown to exist.
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, Matthew Ghio wrote:
Also, SPA is going after C2 because one of their customers allegedly had a link to a pirate site - but they have (apparently) not gone after the pirate site itself! Could someone explain to me how there can be a finding of contributory copyright infringement, when there is no direct copyright infringement? <snip>
The SPA isn't going to go after pirate sites because they're operated by kids in basements who've got no money. C2 has money. The SPA likes money. SPA sues C2. (I'm sure there's some formal sentential logic that someone can post that will state this in even more succinct terms.) The SPA doesn't care about what's right or what's wrong, or what's legal or what isn't. It wants money and it must not be getting enough from its member organizations, so it's time for a few law suits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |some people get by | Mark Aldrich | |with a little understanding | GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | |some people get by | maldrich@grci.com | |with a whole lot more | MAldrich@dockmaster.ncsc.mil| | -- Sisters of Mercy | | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich@grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, The Devil made Mark O. Aldrich write:
On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, Matthew Ghio wrote:
Also, SPA is going after C2 because one of their customers allegedly had a link to a pirate site - but they have (apparently) not gone after the pirate site itself! Could someone explain to me how there can be a finding of contributory copyright infringement, when there is no direct copyright infringement? <snip>
The SPA isn't going to go after pirate sites because they're operated by kids in basements who've got no money. C2 has money. The SPA likes money. SPA sues C2. (I'm sure there's some formal sentential logic that someone can post that will state this in even more succinct terms.)
Allow me to play the fool here for a minute. If I really wanted to put up a site which held copyrighted material available for download on the web or via FTP, I could do it using two semi-anonymous accounts, a crontab entry, and the anonymous remailer network. Since finding me, personally in the first place would be difficult at best, and three doors down from impossible if I really tried... Wouldn't it make sense to go after whoever my enemies could get to? Watch the movie "The Usual Suspects". When Kaiser Solce wanted to get at his enemies, he killed their friends, business associates, anyone who owed them money, their families, etc... A site to which no one makes any links soon becomes an abandoned site. Perhaps this is the "Deep Pockets Rule" at it's finest. If you can't get action from your enemy directly, attack his allies. Whether they knew they were allied against you or not is irrelevant. Or maybe I've had too many beers. --- "Obviously, the US Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now." - Unknown PGP key id - 0xDEACDFD1 - Full key available from pgp-public-keys@pgp.mit.edu
participants (4)
-
Dan Harmon -
Mark O. Aldrich -
Matthew Ghio -
Ted Garrett