|
From: | amicus_curious |
Subject: | Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy |
Date: | Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:17:41 -0500 |
"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message reply_in_group-50FD90.15273728012009@news.supernews.com">news:reply_in_group-50FD90.15273728012009@news.supernews.com...
noticed? The circuit court said that non-financial issues surrounding a copyright needed to be evaluated in assessing harm to the author. The district court originally said that only money mattered. The district court on remand decided that no non-financial harm had been shown in the case. The Plaintiff has not yet responded. The US Supreme Court has suggested that there is not a absolute presumption of irreparable harm, so injunctions are not so automatic as they once were. The commercial value of the material being copyrighted is material to the case.In article <4980a453$0$21838$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>, "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:What is at issue today, though, is the nature of such "default copyrightrules". If there is no fee charged to use the work or to redistribute the work, the copyright can be ignored unless the author can show some degree ofharm to himself.Where did you get that idea? Not from the copyright statute, nor from the case law.From the case law being established in the JMRI case, or haven't you
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |