Subject: Re: Netcom
Date: 4 May 1995 07:42:29 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
References:

<3nmi3d$j26@castlsys.demon.co.uk>

In article ,
Bob Wallert wrote:
>
>So, you have a different opinion of what was going through Dennis head
>when he made the posting which he later had cancelled. The fact remains
>that he was already under a TRO for his *alleged* posting of copyrighted
>material and he repeated the act while under the TRO, whether it be the
>original one or the later one. Previous to even being sued, he was
>warned repeatedly but continued to post the material leading to being sued.
>As I recall, this was even before the Fair Use issue even came up.
>
Look, you dweeb, whether "the Fair Use issue came up" or not, Fair Use
exists -- you don't have to be able to cite the law for it to apply. So
it's absolutely irrelevant whether x, y, or z happened "before the Fair
Use issue even came up."

Dennis believed at the time he posted the message that *may* have been in
violation of the TRO that it was *not* covered by the TRO.

When he was "warned" before he was sued, he was being warned against
perfectly legal actions -- and the Scienos refused to give him any
evidence backing up their claim that he was violating their copyrights.

Rachel
--
Not to perambulate the corridors during the hours of repose in the boots
of ascension.
Rachel Meredith Kadel or, for the adventurously inclined, Bean-na-Sidhe
rkadel@fas.harvard.edu