Re: [dvd-discuss] Life vs. profits -- the court thinks profitsare more important

["Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold(at)world.std.com>]

At 12:18 PM +0000 12/20/01, Steve Hosgood wrote:
>John Zulauf wrote:
> > Compare and contrast [the "Nuremberg files" case] with the DeCSS rulings in
>> before the lower and appeals courts and the Sklyarov case.  These courts
>> seem to think that actions taken by an "unrelated third party" that may
>> infringe a copyright allows the banning of the CSS related speech.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> It seems that when lives are on the line speech is free, but not when
>> corporate profits are risk...
>>
>
>Was the example of the "Nuremberg Case" cited in the 2600 appeal? If not, then
>obviously the courts wouldn't have taken notice of its decision to support
>free speech (actually free writing) despite possible future misuses by others.
>
>That decision (if considered) certainly should have been seen to be a legal
>precedent supporting the 2600 defence...
>
>--


The Nuremberg files decision mentioned was issued by a three judge 
panel of the 9th circuit on March 28, 2001.  That was after the 
briefs in the 2600 case were due, though I suppose Nuremberg could 
have been cited in the responses to the 2nd Circuits nine questions. 
Those responses did cite the Supreme Court's May 21, 2001 Bartniki v 
Voper decision ( ³[i]f the acts of Œdisclosingı and Œpublishingı 
information do not constitute speech, it is hard to imagine what does 
fall within that category, as distinct from the category of 
expressive conduct.²), but the 2nd circuit panel ignored it.

Also, I found a story that says the full 9th circuit will re-hear the 
Nuremberg files case. 
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/681

On the Bartniki question, since the quote I gave was actually taken 
from the decision by the 3rd circuit, would this be considered a 
conflict between circuits that would justify Supreme Court review?

Arnold Reinhold