On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:24:35PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-21 09:32:39 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >This interpretation of TV broadcast was only dreamed in the mind of a > >bunch of > >would be lawyers here, who didn't even bother to really read the QPL, > >and > >didn't even bother to ask a real lawyer, or even a juridic student or > >something, about the thing. > > Are you sure about this? As far as I can tell, a notice published in a > newspaper is regarded as "effective notification" if it meets some
In international IP/copyright/contract law ? I have serious doubts about this. > standards. These are commonly used for public notices about product > defects and are even required for certain types of government notice. > Most commonly, consultation notices, as in s39 of [2001] EWHC Admin > 310 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2001/310.html Care to get some real legal advice supporting that fact ? > I'm not sure any of us have said that this would stick in court, but > some of us are worried because of the acceptance of things like > broadcast notices in newspapers in many other fields. Trying to pin Well, we can worry about so many things that it would paralize any action we may take. Is this a reasonable worry ? Do you seriously expect a judge to accept that a newspaper notice in some remote country is binding to you ? > down exactly what the law is here is difficult, as I don't have many > legal texts and there's no law library to find more. I suspect this is > uncontroversial, as I can't find recent cases directly discussing it. > Unfortunately, it's not common enough to feature in web-based law > explanations, as far as I can tell. In any case, the real point is : If you are able to make a lawsuit against someone, claiming he didn't cumply with a broadcaster request, what will you answer to the judge when he asks you why you don't just plain send that guy a letter ? > >And, i repeat, i will _NOT_ go upstream with bullshit and laughable > >requests > >who have no legal founding, this is the most sure way to shot myself > >in the > >foot and break years of good relationship with upstream. > > I think it was right out of order for the lawyer you asked just to > laugh at you and apparently not give any pointers that you could use He didn't laugh at me, but at the idea of TV-broadcast request. > to explain it. If that is the environment in which you usually live, > maybe that is why you seem so abrasive on this list and don't give > many helpful explanations. Well, my abrasiveness has been trained by years of participating in debian mailing list, so you get only yourself to blame. > If you value your friendship with upstream so much, maybe that is > colouring your view, too. I'm not saying that friendship is a bad > thing, but you should be aware of it. Well, serious now, would you go to your upstream with such ridicoulous claims ? I would have nothing against it, but the burden is on dbeian-legal to provide solid legal foundation for these request, just having a bunch of would-be-lawyers make half-backed outrageous requests is not going to cut it, and threatens the credibility of debian-legal as whole. Friendly, Sven Luther
