Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Non-economic doesn't mean irreparable and immediate
Not necessarily, but in this case yes, for reasons the brief and I both explained.
And contract laws provide for remedy known as
> "specific performance". Unless the copyright violator has tracked the parties to whom he has illegally distributed the work, he will be unable to make good on the copyright holder's desire that the recipients be informed of their permissions. That's what makes the violation irreparable.
Who told you that Appellees didn't track the users of
> allegedly infringed material? The record is full of > evidence to the contrary Remember that an amicus brief doesn't necessarily limit itself to the specifics in the case for which it is filed: Amicus Briefs -- Why File Them? <http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_19-2009_07_25.shtml#1248111047> from chapter 12.2 of Federal Appellate Practice an amicus brief can explain the practical effects of a particular outcome on individuals or groups not before the court. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
