Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02398.html ********** Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:32:13 -0500 From: "Malla Pollack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FC: AP reportedly doesn't like quoting one sentence from articles Hi I am a pro-public domain intellectual property specialist. What AP is doing is leveraging the "take down" provisions of 17 USC 512 to chill public speech. This is the outcome many academic commentators dreaded when the section was enacted. See, e.g. Malla Pollack, The Right to Know?, 17 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 47 (1999). To limit this hazard, we need to make a clear record of exactly what AP (and other copyholders) are alleging to be copyright violations. I would appreciate affected parties sending me such details for compilation. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to litigate these fights. I would suggest as possibilities the ACLU or Prof. Pam Samuelson at Univ. of Cal., Berkeley, School of Law. Public ridicule has sometimes worked as Politech readers should know. Malla Pollack Northern Illinois Univ., College of Law DeKalb, Illinois 60115 815-753-1160; (fax) 815-753-9499 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ********** Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:22:48 -0400 From: "Paul Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FC: AP reportedly doesn't like quoting one sentence from articles I respectfully disagree with a few of the assumptions made here: Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-1000 http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html >>> Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/16/01 10:48AM >>> SNIP > >How much publicly available description of these restrictions do you > >have here? Especially do you have a quote of the way that AP worded their > >demands? >I don't have access to any of that information. Even if I did, I >doubt I would be allowed to tell people - this is lawyer stuff, and >so it's all probably confidential. It is up to About to decide what it wants to go public with, but there is no legal requirement that a person receives an outrageous demand letter, that the sending party ought to be embarrassed about, to keep the letter secret. >But it is unlikely that About would have told us to remove the AP >stuff from our sites (and, when it was brought up, say that we need >to be careful about what appears on the forums) if they didn't think >that AP had a case. Demanding this of the Guides creates both more >short-term work and more long-term work. It's annoying for everyone >and doesn't serve any good end otherwise. "had a case": well, could AP file the lawsuit without facing Rule 11 sanctions for frivolous litigation? And so, could their lawyers pursue the matter against About, recognizing that AP has a much deeper pocket? yes, probably. But would AP win in the end? I should hope not. Of course, as this comntinues, this is a fact-intensive analysis, and maybe About wants to avoid facing this kind of litigation (or this kind of lawyer read whenever a quote is used) and finds it easier to tell its Guides not to do it at all. A campaign to humiliate AP is the best tactic. Let's get that demand letter public! ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
