Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

[amicus_curious]

"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message 
reply_in_group-50FD90.15273728012009@news.supernews.com">news:reply_in_group-50FD90.15273728012009@news.supernews.com...
> In article <4980a453$0$21838$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
> > What is at issue today, though, is the nature of such "default copyright
> > rules".  If there is no fee charged to use the work or to redistribute 
> > the
> > work, the copyright can be ignored unless the author can show some degree 
> > of
> > harm to himself.
>
> Where did you get that idea?  Not from the copyright statute, nor from
> the case law.
>
> From the case law being established in the JMRI case, or haven't you 
noticed?  The circuit court said that non-financial issues surrounding a 
copyright needed to be evaluated in assessing harm to the author.  The 
district court originally said that only money mattered.  The district court 
on remand decided that no non-financial harm had been shown in the case. 
The Plaintiff has not yet responded.  The US Supreme Court has suggested 
that there is not a absolute presumption of irreparable harm, so injunctions 
are not so automatic as they once were.  The commercial value of the 
material being copyrighted is material to the case.