Re: Warning letter from Co$. [any comments ?]

[Avi Harris Baumstein <avi@clas.ufl.edu>]

nobody writes a very nice, non-confrontational and well thought out
letter supporting his case (and ignoring the oddness of copyrighting
religous materials). but i have some questions that weren't discussed
when i took business law 101 a few years ago:

nobody@replay.com (Name withheld on request) writes:

>     applicable.    Damages  and  an  injunction  against  further
>     unauthorized copying and distribution may be obtained against
>     infringers and, all unauthorized copies and all materials and
>     equipment by which the unauthorized copies may be  reproduced
>     can   be   impounded.    Unauthorized   disclosure   of   the
>     confidential  Advanced  Technology  materials  also  violates
>     applicable trade secrets laws.

i know there has been much chatter on this subject, but are there
truly any precedents that could hold on the anonymous distribution of
copyrighted material? are remailer-ops truly in legal danger?  what
exactly constitutes a trade secret, and what sort of laws apply?

>    clients'  property   rights.    Courts   are   holding   such
>    contributory  infringers  liable.   Two  examples  are:  Sega
>    Enterprises Ltd.  v.  Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q.  2d 1921  (N.D.
>    Cal.   1994) and Playboy Enterprises v.  Frena, 839 F.  Supp.
>    1152 (M.D.  Fla.  1993).

what of these cases? is this just an example of typical lawyerly
intimidation tactics? how do you remailer-ops plan to react? my first
instinct (were i running a remailer) would be to ignore it, on grounds
that i wouldn't examine any mail passing through. but if there really
were valid precedent in this matter... (has anyone seen any
well-written lay-person evaluations of the steve jackson case? i read
the ruling, but much of it went in one eye and out the other).

i think the censorship thing is building steam, and we should start
preparing (and informing) ourselves...

-avi