From: Matthew Ghio <ghio@myriad.alias.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 00:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Sameer should sue the SPA
Message-ID: <199610150743.DAA06174@myriad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Let's see, what can Sameer sue the SPA for...

1) Filing a frivilous lawsuit, of course.

2) Extortion.  "Sign this or we'll sue."

3) Libel and Defamation.  "SPA's false statements about Mr. Parekh have
   harmed his reputation as a software publisher, and cost him profits..."

4) Conspiracy to violate the ECPA by demanding logs and records which may
   contain private/confidential information.  (Dunno about this one, but
   it's worth a shot.)

5) Anything else?  How much $ in damages do you think he can get?



Also, SPA is going after C2 because one of their customers allegedly
had a link to a pirate site - but they have (apparently) not gone after
the pirate site itself!  Could someone explain to me how there can be a
finding of contributory copyright infringement, when there is no direct
copyright infringement?

Fonovisa v. Cherry Auction is an often-cited case here.  In this case,
a lawsuit was brought against the swap meet operators only after action
had been taken against the vendors of the illegally copied material.
It does not seem logical that c2 could be liable for contributory
infringement when no actual infringement has (yet) been shown to exist.