2 plaintiffs reply to Tasini column of last week:
- From: J Flenner <varney@[redacted]>
- Subject: 2 plaintiffs reply to Tasini column of last week:
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:50:59 -0400
On page:
http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/nwlink.cgi?ACG=ZZZNLGP2SMC
these 2 plaintiff's-response hyperlinks appear (or use the very long
URLs below):
Publishers Are Still Pushing Already Discredited Theories
By Emily M. Bass
Besides hyperbole and name calling, a recent
rebuttal commentary by Bruce Keller and Michael
Potenza suffers from numerous defects, says
Emily M. Bass, who represented two of the
plaintiffs in New York Times Co. v. Tasini
(Keller and Potenza represented the defendant
publishers). Bass points to the electronic
databases at issue in the case, which she says
are not "archives."
http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZXJJ7MQMC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0&s=News&ExpIgnore=true&showsummary=0
Free-Lance Authors Have the Right to Get Paid for the Electronic
Fruits of Their Labor
By Jonathan Tasini
In a recent column, attorneys Bruce Keller and
Michael Potenza portrayed their representation
of the publishers in Tasini as a heroic act in
the public interest. As lead plaintiff,
Jonathan Tasini would like to thank them for
their concern. But, he says, if the high court
upholds the plaintiffs' argument, the only
consequence will be that publishers have to
stop breaking the law and start paying
free-lancers.
http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZFPRBZRMC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0&s=News&ExpIgnore=true&showsummary=0