Fine discussion from Lawmeme.
Edelman and the ACLU tried to force Judge Sterns into confronting the Constitutional issue, but he ducked it except for the statement that "there is no plausible constitutional [sic] interest that Edelman can assert that outweighs N2H2's right to protect its copyrighted property from an invasive and destructive trespass . . . ."
This is the only sentence in the entire opinion which goes to the underlying merits of the ACLU's claim that the relevant part of the DMCA is unconstitutional, but what does this mean in serious legal terms? Honestly, I have no idea. It barely makes sense.
(via BNA.com) :: posted by Bryan, 3:48 PM |