Re: [Leica] Cops run amok

["Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>]

The reason we argue or discuss constitutional rights is that there are
seldom clear cut answers. The Supremes have the final and definative say and
until they address a specific factual situation all you can do is analogize
and guess.

The reason an "average good lawyer" will likely give you an incorrect answer
to a copyright question is no different than in any broad field with lots of
specialization. It's the same reason a psychiatrist who hasn't even
witnessed surgery since medical school is probably not the guy to ask about
performing a heart bypass. Or the reason an architect who designs sky
scrapers is probably not the guy to ask about remodeling your garage.
Copyright law is very specialized - it's all federal, there are no state
copyrights - and the law changes, both in statute and interpretation. Unless
you work with copyright issues, you're not going to be up on it. Even the
phrase "average good lawyer" is a puzzler. There are so many areas in which
a lawyer can work that there is no such thing. Kind of like saying "average
good scientist."

I consider myself an average good criminal defense lawyer. But I'd be the
first to admit that while I could certainly research a copyright question,
it's way outside my area of expertise and you'd want to check out my answer
pretty carefully. By the same token, I wouldn't hire myself out for
copyright cases - wouldn't be fair to the client (and I don't handle any
federal cases).

Bryan


- -----Original Message-----
From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Cops run amok


>I read that if you ask the average good lawyer a copywrite law question
>they will nine out of then times give you a very wrong answer. You need
>a copywrite lawyer to week out the incomprehensible unlogical and often
>unfair maze to explain it to the Judge and see if he/she cares. This
>might help explain why we have guys who are reasonably legally
>knowledgeable arguing over our amendment rights.
>Mark Rabiner