But the law in question prohibits anyone from recording anything, anywhere a movie is being shown. Even if they don't record the movie itself. On top of that, the movie theather is allowed to detain you until police come."
Link to Original Source
Gants concurred (agreed with the court, but on different grounds), he did not dissent. Also, he's probably wrong.
It's a tough question. We're hoping to cover it more over the weekend (or possibly on our weekly podcast).
Sorry I don't have more for you right now, I'm running out the door.
They actually breached their license agreements with their users who downloaded the book:
The EULA does say that you can't collect damages, and have to arbitrate confidentially in Seattle.
Makes you wonder if people who had this are free to breach the other parts of the contract now that Amazon has breached their duty? Could they reverse engineer now?
The folks at TechnicallyLegal (disclaimer, I'm a writer and podcaster there) wrote up a post as to why her decision in the copyright case will have little bearing on the outcome of the RIAA cases. And why her reasoning there isn't really indicitive of what her reasoning may be in those cases.
"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." -- George Bernard Shaw