Zacharias Cau hi' I

Friday Se t 9 In zachcoughlin@hotmail.coml
mtralos@ p ~mkber 07, 200111 :32 AM
qUIT andtratos.com

000158

:ar Professor Tratos,

have spent the past few h
wever since I have recent~ur!o~rYing
trac k ,down a copy of my paper,
lJTLputer I s mother board frie~ I ed res~dences 1n the pa s t two we eks and my

11 keep looking

I k

have not been able to track down a copy

.
now 1 did t
.
.
.
~~er atop it and a request th
~rn my paper 1n , 1t had my s o ci al s e c ur ity

;8S0ns for this being I b I' at 1t not be used for any online posti ng , the
,ne anonymously (particula~lleve the law school grading exercis e is best
1 class) and because the
Y ~here employees of t he profess or a re ta king
:mld want it to be ut on g~alJ.ty of my ,paper ~as not of the level t h at I
ri'te the so t
f
P
d~splay. 1 s~mply d~d not have adequate time to
~amination ~s ~eliaper I ~m capable. of, for I ~as prep~ring to tak e the Bar
.
An
as tak~ng 6 cred~ts and try1ng to ll.ve at, t he pove rt y
l~e.
.yway, I do not know what is done in this sort of situation . From
~uroemal.l, I a~ not even sure if the copy of my paper I turned in is still
y ur pO$seSSl.on, I have heard that grades were due the 3rd, then t he
:lth.
I am sure I speak. for William Ho rne, another student in the class who
s graduating this December when 1 say we would lik.e to get our grades as
oon as possible as we need t o know how many credits we must take to
raduate this December.
n another note, I sure did enjoy your class and wish I could have taken it
t a different time in my life.
The class was probably one of the one or
wo best classes I have had, covering such a broad range of vital subjects .
ctually, I have aspirations of going into intellectual property law, taking
he Patent Bar Examination (I have a B.S. in Biology). 1 have emailed Mr.
ok-Boychuk for some general guidance . Though I was ranked 14th in my class
time your firm came around for interviews, I don't think I got one ,
) currently examining the possibilities of opening a solo practice
1 pass the Patent Bar, practicing gene r ally in the area of
ntellectual property with some emphasis on entertainment law and a spe cial
ocus on the recording industry, perhaps running a record company (I a m a
c.rnposer and recording engineer) . Anyway ,. I spoke with th7 Oavid.M7 eks , ,the
lirect.or for the Institute of Patent Stud).es and he was qu).te fam).ll.ar Wl. th
'our firm and its prestigious reputation, assuring me that Las Vegas woul d
,e an excellent place to pursue such a livlihood .
,et me know what I need to do . Thanks.
;et your FREE download of MSN Expl ore r at h t t p: //explor e r. ms n. com/ intl. a sp

00 I

Catherine LUGe

~riday, Sep~ember 07, 2001 3:27 PM

000159

28Chcoughlln@hotmail.com'

paper

)snk. you for your responsive e-mail and for the kind words. We have no papers that were turned in without a student
Ime on them, at least of which we are aware. Perhaps you can help us out by providing us with some more clues.
'hat was the topic? What was the paper's tille? What was the lotal number of pages? Where did you do th~ paper? Do
lU have an e-copy? Is it on your lap top? Unfortunately, I have no choice than to assign an incomplete until we can
3ck it down.

ark 1ralos.

00;.:

Zacharias Coughlin IzachCoughlin@hotmail.comJ

F riday, Se ptember 07,2001 3:57 PM
To:
CLuce@quirkandtratos.com
S ubject: Re: paper

Dear Prof. T ratos,

My paper was a case not e or case comment on the Tasini v NY Times case J believe was the name it
was around 18 pages, depending on the font of course, and the case was th; one that was just decid~d
by the U.S. Supreme Court, and entailed matter relati ng to copyright and authorship of articles
originally printed in a magazine or compilation and then sold piece meal to infonnation stations like
lexis. My paper detailed the majority opinlon and provided some background on this SUbject. I know
of at least one student who can verify that] turned this paper in. His name is Mike Destefano, he is a
police officer as well. ] placed the paper atop the lectum wjth the others. I'll keep looking for it. I
don't know what the protocol is in such a situation. Again, my sociaJ security number was written atop
the paper, as was done in all other classes] have taken. I don't know how this type of situation
typically plays out, hopefully we won't have to fin d out, however, ] have heard that the total .
percentage of our grade that this paper addresses had been changed fro m 40 percent to something
around) 5 percent. Perhaps assigning me a pass/fail type grade would work out .

~(.le...
.

~
J

J 'fu.. V
'f< .... J~
04 .... H""' (;1V'-<. ~
'-' Lv. 'f I "i'"
>Subject: paper

J!

. 71 t<..t~ - SOo/"'...j y"'"'" cpV\..'

-;>< G~~ iJj '~W.e ~
I
,,,.
. U' '''
,'
J
W
~ , f.h. ""'< ft -:1 0 .{. "': ~
..(
>
~+
<J..J "'<.. k....kY- +-~
er ' .J b '{ 07) '0' 1,
.J.
'"
10/c> , - f

~".....
-iLc. ~
9" <) ~O
o.JfU.~

>Date: F ri, 7 Sep 2001 15:26:31 0700

>MIME-Version: 1.0
.
(32)th ESMTP 'd
.
fr
[205 158 212 114) by hotmail.com . WI
I
>Recelved: am
'09A4136E808CD9ED4720FI60; Fri, 07 Sep 200115:29:09.0700
MHotMailBD629534~th Int ernet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)id; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 15:26:37 -0700
>Received: by MAlLk dtratos.com Fri, 07 Sep 2001 15:30:40 -0700
>From CLuce@qUlT an
>Message-ID:
Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>X.Mailer : Internet
>
>Zach,
>
. e mail and for the kind words. We
have no
r.
>Thank you Jor
you r responsive
.
. h t a student name on them, at Ieast 0 f W hi ch
turned In Wlt ou
. .h
>papers that were
help us out by providUlg us WIt some more
>we are aw are. Perhaps ~~~ ~at was the paper's title? What was the total .
was ?the
top d"d
do the paper? Do you have. an e-copy? )s It
>c1ues. \Vhat
f
Where
I you
>number 0 pages . nfortunately. J have no choice than to assign an
>00 your lap to~? U
ck it down.
>incompJete until ~e can tfa

::~~------------------------~003

000161
zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Your paper

sci<:
-hank you for the quick reply, Sorry you were misinfonned. the paper represents 40% of the grade. We received
veryone else's papers. Please try to find it in your lap top. II would be hard to give a pass/fail grade with no input on
0% of the grade.
.

Aart Tratos

..

Zacharias Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail,com]

Monday, September 10, 2001 5:00 PM

To:
CLuce@quirkandtratos,com
Subject: Re: Your paper

000156

[)

Dear Mr. Tratos.

I am confused at this point . 1 have I00k ed everywh
.
. or in hard
efe lor a copyr
of my paper
be It on disk
copy fo.~ elsewhere. AJas,] am unable so far 10 find a copy of the stage oft~s paper at which]
turned, It In to you. Some notes and a preliminary draft, yes. Frankly, this entire siruation is quite
upsettmg. to me. ] am set to ~raduate in December, ] worked hard on this paper for cyberlaw, and the
plesent cITcurnst~ces make It unclear to me the status of my grade in this class, my prospects for being
accorded the credit I deserve, any changes the current circumstances may present for the manner in
whlch my paper~ should it be recovered, shall be graded. Further, J am unclear as to the level of
involvement the law school administration should be assuming in this matter or the protocol for
situations such as this .. ] am sure, however, that] on the day the pa-per was due, July 15, I believe, I
went to the class meetmg for Cyberlaw, turned in my paper on the tasini case (roUg~8 pages
worth, well over the required 10-12), was witnesse~-uming this pa ; er in,y.nahad sever conversation
students regarding the apparent lack of anonymity,' volved in an e cer iSe that was wo h 40% of our
grade. I also remember commenting,] believe to . illiam Horn
'8 Bourke, t t] was
surprised the typical procedures for retaining anon' ty- m th
ad
not being
followed partiuclarly in light of the fact that one of the professor's employee s was taking the class.
in li~ht of the s~andard law :finn practice of extolling t~e vi.rtues o~its new hires (law re~ew, .
list etc.) in eIther firm pamphlets or on a finn web site biographical sketch. A potentIal conflict
oT interest' seemed apparent. This] mention because it lead into a converstation with the
~
e tioned students that detailed why I was not putting my name on my paper, but rather my
onn n urity number. I believe several students saw me writing my social security number on my
SOCI al sec
.
",.- - r : - :-:--':r
h .
.
Thi s further evidence that J turned m a paper)"rftuat (Jay. n wever, sue clfcumstantlal
er
pap .
sid pot even looked at when considering -flat an eye witness exists would did see me turn in
e'\1 dence nee
.
.
earlier email indicated this student,
chael Destefano, as police officer and would
my paper. M Y
.
~~~::"-_ _ _--;7'
an est that he did, in fact, see me tum m a paper.
d' tal copy was to be turned in by me, as] had already made clear my wishes that my
Further, no 19ldded to the firm/classes web site. 1 could think of no other reason for a professor to
paper not be a
request a digital copy of a paper.
Id' t like to underscore the reason for my concern here, the role this situation plays in
.
Fmally, 1 wou f Jusduating this December. Of course, I suppose it would be prudent for aU students to
my prose~ts of ~aassignments that are to be turned in. However,] would imagine that I would have
~eep COP1~~ 0 resent such a copy had I been asked to sometimes soo~er than a full 4 days after grades
.;en able ~sted. Nonetheless, oul of deep respect for the fantas~lc ~yb~rla~ class presented, I
ere \0 be p. \""t J would dOJust about anything to help resolve this Situation m a way that will work
would subrrut U'"

h Ii
om fOT all involved. Should this lflcJ~de havms, mehS0alto t e.e art thO reconstruct my paper or a
djfferent
entirely, I shall be obhged. Or m t e h,elrnatlve , pel' dap~ s.ome .alternate method of
grade can be agreed upon. Pcrhaps t e aw sch00 a nurustrahon already has
est~1ished for situations such as this. ] will assume that is a matter for a professor to
and not for a student. Please, let me know ifl am incorrect.

"

000157

What) think would be really unfonun

. "
.
.
inquiring about a chain of custod for ~te lS or this cntlIe situation to devolve to the point where I am
"'m any sort of action On OUr Y
he p.aper~ and ~ other COncerns that would naturally flow forth
Y
part that nllght JeopardIZe my class standing and graduation schedule.

In conclusion, please let me know what I need to do next.

Thank You, Zach Coughlin

>To: "'zachcQugh1in@hotmail.com'"

>Subject: Your paper

>Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:30:57 -0700
>~flME-Version: 1.0

>Received: from [205.158.212.114] by hot mail. com (3.2) with ESMTP id

MHotMailBD62A3B200994004388ECD9ED47205850; Fri, 07 Sep 2001 16:30:58 -0700
>Received: by MAll. with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653. J9)id ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:30:58 .0700
>From CLuce@quirkandtratos.comFri,07 Sep 200116:31:43 0700
>MessageID:
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)

>
>Zack:
>
>Thank you for the quick reply. Sony you were misinformed~ the paper
>represents 40% of the grade. We received everyo~e else's pap~rs. Please
to find it in your lap top. ]t would be hard to give a pass/fail grade
no input on 40% of the grade.
~,;J"'",rk Tratos

FREE
Get your

9/10/01

download ofMSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

ClOS

(
Z8chcoughlin@hotmail.com
Your paper
/

.-'

t threatening
"\
e students who took the c S5 and I
f;;e;... I a n~ was surprise~ by its 10n,e and content. 1have an obligation to all of
ke the matte r up w ith the A
~
simply Issue grades without haVing a basis for them If you would like me to
~fore the matter escalat es to a~:ss ahon 'th1 can talk to Dea n Morgan about how he would like m~ to proceed. However,
- .
ue at a\ level, allow me to provide you with more information .

ust ,ecelve your somew

nee ),ou did not attend every class yo

nh
, ted everyo
t
'd
, u may we ave been absent from the class session where 1explained why
c:I~

~e 0 prov! e a hard copy and an eiedronic version of the paper. 1was going to be out of town for a

enod of time In late Ju~y and e~r1y August, and jf it were provided to me electronically, I could load it on my computer
nd r~ad the papers whl'~ travehng. When a professor asks you to provide both a writ1en and an electronic copy, I would
,10k It would be appropnal~ 10 follow the instructions rathe r tha n simply ma ke unilateral assumptions and decisions
ased upon t~ose a:s~mphons. ~evertheless, not only do we nol have an electronic copy of the paper, we do not have a
ard c.opy of It, and illS my desire that your successful law school career not be unduly delayed by this inconvenience.
cc.ordingly, 'will be happy to pay for the cost of having the electronic form of your pa per retrieved from your computer's
ord drive in order that we may get your paper and gel il graded. Even whe n mother boa rds are fried, papers that are
aved on the hard drive should remain intact. Even damaged hard drives can have maleria ls retrieved from them by
sing the proper software. Therefore, it is my oHer to pay for the cost of retrieving the electronic version of your paper
'om your hard drive. If you need assistance in locating someone to help you retrieve it, we can provide you with a list of
am happy to help you, but ultimately the responsibility for keeping copies of your,work rema ins with you a~d you can not
impl attempt to shift the burden of maintaining a copy of your work to us. Even If there are ,others who Will swear,that
he :aw OU tum in your paper, that does not help me grade it, nor does it help me assess fairly your paper grade In the
Y
Y
I
b' ed 'lass grade is done without me knowing because the fin al was taken by student I,D. number
lass. The t01a com 10
....
.
'
tell what everyone's class standmg will be.
prefer that I ask the Administration what is, necessary in order for you to shift to a pass/fail, I can also
,xplore that avenue , but I would prefer 10 actually receIve the paper.
rhank you for your c.oop

eration and cour1esies as an intended professional.

'l! 0 7

Judy Sellin

000163
zachcoughlio@hotmail.com
Cyberlaw Class
Zach. Please send me another copy of your paper. Many thanks.
Mark G. Tratos
mtratos@quirkandtratos,corn

'IG[

...
Catherine Luce
From:

2ach'
T

anas Coughlin [zachcoughlin@hotmail,coml

hUrsday. September 13. 2001 9:56 PM

Page I of7 ~_...

CLuce@quirkandtratos,com

Subject: my paper situation

Dear Professor Tratos,

Please accept my hwnble apologies for all that offended you in my last correspondence. 1 sbould very much like to
accept your otfeT in regard to my hard drive. Alas, J cannot guarantee I saved the paper 011 the hard drive, I simply
canno', remember, Also, I would require that my privacy be maintruned at aU time, once the appropriate baiUce is
detennined. In that regard, J have recently been trying to gel a data recovery performed for Oilier reasons. No business in
town is capable of what is required, however I have been in talks with a California company. OnTrack, at 1800.872.
2599x 4111, spoke with a John K. Apparently such procedures are very expensive, but thai is a relative determination, of
course. In any event, I do have this vcry rough dr.lft which I am enclosing. 1 would lIever twn this paper in to you in
normal circumstances. Of course my final drnft, the one that has been misplaced, contained the appropriate spell
cbecking, formatting, blue-booking, tone, content, and maturity that is required. Ofcoursc, what follows is a different
maner. However, I cannot be SUle that it would be some sort of violation oflbe honor code for me to make changes to
this draft. Let me know what you wish for me to do. Finally, I ask that you look into getting my grade changed to a
passffail determination in light of the above circumstances.
please accept my apologies and know thai my thoughts are with you, as they are with all peace loving human
during these troubling times.

Sincerely,

lach Coughlin

Better Inclu d e a D efiIn Hion of Revision Next Time: The New York Times Company, Inc. v
Tasini, et aI.
Introduction
Cess passed Section 201(c) of the Copyright Act, which provides that,

A quarter of a century ago, on,grh contrarv any author who contributes a piece to a "periOdical issue"
oreement to e
' J'
'
.c, of the
absent an th
express
a_ . war k'"'!ling
under
Section ]01 of the Act, shaU relam
owner:;JlIp
"collectIve
la

or some 0 er _,
. ht 17U S.C. Section 201(c).
contributed artIcle s copyng.
.

ill d 'l'n U.S. District Court, alleging that the actions of a group of
In 1993 a group ofauthords,: e ~Ugi tlhe republication of the author's coyrighted articles in several
1..: h include ucensl.ll
d
infiin'
h
th
publisbers. WIUC, _
d di 'tal database recovery, arnounte to an
gement on t e au or's
forms, one ofwhich.mcIude F ~u 804 806 (S.D.N.Y 1997). The authors argued that the
copyrights in the articles. 9?~ th pp tectj~n of Section 201 (c) of the Copyright Act because the
publisher's action do not elicit. e prooductions and distributions of articles the author's retain
i;~~;
.,
' 1 es WIU
L'ch are su b stantiaUy
.
'
are m aking elcetroruc
fr repr
, ding works and as compliatlons
0f
artie
- . theformof eesan
. .
, 1..: h h
'c1
d'
'.
lll, 111 _
com parisian to the periodical Issue m WIUC t e arb e rna e Its angInal
.
ucoIlecfive
works " l.Il

9/14/01

(IG~

p~ance. I~

bn 821-824. .

simiIiar electrOnic dat b . The dIStrict coun found < h '

a ases We " '.
lor t e pUblish ers h

"gC~UII

000150

~y such inclusion in the re rev]'SlOns" of the periodical issue , .o~ding that NEXIS and

),~;".,,,.,;, reversed the district c databa~e. was befitting of protection US resldmg ,within the databases and
reVJ slon of each edition of th oun .OpnllOn, holding that the database~~erSectlon 201(c). The Second
wnte of certiorari, Justice ,e penodlcal that it encompasses. 206 F 2 chons cannot be said to be a
databases holding individ ~sburg of the Supreme Court held th . C~61, 168 (CA 21999). On
li as pan of" "reVJ"
II
ua articles from a multitude of ed' 't'
fat
ROM and electronic
Slons of" d' ,
I IOns 0 pe'd 'aJ
works. New York T
ill IVJdual articles under the Copyright A
n OCI s could not be described
lI11es Company, Inc. v Tasini 150 L Ed 2d 50cOt sectIOn governing collective
=
'.
(2001)
~ CoPyri~ht Act jUrispru dence, Tasini is e. sil "
.
Co~ COU~ s lnte~retation of the language Of S~:~~~~e rnamstream of.Suprem~ Court precedent.

~esslOnal ~~ory relating to thi s section F

. (c) oft~e Cop;:n~t. Act IS consistent with the
multItude of edItIOns ofpe'd . I
ld
. mally, 10 concludmg that mdlVldual articles from a
d h
n OCla S cou
not be described II
f'" "
un er t e Copyright Act sectio
.
11
as part 0
revISIons " ofindividuaI articles
rnmg
truth that reproducing a freestan :ove
co ecti~e w?rks the court recognizes correctly the plain
a collective work . Jd at 2393 ; m~ copy~fan a~l.c~e IS not tantam.ount 10 distributing a "revision" of
relevant issues, it is well decid~d.urt er, W e Taslfl) IS correctly deCided, more importantly, on all
First, t,he Cou~'s statutory interpretation is on the money. Moreover. the Court's discussion of the

Copynght Act IS meas~r:d and thoug~tf~ul, lending a wise eye toward futu re developments in this area
~nd a seasoned appreciation of the. poli~les ~nderlying the United States practice of issuing copyrights
U1 the first place, to promote the dlssern:natlon of useful informat ion and suppon authorial rights.
Moreover, the
lamely analogu,e the present situati on to Sony Corporation of America v .
u,;~~~~~:~~~; incredibly, arguing that all infringing and distribution of the anicles tbe authors
t;
is
done by the individual NEXfS subscriber. arguing that she is the sole infiinger.
However, the Sony Court made it clear that the publi shers actions in the present case amount to
infringement, for Section 201(c) itself provides that an author's exclusive rights encompass not oruy the
"exclusive right" to reproduce and carry out distrubution of a copyrighted work, but that "an infringer
is not merely one who uses a work without authorizati on by the copyright owner, but also one who
authorized the use fo a copyrighted work without actuaJ authority from the copyright's owner." Sony,
464 U.S. at 435 n.l7.

out factu al and procedural background to the issues raised in Tasini and details
N tes sets
P art J 0 f t hiS
O .
..
P
'
h C rt'
aJ' fth e
.
fthe majority
and dissentmg opmlOns.
an D
exammes
t e au san YSls 0

~he ~e~so~gd ~'collective works" issues in greater detail and then discusses the Court's succesful
reVlsI~n aD h
nfl'ct between authorial rights and furthering the dissemination ofusefuJ
resolutIon af t e co J
informat ion.
1. New York Times Company,. Inc. v. Tasini

A. Factual and P rocedural Background

1993 wrote wrote and contributed 21 articles to a group of

between 1990 an d
,
.
. h
'cl
h
A ~o~p of aut. ors,
asini at 2381. Among the digital database~ III which t. es~ artl . es were
pen odlcal publisher'S. T
hi h stores articles from a multitude ofpenodlcaJs m a database
retrievable was L~XIS!NEXI~h w ~ file having its own individual file identifier. Id. at 2382. The
as an indiVIdual file, WIt ea d d fixed in electronic form in a master file comprised of millions
an
d.
ed
th
E XIS/NEXIS are store
.
ofL.
LEXIS subscriber enters his password an IS grant acces to e
.
artIcles. Id. When a
I

9114/ 0)

DI 0

.Page 3 of7

000151
database, he ,
IS not exposed
to
. 1d . .
.
.
work that printed it. Id .
a VlSua eplctlOn of the artIcle as it existed in the original collective
authors filed suit chargm' g c
a1

~n.e

' h ' I"

d"
opyng t Via allons m the publishers' act of placing the anicles as stand
repro Uchons availabe to dOwnload from the databases. In response the publishers cited the

pnvile~e bestowed ~pon the owner's of copyrights of collective works by Section 201 (c) of the
COP~gh.t Act. and Its 1?76 amendments. That Provision reads: 10 copright in each separate
~o~tnbu.tlon to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests
mtua~y In the aut.hor of the contriubtion.ln the abscence of an express transfer of the copyright or of

any. nghts under It, t?e owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the
p~~ge of reproducmg and distributing the contribution as part of that partiucJar collective work, any
reY1S10n of that collection work, or any later coiJective work in the same series." 17 V.S.c. 201 (c).
The District Court ruled for the publishers on summary judgment, holding, inter alia, that these
databases reproduced and distributed the articles writtten by these authors, and fell within the purview
of the exception created by seciton 201(c), by distributing these anicles "as pan of... [aJ revision of
that collective work" to which the author's initially made contributions. However, the Second Circu it
reverses bestowing up the authors a favorable ruling for summary judgment on the basis that the
databas~s were not among the "collective works covered by Section 201 (c), and specifically, ~ere not
"revisions" of the periodicals in which the Articles first appeared." Id. at 2387-2394. The publishers
appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and cert. was granted.

.
.
. b
' P"'0
for the Supreme Court of the United States holds that electronic and CDlJll
.
Justice
Gins
urg
s
ld
d"
'dual articles from
several
editions ofperiodicals
were not
distributed and
ROM databases ho Lng m IVl

.
.
h h
' I
ok
"s art of' "revisions" of the penodlcallss~e ~o.m whic . t e artlC e was t en,
"
reproduced
a
P
li
h
f
riodicals
cannot
relicense
mdlVldual
articles
to
databases
under
Section
quently pub s ers a pe
..
. .
'd h
conse
,
. h Act which addresses collective works. The maJonty opuuon aVOI s t e
201(c) .of thedC:-opyng
t
,
t of the issues presented in the dissent. The Court first addresses the
Incomplete
statemen
.
d'
h
nfu
co Slon an
h
d the presumptive privileges of their publishers by ad ressmg t e
the rights of freelance
orssurro
an undm' g Section 20I( c) of the Copyright
Act. The Court
tion ~ut
Issues
.
. addressed
bli h
s copyright ovmers of collective works, could exerCIse "the
statutory construe
the issue of whether the pUll s e~s. ~o "reproducer e] and distribut[ eJ " the author's copyrighted
privil~ge': Section 20"l{~) a h~~Sth~~ Section 201(c) does not. afford shelter to th~ publishers in the.
.
I d "eporoduce and distnbute stand
alone articles, rather than
m
contnbutiOn. The maJonty
.
.
h databases mvo ve ,
present case, as t e
f h
rt" ular "collective work" for which the author was a contnbutor,
cont--part "thereo
0 t e pf.a or
IC "as part of... any later collective work in the same series." As
......... and not as a ""
"as part of ... any reVlSlon
. 'd electronic publishers have infringed the copyrights of the authors
such, the majority holds the ~~t3~. 10 assessing whether the ar:icles written by th~ a~thors have been
in the present case. Id. at 2~,
rt of' a "revision" of the collective works, the m~onty focuses on
distributed and repr?d~~d t : ~:ers of the Databases. Jd. at 2390.
.
the articles as percelVe y

"
. .
the fact that the three databases present the author's articles to users
The majority based Its d"~cl~on ~~er the original periodical editions, as well as by any revision of those
of the context P!o: :oie~l that in NEXIS and the New Yor,k Times ~nDisc, ~rticle~ ~~ presented
. Id.absent
The maJo
ty hi
the grap
cs, fonnatting , and other articles which were mcluded m the uutial
the user

J0I I
8


np4~7
publication of the periodical'
hi h '

0 0 0152
hO:' such action could be ch:a:te~z:he artIcle Was p~blished. !d. !he majority simply could not see
anlcJes "as part oP' the on''';n I d"
d as a reproduCtion and dlstnbution by the databases of the
e>,-,.a e ltJonora"rev"
"fh
.,
.
,
refused to acee t an Y .
.
IS,lOn 0 t e ongl.Tlal penodical. Id. Further, the
as a revision ~ therr Inownterp~etahon ~hat mcluded construing the entirely of works in these
. .
nght notlOg that a " e "
"
.
verSlOn IS I'a distinct fann f
hin'
r VlSlon connotes a new verslOll, and that a
Third New lntemati
I D~ ~omet g regarded by its creators or others as one work" Webster's
ona IChonary 1944 2545 (1976) Th
"fu
'
t hese databases as a new v '
~ "
.' e maJonty re sed to view the entirely of
majority holds th t hi] erslOn?f each mdlVldual article that it contains. Id. at 2390. Further, the
a article
w . e each
may hear
proVl' des th at each
wa art]c1es
rt f h
'd"marks of its origin in a specific periodical this only
. . {;
s pa 0 t at peno Ical m the past or previously Id Additionally the
rnaJonty
sort of anal ogy drawn between the
and microlli
microfiche'to be
unpersuaslve pan lcularly whe c
'd"
h
. l".
'"

.
.
'.
n ons] enng t at ffil crOlonns show the art]c1es m "prec]sely the pOSitIOn
In which the articles ap peared in the newspaper." Id. at 2391.

~und an~

databas~s

a~d

Additi~naUy, the majo~ty found unpersuasive the oppositi on's argument that the concept of media
neutrality should proVlde that the 'transfer of work between media" does not "alter the character of" a
work for the purposes of its copyright law application. rd. at 2390. The Court relied on the fact that
transfer of the author's art icles into the databases represents something other than a mere conversion of
an intact periodical, or a revjsion thereof, from one medium to a different one. Id. The majority notes
that media neutrality cannot protect the author's right in individual articles where such articles are
presented individually, as free standing reproductions. Jd . at 2392 . Finally, the majority declines to
accept the publishers' argument that the present case parallels. Sony Corp of America v Universal City
Srudios, Inc. 464 U.S. 417 (1984), which held that the "sale of copying equimpment" does not amount
to contributory infringement where the equipment is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses." Id. at
442. However, the maj ority held that the electroni c publishers are not only selling "equipment", rather,
hey are seUing stand alone reproductions of the articles.
C. The Dissent

) ustlce
' S tevens, J"o'med by Just ice Breyer' berates the majority
for concluding
that
.
.
d" the publishers
" h h shall

Wit t e
' 'h ep ro,ection of Section 20J (c) of the Copynght Act. The .dissent
not receive
h
" Isagrees
h
h
..
Ii t h t Secti on 20 1(c) does not afford shelter to the publis ers m t e present case, as t e
maJonty's
~ ng d'reporodu ce and distribute stand alone articles, rather. than in"context, and
databases mvolve
f not as a
. I "collective work" for which the author was a contnbutor, as part 0 .. . any
.
pan..of the
part,cfu or
ar" as p art of.. . any later collective work in the same series." Id. at 2397.
"thereo
eth The dissent
.
reVlSlon .th
' . ri that a finding of whether a "revision" exists will depend on wh. er the artJ.c1e
agrees
the
maJ~,
ty xt" that it did when originally published as part of the collective work. l d.
appears m the same conte

v.:

0;

.
ful t
ote that the majority seems unwilling to recognize that the alterations in a
Justice Stevens IS carel
s've than those made prior to copyright law by the 1976 amendments
collective work much ess e'J: en,.] n To elucidate his disagreement with the majority Justice Stevens
L ' h _~
d
d
" similiar ciasswca 10 .
do not men a
_.
.
.
ssing the 1976 Act's amendments, WIllC il.l.l.ecte prece ent
"
, pnnclpal auns In pa
.
h
"ty' d'
,
f
.
orks. rd . at 2394 . The dissent then e~p1icates t. e maJon s. lSCUSSlon 0 what
cites ~?ngress
pertauung to collectl~e wh
' 'take two analytically thrilling narratives to explam to the reader
.. " tually IS C oosmg 0
f h
'gh , th
a "revlSlon ac
, .
fthe collective works created by the owners 0 t e cOpl)'l t In ose
why the electronic "verslO~s.o n fthose works within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. Section 201(c) " and
works (publishers) are reh"'''lo " o",'e databases of the revisions witb still more editions of the same
< gj!l'eJl.,;;on by tee ec ro
I
h
'
why
the a: or, indeed, other peno
. d'I cals, within a single database does not' change t e equatIon." Id. at
ori"di"a1

9114/01

cage.J ur

O~~

, Stevens sent his H d

Aft er Ju stice
'd
f
C
arvar educated law clerk to d
LEXlS
e\: l ence 0 ongress' true goal'
.
.
0a
or Westlaw search to turn up
' rUlci'p,01
I s m passmg Copynght Act he beca
fi
d
r'
goa 5 Congress had w'th
, m e xate upon at least one of the
appeared as pan of some large J ~esp~ct to protecting the rights offreelance authors whose articles
copyright law as we know 't / c~ e~tJve works. ld. at 2395. In adressing the policies underlying
a statute, did what most ani 'J ustlce tevens, in lieu of actually quoting some case law or interpreting
some people who probabl Yknvy L~aguer would do, he looked to Some scholarly articles written by
who wrote that co
. h ~ II ow etter than the electorate and picked this bon mot from Macaulay,
pyng
t IS a tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers" T
M acau Iay. S peech es o n Co
yri h 11 (A Th
.
.
. .
up that "th t t
.
p g t
.
omdike ed. 1915). To this Justice Stevens quickly spins
a ax restncts the di ssemination of writings, but only insofar as necessary to encourage their
'
prod utlon., t h e bounty's basic b' .
1 H
1 kin
.
a ~ectlve. Id . at 2 40.
e suggests we somehow find support for this in
00 , g ~t the Urutes States Constituion, Article I Section 8, clause 8. You'd have to be more
perplcaclO~s than I, o r apparently t he majority of the Supreme Court 10 find support for such an
InterpretatIOn .
Finally, it .ap~ears that Justice Stevens is willing to venture into the hairy realm of case law to help
support his VIew on what the underlying p olicies of copyright law are. Now, 1 am too lazy to actually
look up the case and see ifit actually says this, and says it in the way that Stevens is setting it up (but
mind you I am living at the poverty line in Las Vegas and don't have some Ivy League kid to be my
fetch-boy and all, so .. .), but apparently "[t]he primary purpose of copyright is not to reward the author,
but is rather to secure 'the general benefi ts derived by the public fr om the labors of authors." 2401
quoting M . Nimmer & D. Nunmer, Ninuner on Copyright Section 1.03 [A] (2001) (quoting Fox Film
Corp. v . Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127 (1932) . Apparently Justice Stevens is only in favo r of paying the
court jester just enough to get by and, maybe, just maybe, send his kid to some piece of shit public
hool or something like that. Yeah, that would be nice for the plebes. But let's not forget that the
aissent takes great pains to point out that the desire to guard such authorial rights is certainly a worthy
sentiment. Id. at 2401.
Somewhere along the line, in the dissent's mind, protecting authorial renumeration became a narrow
goal to be achieved within the broader confi~es of en~u~g the "fi.md~ental g~al" ?f e~coura~g the
production of su ch articles. What St even~ falls to notl~e IS that, muchhlike the sItuatIon ImliPulblic
schooling with t h e people who o sually.wmd up becommg teac h ers, w en you par peop e tt e, you get
little Suddenly the fou rth estate is declmat~d becaus~ nobody w,ants to keep ~sking mo":, and dad,for a
' cover last month's rent , instead optmg. to go mto marketmg or some SIdeways shit career like
littJ eta
g od forbid. Much like someone who would advocate a Wal-Mart for books
tto rney
that O r anot h er a
,
.
d
d
h'
fhi
' '
d N ble isn't already) Stevens mlsrea s prece ent w en, In support 0 s take on
a
' ..
I.
I
h
f
. b
(like Barnes an
Section 20 1(c) he quotes: "private ~ohvahon mu: u tun~~~y se,:,e ~ ~ cause ~ pr?~tmg
blic availability ofliterature, mUSIC, and the ot er artli"l ,wli: nt let
enbturyh USIC om v Aiken,
PU
15 1 (1975) (who know who added the sas~y tt e Ita cs ab~ve. ut t ,e smart ~oney says it
422 U.S.
b ' Stevens and trying to really dnve home the pomt that he I S a popUlist at heart
wasJ'ustSteven emg
.
d
d h hood hi'
'"
'
pu Ie avatlablhty
of
ly shows that Stevens fails to un erstan t at r
awl Of course t hi sclear
.
.
"
I
'
Ie who are not bemg S1ven the renumeratlon or creatIve contra that true artists
works created ~erP~~ction with strings attached, will all too often yield scourges of no less a
des~e, but rat th
mbined careers of Nsync and The Backstreet Boys.
magrutude than e co

ro:m

ected to come from the majority decision? Wen, we can only hope that some of
Id b
P
So w hat ' shou
.
willbe cut, as 11
' seems Wlt
' h te
hn' se 0 f t he
' h e ex reative fat cats who run things
B
S ck
salanes ~o t e unc
~'tennet, they have become vestigial characters by now anyway. ut, u .com now asserts that

9114/01

rage

content no longer is nOr ev!

,

as

ki

or

0001.54

ng, so wouldn't get too excited.

Later Stevens goes on to doo

li I
vhilst waxing philosophic on ~sa~ a litt~. ab~ut the das\ardly future eff~cts of the majority's decision
majority's ruling. Id. at 2401 H:v:~ ~~ Ion ohn Keats O~e on a Grecian Urn would recieve from the
authorial rights.
.
p se? Ode on a Grecian Urn? No wonder he doesn't care about
Of course, Stevens pique
b
h
. .
of co y' ht I
was not roug t on merely by the maJonty's misundertanding of the true aims
ali p n~ a~, no rather, he also perfonned, or tried to perform, some of those magical paraUel
~e ty vu c.an ~d warp tactics the better law schools currently retail for about ninety-five thousands
. oUars. This entailed playing word games to come up with a reading of "revision" that could somehow
Ignore the fact that the ~rti~les in question are being presented as stand alone peices, devoid of the
context, and that comrrunghng can go a long way in changing something's ability to being a "revision."
Id .. ~t 2399-2401. Surely, Stevens realizes the staid placement and contextualization present in an
editIOn .ofThe Wall Street lournal has sacred importance. Now, I didn't go to the Columbia School of
Journalism or what-have-you, but J do know that these sorts of things matter. Don't send an academic
to do an intellectual's job. I believe a lot of rap-artists who commingled their own "flows" over "beats"
that where made by others were eventually made to pay the price for such infringements, and
consequently, the quality of rap music got a lot better. Can you guess why? That's right, because onJy
creative people were getting paid, not the make a quick buck con artists. Or business majors.
D. Let's Get Pissy Over the Meaning of "Revision"!
The publishers are making electornic reproduction and distributions of works in which the authors of
copyrights, making these articles available as freestanding works, and in compiliation of articles which
Ie completely different "collective works" in comparision to the periodical issue in which these articles
originally appeared, and consequently, the publisher's activities do not bask in the sweet purview of the
privilege created in Section 201(c). When considering the word "revision," the Copyright Act's
definition of "collective work," and the legislative underpinnings and policies present in this and other
Congressional Acts adressing copyright law matters, a later collective work should be considered a
"revision" of the first coUective work whence contributions of substantiallly the same kind and quality
as included in the first exist and when the second work qualifies as an amended version of the eariler
work, comprised of contributions that are of substanti~Uy the same in quality and kind. as ~hat
assembled into the prior collective whol~ as evaluated m terms of the selection, coordmatton, or
arrangment principles that guided the pnor work. Jd. at 2388-2399.
A. The Publishers Acts Exceed the Scope of the Privilege Bourne of Section 201(c)

Th

bli h rs argue they confine themsleve to reproducing and distributing to the public works that
ehPr'u s e copyrights in only as part of the set ofarticJes from the issues that the publishers iden+a;,
aut 0" S own
'gh' Id S
if h .
-,
.. "of an issue that they ' the pu b"uShers, own a copyn
as a reVlSlon
. dtID. . .orry t" at 1S a screwed up
some second year law reVlew rudge cnes out, oh goodness
b , ', shall remain so'lest
sentence,ul
fl"
.,
'1'
fhhr
'
Methinks J have found an incidence 0 P agt.ansm, yes, yes! It s a VlO ahon 0 t e t ee word rule, oh
dear, mmm. yes." The publishers have certa~y ?ot met this standar~, but rather have p~t f~rth 8
ment that asserts that the transnusSlons of groups of articles from some penodlcal issue to
tenuous argo
.
hi
h
b' h
.
'0 publishers however fleetmg a moment t s exc ange may e ID t e productton chain of
th e1etre c o r u ,
d"
hi '
. b
,
and beyond however interme late In nature t S mcamatlOn e when considering that
on-line c o n e ,
d' 'b d
. d"d aJ .
.ghted artices are being reproduced and Istn ute on an m IVl u article basis, as free
,;tan~~~ntiries, somehow qualifies as a "revision" within the parameters of Section 201(c). Rather,

n'

9/14/01

"

~Clge

I VJ I

000155

fo~ the reaso~s ~lucidated in the above pages ofthls very casenote, the publisher's treatment cannot be

saId to fall. WIthin the blessed arms of the privilege given out on rugh by Congress in Section 201(c) of
Copynght Act.

The majority's analysis is more than correct and measured, it is exhilirating. The dissent's analysis is
more than dissapointing, in fact, it undermines my faith in not only our system of justice, but also the
sum total of humanity. Perhaps a sub-phylum for individuals who harbor beliefs even as remotely
misguided as Justice Stevens and the yes man who joined his dissent should be created, to better
illustrate, once and for all, scientifically, biologically, the very best that social darwinlsm has to offer.

Get your FREE dovm.1oad ofMSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

0 15
9114101

From: Zacharias Coughlin [z.achcoughlin@hotmaiLcom]

Sent: Saturday, September 22, 20011:16 AM
To: CLuce@quirkandtratos.com
,~.t)je_~_t:,~X.J'aper situation

000146

;':DIV><D1V>

<DlV><.JD1V><DrV><JDJ'v><n'rV><tD1V:><Dn&Dear Prof. Tratos,<IDlv><6M-eould you

please drop me a quick note to Jet me know if you recieved my paperlemail and if so when I can
expect a final grade to be issueg; .. l~TU_trying to shore up my graduation requirements for
December graduation. Thanks<m)M

<IDIV></I)IV>.
Get your FREE dovmload ofMSN Explorer at http://exp]orer.msn.CQffi

016

Dear Mr. Tralas,

I have decided to lake ou

000119

legal tems I
Y
P on your offer to pay for the data recovery On my hard drive So in
, accept your affe a d
'd
b d
. ,
Track has infonned
r n ,cons] er you aun to pay On Track the cost of Ihis service. On
thou h'
h
me that, assummg my laptop had J gb of space which I think is the case
be g 1l m~y ave 4 gb, the cost will be a $100 dollar inspection charge and assuming the d;ta can

Pler:s~o~ere
b

, that money will be

a~plied to ajob that.should I!kely cost between $500 and $2,500.

d ~ not let me rely to my detnment on your earher promIse and offer 10 pay for this. I have
ec~ a vised by very high ranking professors here al the Jaw school [0 hire an attorney \0 represent

me

In

~hc maller that ~ou hav~ created here at Boyd School of Law. Apparently, this could

p01e~~lall y be somethl~g that

IS reponed to the Bar. Please let me know if you have already done so.
AddlllonalJ y, I would Inform you of the law against disclosing anything penaining to the academic
perfonnance of s tudent s at publi c universities to certain entities. 11 is from a case involving some
Uni versit y of Mary land bas ketball players, I believe. I know it must be hard for you to know and
understand aillhe fidu ciary duties that come with being a professor, heck it look two of you to teach
on e class and nob ody 1 know has recieved any feedback on their paper, much less the actual paper
its self. Do you sti ll have the hard copies of all the students papers? Please do not let this
information lead you to beli eve th at I am under the impress ion that you have not already made
inappropriate disclosures about academic mailers pertaining to me. Given that I just passed the Bar a
year early, without taking BarB ri, while taking 6 credits and working ajob, I find the obsta~les you
have placed in my path inconvenient 10 say the least, in tenns of pla~nin~ my f~lure, financla.lly and
otherwise. I want to be sure to take every prec aution 1 can [0 protect Justice agamst your spunous
allegations, and thus your offer to pay for the data from my hard dri~e [0 be ret.'"ieved is effectively
accepted. In conclusion, I'll have on track go ahead and send you a bill and I Will fax. over a contract
for you to sign . though 1 do not believe that is legall y necessary as this personal services contract for
less than $5,000 dollars does not fall within the statute of frauds.

Have a nice day, Mark,

Zach Coug hlin

UO!7

000118
Dear Mr. Tratos ,

1 have decided to take you

legallenns, I accept your o&e~~~dO~~ o~f~r to pay for the data recovery on my hard drive So in

~frack has informed me that

er you bound to pay On Track the cost of this s~rvi~e. On

may have 4 gb, the cost ~ill be a I;fo~~ J~f'P had I, gb of space, which 1 think is the case, though
recovered, that money will be a '
0. ar inspection charge and assuming the data can be
Please do not let me rei to m d~h.ed to a Job that sh?uld like~y cost between $500 and $2,500.
advance, I will point to ~ur Y.~ nmhent on your ~ar!Jer promJ~e and offer to pay for this. Also, in
that some sort ofe d't" emat exc ~gcs as eVidence rebuttmg any position you might invent
.mterpretation of the
onema'I'
I Ion precedent eXisted'
d
IT

hr I '
In regar to your oller. I do not believe any reasonable
may assert that
. 1 sine ono ogleal order could bend far enough to allow for any claim you
paper on the h y~~ ?Id n~l fully understand that I could not be absolutely sure that I had saved my
you on
f
ar nve 0 . my laptop. I believe a careful reading of the emaiis will show that I put
1
n~ IC~ 0 r my practIce of occasionally emailing myself a digital copy of a paper and printing it
ou at ~c .00 , or rather merely taking a floppy disk with the paper's contents to school and doing the
same, simply cannot remember what I did, other than that I turned in the paper atop all the other
pap~r~ on the day you told the class to do so. Please tell me whether you have any recollection of
a~vJsmg the class where and when the papers should be turned in. No students that I have spoken
WIth remember you a~ouncing anything regarding the papers and the proper placement of the
papers on that day. Fhd you mak~ any flTI!louncement? Who took the papers from the classroom.
C.ould yo:, please gIve me a detmled cham of custody for the papers? I have been advised by very
high rankmg professors here at the law school to hire an attorney to represent me in the maner that
you have created here at Boyd School of Law. Apparently, this could potentially be something that
is reported to the Bar. Please let me know if you have already done so. Also,l would like for you to
explain why your email asks me to search for a copy of the paper and tum it in at the risk of being
given an incomplete in the class and yet when this was done, you immediately took steps that are
causing me very real damages. I would say that sounds like entrapment, however, given that I
haven't done anything wrong or illegal, I don't know quite what to call it. Additionally, I would
infonn you of the law against disclosing anything pertaining to the academic performance of
students at public universities to certain entities. It is from a case involving some University of
Maryland basketball players, I b~lieve: I know it must be lu~rd for you to know and understand all
the fiduciary duties that come With bemg a profe~sor, heck II took tWO of you to teac~ one class and
nobody J know has recieved any feedback on theIr paper, much less the actual paper Its self so I
would doubt you really have even started to grasp the finer points of th~ p!,ofessori.al role. Do you
still have the hard copies of all the ~tudents papers? Please do not lett~ls mfonn~tlon ~ead you to
bel' eve that I am under the impreSSion that you have not already made mappropnate disclosures
bit cademic matters pertaining to me. Given that I just passed the Bar a year early, without
aa:u aBarBri while taking 6 credits and working ajob, I find the obstacles you have placed in my
t thm~
ven'ient to say the least, in teons of planning my future, financially and otherwise. I want
pa mcon
I'
e every precaution I can to protect .
Justice.
agamst.
your .
spunous aIegatlOns,
an d thus
tak
to besure
dd'
be
.
d'
I
T
'
I
dl
to
IT
.y 'or the data from my har nve to
retneve IS ellectlve yaccepte . n
your l
Oller
P have
I'

. ,lax over a contract for you to

' toI'll
on track go ahead and send you a bill
an d I Will
c~:mc ~~~~I\ I do not believe that is legally necessary as t~is personal.sclVices ~ontract for less than
SlgnOD doflars does not fall within the statute of frauds. Fmally. who IS Cathe~ne Luce? Is she an
$5,0
? This really isn't made clear from the presentatiOn of your emalls. Do you, as a
agent ofyor: 'ber law, have your very o\.vn email account? Does Catherine Luce have the authority,
p!,ofessor 0 I Y
arent to be holding you out as the sort of person who feels threatened by my
elth~rl aClud'th'I'kPeP? Who makes contractual offers? Please clear up this confusing presentation.
emals an
e I .

It

assum"

nSI

Have a nice day, Mark.

Zach Coughlin

018

-,

From: Zacharias Coughrln [

.
zachcoughhn@hotmail.com]
.
' eto er 10 2001 HO PM
To: ~Luce@quirkandlratos.c~m
.
Subject: our contract

Sent: Wednesday 0

Page I of2

000116

Dear Mr. T ralas ,

1terms
have decided
to t::lkeffyou up on your offer \0 pay for the data recovery on my hard drive. So in legal
I ace

ept
.
d your 0 er and cons'd
J er you baund
to pay nO
Track the cost
of thIs servIce
On' Track
. ,f
. I think is the case though
.
h as JO onne me that : assum'mg my Iaplop had 1 gb of space, whIch
it may
h ave 4 g,
be a. $100 d0II"
. the data can be
' recovered, thai
b. t he cost wlil
.
aT inspectIOn charge and assuming
money \\1J11 be ~pphed to a Job that should likely cost between $500 and $2,500. Please do not let me
rely to ~y detnment on y~ur earlier prom ise and offer to pay for this. Also, in advance, I will point 10
our emml exchanges as eVIdence rebutting any posilion you mighl invent Ihat some sort of condition
precedent ~xisted in regard 10 your offer. I do not believe any reasonable interpretation of the emails in
chronoioglCai order could bend far enough 10 allow for any claim you may assert Ihat you did not fuJly
understand that 1 could not be absolutely sure Ihat 1 had saved my paper on the hard drive of my laptop.
I believe a careful reading of Ihe emails will show that 1 put you on notice of my practice of occasionally
emailing myself a digital copy of a paper and printing il out at school, or mlher merely takJng a floppy
disk with the paper's contents to school and doing the same. I simply cannot remember what I did, other
than that I turned in the paper atop all Ihe other papers on the day you told the class to do so. Please tell
me whether you have any recollection of advising Ihe class where and when the papers should be turned
lfl. No students that I have spoken with remember you announcing anything regarding the papers and
the proper placement of the papers on that day. Did you make any announcemen t? Who look the papers
from the classroom. Could you please give me a detailed chain of cuslOdy for Ihe papers? I have been
advised by very high ranking professors here at the law school to hire an attorney to represent me in the
maHer thai you have created here at Boyd School of Law ..Apparently, Ihis could potentially be
something that is reported to the Bar. Please lei me know If you have already done so. Al~o., I would.
like for you to explain why your email asks me to search ~or a copy of the ~aper a~d tum It In al the nsk
f b . g g. ven an incomplete in Ihe class and yet whcn thIS was done, you Immediately took steps that
o em 'ng' me very real damages. I would say that sounds like entrapment, however, given that 1
are caust
. w hat to ca II It.
.
Add
'd
anything wrong or illega l, 1 don't know qUIte
IllOna II y, I wou IdIn f ann
.
.
h
d

h avenftone
h I
against disclosing anything pertalnlng to t e aca emlc per ormance 0 f students at pu bl IC
yo~ 0 t. ~ aw c rla,.n enti ties It is from a case involving some University of Maryland basketball
umverslltes
to e I know it must

d
I believe.
be hard for you 10 know an d understan d aII Ihe fid
I uClary utles I.hal
players,. b'
ofesso heck it took twO of you to teach one class and nobody J know has recleved
r
g ~P~r aper'
come wtlh
much less Ihe aClual paper its self so I would doubt you really have even
any feedbac on hi efi' Pr poi'nts of the professorial role. Do you still have the hard copies of alllhe
started to grasp ?I ePI me do not leI this informal1on
. lead you to beheve
.
.
that J am un der the .ImpressIOn
e
students papers. le"d made inappropriale disclosures about academic mauers pertaining to me.
that
not aassed
rea Y
.
kmg B.arB
,., 6
d
. you have.ust
the Bar a year early. WJlhOUt.13
n, W h1
1 e tarung . cre ItS and workJng a
P
GIven that J J b
I
ou have placed in my path mconveOlentlo say Ihe least, m terms of planning
. b , 1 find theo stac
. I can to protect Justice
10
. II es yd olherwise I want to be sure to lake every precautIon
f
{Ure
fioancla
Y
an
.
. to be
my. u
' s urious allegations, and thus you r offer to pay for the data from my hard dnve
aga~ns,t y~ureffectivelY accepted. In conclusion, I'll hs:e 00 Ira:k go ahead and send yo~ a bi ll and I will
retne\ed IS
f r you 10 s;gn though J do not believe thai IS legally necessary as thIS personal
fax over
a contractf 0
'
. .
.
.
less than $5
000 dollars does not fall wllhmlhe
statute of frauds. Fmally,
who is
,erYlces
contract
or
'
.
.
,
d
I
f
h
. of your
_
. L
'1 she an agent of yours? ThIS really Isn t rna e c ear rom t e presentatIon
Lathenne
s professor of cyber law, have your very own emal1 account '. D oes C at henne
. Luce
.1 D uce.
u asa
emals.OYo,
d
h
f
h
f
have the authority, either actual or apparent to be hoI mg you out as t e sort 0 person w 0 eels
,I Ci

:lO

.,

Page 2 of2

thre::ilcned by my emails and the like? Who makes comrac tua1 offers? Please clear up this confu sing

presentation.

Have a nice day, Mark,

Zaoh Coughlin

~el

lUi

000117

fREE download ofMSN Explorer al htlp~L[e;x:plQ.rer.msn.<:;om

1128
.,' ,..

"~~

... ,,


00011~
/

To:

Mary LaFrance
10/1212001 10:33 AM

rmorgan@un\v .ed U, Ch nstine Smith/UNLV@UNLV

cc:

Subject: FW: Response to

'
your emalls of October la, 2001

Here's Mr , Co ug hI"'
In S latest email to Mark Tratos.
Mary l.
.... - ......... Forwarded b

c-Q:::::?
To:
cc:

y Mary laFrance/UNlV on 1011212001 12'36 PM ..... .

Cather;ne ""e <Cl","@Q";rkaodtrat"."m,' '"

1O/l2l;~~;'~~;~;;;~'AM

'Iafrance@ccmall.nevada .edu" <lafrance@ccmail.nevada,edu>

Subject: FW: Response to your emails of October la, 200]

This was just received in our office from Mr. Coughlin', I thought ,t appropr',ate t
you thank you.
0 forward it to
.. --Original Message
from: Zacharias Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@holmaiJ.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 6:17 PM

To : CLuce@quirkandtratos.com
Subject: Re: Response to your emails of October 10, 2001

I have alreadY informed you that I am not su re wheth er the paper wa s ever sa ved
on the hard drive of my laptop and tha t having it ac tua lly saved was not a
condition precedent to our bargain . Further, Ontrack has in10rm ed me that they
do not retrieve individual files, but witt rather only do the ent ire retrieval in bulk.
Also. I am troubled by your behavior and wh ile I ca nnot quit e match the exquisite
use of the word 'perjorat ive' that your last email exhibited , I will say that J am
vexed by your words and am f~ig h tene d tha t you co uld possibly be a miscreant.
so in conclusion, let me know If you plan to breach our contract in accordance
with the above information. Also, I may have to alert th e st udent body of the lack
of respect you. as a professor here at Boyd School of Law, are according to
student's right.
With every intention of not com ing off as invoking a perjorative ennui.
Zach Coughli n

" 02 I

000036

Mark T'al05 <MT,al05@quirka d

n tratos.com::. on 10/24/2001 09:18:20 AM

'lafrance@cc

FW:

'I
mal .nevada.edu" <Iafrance@ccmail,nevada.ed
U>

Most recent email sent l a s t

,
Original Messag~-....
evening and received by me this morning. Just FYI.
rom: Zacharias COughlin [ 'It
Sent: Tuesday, October 23 ~~~106Z~~hc~~ghlin@hotmail.coml
To: CLuce@quirkandtratos'.com
'
Subject:

i, ..

Dear Mr Tratos,
lowe you an apology for the petulance and rudeness present in the series of
emalls I have sent to you over the past month, I lost the plot a bit. I can tell you
that I regret my words, feel that I made some unintentionally rude comments in
class, wish that I had sent you an electronic copy of my paper, and acknowledge
that \ need to find more constructive ways of dealing with anger. I have no
Intention of following any contract based theories of recoveries and merely want
to clean up my side of the street at this point. I can also tell you tha t I swear on
my mother's life that I wrote and submilted a case comment on the Tasini case
by the deadline given. Further, I realize that pultlng my SOCia l secunty number
nd a request not to put the contents of my paper on the class webSite atop a
a per may have been a bit olfpulting. I did not mean to impugn your
pa d'b,\.t
By saying this I do not mean to suggest tha t you ever even saw my
cre I I I y.
w professors ,5 has b een f'Ire d or pu t on Ieave f or 51't ua t'Ions
f my la
aper
neo
't,t t
O
P
.
:
flicts of interest and I believe I have an acute senSI IVI Y 0 such
involving con h'
oint as I was greatly affected by the atmosphere the
sltuatlon~ at t IS ~duct created. Further, anonym ity had been mai ntained in t he

professor 5 mlsc~
other class I have been in in law school, save the one
grading process In ever~ eventually disciplined. Also, about a week b,efore th e
where the prafe,ssor ;a class an ema il was distri buted to the students In Professor
paper waS due In yo I
'ndicating that they need to get numbers from the
Oentico's summ.er c ass I as anonymity was to be maintai ned in the grad ing
registrar for their papers
process.
. .
.
mer getting ready for the bar , wrltmg the paper for your
I busted my as~ this sun~ns My girlfriend of two yea rs broke up with me shortly
class. and pass 1I1 g ~ ~~~alus~ of hoW litt le time I co~ l d devote to her. Th is m.eant
after the bar, m par
esidence. Then my ca r died. That meant I got to ride a
I had to move out 0 f our r

022

000037

bike 35 minutes to school, which I am still riding. Then my parents gotf

divorced. Then I was told by one of the law school's preeminent professor's that
the current investigation in regard to academic dishonesty meant that if I ' was
ever going to hire a lawyer, now would be the time." Then Dean Smith told me
that the investigation which she said you and Dean LaFrance requested was . .
somet hing that 'absolutely must be reported to the bar'. I felt this was unfair In
light of t he fact that none of the eyewitnesses that I named had been contacted.
Well, at this poi nt I don't really care about what I feel is unfair anymore and as
the saying goes just "wa nt t o do the next right thing."
Sincerely, Zach Coughlin

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at httD:/lexDlorer.msn.com

1123

Mary LaFrance
11106/2001 01:24 PM
To:

Christine Smith/UNLV@UNlV

cc:
Subject: FW; Thank You
FYI.

Mary L .
. .... ... Forwarded b M
y ary LaFrance/UNLV on 1 J/06/2
.,. Mark Tratos <MTra l os@ .
00102:00 PM ......................... .
qUl
rk
and
tratos.com>
on 11 / 06 /2 001 09 :43:35 AM
.
_

~ ~'
c::O::?
To:

cc

"1 a f ranc:e@ccmail.nevada.edu' <Iafra nee @ ccmalLnevadaedu>

.

Subject: FW: Thank You

Today'smessage from Mr. Coughlin

Origmal Message
.....
From: Zach Coughlin [mailto:zachcoughlin@hotm "
J
Sent: Monday, November 05,2001 5:56 PM
al.com
To: CLuce@quirkandtratos.com
Subject: Thank You

Dear Mr. Tratos,

I thank you for your thoughtful words and magnanimity. I cannot stress how
sorry J am for the way 1 behave~ i.n our series of correspondences. That was
truly unprofessional of me an~ It IS my strong desire to take from this incident a
renewed dedication to upholding the fundamental tenets that buttress our
professional responsibility. What I am particularly disappointed in myself for
doing is implying that you were not upholding the virtues of the professorate.
say this because I was continually impressed wi t h the thoroughness of
preparation and presentation that graced your delivery of the material, in
addition to the infectious verve with which you approach your work. I feel that J
should perhaps send the Deans .a letter retracting my criticisms of the class,
though at this point I do not believe what I have to say holds much sway with t he
administration, but nonetheless ...
I do not knoW what the resolution of this situation will bring. Phi llip Burns,

, (J 2 4

OCC02;)
Student Judicial Affairs Officer for UNLV, has scheduled a meeting with me
tomorrow. From a telephone conversation with Dean Morgan I gathered that he
was not sure what was to become of my grade for the Cyberlaw class, saying he
'was not sure if the grade was still an incomplete or if Me. Tratos has changed it
to an F." Without a passing grade in Cyberlaw, and assuming I complete my
course work for this semester, I will have 83 credits, 3 short of the 86 required
for graduation. Further, as I understand the rules of the Boyd School of Law and
the ABA, everyone enrolled in classes for a semester of law school must take at
least 7 credits regardless of whether less are needed to fulfill the graduation
requirements set
fthe
' forth. I must stress that this is only my understan d'lOgo.
regIStration requirements and that I am aware that the rules regarding situations
of this nature can get quite complicate.
.
did 0 not mean to mislead . Further,t ItI IS
possible not graduating this semester will have some effect on ~he~~er o~lno
am admitted to the Bar or shall need to take the Bar again (I s oU r'e~ y
Id I'k
hoever it is who shall make the Ina
rather move to Kabul). I wou
I e~ t I
entirely amiable to helping them
determination of.n:'Y grade to kn.Dw

feel justified in glvmg me a pas,sl;g

paper entirely, rewriting

th~ e~ls

a a~OUld that include, doing another

g~ad~, doing some community service work

Ing

ra

as a penance for my behavior In our corr

in

or some other proposed

.
I"
and talent you brought
did appreciate the professlona IS~ h I handled this

resolution.

e~pondences

I trul

~~;sa~'~~;se Off~ring, I greatly regret th~dw,a;e';'i;:~~at I have a profound

d extend my apologies to you, a

,"shed before I can begin to
h d of me that must be ~ccomp I
ber of the Bar.
amount work a eaf rofessionalism required of a mem
0 _

Situation an

embody the sort

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin

REE downloa
Get your F

d f MSN Explorer at http://explorer .msn.com

0

112"
.
v
7