----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick B" <nick@pelagiris.org>
I'm about 90% sure that in a fair court, it would be concluded that disabling the reported URL qualifies as disabling access to the material. The court might then issue an injunction to, in the future, disable *all* *possible* access to the material, but that's not the current text of the law. YMMV
I believe we're all conflating 2 separate and, really, disparate things: 1) what does the law actually require and is that realistic? 2) how were MU actually behaving, and does that relieve The Law of cutting them any slack? The former isn't really affected by the latter; it can still be unreasonable, even if that is *not* the reason why MU proper won't be getting cut any slack which might exist. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274