I'd get on my cell phone and call the police. That's their job. Of course there is that little fact of having a legal right to the property in question in the first place. :) I fully agree this is Not Good (TM), hence the BAD in my response. Having said that, satellite providers periodically 'kill' hacked access cards on equipment in the user's home with no legal ramifications. How would this be significantly different? Waiving the fourth amendment flag is just FUD in this case. There's more than sufficient current law out there that applies in this case. The entertainment industry just wants an even easier answer. They're lazy. What's new? WorldComm, Adelphia, AOL, (you and me next?), have made this industry and its practices an easy target. Historically, market segments either clean up their own act, or government steps in. I believe this business is at that point now. How we act in the near future will greatly affect the amount of government involvement we'll see. Arguing in support of haz0r/warez networks won't help the cause. To put a different spin on the DCMA/17USC512 takedown letter issue, does this mean you support opt-out lists for Spam as apposed to opt-in? That's how the entertainment industry views our current process. There's a lot of disucssion on this list (actually OT but we see it here anyway) about identifying questionable E-mail traffic (spam). Is it really that much harder to identify questionable P2P traffic? Or are we all too busy listening to our MP3s playlists and watching the latest Starwars rip? Just my 2ยข Best regards, _________________________ Alan Rowland -----Original Message----- From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:57 PM To: Rowland, Alan D Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:11:00 PDT, "Rowland, Alan D" <alan_r1@corp.earthlink.net> said:
IANAL but IMHO spewing cracked copies of say, Photoshop, or other copyright violations might be considered probable cause with the specific place/things being the share program and it's contents.
If your house was broken into, and your TV stolen, and you were walking along and saw it in your neighbor's living room through the window, would that give you the right to go in and reclaim it? Would it exempt you from having to pay for a new door to replace the one that got broken down? You might want to ask yourself why the now-standard 17USC512 takedown letter isn't sufficient..... I wonder how many 'Hax0rs-R-Us' record labels are about to incorporate. Bad JuJu.