RE: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
First I agree that this is BAD on general principle but... 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. Sharing the content of your favorite program/CD/DVD with the world has never met "fair use." I had significant input in my life regarding the difference between "can" and "may." IMHO significant numbers of net citizens have forgotten that difference. Just my 2¢. Best regards, _________________________ Alan Rowland -----Original Message----- From: Joseph T. Klein [mailto:jtk@titania.net] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 12:16 PM To: Marshall Eubanks; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking I would argue that my home computer is the repository of my papers and effects. No place in the below law does it limit the restriction to the government only. Indeed any law passed giving sanction to any party having the right IMHO is in direct violation of both the spiret and the letter of the Bill of Rights. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The dogs of stupidy have been unleashed. --On Wednesday, 24 July 2002 12:40 -0400 Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> wrote:
Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes...
Regards Marshall Eubanks
-- Joseph T. Klein jtk@titania.net "... preserve, protect and defend the constitution ..." -- Presidential Oath of Office
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.
I had significant input in my life regarding the difference between "can" and "may." IMHO significant numbers of net citizens have forgotten that difference.
therefore all of us need to give up our civil rights? the terrorists have won. randy
participants (3)
-
Randy Bush
-
Rowland, Alan D
-
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu