Re: list and usenet
Kevin Mark wrote:
hi John,
several people in a discussion amongst some Free software folks had the
same idea when the recent supreme court ruling was announced. We said
Which decision is this? What country? If USA, which State or was it
the USA Supreme Court?
The US Supreme Court. google for 'Grokster'. Checkout the greplaw web site
Interesting. Google found http://www.grokster.com/ which claims that
it logged my IP address simply for visiting the site. I wonder what
the phrase "unauthorized peer-to-peer services" means? I would think
that activities of copying would be authorized or unauthrorized,
but I don't understand how a *mean* can be authorized or unauthorized.
IOW, if I am authorized to transfer material, what difference does
it make by what means, so long as I take reasonable efforts to
prevent the copyright material from being transferred to people
who don't have a right or permission to posess it?
I dont understand the supreme court, they are powned!
Anyway, I read what the EFF has to say, and it's odd what the
Supreme Court ruled.
I see the same argument used repeatedly now, and it doesn't make sense
to me in any of the circumstances I've seen it. For example,
recently we've seen cases where people successfully sue bars for
"letting them get drunk", and even individuals. I'd never supply
alcohol for someone who visited my house because of that.
I've also seen lawsuits against gun manufacturers because someone
misused a gun. When do we get lawsuits against hammer manufacturers?
BTW, I hear that Germany has a proposed "knife control law".
But I am straying away from Debian.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
Reply to: