[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.
- From: "John Dempsey" <john.dempsey7(at)verizon.net>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:15:38 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <20011016093912.A9766@lemuria.org>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> they do *not* attempt to get a right to
> hack your machine (they believe they already have that right). they
> *do* try to get exemption from prosecution for "collateral damages"
> they might cause.
Where do they claim to have this right?
I agree with the argument that privately they know better.
Where do they intimidate publically with such a claim?