[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] two articles
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] two articles
- From: Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:36:51 -0700
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Schulien [mailto:jms@uic.edu]
...
> The RIAA appears to have adopted the strategy of making a
> completely false claim, then taking advantage of the
> runaway-train-antiterrorism bill to insert a brand new
> exemption for themselves.
>
But if they are not, as the Wired article says, going to
try to get the amendment that we know about added ... where
is the text of the other "fix" they are now considering?
I'd love to see that ...
--
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!