RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Dempsey [mailto:john.dempsey7@verizon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 3:16 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.
> 
> 
> > 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?
> 
> 
> 

In the Wired News article I posted the link to earlier
their representitive states that they believe they already
have that right.  

Here we go ... http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47552,00.html

<blockquote>
In an interview Friday, RIAA lobbyist Mitch Glazier 
[...]
"We might try and block somebody," Glazier said. "If we know someone is
operating a server, a pirated music facility, we could try to take measures
to try and prevent them from uploading or transmitting pirated documents." 

The RIAA believes that this kind of technological "self-help" against online
pirates, if done carefully, is legal under current federal law. But the RIAA
is worried about the USA Act banning that practice 
[...]
</blockquote>


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!