[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Linux kernel securityfixescensored by the DMCA
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Linux kernel securityfixescensored by the DMCA
- From: "John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:48:33 -0600
- References: <20011022141551.E61071@networkcommand.com><3BD74495.D06B6A94@ia.nsc.com> <20011025020946.A5314@lemuria.org>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Tom wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 04:45:41PM -0600, John Zulauf wrote:
> > This of course brings me back to my initial worry.... just how are we
> > supposed to get our jobs done without legal liability and risk of felony
> > charges.
>
> Very simple: Don't piss off the media mafia - the DMCA is a selective
> law. It will be used against carefully selected targets. That means
> against anyone its "sponsors" consider dangerous, but definitely never
> against one of them.
IANAL -- however, I thought that laws could not legitimately being
prosecuted in this way -- and that failure to prosecute a law
consistantly across various group would consistute an "equal protection"
violation. Clearly I cannot use a curfew only against members of a
particular race or creed. Also the opporutinities for graft and
corruption (only prosecute "speak-easy's" that don't pay) is incredible.
Can a law be challenged in that it is so overly broad it can be used to
arbitrarily attack unfavored speakers or actors?
.002