RE: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah silva [mailto:nsilva@atari-source.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:55 AM
> To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
> 
> 
> > > From: Noah silva [mailto:nsilva@atari-source.com]
> > ...
> > > 
> > > I agree here, I just can't agree that napster itself was 
> > > wrong, because
> > > they only provided dumb indexes of files.  That's like saying a
> > > "match-up" agency is responsible when some woman kills 
> the guy she met
> > > through the agency.  All they provided her was his name and 
> > > number.  
> > 
> > Oddly enough, that was roughly the subject of last night's
> > "Law & Order".  Is a firm that sells personal data (even if
> > collected from public sources) responsible for the uses to
> > which that data is put?  Do they have an obligation to at
> > least perform background checks on the people requesting
> > the data?
> 
> I was just thinking about that, I watched it actually.
> 
> I was telling my girlfriend (Who is addicted to the show) that if they
> don't sue gun companies for selling guns, there is no way 
> that a company
> reselling already public data should be in trouble.  It is 
> still the fault
> of the stalker/murderer guy.

Yes and no.  The gun companies are responsible for performing
background checks and not selling to felons.  The data company
asked a question about criminal history, but did not make any
attempt to perform a background check to verify the answers.
Moreover, even when it was brought to their attention that 
the client had a criminal history, they intentionally ignored
that.

If you sell a gun to someone that _you_know_ has a criminal 
history, you are committing a crime.  

If you sell personal data on a woman to someone that _you_know_ 
has a rape conviction ... are you intentionally aiding a felon?

The thing that got me most about that script is, here is this
company whose stock in trade is selling any and all personal
information they can get their hands on ... and then they try
to hide behind client confidentialty ...  just seemed a bit
hypocritical to me.

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

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