[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search warrant -- ruling

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 5:19 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search warrant -- ruling
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 02:11:54PM -0800, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> > I liked the comment on "The hacker then played the role of a 
> > cybervigilante"...Rep. Berman's bill is of the same ilk. 
> What the good 
> > Congressman doesn't seem to grasp is the notions on 
> innocence until proven 
> > guilty IN A COURT OF LAW and as such, the media content 
> providers are 
> > acting as cyybervigilantes and no act of congress can make 
> it otherwise. 
> > Berman wants to subvert the judicial system.
> Still fooled by the smoke and mirrors?
> Even the media mafia knows that they are treating on very thin ice
> there, and that even if they get a law passed in the US, they will get
> sued to hell and back in other countries if they actually go cracking
> machines.
> Not to mention that they're talking about what is a CRIME in most
> western jurisdictions. "conspiracy to commit a criminal offense"
> anyone? As soon as this leaves the FUD stage, RIAA is in the same
> league as MAFIA, and unless they are even more stupid than I believe
> them to be, they know it.

Not so fast.  The MAFIA doesn't have a law passed by
Congress authorizing them to do what they do.  Morally
you may be correct, but legally?  Not quite the same
thing at all.

Now I don't know of the law would hold up, but if Congress 
re-reads the Constitution and re-shapes that law into the 
form of a Letter of Marque, then the RIAA could be the first
official privateers in quite a while . . .

-Richard M. Hartman

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