RE: [dvd-discuss] Illegal tactics funded by Anti-piracy advocates

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

Haven't they already recieved a bye on the hacking
laws for actions taken in the course of protecting
their intellectual property?  Completely unjustified,
but I thought I heard that they were exempted from
prosecution under hacking laws.  That would still
leave liability lawsuits . . .


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

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnold G. Reinhold [mailto:reinhold@world.std.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 6:10 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Illegal tactics funded by Anti-piracy
> advocates
> 
> 
> At 4:24 AM -0700 5/7/03, Glendon M. Gross wrote:
> >...
> >
> >Particularly interesting to me was the idea that the record companies
> >are supporting software that sabatoges the internet 
> connections of those
> >who
> >choose to download software from peer-to-peer networks.  I wonder if
> >this will eventually lead to a test case in which a music 
> label is sued
> >for supporting software that results in costly corporate downtime.  I
> >once supported a client who told me that one minute of downtime would
> >cost his firm $500,000,000.  At that rate, causing downtime could be
> >very expensive for the record companies who support software 
> that can be
> >proven to have caused some downtime.
> >
> 
> It's entirely conceivable that record company sabotage could kill 
> someone. Say a nurse downloads music on a computer used to monitor 
> hospital patients, it freezes, and they miss a cardiac arrest.  The 
> people responsible for that sabotage software could be subject to the 
> death penalty under the the federal anti-hacking laws as recently 
> amended by the USA Patriot Act.
> 
> Arnold Reinhold
>