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

RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction

To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
From: Phil Gengler <phil(at)codeallday.com>
Date: 17 Jun 2003 20:08:03 -0400
In-reply-to: <255195E927D0B74AB08F4DCB07181B904C567B@exchsj1.onetouch.com>
References: <255195E927D0B74AB08F4DCB07181B904C567B@exchsj1.onetouch.com>
Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu

Violating the DMCA implies you're violating copyright laws, but
violating copyright laws doesn't mean you're violating the DMCA.

On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 20:04, Richard Hartman wrote:
> Violating copyright laws and violating the DMCA are _not_ the same thing.
> 
> Vigilante actions are typically against the law -- law enforcement is in the hands of the police agencies, not the individual (or the corporations).

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
  - From: Stephen L Johnson <sjohnson@monsters.org>

References:
- RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
  - From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>

Prev by Date: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
Next by Date: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
Previous by thread: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
Next by thread: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread