RE: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom [mailto:tom@lemuria.org]
...
> if it doesn't say "authorisation required" or something like 
> that, then
> it's public, because the internet is a public place.
> 

Tom, we essentially agree.

Others were saying "it's my private information that I am
making available only to me".  I think the original example
was an FTP server and I said that if it had "anonymous" or
"guest" accounts, then permission for access was implicit.
Then I went on to discuss the web servers.  Of course 
challenge/response is a perfectly valid way to show intent.
The main thing is that if you _don't_ attempt to deny access
in some way, if you just set the server up on the standard
ports and have no challenge/response system in place, then
essentially you can be assumed to have granted permission
for access.

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

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