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

[Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.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 
...
> > 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.

Well that last part is the part that gets me.  I could see them not
wanting to know , but if they did know in that case, they should have
though tbaout it more carefully.
 > 
> If you sell a gun to someone that _you_know_ has a criminal 
> history, you are committing a crime.  

even if his criminal history is trivial? (he opened his mom's mail once..)
> 
> If you sell personal data on a woman to someone that _you_know_ 
> has a rape conviction ... are you intentionally aiding a felon?

it depends what you sell him and how closely you looked at it I suppose.
 
> 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.

well I think that part was supposed to be funny.  ;)

 -- noah silva 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
>