[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] CA Supreme Court hears Pavlovich JurisdictionChallenge inDVDCCA case
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CA Supreme Court hears Pavlovich JurisdictionChallenge inDVDCCA case
- From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:21:44 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Another of the WIPO's beautiful ideas....make copyright problems criminal
offense....now I don't know about you but in the bad old days when I grew
up (early 70s) we had a civics course that explained about laws, courts,
etc...one thing was the diffference between a criminal act and a civil
one. Criminal acts were acts against the state or another person of the
state or their personal property or their real property. So now we have
acts against intellectual property...as in those "evil mean and wicked
nasty hackers want to rape pillage and plunder the sanctity of my
intellectual property" <appologies to Steppenwolf, Alex Bevan, and Monty
Python> . AND the threat of doing so has become a criminal
act.....Unfortunatly, the more time people spend looking at details the
less time they do considering the foundations....that shift in foundations
is something our judicial system hasn't gotten yet.
Ole Craig <olc@cs.umass.edu>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
09/09/2002 08:48 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
cc:
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] CA Supreme Court hears Pavlovich JurisdictionChallenge
in DVDCCA case
On 09/09/02 at 17:39, 'twas brillig and Tom scrobe:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 11:32:06AM -0400, Ole Craig wrote:
> > Moreover, they don't have to sue the manufacturer -- all
they
> > have to do is invoke 1701's "trafficking" clause to nail any would-be
> > importers.
>
> Let me get this straight: The MPAA is going to sue, say, WalMart over
> selling ("trafficking") cheap DVD players?
They don't have to.
Trafficking is a *criminal* offense, meaning they can get
the
DoJ to put the clamp on, CF. Adobe/Sklyarov. Which leaves me (and
several million other taxpayers) footing the bill, thankyouverymuch.
Ole
--
Ole Craig * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr * CS Computing
Facility, UMass * <www.cs.umass.edu/~olc/pgppubkey.txt> for public key
perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'