[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search warrant -- ruling
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Hacking requires search warrant -- ruling
- From: "Glendon M. Gross" <gross(at)xinetd.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:30:48 -0800
- Organization: Xinetd Communications
- References: <255195E927D0B74AB08F4DCB07181B901E5433@exchsj1.onetouch.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
It seems that way to me. It would seem to me that it would constitute
preferential treatment for RIAA members, leaving non-RIAA members out in
the cold. This seems to me that it would be counter to the best
interests of impartial justice, but unfortunately all too typical of the
way special interests are represented in U.S. government lately.
Richard Hartman wrote:
> Since the RIAA already represents some of the
> artists, isn't giving them the negotiations
> responsibility for the government a direct
> conflict of interest?
>
>