Re: [dvd-discuss] Illegal tactics funded by Anti-piracy advocates

["D. C. Sessions" <dvd(at)lumbercartel.com>]

On Wednesday 07 May 2003 04:24, Glendon M. Gross wrote:
# Particularly interesting to me was the idea that the record companies
# are supporting software that sabatoges the internet connections of those
# who 
# choose to download software from peer-to-peer networks.  I wonder if
# this will eventually lead to a test case in which a music label is sued
# for supporting software that results in costly corporate downtime.  I
# once supported a client who told me that one minute of downtime would
# cost his firm $500,000,000.  At that rate, causing downtime could be
# very expensive for the record companies who support software that can be
# proven to have caused some downtime.

The rationale for this is supposedly that "you can't get hurt if you
don't download priate files."  Since the same blame-the-victim
approach would apply to viruses and worms, I have a hard
time believing that a jury would buy it.

So, never mind downloading on Company time, what happens
when one of these files gets added -- blind -- to an e-mail
sent to someone at work, from a country which has more
liberal laws about copyright?  Can't blame the sender of
the file, who acted without malice or criminal intent.  Can't
blame the recipient, who opened a message from a known
source.  Can't blame Microsoft because it automatically
plays multimedia content in mail (EULA).  And yet the
Company network was down for two hours.

-- 
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?