Re: Bill Gates wants to put you in jail

[Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>]

  At 13:00 -0500 12/17/97, Jordan Pollack wrote:
  >The operative phrase is extending "financially benefit" from those
  >selling illegally copied IP to individuals illegally "receiving" IP.
  >(obviously you financially benefit by saving the license fees you would
  >otherwise pay).
  
  What the NET act does is make nonprofit copyright infringing a crime.
  Previously this was a civil offense. Specifically, it criminalizes
  nonprofit "reproduction or distribution" of material worth >$1K. This
  covers both the sender and the receiver, if you're sending copies
  electronically.
  
  >With this law, and the "no receipt of cellular calls" crisis following
  >Gingrich's embarrassment in florida, a law in tennesee for instance
  >(http://www.tndagc.com/juryinst/39_02.htm), it may be time for ACLU to
  >reassert OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RECEIVE, AND KEEP PERSONAL USE
  >COPIES, OF ALL BROADCAST INFORMATION. You can't resell it, but you can
  >keep and use it. You can tape off the TV. You can tape off the
  >radio. You can receive police radar speed signals.
  
  I've asked the ACLU where they stand. They have no organizational position
  on IP issues. This may change soon.
  
  >I guess if someone broadcasts stolen information on an unlicensed
  >channel, like lamacchia, you might not be entitled to keep it, tho.
  
  That's not precisely what LaMacchia did. I interviewed him for my story,
  and I have a summary of what he did in my article, along with a link to the
  court's decision.
  
  Anyway, I'm not sure we should try to differentiate between "licensed" and
  "unlicensed" for the purpose of deciding whether or not the ownership of
  information is to be allowed. Better to go after the source, as in
  obscenity prosecutions, than make mere ownership an offense.
  
  -Declan