Re: Bill Gates wants to put you in jail

["Scott K. McGrath" <mcgrats@ix.netcom.com>]

  Whatever happened to that big SPA push last year with all the posters and full
  page ads encouraging people to turn in their companies and friends...
  
  <sarcasm>
  Guess it was not quite as effective as they had hoped...
  </sarcasm>
  
  Scott
  
  
  
  Declan McCullagh wrote:
  
  > 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