> Wrong. 4500+ copies is "mass distribution."
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/03/29/video-bootleg.htm
>
> In any event, the DMCA was intended to address not only
> those who distribute copies, but those who provide
> "circumvention devices" that enable others to engage
> in mass distribution. Doesn't it make as much sense to
> go after those involved in "mass distribution"
> of the circumvention device, such as DeCSS?
I just read the article... the person convicted was using what I
believe is an *analog* device... but I suppose the difference
between a digital device and an analog device won't matter to
the Supreme Court. Now, this guy was *way* wrong... but he
could have been prosecuted under any number of preexisting
laws. Locally, a guy did this over 20 years ago with audio tapes
(cassettes), was busted by the FBI, but worked out a deal, and
not only didn't do jail time, but is considered the Premier Merchant
locally for audio software...
-dq
-Douglas Hurst Quebbeman (DougQ at ixsnayamspayIgLou.com) [Call me "Doug"]
Surgically excise the pig-latin from my e-mail address in order to reply
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away." -Tom Waits
Received on Tue Apr 02 2002 - 06:45:21 BST