The Future End of Classic Computing

From: Christopher Smith <csmith_at_amdocs.com>
Date: Wed Apr 3 09:47:10 2002

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wayne M. Smith [mailto:wmsmith_at_earthlink.net]

> > > 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?

> > Owning the equipment to comit a crime (especially if that
> equipment has
> > legitimate uses) is not (or at least should not) be equivalent to
> > comitting that crime.

> I don't diagree with you, but read again what I said --
> "distribution" not "ownership."

To punish someone for distributing equipment which could be used to
commit a crime is just as ludicrous. It does not matter whether the
alleged crime involves a computer or not. You don't punish people
for selling rat poison, kitchen utensils, notebook paper, or
photocopiers, do you?

What about panty-hose and ski-masks -- I hear those are used in crime
a lot! :) When will we have the digital millennium hosiery act?

It would be absolutely idiotic to punish someone for distributing
software which _might_ be used to illegally copy things to some other
media.

You may as well put Fred in jail for Xenocopy, in fact ;)

Chris


Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL

/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
 
Received on Wed Apr 03 2002 - 09:47:10 BST