You really think a jury will be able to differentiate between "it is" and "it is called"? Vicne wrote: > > Yea, but then it would be a lesser offence no? I'm not to familiar with > the DMCA, or law for that matter, but wouldn't a simple name trademark > violation be less then a DMCA violation? > > I don't think it would be to hard to catch people, it just takes a p2p > client and a simple search for their titles, then just write down the ip > addresses and report them. > > But I am curious now, would they be able to build a case without > validating that the content is actually theirs, not just the name? > > On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 05:41, vodkaat_private wrote: > > Vicne said: > > > That could be porn you were hiding from your parents, so you renamed it > > > to movies they hate, so they wouldn't look at it. > > > > If that was the case... > > > > You're still using their copyrighted movie titles on your porn and > > distributing them as property of those movie companies. > > > > It's kinda like me taking bottles of water and putting "Coca Cola" labels on > > them, and giving them out for free. > > > > I wonder how the MPAA is catching people though. Do they have like p2p > > spider bots or something? > > > > > > -- James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA Booz | Allen | Hamilton phone: (410) 684-6566
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jul 11 2002 - 19:30:39 PDT