> * When I was at Wired News, we joined an amicus brief in the 2600 case that > said journalists should have the right to link to controversial material > such as DeCSS.exe: > http://www.politechbot.com/docs/linking-amicus.012601.html > I may not be a lawyer.. however, I fail to see how a news agency should have any more leniency than a private individual or security organization. Especially in the case of a security related website, the end goal is the same: To notify people en mass about an issue. If I were a lawyer and I had to defend a case like the 2600 one, I would definitely use this as an argument. However, there is even a more pressing point. Should companies be sued for providing blank tapes, CDR's, DVDR's etc? They provide the medium for spreading copyrighted material. I fail to see how this is greatly different than the case of 2600 having a copy of the utility on their website. Just because I own a blank tape, doesn't mean I'm going to use it to copy all my rented movies. Likewise, having a copy of a rather interesting program to analyze for research doesn't make me a pirate of copyrighted DVDs nor does it mean I encourage the behavior. I believe, as others have mentioned, that the problem lies in the people who make the final decisions in cases like this and their lack of experience in the IT industry. I believe that we are entitled to a jury of our "peers," which could be described as equals. If I ever got caught up in a similar case, I for one would have my lawyer ensure that my case is tried by a court that understands how information technology works. Might be a lost cause, but I would call it a cause worth fighting for. -TJM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 02 2002 - 00:57:45 PDT