3 Apr
2002
3 Apr
'02
1:47 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne M. Smith [mailto:wmsmith@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");
'