Todd wrote: > >>How hard would it be to come up with a situation in which US Federal Law >>says (not) do A and the law of country X says (not) to do B? > > I'm not sure what you mean?
Let's see if we can get an example. Does the Federal Law have any article that basically says that if you have a chance of stopping somebody from breaking the law you should? >>Let's get a little bit closer to home. The DMCA is a Federal Law right? >>If I invented some way to break the regio encoding on somebodies latest >>DVD release while at home in order to make a backup copy for personal >>use (a right that Dutch law explicitly grants me), I would commit a >>crime AGAINST a US citizen. So if I ever came into the reach of the US >>legal system, I could become prosecuted. >> >>Although purely hypothetical (I wouldn't actually know how to do that), >>I don't like the idea of some other country revoking a right the country >>that I am in has explicitly granted me. > > Well, don't do anything illegal against a country and then try to go to that > country .. duh! :) > > Who was it that made the comment that if U.S. pilots were allowed to cary > guns that they hoped the pilots would be arrested as soon as they arrived > for breaking the law there? ;) Not me. If you mean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I specifically say that I don't care what the US does, but that pilots should be arrested if they carry guns while entering this country. That is something quite different from being arrested upon entering the Netherlands 3 weeks after carrying a gun on a flight from Boston to Chicago. Jochem ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
