It changes the enforcement of the law, and perhaps the interpretation as well. The FBI will think twice before arresting a foreign national of DMCA violations, when some company complains. Also judges have a clear precedent when the defendant is not American.
How did the jury know they did not intend to violate any laws, when he explicitly came to the US to give a talk about the program? I'm assuming it's because the program is not illegal in Russia. Hence the international loophole. I'm not sure why intentions mattered though, intentions do not absolve guilt usually, and only matter during sentencing. In saying that they found him not guilty because he didn't intend to break the law, they are saying that, he actually is guilty of breaking the law, but still found him not guilty. Does anyone know why intentions mattered in this case? Would that be a special circumstance because he was not American? -- jon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, December 17, 2002, 8:03:16 PM, you wrote: NM> All this says is that the Russian company did not intend to break any laws NM> when they did this. NM> It doesn't change the DMCA in anyway. NM> At 04:32 PM 12/17/2002 -0800, you wrote: >>DMCA loses in federal court >> >>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=581&e=1&cid=581&u=/nm/20021217/tc_nm/crime_dmca_dc >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
