Surely sendmail reeled when thusly spake Jarmo Lundgren:
>
> > These people are so desperate to retain control that in
> > the guise of maintaining copyright they are, in effect,
> > destroying free speech as we know it."
This is a bit dramatic, but ...
> The writer continues saying that the DeCSS (*) versus Hollywood case
> is ridiculous. The author of the program hasn't made anything illegal.
> Or if he _has_ done (if the outcome of the trial is, that he has
> committed a crime), then also VCR's are illegal, because you
> potentially could maybe make illegal copies of some copyrighted
> material with a video recorder. Internet is illegal. Lending cd's to
> your friend would be considered illegal, because your friend _might_
> make illegal copies of it.
You've hit the nail on the head. People get busted for real acts,
not for possibilities, or intentions.
There's one exception in the States, tho. "Burglar tools". If the
cops catch you out with a set of lock picks, they're gonna give you
a hard time and maybe bust you too.
And in a sense, they're trying to turn progs like DeCSS into "burglar
tools". Fuckers.
> The Napster case has exactly the same ridiculousness, as I've said
> earlier. Since when it has been illegal to make things that
> potentially can break laws? Gun factories are not illegal, as far as I
> know. How come Napster is?
"DeCSS doesn't violate copyright. People violate copyright."
> Seems that people don't care a shit about their freedom of speech
> anymore, so why do I even bother... If they don't care, they deserve
> what they'll get (or lose - to be exact).
>
> ---> jab / commie
> Commie net radio: http://commie.oy.com/radio.html
> Now playing: Femi Kuti - Beng Beng
>
> (*): an application that allows you to break the copy protection of
> DVD disks
phred
