On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 20:01 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote: > Well, I'm on record as disliking IPv6 and telling my clients to not > adopt it, so this is one more reason... ;-)
Really? Hiding a customer identity behind a NAT in order to make it harder for law enforcement is your argument against IPv6? > Of course not. An automobile is a rivalrous good. Using it lowers > its value. Knowledge is a different type of good -- it sometime is > worth more the more it's disseminated. I know that when another company took MY work (training materials) and attempted to sell "THEIR" training class, I certainly did not look on it as increasing the value of MY work. You can say it as many times as you want, but it doesn't make you right. > Downloading a whole movie is a borderline case. It's clearly a > violation of copyright, so there's some loss to the seller. But it's > not conversion of rivalrous property, or fraudulent substitution of > counterfeit goods. So the download strikes me as a good example of a > civil tort, actionable at law but not, when done on a small scale, in > criminal law. For the record, I'm not a big fan of the use of > criminal law when civil law is adequate. Just to give an example, > Jewish Law (Halacha) is entirely civil. What the west calls criminal > acts are viewed as civil torts against the society as a whole. I > like that approach. Criminalizing civil disputes bothers me. Theft is theft is theft. While there is some support for this being a civil action, the reality is that the end user is taking something that was created for the purpose of making money (CD, movie, etc.) and doing so without compensating the seller of that product. To me, this is not grey...it IS black and white. I am not a lawyer and I don't know (or really care) exactly where the law sits here. I am simply expressing my own opinion of what I think SHOULD be. Besides, any way you slice it, whether civil OR criminal, there ARE ALREADY LAWS TO ADDRESS THIS. There is no reason to add more. > No, fair use is statutory. You should read up on it. Why? In case I ever decide to become a lawyer? No thanks. > The point is that there is no clear bright line about what > constitutes fair use, so a misjudgment here could lead to criminal > charges, and allow a take-down of valid, fair-use content or loss of > a domain without due process. That sort of guts fair use. So perhaps you are talking about something other than what I am. I am not talking about LEGAL use of materials. I am speaking about what is ILLEGAL. There IS a clear line there. Downloading of a movie, music or other IP without paying for it, when it is CLEARLY supposed to be for sale is theft. I am not trying to draw out an argument over what the law says or which law is what. I honestly don't care to get into a debate over the finer points of the law about fair use or anything else. If you want to be a lawyer, then go do that and leave the networking behind. -- ******************************************************************** * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation * * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * * NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * ******************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
