cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1998-01-08 - Re: Remailers & N.E.T.

Header Data

From: Marshall Clow <mclow@owl.csusm.edu>
To: “Robert A. Costner” <tcmay@got.net>
Message Hash: 19a33966fe5f74256b9ad9ab6a49050022a62f8d332133577d10ce03b0ff2484
Message ID: <v04003a02b0dafbe6183f@[130.248.15.51]>
Reply To: <v03102803b0daeb29f609@[207.167.93.63]>
UTC Datetime: 1998-01-08 23:00:54 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 07:00:54 +0800

Raw message

From: Marshall Clow <mclow@owl.csusm.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 07:00:54 +0800
To: "Robert A. Costner" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Remailers & N.E.T.
In-Reply-To: <v03102803b0daeb29f609@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <v04003a02b0dafbe6183f@[130.248.15.51]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 1:25 PM -0800 1/8/98, Robert A. Costner wrote:
>At 12:47 PM 1/8/98 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>>(Though the SPA and others may then go after the remailers. Ironically, the
>>CDA exempted remailers--though not by name--from liability for messages.)
>
>Unfortunately you are semi wrong here.  The CDA specifically does not cover
>Intellectual property matters, and the SPA has consistently insisted that
>the ISPs are liable for what their users do with copyrighted materials.
>
I had a professor in college who called this kind of argument
"Proof by repeated assertion".

That is what the SPA (a private organization) is doing.

-- Marshall

Marshall Clow     Adobe Systems   <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu>

Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.

Thread