[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Remailers & N.E.T.

To: "Robert A. Costner" <[email protected]>, Tim May <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Remailers & N.E.T.
From: Marshall Clow <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:57:03 -0800
Cc: [email protected]
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <v03102803b0daeb29f609@[207.167.93.63]><[email protected]><[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]


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:[email protected]>

Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.

References:
- Re: Remailers & N.E.T.
  - From: Tim May <[email protected]>
- Remailers & N.E.T.
  - From: "Robert A. Costner" <[email protected]>
- No Subject
  - From: Anonymous <[email protected]>
- Re: Remailers & N.E.T.
  - From: "Robert A. Costner" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Austin Cypherpunks - Physical Meeting - Sat. Jan. 17, 1998
Next by Date: HAYEKWEB: Hackney on Law & Econ History & Hayek
Prev by thread: Re: Remailers & N.E.T.
Next by thread: Re: Remailers & N.E.T.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread