[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Guy, anti-copyright hacker (Re: Advertising Creepiness)
Information Security <[email protected]> writes:
> Declan writes:
> > Willfully redistributing copyrighted material in violation of fair
> > use principles is, depending on the value, also a federal
> > crime. Redistributing a $1 article to thousands of people would be
> > a felony. (Note I don't endorse this law, but it's useful to know
> > what the law is.)
>
> I guess that qualifies as a request for more color.
>
> In the local Panix Usenet groups, I've reposted quite a few whole articles,
> often from the IP list.
>
> Finally, a couple people made a stink, and officially complained to Panix.
>
> [snip panix owner backing down and not interfering with Guy's posts of
> whole supposedly copyrighted material]
Nice one Guy!
The zen approach, it reminds me of a tactic to do with USENET cancel
forgeries used by a recentish poster to this list who you made much
a-do about being a terminator of. You are not my any chance a
cleverly disguised nym of his?
> So, I was allowed to continue posting whole articles.
>
> That's what the lawyers advised.
>
> Then, the Digital Copyright Massive Federal Interference Act...
>
> > Fair Use vs. Intellectual Property: The U.S. Congress
> > passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a bill designed to
> > distinguish between fair use and protected intellectual property
> > in cyberspace.
> >
> > <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:s.01146:>
>
> I chose the IP list as the next-level test case...
I'm curious ... how have you faired since the millenium copyright act
with panix? Any results? Or is this still on-going?
Keep up the good work!
Adam