Guy, anti-copyright hacker (Re: Advertising Creepiness)

[Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>]

Information Security <guy@panix.com> 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