[57124] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: is this true or... ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schwartz)
Fri Mar 28 20:24:43 2003
From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <smb@research.att.com>
Cc: <blitz@macronet.net>, Tomas Daniska <tomas@tronet.com>,
<nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:24:07 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20030329004725.454617B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:47:25 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>In message=
<20030329003124.AAA24442@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>,
>David Schwartz writes:
>>On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:06:56 -0500, blitz wrote:
>>>If it is, it reveals how utterly clueless our legislators=
really
>>>are....
>> The text I saw talks about a device's "primary purpose".
>I'm not sure what text you saw.
=09*sigh* Now neither am I. I searched over the law links, the=
articles
and my browser history and I can't figure out where I got that
"primary purpose" from. I don't know if I was reading the wrong
section of the laws or totally hallucinated it.
=09The laws require an "intent to" "conceal" the "origin or
destination". NAT would not count, as the intent is to share a=
scarce
resource, not to conceal the origin or destination -- the origin=
is
only concealed to the extent necessary to accomplish the sharing.=
Firewalls probably would not count either, as there is no intent=
to
conceal the origin or destination, the intent is to provide=
security.
=09The argument would then hinge on complex legal interpretations=
of
'intent'. If you intentionally do 'x' knowing that 'x' has 'y' as=
a
side-effect, but you don't want 'y' specifically, does that count=
as
intending to do 'y'. If so, then FedEx intends to distribute=
child
pornography.
=09I still think there's some FUD in Felten's claims. But I think=
if
someone had warned of the exact, specific problems we've had with=
the
DMCA obliterating fair use, it would have looked like FUD at the=
time.
=09I apologize to Mr. Felten.
--
David Schwartz
<davids@webmaster.com>
