| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <200405261633.i4QGXU4P009350@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: Re: Cisco's stolen code On Wed, 26 May 2004 10:11:04 EDT, Glenn_Everhart@...kone.com said: > Possession of the code does not prove one has copied it though. > If someone posts it on usenet, he is copying it to numerous servers, > but the recipient is certainly not acting as the copying agent. Similar > if someone who has the code does ftp send to drop copies on someone > else's server: the person who receives such a copy is not the one who > performed the copy action. Actually, the recipient *is* also liable. For that matter, as the law stood before the DMCA was passed, the *ISP* was liable too. That's the specific reason why the "ISP Safe Harbor" provision of the DMCA exists - it basically boils down to "the ISP is not liable for their user's actions *if* they do something about it when notified of an infringement". http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html That whole section was specifically written so the ISP can't be sued down to their skivvies because their Usenet server happened to have a copy of infringing material on it. That's why the RIAA and MPAA send '512 Takedown' orders to ISPs - otherwise they'd be suing the ISP *and* the user..... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20040526/172cdd41/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists