John Clark wrote:
>
> Michael S. Lorrey <retroman@turbont.net> Wrote:
>
> > GATT has IP provisions, I suggest you read it.
>
> It may have IP provisions, maybe, but I doubt anybody pays any attention to them.
> And as the USA is the most important member I doubt it has anything in it that would
> violate the first amendment as this would. The second any attempt was made to actually
> do something rather than just write a pretty treaty a USA court would shoot it down.
>
> And is it even there? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places but I've been unable to find
> anything that supports your claim that "countries that refuse to accept WIPO rulings get
> electronically embargoed". No country has ever been "electronically embargoed", not China,
> not Cuba, not Iraq, not Iran, not North Korea, if information was restricted it was done from their
> side not our side. I find it impossible to believe all countries would agree on such a ruling, even if
> they did I find it impossible to believe all would agree on the interpretation of such a ruling,
> even if they did I find it impossible to believe they'd be able to enforce it. All it would take is
> for one other country to use a liberal interpretation of the word "restriction" and the floodgates
> would be open.
>
John, that comment was a proposal for how countries that support piracy should
be treated, so don't be fatuous. In fact, Iraq was electronically embargoed
during the Gulf War, as an example that this is not something new.
> >remove those countries top level domains from recognition on
> >servers and routers
>
> .com .org .net
>
> >bill the software author for all royalties unpaid as a result of people
> >using his/her software.
>
> Are you saying that if piracy was impossible people with tons of illegal software
> would have gone to the store and bought the stuff ?!
>
> >>Me:
> >>Are you going to jail the maker of a word processing
> >> program because somebody used it to write a ransom note?
>
> > That is not what we are talking about, and you ought to know that.
>
> That's exactly what we're talking about and I do know it.
>
> > People that write software like napster, which their main function is to
> > facilitate IP piracy,
>
> Napster is a new way to distribute information, nothing more. I was just reading in
> Science about using a Napster clone for scientific data instead of MP3's.
> Any program can have legal and illegal uses.
Any program can also have safeguards programmed into it that prevent illegal
uses. "Impossible" is not a word to an engineer or a programmer. You ought to
know that.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:08 MDT