is this true or... ?

Sat Mar 29 01:24:07 UTC 2003

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:47:25 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

>In message <20030329003124.AAA24442 at 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.

	*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.

	The 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.

	The 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.

	I 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.

	I apologize to Mr. Felten.

-- 
David Schwartz
<davids at webmaster.com>