🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8602@boulder.Colorado.EDU> pratt@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jonathan Pratt) writes:
>In article <533@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes:
>Do you have a statute that you're prepared to quote, or is this simply
>opinion?  The real question is what laws, if any, could be applied to
>restrict the dissemination of such information without colliding with
>freedom of expression rights.

	One of the problems with legal cases like this is that they
	are all precedent making (with all the risks that that
	implies).  The law is alway "catching up" to society.  Thus
	my comments are informed opinion, based on legal advice.

	In regards freedom of expression, let me give you an example.
	Let's say I figure out a way to get money out of ATM's without
	it being deducted from my account, publish this information,
	and it causes millions of dollars of losses to Citibank.
	Should Citibank be able to sue me?  Clearly, the answer should
	be yes.  This is an extreme example, of course.

	Now let's consider the case in question here in comp.sys.mac.
	Here what was published was a way to fix a bug (Mac+ing) that
	had (lets be charitable) the side effect of removing the
	copy protection.  The question is, should the author be judged
	on _intent_ or _effect_?  His intent (again, lets be nice)
	was to publish a fix for a bug; his effect was to publish a
	method for stealing the software.

	My personal opinion is that the author should be judged on
	_intent_, and that the publisher should have to prove some
	level of malice.

>Your comments could greatly broaden the realm of this thread if we
>discuss the degree of responsibility the purveyor of information has
>for the good and bad things others do with that information.  But
>we've already digressed too far from Macintoshes.

	This is a _very_ interesting concept, one that I agree
	has not been dealt with (to my knowledge) at all clearly.
	Offhand, I would say it would come down to a "Reasonable
	Man" judgement of intent.  Thus, if I release information
	that damages someone, I should only be liable if I could
	reasonably be expected to recognise that this act would
	cause damages, or if I released it with the intent to
	damage.

Disclaimer : non-lawyers discussing law is a dangerous thing (neat racket
they've worked out, eh?)

-- 
Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP
"The lamb will lie down with the lion, but the lamb won't get much sleep."
     -- Woody Allen.