While not totally sure what your referring to I'll assume you mean the creators of the program or the company that owns them. In which cases its because they're not doing anything illegal. You can make something that can be used in an illegal way as long as you don't use it that way. (Guns, knives, cars, video cameras, computers... ect) Until (god forbid) the INDUCE act passes your free to make what ever you want. But that doesn't mean you can use it however you want. Show me a case where the person uploading music has won.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:20 PM To: Findley, Matthew; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral What about the cases where P2P suppliers have _WON_ their court battles? There were at least 2 recently IIRC. On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:51:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You did... ;) > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support/5068 > > The is a big difference in knowing it can happen, and knowing it is happening. > The USPS knows it can happen, but doesn't know it is. > In freenet you know not only that it can happen, but you know it is happening (maybe > not with 100% certainty, but enough to convince a jury I would suspect). > The reason you are held more accountable for your actions is because you are an > individual where as the USPS is a huge organization. It's the USPS job to deliver > packages, where you are under no obligation to run freenet. > > quote - "You are trying to turn a collection of acts, a small number of which may > assist someone to do something illegal, into a single act of criminal facilitation. > This is clearly not the intent of the law and I would be amazed if you can provide > any case law to the contrary." > Actually you combined the acts. The design of freenet is so successful that it > makes it imposable to tell the bad from the good. The intent of the law is to stop > someone from helping another person commit a crime by simply not taking part in the > crime themselves. But in fact in freenet its actually much worse because you are > actively taking part in it. > Its like this, a hard drive by itself is perfectly legal. But the moment a KP > picture is put on that hard drive the whole thing is contraband since you have > combined the two in such a way as to make them one. No matter what else is on the > hard drive, even if its the cure for cancer. > You can't hide behind the fact that most of your deeds are good deeds, if you can't > stop the bad deeds you can't do any of it. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 10:35 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode > Coral > Importance: Low > > > On 6 Aug 2004, at 14:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I gave you a link to the New York state penal code definition of > > criminal facilitation. Which spells out very clearly that one only > > needs a probable knowledge that his or her actions are allowing for a > > crime to occur. > > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a25.html > > Perhaps I have overlooked one of your emails, but I don't think you > responded to my point that if the law was interpreted in the manner you > are suggesting, then postal workers (who must know that there is a > possibility that the mail they carry contains illegal material) would > be liable. > > Clearly this would be ridiculous, and so I suspect your interpretation > must be incorrect. > > Looking more closely at the case law you cite it isn't hard to see > fundamental differences which would mean it doesn't apply here (which > is good news for postal workers and Freenet node operators alike): > > Florez knew the person that she was helping, and had specific reason to > believe that he would use the account illegally, but she did it anyway. > In contrast, neither a Freenet node operator nor a postman will > typically have specific knowledge of the person to whom they are > delivering a piece of information, and it is reasonable to assume that > is most cases that person is doing nothing illegal. > > In other words, for any given piece of mail or data, the Freenet node > operator most certainly does not have probable knowledge that they are > taking part in an illegal activity. You are trying to turn a > collection of acts, a small number of which may assist someone to do > something illegal, into a single act of criminal facilitation. This is > clearly not the intent of the law and I would be amazed if you can > provide any case law to the contrary. > > Ian. > > _______________________________________________ > chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > _______________________________________________ > chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
