Thank you for the clarification. Bon
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Jacob Farkas wrote: > Bon et al, > > NYCwireless has never suggested its users to break any agreements with their > ISP, or do so in spite of the AUP. We try to educate the public about > services that offer wireless sharing. There are companies who are vocal > about their objection to our project and are sending letters to their > customers asking them to Cease and Desist. > > I think it is important for our group to be educated about what issues are > on the table and how it is being dealt with by the ISPs and what their > tactics are with regard to disrupting our project. > > We should support those ISPs that allow for sharing. People should also be > aware of what can be leveled against them should they choose to share while > being a TWC subscriber. > > Jacob > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bon sy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Jacob Farkas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "NYCWireless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 10:58 AM > Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Text of 47 U.S.C. 553 - mentioned in TWC Cease > and Desist letter > > > Jacob, > I do not understand the purpose of your re-citation > below. > > First --- a DISCLAIMER --- I am NOT a lawyer, but I will try > to apply my limited common sense accumulated over the course of a > University-sponsored patent application process to interprete what you > posted below (unfortunately the process I went through is not wireless > related, so please use your judgement on my view): > > (a)-(1) seems to be sufficient for the cable providers to go after > one opening the node. Rule of "minimal violation" is sufficient to > substain in front of the court of law. Assuming it's true that > manufacturers may be subject to such a violation as well, it is at the > discretion of the cable providers to determine specific party/parties that > they want to go after. > > More importantly, I think the REAL issue is to help the members to > open a node with a peace of mind, rather than finding the loopholes to > challenge the law, unless the NYCwireless is resourceful enough to hire a > lawyer to fight in the court on behalf of a member (which is the model of > at least automobile insurance). > > Maybe the real issue is to find a mechanism to protect the members > who are generous enough to make their node public under NYCwireless. > > Bon > > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Jacob Farkas wrote: > > > The TWC cable Cease and Desist letter made reference to this law. The > claim > > is that by setting up a free wireless node you are in violation and are > > subject to its penalties. > > > > Here is the full text taken fro the DOJ website: > > > > http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/47usc553.htm > > > > 47 U.S.C 553. > > Unauthorized Reception of Cable Services > > > > � 553. Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service > > > > (a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or > > receiving service; "assist in intercepting or receiving" defined > > > > (1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or > > receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless > > specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise > be > > specifically authorized by law. > > > > (2) For the purpose of this section, the term "assist in intercepting or > > receiving" shall include the manufacture or distribution of equipment > > intended by the manufacturer or distributor (as the case may be) for > > unauthorized reception of any communications service offered over a cable > > system in violation of subparagraph (1). > > > > > > > > -- > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > > > > > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
