Re: Editors note incl. Dangerous Precedents Set - Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Dave Wilson" <dave () wilson net>
Date: December 1, 2008 5:24:25 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Editors note incl. Dangerous Precedents Set -  
Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?

Very nice analysis of the decision on Groklaw; here's a sample:
Is it not Kafkaesque if you can be dragged into court on a whim in any  
location in the world, if the computer you are alleged to have misused  
is located there, even if it's half a country or even a world away  
from where you reside and they can put you in jail for a crime that  
wasn't defined as a crime at the time of your conduct in question?  
It'd be one thing if you were given a notice that this was the new  
interpretation; but if you just wake up to find out you are a  
retroactive criminal, you might as well be in a Kafka novel, because  
there is absolutely no way to ever know what the definition of  
criminal conduct will be tomorrow or when it can retroactively be  
applied to you. Drew, according to reports of the testimony at trial,  
never read the terms of use. Yes, but she should have known, said the  
prosecutor. She must have. How do you know? Should the law guess? We  
can be put in prison because although there is no proof we knew  
something, we might have or could have or must have?

If you think I am overstating what the brief is saying, feel free to  
say so, but do read it. At least then, you'll know what the uproar is  
all about. I know from some of your comments that you think the  
verdict was all about Lori Drew. I don't think so. I think it's about  
us.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081128005538214

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 7:06 PM, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Wendy M. Grossman" <wendyg () pelicancrossing net>
Date: November 29, 2008 3:16:29 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:     Editors note incl. Dangerous Precedents Set  
- Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?
Reply-To: wendyg () pelicancrossing net

(For IP if you wish)

David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gabe Goldberg <gabe () gabegold com>
Date: November 29, 2008 1:14:01 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   Editors note incl. Dangerous Precedence Set -  
Federal Criminal Charges for Violation of Commercial Online ToS?

Are loony nebulous mumbo-jumbo agreements like that actually binding?  
Or just legal folly? Who knows.

FWIW, I tried to look at these questions a bit for the Guardian:

Software licenses / EULAs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/24/law.software

Privacy policies:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/10/privacy.it


wg




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com






-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com