nanog mailing list archives
Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 23:52:22 -0500
In message <80632326218FE74899BDD48BB836421A033001 () Dul1wnexmb04 vcorp ad vrsn.c om>, "Hannigan, Martin" writes:
Dave, RIAA wins almost 100pct vs p2p'ers ir sues. Its an interesting = dichotomy.
"Wins" is too strong a word, since I don't think any have gone to court -- see http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Music-Download-Suit.html as my source. Besides, it's a very different situation. For my take on liability issues -- note that I'm not a lawyer, and note that this is from 1994 -- see http://www.wilyhacker.com/1e/chap12.pdf --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Current thread:
- RE: Compromised machines liable for damage? Hannigan, Martin (Dec 25)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Steven M. Bellovin (Dec 25)
- RE: Compromised machines liable for damage? Barry Shein (Dec 26)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Paul Vixie (Dec 26)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Florian Weimer (Dec 27)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Matthew Sullivan (Dec 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Hannigan, Martin (Dec 25)
- RE: Compromised machines liable for damage? Hannigan, Martin (Dec 26)
- RE: Compromised machines liable for damage? Owen DeLong (Dec 26)
- RE: Compromised machines liable for damage? Hannigan, Martin (Dec 26)
- RE: Compromised machines liable for damage? Owen DeLong (Dec 26)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Steven M. Bellovin (Dec 27)
(Thread continues...)