nanog mailing list archives
Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?
From: Matthew Sullivan <matthew () sorbs net>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:28:27 +1100
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Martin Hannigan:Dave, RIAA wins almost 100pct vs p2p'ers ir sues. Its an interesting dichotomy.Sure, but copyright law is a bit out of proportion. Maybe you could hunt down the bad guys if they packeted you with Celine Dion
Nah, torture is a criminal offence. ;-) / Mat
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)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Owen DeLong (Dec 27)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Marshall Eubanks (Dec 27)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? Jason Frisvold (Dec 27)
- Re: Compromised machines liable for damage? JC Dill (Dec 27)