Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?

• From: Hannigan, Martin
• Date: Mon Dec 26 00:25:55 2005

Yes, I agree. As usual, I too am 'IANAL'.

Marty



 -----Original Message-----
From:   Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:   Sun Dec 25 23:52:27 2005
To:     Hannigan, Martin
Cc:     Dave Pooser; NANOG
Subject:        Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?

In message <[email protected]n.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

• Prev by Date: Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?
• Next by Date: Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?
• Date Index
• Thread Index
• Author Index
• Historical