On 5/7/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
If "trafficking" were as simple as "making the number show up on
someone's computer screen", they'd get a lot more mileage out of suing
Google than us.
The actions under discussion are:
1) emailing material to all subscribers on the list, including other
archivers, and
2) putting the material in our own list archives, which are websites
We already know from existing case law that hosting material on your
website and linking to the material on another website both constitute
"manufactur[ing], import[ing], offer[ing] to the public, provid[ing],
or otherwise traffic[king]". So that covers 2. If anything, 1 (which
involves actually sending the material out to people) is more likely
to fall under this definition than merely hosting the material on a
website is.
Do you realize how ludicrous what you're saying is, though? Can the
**AA sue the telephone company if I read the key over the telephone?
Can they sue Fedex if I ship the key through their service?
We know from existing case law that setting up a website with the
intent of distributing a software program constitutes trafficking in
the program. To extrapolate from that that whoever happens to own the
machines which are used in such a distribution are liable is not at
all logical.
C'mon, think for a second about what you're saying.
Anthony