On 5/4/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/05/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
On 5/4/07, Joe Szilagyi
<szilagyi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm just curious. Isn't it a
technical violation of US law/DMCA to link back
> to pages that include infringing material?
I don't think that has ever been decided in
court one way or another.
But someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
2600 got hit by it. They haven't gone after anyone else linking to the stuff.
Right, but the 2600 case established a precedent that the links are
subject to the restrictions. And we can't reasonably plead ignorance
about the 2600 case.
The real, really serious problem is that the post-2600 case
intimidation seems to be failing. They're likely to lash out against
a high-value target to try to re-establish the intimidation. Digg
sort of set themselves up as that high-value target, but they might
not be that limited.
We should keep the number out for the time being and do everything we
can to support Digg if they file suit against Digg. Better them than
us.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com