On 5/4/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/4/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@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.
It has. It's illegal if you knowingly do so for the purpose of disseminating the circumvention device.
The next important question then, I think, is would Wikipedia liable legally if they served a DMCA takedown, and we did take it down? If the answer is Yes, we'd be legally safe, then perhaps mentioning the string itself isn't a risk. Maybe. Beyond that, the liability for posting/reposting would fall to users and IPs that posted it?
-- Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think we're missing another question as well here.
What are they going to sue -for-?
The number's all over the net, and, by now, I'm sure it's on thousands to millions of people's own hard drives too. Suing for an injunction would be silly and pointless. Injunctions are granted for -relief-, the court could not in this case provide relief.
So that leaves damages. What damages? We didn't do it. We certainly can say "Look, we didn't damage you worth one nickel, this key was all over the place by the time we published it, and you had no hope in hell of recanning the worms long before we published it. We did you no harm. By the time we published your "secret", it had long since stopped being a secret."