On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 21:01, tcleary2@csc.com.au wrote:
When I was a Police Officer in the U.K. the definition of Theft was ( and
had been for a LONG time ):
"Dishonestly obtains the property of another with the intent to
permanently deprive them of it."
Problem: Cisco still have the code - offence not complete, therefore
prosecution not possible.
Excellent arguments. Let me restate. The spirit & intent of Fair Use
Doctrine applies to materials that are publicly accessible. In college
I did not have to mark up the expensive music scores I bought as I could
make copies and not violate the copyright. I could photocopy scores from the
library to study. Fair Use is intended to make sure copyright does
not unduly restrict the use of materials with copyright in an academic orr
educational context. A teacher may photocopy parts of a work to hand out
in a lecture. Fair Use has nothing to do with penetrating Cisco's networks
and copying the source to 12.3 IOS an later distribution. Fair Use Doctrine
is about academic freedom, not commercial proprietary IP which only approved
persons may posses. Fair Use keeps information and materials the were already
very accessible the same.
It is an incorrect argument to claim Fair Use here because IOS source was
never legally assessable to the general public. To suggest using it, as such,
is a perversion of the spirit and intent of Fair Use Doctrine.
--
James H. Edwards
Routing and Security Administrator
At the Santa Fe Office: Internet at Cyber Mesa
jamesh@cybermesa.com
noc@cybermesa.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
