| |
On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 06:18:02 GMT, "James Brown"
<galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Jasper Janssen writes:
> No, you're defining webserver differently. I'm not going to bother quibbling
> semantics with you.
Gee. That's rather a cop-out, isn't it?
> > Yes. It's available via the webserver, in what is commonly known in
> > technical terms as "the public area".
>
> No. "in a place public can get to" != publically available != published. The
> three of them often co-incide, but do not necessarily do so.
Yes, it does.
> Ah! I see the problem here - you're arguing legalities. I don't care two
> hoots for the legalities of the issue, I'm talking common courtesy.
This is not about courtesy. At all.
This is about a claim Brad made that it was _legally_ so. I am not
saying it isn't impolite (though I don't agree..), I am saying it
isn't illegal. _That_ is the claim that needs to be challenged. I am
not going to let some clueless corporate lawyer (whichever company he
is from) and an equally clueless judge completely screw up the
internet as we know it, if I can help it.
> > > Certainly it is the originators right to determine "intent to publish", not
> > > Joe Public.
> >
> > Oh. So if I print a few hundred folders, crop-dust them over the inner
> > city, then say that everyone who's read it, or shown it to friends, or
> > given it away has violated my copyright because I didn't intend to
> > publish it, I have a leg to stand on?
>
> You're being ridiculous - the analogy fails on several levels. For one thing,
> the actions you describe are intent to publish.
Oh, really? I thought it was the originators' right to determine
intent to publish, not Joe Public's? You're contradicting yourself.
> Joe Web Designer snaps and decides he hates his boss. He removes the firewall
> protection, and posts a URL to the accounts receivable information.
>
> Joe Hacker decides to have a little fun, and hacks around on foo.com until he
> finds a hole through the firewall, or a password that gets him through the
> incryption. He pulls the information through, and turns foo.com into a splash
> page with next years product line.
Note that these both involve criminal actions, and thus are ineligible
as examples.
> Joe Web Designer mistypes a line in a script, and loads all the employee's
> payroll information to the wrong server, and now it's on the www page.
Tough. Life sucks sometimes.
> But it doesn't really matter. You're talking legalities - Yes, I agree, if
> it's on the public side of a firewall, it's "legally" public. But like I said
> above, I don't care about the legalities of it, I'm talking about politeness.
Again, politeness is not the issue here.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
