On Thu, 5 May 2005 21:43:39 -0400 (EDT)
der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> wrote:

> Presumably even if the transmissal from Darwin to NetBSD was entirely
> legal when and where performed (eg, done by someone in Norway)?

To the best of my knowledge, any country with a free trade
agreement with the US is bound by it.

> Apple could sue *NetBSD* (as opposed to the person who did the work)?

Yes.  They also seem to like going after people unable to defend
themselves legally.  How many Mac minis running NetBSD will it take to
get Apple's attention?

> Those are scary.  NetBSD really really needs to move to somewhere the
> DMCA does not apply.  (Again, not that that'll happen.)

The DMCA pales in comparison the so-called "SDMCAs" which are passed on
a state-by-state basis (the "S" stands for Super).  The SDMCAs are
typically drawn from a common document that was written by a legal firm
hired by the cable and movie industry.  I have a copy of the original
somewhere.  I was involved in fighting the SDMCA legistation here in
South Carolina and I was able to stir up enough trouble that it was
tabled the year it was introduced, and as far as I know by the next year
there was too much negative press about the SDMCAs.  The SDMCA allows
for the seizure of property prior to judgement by a civil court,
including and not limited to asserts material to one's defense.  Fifteen
or twenty states passed SDMCAs before there was enough opposition
nationwide to derail them.

> > copyright law not-withstanding (der Mouse ought to appreciate that
> > last clause).
> 
> Yes indeed!  I know a little bit about copyright law.  I know a good
> deal less about the DMCA - I know just about enough to know I do not
> want to *ever* work or live in a jurisdiction where it applies; I'm
> uncomfortable enough about just *visiting*.  You've just given me
> another reason. :-)

I was thinking about the fondness Canadians have for the
"not-withstanding" clause ;-)

tim