Re: [dvd-discuss] Hang the RIAA in their own noose.

[Grzegorz Staniak <gstaniak(at)ajax.umcs.lublin.pl>]

Richard Hartman wrote:

[---]

> > Your claim that if a computer is offering a port implies that
> > that access
> > should presume to be granted is not correct, unless you
> > assume that every
> > computer has perfect configuration.
> 
> No, I claim that intent can only be discerned from the configuration.
> If you were to pursue a claim of trespass against the RIAA, you would
> have to show that you _attempted_ at least to restrict access.  The
> fact that you misconfigured (perhaps the netmask was wrong) would not
> negate the fact that you tried.  

In this particular case it could happen the "trespassers" wouldn't have
a slightest idea that you attempted to restrict access to your server:
they saw a new machine in the "network neighbourhood", they fired up IE,
typed the name into the Location bar... IMVHO it would take at least a
prominent notice on the homepage openly stating the (attempted) access
policy for a trespassing argument to be valid.

[---]

> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com

-- 
Grzegorz Staniak <gstaniak@ajax.umcs.lublin.pl>