Re: Re: Cisco's stolen code

[James Edwards <hackerwacker () cybermesa com>]

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part