From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: ATTENTION: All people who received a crack for Alchemy!!!
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:26:36 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Apr7.191654.29459@b15.b15.ingr.com>, by bfh@b15.b15.ingr.com (Burgess Howell):
> In <1992Apr4.041843.20449@uwasa.fi> ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.161146.13397@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:

>>>....  A university .... does have
>>>authority to deny its resources to anyone who might create a civil
>>>liability for the university by using them.  By denying its resources
>>>to the student in question, after the fact, the university might have
>>>been trying to show that it was not responsible for the crack....
> 
> So, to follow this to its logical conclusion, the university is not
> interested in the free and unencumbered distribution of constitutionally
> protected information -- or the protection of the rights of one of its
> students who dared to exercise his rights.  Rather, it feels it is in
> its best interest to censure the student and distance itself from
> a civil suit in which it would have to admit that, when it comes right
> down to it, it is not in the business of disseminating information -- 
> it is in the business of counting beans.

I don't know how that became a logical conclusion.  In an emergency, I
may have to choose between spending a little money and saving my
child's life.  That doesn't mean I'm "not interested" in money.

I'm glad the "business of disseminating information" was mentioned.
Yes, a university is in business.  As such, it has to respect the
rights of other businesses.  Disseminating information is not always
a good thing to do.  There are, for instance such things as military
secrets, issues of privacy, trade secrets....

So a university does its business where it will be _paid_ to
disseminate information, not where it will be _sued_ for it.

[ Timo Salmi wonders about ... ]
>>.... the, to me a strange stress on the US first amendment
>>interpreted as giving the right to anyone to have anything
>>distributed without regard who owns the facilities used.   
> 
> I think two points should be made here.  First, in the US, the law says
> that if an act is not specifically prohibited, it is allowed (pretty scary,
> huh?).  The transfer of information is still (with very few exeptions)
> legal in this country.  Next, the information was distributed by an
> electronic mail service provided by the university to the students.  One
> must assume that the university knew the service would be utilized by
> the students.  One must also assume that a university administration is
> not so naive as to believe no controversial information would pass
> through their mail system.  Ergo, if the university is truly interested in
> removing itself from the possibility of civil suits, it should _not_ be
> allowing those naughty students to talk to the rest of the world.

God allegedly granted man free will, and then punished man for using
it wrongly.  Surely a university is not wiser than God?

The university is, after all, in the business of disseminating
information.  In the pursuit of that business, it allows students to
use its facilities to exchange information.  The students are expected
to show reasonable restraint in the way they use those facilities, and
to respect the "very few exceptions" mentioned above.  Controversial
information is OK, but when a student steps over the fuzzy line and
does something inappropriate, that student, and only that one, is
expected to suffer the consequences.

There is no one principle that guides one's every action, unless it be
one like "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you," which
has to be analyzed into more specific principles.  Certainly neither
"freedom of speech" nor "property rights" is a universal principle.
Compromises must be made, even if only in the interest of survival.

I thought all this was obvious, but I guess it has to be spelled out.

>>For
>>example when I refused to have a certain suspect package on our FTP
>>archives (about a year ago) the (US) author complained to me with a
>>straight face that I was depriving him of his lawful _right_ of
>>distributing his shareware material. 
> 
> And you were completely within your rights, Timo.  An archive site is
> not UseNet or e-mail.  It's YOUR disk space which you graciously make
> available to people around the world (and we thank you for it).  Use it
> as you please.

You think so, Timo thinks so, I think so.  But Timo's point is that
the "(US) author" did not think so.  That does not in itself prove
anything, but it is remarkable.

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
Newsgroups: misc.legal.computing