Comments on: Hewlett Packard Pays for Privacy . . . and Copyright? http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/12/hewlett_packard.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:31:00 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Joe Liu http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/12/hewlett_packard.html/comment-page-1#comment-56080 Joe Liu Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:21:45 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/12/hewlett-packard-pays-for-privacy-and-copyright.html#comment-56080 How utterly bizarre. What's next? Maybe the MPAA will start getting a piece of tobacco settlements. How utterly bizarre. What’s next? Maybe the MPAA will start getting a piece of tobacco settlements.

]]> By: Ned Ulbricht http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/12/hewlett_packard.html/comment-page-1#comment-56079 Ned Ulbricht Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:39:03 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/12/hewlett-packard-pays-for-privacy-and-copyright.html#comment-56079 <p>Oops. Forgot to include the link in my previous comment. Sorry....</p> <p>Here's the Dec 1, 2006, <i>Wired News</i> story by Ryan Singel, “<a href="http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72214-0.html" rel="nofollow">MPAA Kills Anti-Pretexting Bill</a>”.</p> Oops. Forgot to include the link in my previous comment. Sorry….

Here’s the Dec 1, 2006, Wired News story by Ryan Singel,

“MPAA Kills Anti-Pretexting Bill”.

]]> By: Ned Ulbricht http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/12/hewlett_packard.html/comment-page-1#comment-56078 Ned Ulbricht Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:33:19 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/12/hewlett-packard-pays-for-privacy-and-copyright.html#comment-56078 <blockquote><i>I am perplexed at how protecting against copyright piracy suddenly became an aspect of the settlement.</i></blockquote> <p>There's no reason to be perplexed.</p> <p>At the beginning of the month, it was reported:</p> <blockquote><p>A tough California bill that would have prohibited companies and individuals from using deceptive "pretexting" ruses to steal private information about consumers was killed after determined lobbying by the motion picture industry, Wired News has learned.</p> <p>[...]</p> <p>"The MPAA has a tremendous amount of clout and they told legislators, 'We need to pose as someone other than who we are to stop illegal downloading,'" Goldberg said.</p> </blockquote> <p>See? Not perplexing at all.</p>

I am perplexed at how protecting against copyright piracy suddenly became an aspect of the settlement.

There’s no reason to be perplexed.

At the beginning of the month, it was reported:

A tough California bill that would have prohibited companies and individuals from using deceptive “pretexting” ruses to steal private information about consumers was killed after determined lobbying by the motion picture industry, Wired News has learned.

[...]

“The MPAA has a tremendous amount of clout and they told legislators, ‘We need to pose as someone other than who we are to stop illegal downloading,’” Goldberg said.

See? Not perplexing at all.

]]>