<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF 
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
  xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
>

  <channel rdf:about="http://lwn.net/headlines/18304/">
    <title>LWN: Comments on "ElcomSoft gets off"</title>
    <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/18304/</link>
    <description>
This is a special feed containing comments posted
to the individual LWN article titled &quot;ElcomSoft gets off&quot;.

    </description>

    <syn:updatePeriod>hourly</syn:updatePeriod>
    <syn:updateFrequency>2</syn:updateFrequency>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/18556/rss" />
	<rdf:li resource="http://lwn.net/Articles/18503/rss" />
      
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>

  </channel>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/18556/rss">
      <title>ElcomSoft gets off</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/18556/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2002-12-19T18:02:24+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>emkey</dc:creator>
      <description>
      Maybe I'm a little wet behind the ears, but I don't see this particular portion of the DMCA standing up when it makes it to the supreme court.  Its essentially equivalent to congress passing a law saying that anyone who makes a tool that could be used for assult or murder can be put on trial.  Thus a company that made baseball bats or hammers, etc. would be in significant danger of incurring substantial legal expenses etc.&lt;p&gt;A tool is a tool.  Any good tool can be put to many different uses.  Requiring the tool maker to be lible for a tool users eventual use of their tools has the potential to have a very negative impact across the board.&lt;p&gt;  
      
      </description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://lwn.net/Articles/18503/rss">
      <title>ElcomSoft gets off</title>
      <link>http://lwn.net/Articles/18503/rss</link>
      <dc:date>2002-12-19T05:04:33+00:00</dc:date>
      <dc:creator>ksmathers</dc:creator>
      <description>
      You underestimate the importance of the Elcomsoft trial.  While the jury&lt;br&gt;verdict isn't relevant in setting precedent, the instructions of the &lt;br&gt;Judge regarding what constitutes willful violation of the law is a much&lt;br&gt;higher hurdle than what the government was arguing for.  Willful in this&lt;br&gt;law now means that the offending party must have been aware of the law,&lt;br&gt;and have intended to break it.  The government was arguing that having&lt;br&gt;broken the law was sufficient evidence of willful violation.
      
      </description>
    </item>
</rdf:RDF>

