discussion
Click on the red underlined text to get to the source
... computers over the objections of the computer user.
Discussion: The OP client would be installed by legal mandate in
all new computers, but since there are hundreds of millions of
...
... virus detectors.
Discussion: Since anyone whose intent was to violate the law
would not want the OP client to be watching their action, they
...
... clients.
Discussion: Because of the potential for a user to hide their
illicit activities by mimicking the operation of the OP client
...
... protected software.
Discussion: Since small, portable devices, such as MP3 players,
are becoming the preferred method ...
... client must be able to determine the user's intent.
Discussion: Just knowing that the user has a copy of a protected
work on their system does not, by itself, mean that the copy is
illegal. It could easily be a copy that the user purchased.
...
... illegal material and other material with the same file name.
Discussion: A user might create a file that has the same
filename as that of a protected work. The OP must not be fooled
...
... filename has been changed.
Discussion: The user must not be able to disguise a protected
work by just changing its name.
...
... user has modified the work in some way.
Discussion: The user must not be able to disguise a protected
work by modifying the work, for example, by prepending,
appending, or inserting extra material, or by changing some of
...
... pure.
Discussion: Since it cannot be assumed that the operators of the
OP server will always have the best motives, the OP client must
...
... any material placed by others.
Discussion: It must not be possible for a third party to put
protected material on a user's computer for the purpose of
...
... specific computer that it is running on.
Discussion: Since the Internet crosses many legal boundaries, an
OP client ...