In article <1159803061.933527.246110@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
NYC XYZ <jack_foreigner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Ah, okay, it does follow, though I think it's a bit silly to think of
>conversations as "property."
Conversations aren't property; copyright is property.
> And how about 50/50 rights? I guess both parties must agree to
>divulge, or else it's illegal to disclose content?
Divulging content is different from recording, copying, etc. It isn't
a prohibited action.
>Well, I guess it's kinda like them silly software EULAs, isn't it --
>you're only licensed the tool (in this case, the hotel's room) under
>the terms of the contract. Unless it's clearly against the law to do
>so, perhaps there could be a clause allowing management access, at its
>own discretion, or something like that...??
There are usually laws about hotel room rentals.
>Odd, considering how much easier it is to spy visually than audially,
>and therefore if the law's concern is privacy, it should, if anything,
>be tougher on video!!
If you can see me, I can see you; it's harder to spy (personally)
undetected.
>Wait, wait...so how's a hidden camera different than a hidden mike?
Legally.
>And again, what about any audio ****tion of the video? Does that become
>illegal? Would someone be found guilty for the one and not the other??
Yes, that has happened.
Seth
|
