Towards the end of the document you kindly provided the link for is the quote "wouldn't come across them unless actively looking" -This is not completely true. If you do a what's new search and inadvertently highlight the wrong file to download by definition that action is unintentional. Thus the author of the document seems to me to be protecting the software and balming the users. Rather like the gun argument. Guns don'[t kill people, people do. But why make and distribute certain kinds of guns in the first place. Just so they can be used to shoot tin cans, I think NOT!!!!!If the authors of the software were truley worried about it's miss use, I'm sure they could tighten up on what I can be used for. For example, hard coded licence requirements, rather than an optional setting allowing you to disregard the requirment.

Anyway, this is getting off topic. Legal or otherwise, I think there is one hell of a difference between the redistribution of a Movie and the redistribution of child abuse in any form.


Angelfish