[Jack Simth]

Attempting to sue the makers of a product that has both Leagal and illeagal uses when somebody uses the product for an illeagal end is a VERY VERY BAD IDEA.

Consider a kitchen knife. It can be leagally used to cut animal flesh (steak), vegetables, or tough pLastic packaging. It can also be illeagally used to mug people. Should a mugging victim (or the family of a dead mugging victim) be able to sue the knife manufacturer for the illeagal use of a knife by a mugger?

Consider a rope. It can be leagally used to secure loads, restrain animals, or play with. It can also be illeagally used to restrain people. Should a kidnapping victim (or the family of a dead kidnapping victim) be able to sue the rope manufacturer for the illeagal use of a rope by a kidnapper?

Consider Bittorrent (and similar stuff). It can be used leagally to distribute large demos, home movies, or even put on a fee-based system for distributing large, fully-functional software programs. It can also be used to illeagally distribute ripped DVD or CD images. Should a copyright infringement victim (or their representitives) be able to sue the Bittorrent programmers for the illeagal use of Bittorrent by copyright violators?

Consider a handgun. It can be leagally used to stop a rapist, stop a murderer, or hunt food. It can also be illeagally used to shoot (relative) innocents. Should a shooting victim (or the family of a dead shooting victim) be able to sue the gun manufacturer for the illeagal use of a gun by a(n attempted) murderer?

Is there really a way to say "yes" to one or two of the above, without giving lawyers room enough to make the other two or three stick? What do you think would happen to ANY economy if suddenly everyone that made anything that was could be used for an illeagal purpose suddenly got sued for the illeagal actions of THIRD PARTIES? I can understand making stuff that doesn't have any significant leagal use illeagal. But you know, it's reasonably simple to turn a microwave into a maser for arson where you don't need to be within 100 feet of the target to set it on fire (Added features! Invisible beam! Accelerant free - no traces at the arson site! Easy to make it look like an electrical fire!). It's trivial to bypass the safties on a pneumatic nail gun so that it fires nails through the air at people rather than through wood. A college textbook makes a dandy club. There is very little that can't be turned to illeagal use. I don't like the precident RIAA's trying to re-set.