If you have a website that carries downloads or links to downloads for
software programs that are used to break or workaround copy protection
schemes, could you be considered an accessory to a crime?
I believe that there is no lack of deniability so plausibly you could
be associated with, if not convicted of, a felon(y). :)
Spot on, I say. Have you not perpetuated and perpetrated the
consumption of intellectual property?
--
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
On Jul 6, 12:48*pm, hummingbird <brendarogu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have a website that carries downloads or links to downloads for
> software programs that are used to break or workaround copy protection
> schemes, could you be considered an accessory to a crime?
>
> I believe that there is no lack of deniability so plausibly you could
> be associated with, if not convicted of, a felon(y). :)
>
> Spot on, I say. Have you not perpetuated and perpetrated the
> consumption of intellectual property?
> --
> * *"All truth passes through three stages.
> * *First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
> * *and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
> * *(Arthur Schopenhauer)
I don't suppose you mean your good buddy Mr. Security Expert, Bear
Bottoms?
You might be civilly liable, but I think criminal copyright violation
is pretty rare; it usually involves something like mass retailing
pirated tapes or DVDs.
On Jul 6, 1:15*pm, "bayno...@yahoo.com" <bayn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You might be civilly liable, but I think *criminal copyright violation
> is pretty rare; it usually involves something like mass retailing
> pirated tapes or DVDs.
> If you have a website that carries downloads or links to downloads for
> software programs that are used to break or workaround copy protection
> schemes, could you be considered an accessory to a crime?
>
> I believe that there is no lack of deniability so plausibly you could
> be associated with, if not convicted of, a felon(y). :)
>
> Spot on, I say. Have you not perpetuated and perpetrated the
> consumption of intellectual property?
> --
> "All truth passes through three stages.
> First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
> and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
> (Arthur Schopenhauer)
>
It seems most everybody is guilty of this or that, the rest are in
denial, regarding Freeware, The Beast does not understand Freeware,
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.
Joh 1:3 All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one
thing was created that has been created.
Joh 1:4 Life was in Him, and that life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 That light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness did not
overcome it.
baynole2@yahoo.com <baynole@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 1:41*pm, Little Luke <fjcam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is the maker of the gun responsible for its use?
>
> Something of a non sequitur.
>
> In this case, the software has no purpose or reason for being other
> than defeating the copyright protection program,& hence could lead to
> liability.
That depends. For example in some countries - like mine, The
Netherlands - there is fair-use copyright, which allows to make a copy
for the private use of the owner of the original media. Some audio/music
CDs have copy-protection [1], all video DVDs are encrypted which amounts
to copy-protection, etc., etc.. If I defeat the copy-protection to make
a copy for my own use, I am well within my legal rights. So the use of a
program like DVD Decrypter is fair and legal use.
[1] The term is "copy-protection", not "copyright protection". The
copyright may be 'protected' when there is no copy-protection and vice
versa.
For example the copyright (the better, more clear term is "author's
rights" [2]) of this posting is protected, but AFAIK the posting is not
copy-protected! :-)
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT) 'hummingbird'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>If you have a website that carries downloads or links to downloads for
>software programs that are used to break or workaround copy protection
>schemes, could you be considered an accessory to a crime?
>
>I believe that there is no lack of deniability so plausibly you could
>be associated with, if not convicted of, a felon(y). :)
>
>Spot on, I say. Have you not perpetuated and perpetrated the
>consumption of intellectual property?
the above was not posted by me (hummingbird), it's a forgery
by Franklin's new sporge friends.
--
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 10:15:25 -0700 (PDT) 'baynole2@yahoo.com'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>You might be civilly liable, but I think criminal copyright violation
>is pretty rare; it usually involves something like mass retailing
>pirated tapes or DVDs.
NB: the original post was not made by me (hummingbird), it's a
forgery.
--
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
In comp.security.misc Little Luke <fjcamper@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is the maker of the gun responsible for its use?
Yes, of course. A gun is a tool. A tool is designed and crafed for being
used in a scenario. If someone designs and crafts guns for hunting
purposes, he is responsible that people have better possibilities to
hunt.
If someone designs and crafts guns for the purpose of killing people,
she/he shares the responsibility for the deaths and kills, which are
done using his guns.
If a gun with the purpose of hunting is being abused for killing
people, then she/he does not (if he isn't violating his responsibility
in other ways, say: not giving guns to children).
I cannot see any sensible ethics, which define responsibility without
the purpose of an action.
To answer your question, which you probably meant:
The ethical conflict persists, if someone designs and crafts guns as
tools for defense.
Then she/he should have a look on how are his guns are used in reality,
because this implies that her/his users have good intentions, too. She/he
takes responsibility to check that, because she/he shares responsibility
for what her/his tools are being used, and she/he has to react, if her/his
view of the world is wrong.
No-one who claims for acting responsibly can claim being naive. She/he
can only claim having made a mistake.
Acting responsibly means to take account of how your acting impacts the
world around you.
Yours,
VB.
--
Bitte beachten Sie auch die Rückseite dieses Schreibens!
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 22:21:56 +0100 'hummingbird'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>In article <d549aee3-2432-4936-aec3-
>2e040aa3480a@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, fjcamper@gmail.com says...
>> On Jul 6, 12:48*pm, hummingbird <brendarogu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If you have a website that carries downloads or links to downloads for
>> > software programs that are used to break or workaround copy protection
>> > schemes, could you be considered an accessory to a crime?
>> >
>> > I believe that there is no lack of deniability so plausibly you could
>> > be associated with, if not convicted of, a felon(y). :)
>> >
>> > Spot on, I say. Have you not perpetuated and perpetrated the
>> > consumption of intellectual property?
>> > --
>> > * *"All truth passes through three stages.
>> > * *First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
>> > * *and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
>> > * *(Arthur Schopenhauer)
>>
>> I don't suppose you mean your good buddy Mr. Security Expert, Bear
>> Bottoms?
>>
>> http://bearware.info/security.html
>>
>
>I am asking about my own web site. Strictly speaking it is not a web
>site but web space and that I use the difference to wriggle out of many
>arguments I am losing.
>
>I host a few apps there like Context Edit which are chargeable and let
>others have them for free because they were once free. You could call it
>an applications service.
>
>http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-w...ucano.plus.com
>
>The criminal psychopath Franklin made a damaging comment about my
>applications service and called it micro warez site. I want opinions
>about the legality of it.
>
>The real hummingbird.
--
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 22:23:36 +0100 'hummingbird'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>In article <g4rb76.13c.1@localhost.127.0.0.1>, hummingbird@127.0.0.1
>says...
>>
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 10:15:25 -0700 (PDT) 'baynole2@yahoo.com'
>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>
>> >You might be civilly liable, but I think criminal copyright violation
>> >is pretty rare; it usually involves something like mass retailing
>> >pirated tapes or DVDs.
>>
>> NB: the original post was not made by me (hummingbird), it's a
>> forgery.
>>
>
>That spoiler post was not made by me (hummingbird), it's a forgery. I
>made a genuine original post to start this tthread.
>
>The real hummingbird.
--
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
On Jul 6, 3:35*pm, Frank Slootweg <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> bayno...@yahoo.com <bayn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 1:41*pm, Little Luke <fjcam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is the maker of the gun responsible for its use?
>
> > Something of a non sequitur.
>
> > In this case, the software has no purpose or reason for being other
> > than defeating the copyright protection program,& hence could lead to
> > liability.
>
> * That depends. For example in some countries - like mine, The
> Netherlands - there is fair-use copyright, which allows to make a copy
> for the private use of the owner of the original media. Some audio/music
> CDs have copy-protection [1], all video DVDs are encrypted which amounts
> to copy-protection, etc., etc.. If I defeat the copy-protection to make
> a copy for my own use, I am well within my legal rights. So the use of a
> program like DVD Decrypter is fair and legal use.
>
> [1] The term is "copy-protection", not "copyright protection". The
> copyright may be 'protected' when there is no copy-protection and vice
> versa.
> For example the copyright (the better, more clear term is "author's
> rights" [2]) of this posting is protected, but AFAIK the posting is not
> copy-protected! :-)
>
> [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author%27s_rights>
I think copy-protected is pretty much a shorthand for copyright-
protected as a practical matter in this context.
In the US under the Millenium Act, you do not have the right to
unilaterally copy a song or movie onto other formats even for your own
use.
NB, I stated "could lead to liability."
On 06 Jul 2008 19:35:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> baynole2@yahoo.com <baynole@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 1:41*pm, Little Luke <fjcam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is the maker of the gun responsible for its use?
>>
>> Something of a non sequitur.
>>
>> In this case, the software has no purpose or reason for being other
>> than defeating the copyright protection program,& hence could lead to
>> liability.
>
> That depends. For example in some countries - like mine, The
> Netherlands - there is fair-use copyright, which allows to make a copy
> for the private use of the owner of the original media. Some audio/music
> CDs have copy-protection [1], all video DVDs are encrypted which amounts
> to copy-protection, etc., etc.. If I defeat the copy-protection to make
> a copy for my own use, I am well within my legal rights. So the use of a
> program like DVD Decrypter is fair and legal use.
>
> [1] The term is "copy-protection", not "copyright protection". The
> copyright may be 'protected' when there is no copy-protection and vice
> versa.
> For example the copyright (the better, more clear term is "author's
> rights" [2]) of this posting is protected, but AFAIK the posting is not
> copy-protected! :-)
>
> [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author%27s_rights>
US court law agrees based on some interpretations of the DMC Act. If it
is written, it is immediately copyrighted.
--
An Explanation Of The Need To Be "Anonymous" http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
On Jul 6, 10:57*pm, Ari <arisilverst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 06 Jul 2008 19:35:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > bayno...@yahoo.com <bayn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 6, 1:41*pm, Little Luke <fjcam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Is the maker of the gun responsible for its use?
>
> >> Something of a non sequitur.
>
> >> In this case, the software has no purpose or reason for being other
> >> than defeating the copyright protection program,& hence could lead to
> >> liability.
>
> > * That depends. For example in some countries - like mine, The
> > Netherlands - there is fair-use copyright, which allows to make a copy
> > for the private use of the owner of the original media. Some audio/music
> > CDs have copy-protection [1], all video DVDs are encrypted which amounts
> > to copy-protection, etc., etc.. If I defeat the copy-protection to make
> > a copy for my own use, I am well within my legal rights. So the use of a
> > program like DVD Decrypter is fair and legal use.
>
> > [1] The term is "copy-protection", not "copyright protection". The
> > copyright may be 'protected' when there is no copy-protection and vice
> > versa.
> > For example the copyright (the better, more clear term is "author's
> > rights" [2]) of this posting is protected, but AFAIK the posting is not
> > copy-protected! :-)
>
> > [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author%27s_rights>
>
> US court law agrees based on some interpretations of the DMC Act. If it
> is written, it is immediately copyrighted.
> --
> An Explanation Of The Need To Be "Anonymous"http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Forger. The real Joose (Ari) doesn't post thru:
X-Complaints-To: ab...@x-privat.org
--
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:49:52 +0100, hummingbird wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT) 'hummingbird'
> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>
>>If you have a website that carries downloads or links to downloads for
>>software programs that are used to break or workaround copy protection
>>schemes, could you be considered an accessory to a crime?
>>
>>I believe that there is no lack of deniability so plausibly you could
>>be associated with, if not convicted of, a felon(y). :)
>>
>>Spot on, I say. Have you not perpetuated and perpetrated the
>>consumption of intellectual property?
>
> the above was not posted by me (hummingbird), it's a forgery
> by Franklin's new sporge friends.
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 23:01:51 -0400 'Ari'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:49:52 +0100, hummingbird wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT) 'hummingbird'
>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>
>>>If you have a website that carries downloads or links to downloads for
>>>software programs that are used to break or workaround copy protection
>>>schemes, could you be considered an accessory to a crime?
>>>
>>>I believe that there is no lack of deniability so plausibly you could
>>>be associated with, if not convicted of, a felon(y). :)
>>>
>>>Spot on, I say. Have you not perpetuated and perpetrated the
>>>consumption of intellectual property?
>>
>> the above was not posted by me (hummingbird), it's a forgery
>> by Franklin's new sporge friends.
>
>You've completely lost it, Feathers, how sad.
Ari:
--
you started out with nothing and still have most of it left
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 20:01:04 -0700 (PDT) 'hummingbird'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>On Jul 6, 10:57*pm, Ari <arisilverst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 06 Jul 2008 19:35:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > bayno...@yahoo.com <bayn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 6, 1:41*pm, Little Luke <fjcam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> Is the maker of the gun responsible for its use?
>>
>> >> Something of a non sequitur.
>>
>> >> In this case, the software has no purpose or reason for being other
>> >> than defeating the copyright protection program,& hence could lead to
>> >> liability.
>>
>> > * That depends. For example in some countries - like mine, The
>> > Netherlands - there is fair-use copyright, which allows to make a copy
>> > for the private use of the owner of the original media. Some audio/music
>> > CDs have copy-protection [1], all video DVDs are encrypted which amounts
>> > to copy-protection, etc., etc.. If I defeat the copy-protection to make
>> > a copy for my own use, I am well within my legal rights. So the use of a
>> > program like DVD Decrypter is fair and legal use.
>>
>> > [1] The term is "copy-protection", not "copyright protection". The
>> > copyright may be 'protected' when there is no copy-protection and vice
>> > versa.
>> > For example the copyright (the better, more clear term is "author's
>> > rights" [2]) of this posting is protected, but AFAIK the posting is not
>> > copy-protected! :-)
>>
>> > [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author%27s_rights>
>>
>> US court law agrees based on some interpretations of the DMC Act. If it
>> is written, it is immediately copyrighted.
>> --
>> An Explanation Of The Need To Be "Anonymous"http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Forger. The real Joose (Ari) doesn't post thru:
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@x-privat.org
--
The above was not posted by me (hummingbird), it's a forgery.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 07:41:53 +0100 'hummingbird'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>In article <3075d5d4-06bf-415a-a4ee-c63bd7a97908
>@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, naplesareahouse@gmail.com says...
>> On Jul 6, 10:57*pm, Ari <arisilverst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On 06 Jul 2008 19:35:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > bayno...@yahoo.com <bayn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Jul 6, 1:41*pm, Little Luke <fjcam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>> Is the maker of the gun responsible for its use?
>> >
>> > >> Something of a non sequitur.
>> >
>> > >> In this case, the software has no purpose or reason for being other
>> > >> than defeating the copyright protection program,& hence could lead to
>> > >> liability.
>> >
>> > > * That depends. For example in some countries - like mine, The
>> > > Netherlands - there is fair-use copyright, which allows to make a copy
>> > > for the private use of the owner of the original media. Some audio/music
>> > > CDs have copy-protection [1], all video DVDs are encrypted which amounts
>> > > to copy-protection, etc., etc.. If I defeat the copy-protection to make
>> > > a copy for my own use, I am well within my legal rights. So the use of a
>> > > program like DVD Decrypter is fair and legal use.
>> >
>> > > [1] The term is "copy-protection", not "copyright protection". The
>> > > copyright may be 'protected' when there is no copy-protection and vice
>> > > versa.
>> > > For example the copyright (the better, more clear term is "author's
>> > > rights" [2]) of this posting is protected, but AFAIK the posting is not
>> > > copy-protected! :-)
>> >
>> > > [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author%27s_rights>
>> >
>> > US court law agrees based on some interpretations of the DMC Act. If it
>> > is written, it is immediately copyrighted.
>>>
>>
>> Forger. The real Joose (Ari) doesn't post thru:
>> X-Complaints-To: ab...@x-privat.org
>>
>
>YOU ARE A LIAR!!! Why don't you fcuk off? You are a lying forger.
>
>I am the real hummingbird. Me. I am.
--
The above was not posted by me (hummingbird), it's a forgery.
> On 06 Jul 2008 19:35:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>=20
> > baynole2@yahoo.com <baynole@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 6, 1:41=C2=A0pm, Little Luke <fjcam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Is the maker of the gun responsible for its use?
> >>=20
> >> Something of a non sequitur.
> >>=20
> >> In this case, the software has no purpose or reason for being other
> >> than defeating the copyright protection program,& hence could lead to
> >> liability.
> >=20
> > That depends. For example in some countries - like mine, The
> > Netherlands - there is fair-use copyright, which allows to make a copy
> > for the private use of the owner of the original media. Some audio/music
> > CDs have copy-protection [1], all video DVDs are encrypted which amounts
> > to copy-protection, etc., etc.. If I defeat the copy-protection to make
> > a copy for my own use, I am well within my legal rights. So the use of a
> > program like DVD Decrypter is fair and legal use.
> >=20
> > [1] The term is "copy-protection", not "copyright protection". The
> > copyright may be 'protected' when there is no copy-protection and vice
> > versa.
> > For example the copyright (the better, more clear term is "author's
> > rights" [2]) of this posting is protected, but AFAIK the posting is not
> > copy-protected! :-)
> >=20
> > [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author%27s_rights>
>=20
> US court law agrees based on some interpretations of the DMC Act. If it
> is written, it is immediately copyrighted.
So fuckwit, how come you're posting your spew through individual.net
Ari <arisilverstein@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 06 Jul 2008 19:35:27 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > baynole2@yahoo.com <baynole@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 6, 1:41*pm, Little Luke <fjcam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Is the maker of the gun responsible for its use?
> >>
> >> Something of a non sequitur.
> >>
> >> In this case, the software has no purpose or reason for being other
> >> than defeating the copyright protection program,& hence could lead to
> >> liability.
> >
> > That depends. For example in some countries - like mine, The
> > Netherlands - there is fair-use copyright, which allows to make a copy
> > for the private use of the owner of the original media. Some audio/music
> > CDs have copy-protection [1], all video DVDs are encrypted which amounts
> > to copy-protection, etc., etc.. If I defeat the copy-protection to make
> > a copy for my own use, I am well within my legal rights. So the use of a
> > program like DVD Decrypter is fair and legal use.
> >
> > [1] The term is "copy-protection", not "copyright protection". The
> > copyright may be 'protected' when there is no copy-protection and vice
> > versa.
> > For example the copyright (the better, more clear term is "author's
> > rights" [2]) of this posting is protected, but AFAIK the posting is not
> > copy-protected! :-)
> >
> > [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author%27s_rights>
>
> US court law agrees based on some interpretations of the DMC Act. If it
> is written, it is immediately copyrighted.
Yes, but as I said, copyrighted does *not neccessarily* mean you're
not allowed to copy it. *That* is the problem with the misnomer
"copyright", it often actually means "author's rights", which does *not
neccessarily* disallow all copying.
For example, I own the copyright/author's rights to this posting (and
no, under *my* law it's not in the public domain or any of that
nonsense), but still you are allowed to copy it, cite from it, etc..
baynole2@yahoo.com <baynole@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 3:35*pm, Frank Slootweg <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > bayno...@yahoo.com <bayn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 6, 1:41*pm, Little Luke <fjcam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Is the maker of the gun responsible for its use?
> >
> > > Something of a non sequitur.
> >
> > > In this case, the software has no purpose or reason for being other
> > > than defeating the copyright protection program,& hence could lead to
> > > liability.
> >
> > * That depends. For example in some countries - like mine, The
> > Netherlands - there is fair-use copyright, which allows to make a copy
> > for the private use of the owner of the original media. Some audio/music
> > CDs have copy-protection [1], all video DVDs are encrypted which amounts
> > to copy-protection, etc., etc.. If I defeat the copy-protection to make
> > a copy for my own use, I am well within my legal rights. So the use of a
> > program like DVD Decrypter is fair and legal use.
> >
> > [1] The term is "copy-protection", not "copyright protection". The
> > copyright may be 'protected' when there is no copy-protection and vice
> > versa.
> > For example the copyright (the better, more clear term is "author's
> > rights" [2]) of this posting is protected, but AFAIK the posting is not
> > copy-protected! :-)
> >
> > [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author%27s_rights>
>
> I think copy-protected is pretty much a shorthand for copyright-
> protected as a practical matter in this context.
Please read what I wrote. It most definately is *not* shorthand for
copyright-protected! I (think I) clearly explained the differences.
(Assuming one considers "copyright-protected" to be an actual, correct,
term.)
> In the US under the Millenium Act, you do not have the right to
> unilaterally copy a song or movie onto other formats even for your own
> use.
Perhaps someone should call Uncle Bill and tell him that his Windows
Media Player - which allows to RIP CDs etc. - can only be illegally
used!
>If you have a website that carries downloads or links to downloads for
>software programs that are used to break or workaround copy protection
>schemes, could you be considered an accessory to a crime?
>
>I believe that there is no lack of deniability so plausibly you could
>be associated with, if not convicted of, a felon(y). :)
>
>Spot on, I say. Have you not perpetuated and perpetrated the
>consumption of intellectual property?
Are you saying that I don't have the right to make copies of
my CDs or DVDs to store them away in case the original gets
errors? Or that someone with a website can't provide the
tools I need to do so?
>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:49:52 +0100, hummingbird wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT) 'hummingbird'
>>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>>
>>>>If you have a website that carries downloads or links to downloads for
>>>>software programs that are used to break or workaround copy protection
>>>>schemes, could you be considered an accessory to a crime?
>>>>
>>>>I believe that there is no lack of deniability so plausibly you could
>>>>be associated with, if not convicted of, a felon(y). :)
>>>>
>>>>Spot on, I say. Have you not perpetuated and perpetrated the
>>>>consumption of intellectual property?
That is what intelectual property is for-- to be consumed. It has the huge
advantage over other properties, that even when you consume it, it does not
diminish, but stays as plentiful as ever.
baynole2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>On Jul 6, 1:41*pm, Little Luke <fjcam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is the maker of the gun responsible for its use?
>
>Something of a non sequitur.
>
>In this case, the software has no purpose or reason for being other
>than defeating the copyright protection program,& hence could lead to
>liability.
Bullshit. It has the purpose of allowing me to make backups of
the software CDs and DVDs I legally bought.
So who is paying you to post to newsgroups?
MPAA? RIAA? MAFIAA? (See http://mafiaa.org/)
MPAA/RIAA/BSA: No breaking DRM, even if it's killing you
(literally!) The BSA, MPAA and RIAA have officially
objected to a proposal to let the public break DRM that
"threatens critical infrastructure and endangers lives."
They argue that if it becomes legal to break DRM that
could kill you that it might harm their business... http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=984 http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/18...-no-break.html
|You say you want the power to time-shift and space-shift TV
|and radio? You say you want tomorrow's innovators to invent
|new TV and radio gizmos you haven't thought of yet, the same
|way the pioneers behind the VCR, TiVo, and the iPod did?
|
|Well, that's not what the entertainment industry has in mind.
|According to them, here's all tomorrow's innovators should
|be allowed to offer you:
|
| "customary historic use of broadcast content by consumers
| to the extent such use is consistent with applicable law."
|
|Had that been the law in 1970, there would never have been a VCR.
|Had it been the law in 1990, no TiVo. In 2000, no iPod.
|
|http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/01...reeze-fair-use
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:17:15 +0000 'me@privacy.net'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
>>If you have a website that carries downloads or links to downloads for
>>software programs that are used to break or workaround copy protection
>>schemes, could you be considered an accessory to a crime?
>>
>>I believe that there is no lack of deniability so plausibly you could
>>be associated with, if not convicted of, a felon(y). :)
>>
>>Spot on, I say. Have you not perpetuated and perpetrated the
>>consumption of intellectual property?
>
>Are you saying that I don't have the right to make copies of
>my CDs or DVDs to store them away in case the original gets
>errors? Or that someone with a website can't provide the
>tools I need to do so?
Dear 'me@privacy.net'.
This is the real hummingbird and if you read the thread, you will
note that *I* did not start it and I have not even contributed to
it (except this post and one other calling out another forgery).
Thus, I did not write what you are responding to.
Who is forging my posting name? Franklin - our resident psychopath
- is a good place to start looking ...he is ACF's No.1 forger and
sockpuppet user <sigh>.
--
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed,
and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
The text of the copyright code as amended by the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act is clear on this:
1201(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. -
(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights,
remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright
infringement, including fair use, under this title.
Thus, the right of fair use of materials is not reduced
by the act.
Fair use in the United States is a concept that developed
through 'trial and error' in the court systems and only
relatively recently (1976) was incorporated into the code.
The historical and revision notes for section 107, Fair Use,
says
(Section 107) endorses the purpose and general scope of the
judicial doctrine of fair use, but there is no disposition
to freeze the doctrine in the statute, especially during a
period of rapid technological change. Beyond a very broad
statutory explanation of what fair use is and some of the
criteria applicable to it, the courts must be free to
adapt the doctrine to particular situations on a case-by-case
basis. Section 107 is intended to restate the present judicial
doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it
in any way.
Accessories To Felonies 
Linear Mode
