Re: "They" caught a true software pirate

[christopherw]

Why should that guy be held any more responsible than any of us? Note that he wasn't charged under offences relating to profiting from the alleged piracy, which is something key to any scene group - that they don't profit from their actions, that they're purely for the scene and not for public distribution.

It's the traders and leakers who share the private content out to the p2p network who should be punished, as while the groups may well be releasing the content in the first place, it's to a closed audience whilst the unscrupulous traders and filesharers are the minority who are actually facilitating the large-scale piracy. Once again, the feds go after the wrong people... They'll never stop piracy by taking out just one person, if the security in the group is tight enough it'll just reform somewhere else and carry on, albeit with a little more (healthy) paranoia.


In the eyes of the law, many forum members (I daresay myself included) would be categorised as just as guilty as the Bandido character for what they've done in the past involving things like ripping CDs and DVDs to smaller video files for their own enjoyment - whether you share them with friends or keep them on your own computer for your personal enjoyment only, it's still technically illegal. The copyright police know this so they're trying to justify alllllllll that expenditure on these multi-year operations by trying to bring down one or two biggish characters, but they'll probably only ever serve a tiny portion of their sentence if they're jailed (if!) - and that's if they even get convicted in the first place.

They're fighting a losing battle.

I would've posted this as a reply to the article in the News subforum, but apparently I don't have permissions to add a reply to threads in that subforum... Odd.

[setarip_old]

Forgive me but, I see things very differently than you do. You say,and not for public distribution.
Drink or Die most certainly was involved in public distribution of pirated software. To try to separate "traders and leakers" from the initiators of the pirated software is silly. As the article states:DrinkOrDie, which came to prominence after releasing a pirated copy of Windows 95 days before the OS was officially available...DrinkOrDie specialized in cracking anti-piracy measures in popular software, movies and other digital content, so it could be copied and used over and over. The group then distributed the warezIn the eyes of the law, many forum members (I daresay myself included) would be categorised as just as guilty as the Bandido character for what they've done in the past involving things like ripping CDs and DVDs to smaller video files for their own enjoyment - whether you share them with friends or keep them on your own computer for your personal enjoyment only, it's still technically illegal.Yes, making a backup copy of a DVD that you purchased may be technically illegal in some countries (and, then again, it may not), making a copy for a friend is illegal. Neither act is in any way comparable to making (cracked or otherwise) commercial software/CDs/DVDs available for free download, which is definitely illegal in virtually all countries (even though some countries turn a "blind eye" to this type of activity). Theft and distribution of intellectual property is no different than theft and distribution of tangible property, whether it's done for profit or "for kicks"...

BTW, "Bandido" will undoubtedly serve time -[Quote]The 44-year-old British national pleaded guilty to one count each of criminal copyright infringement and conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement.

[foxyshadis]

Once again, the feds go after the wrong people... They'll never stop piracy by taking out just one person, if the security in the group is tight enough it'll just reform somewhere else and carry on, albeit with a little more (healthy) paranoia.

The copyright police know this so they're trying to justify alllllllll that expenditure on these multi-year operations by trying to bring down one or two biggish characters, but they'll probably only ever serve a tiny portion of their sentence if they're jailed (if!) - and that's if they even get convicted in the first place.

I know it's always tempting to indulge in prejudices, but it helps to read the entire article first:
The group was dismantled after the US Justice Department and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement carried out more than 70 raids on targets in the US and five other countries in late 2001. To date, "Operation Buccaneer," as the campaign came to be called, has netted more than 40 convictions.
Isn't that exactly what you say they should do? Go after entire groups at a time? Of course on the internet, even doing that is more akin to shutting down a cocaine trafficking group: There's so much incentive that new groups will take over in the following months, and they were small and got lax anyway. If you're interested in the DoD busts, this site (http://parazite.greatnow.com/scenebusts72.htm) has an extensive timeline, though it ends at the end of 2001.
He was extradited to the US in February after spending three years fending off extradition attempts from a detention center in Australia.
He was already jailed, so I don't really know why they needed to bring him here just to put him back in jail, but I seriously doubt they'd have spent millions or even thousands of dollars pursuing him at that time. Just keep filing the motions whenever a new appeal is made.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Why should that guy be held any more responsible than any of us? Note that he wasn't charged under offences relating to profiting from the alleged piracy, which is something key to any scene group - that they don't profit from their actions, that they're purely for the scene and not for public distribution.

As an author of software that has been cracked by "the scene", I can only say "WTF?" The person who cracked the software is directly responsible. Putting a statement in the cracked package that "this is for use by the scene only" is no defence. Theft is theft.

[FishTank]

As an author of software that has been cracked by "the scene", I can only say "WTF?" The person who cracked the software is directly responsible. Putting a statement in the cracked package that "this is for use by the scene only" is no defence. Theft is theft.

but then everyone who has been involved with dvd backup software
is just as guilty lol. its a slippery subject :)

[setarip_old]

@FishTank

There's nothing "slippery" about it. You're comapring apple to oranges. As I said earlier in this thread:

Yes, making a backup copy of a DVD that you purchased may be technically illegal in some countries (and, then again, it may not), making a copy for a friend is illegal. Neither act is in any way comparable to making (cracked or otherwise) commercial software/CDs/DVDs available for free download, which is definitely illegal in virtually all countries (even though some countries turn a "blind eye" to this type of activity). Theft and distribution of intellectual property is no different than theft and distribution of tangible property, whether it's done for profit or "for kicks"...

[FishTank]

why apple and oranges?

to backup a dvd, you need to "crack" the copy-protection.
to copy an appliication you need to "crack" the copy-protection aswell.

one could argue that he wants to make a backup of windows
incase the original gets scratched same as with dvd's.

this bandido guy certainly is guilty as they released content
over the net, but i wouldnt blame the guy for "cracking" an .exe, but
as said for distribution.

remember i made my post b/c of this statement:
The person who cracked the software is directly responsible.

just my 02

[setarip_old]

remember i made my post b/c of this statement:

Quote:
The person who cracked the software is directly responsible.And the rest of the thought is that the person who cracked the software and then made it available for distribution to others is directly responsible...

[FishTank]

well if its the same person, then i agree :P

[setarip_old]

This individual has already acknowledged his culpability...

[HyperHacker]

0Theft and distribution of intellectual property is no different than theft and distribution of tangible property
This is completely wrong. With theft of tangible property, the victim no longer has the item that was stolen. With intellectual property, they still have it, and the "thief" simply has a duplicate.

[setarip_old]

@HyperHacker

What's being discussed is the act of theft - illegally obtaining something (tangible or intangible) that doesn't belong to you.

If you pirate my commercial program, you have eliminated the possibility of me selling it to you. If you distribute it to others, you have eliminated the possibility of me selling it to them. You've stolen and benefitted from MY work product and reduced or possibly eliminated my ability to profit from my work product. The fact that I still have a copy of my own work product is totally irrelevant, since you've totally devalued it...

[mr soft]

DrinkOrDie, which came to prominence after releasing a pirated copy of Windows 95 days before the OS was officially available

This sounds like disgruntled, ex M$ employee.
How did he get a copy, and crack it, prior to official release?

On the other hand I read the other day how apple, held a competition to hack their os x. Prize of a nice new notebook
Isn’t this also encouraging this sort of activity?

Then there’s this article on how piracy actually helped a “lesser advantaged country “to get a foot up on the ladder, to which Bill gates himself said…… nothing.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39285789,00.htm

“Just enough piracy” interesting article on how a good balance could help.

http://longtail.typepad.com/the_long_tail/2005/08/just_enough_pir.html

I don’t know if anyone could say they are 100% clean on this issue.

[Mug Funky]

He was extradited to the US in February after spending three years fending off extradition attempts from a detention center in Australia.

i hope they include time served in his sentence. "detention centres" are a fancy word for privately run prisons. really disgusting way to treat (usually) innocent people. makes me utterly ashamed to be an australian (google for "australia" and "UNHCR")

also, his extradition would not have been possible had it not been for the US-AUS free trade agreement, with it's own little DMCA in it.

of course, pirating software is wrong, but this guy has seriously suffered enough... i really hope they don't hit him with the maximum, but i suspect they will.

[HyperHacker]

@HyperHacker

What's being discussed is the act of theft - illegally obtaining something (tangible or intangible) that doesn't belong to you.

If you pirate my commercial program, you have eliminated the possibility of me selling it to you. If you distribute it to others, you have eliminated the possibility of me selling it to them. You've stolen and benefitted from MY work product and reduced or possibly eliminated my ability to profit from my work product. The fact that I still have a copy of my own work product is totally irrelevant, since you've totally devalued it...
Irrelevant how? "Theft" implies taking something, not duplicating something. Piracy is not the same as theft. If it were, as soon as someone pirated a copy, you'd no longer have the original to sell at all.
The "every pirated copy is a lost sale" argument is another popular but ridiculous one. Do you think every college student with $20,000 worth of pirated software on their hard drive really would have went out and bought it all if they couldn't pirate it? Of course not, they'd just find a free alternative or a competitor's product that they could pirate, or not use it at all.

You're practically parroting the ??AA's arguments, despite the number of flaws that have been pointed out before.

[setarip_old]

@HyperHacker

Perhaps you should ask a legitimate software author, such as "Johnny Malaria".

If you carefully re-read what I posted, you'd see that it is very carefully worded as to avoid your (and pirates') argument. Please note the stress on the word "possibility":

If you pirate my commercial program, you have eliminated the possibility of me selling it to you. If you distribute it to others, you have eliminated the possibility of me selling it to them.

Repeating this doesn't make it so...Piracy is not the same as theft. If it were, as soon as someone pirated a copy, you'd no longer have the original to sell at all.

[HyperHacker]

Wait, so you're saying piracy does devoid the victim of their original copy?

Possibilities don't mean much. There is a possibility that a meteor will crash through your lawn as you read this post. That doesn't mean it's at all likely.

[setarip_old]

From what you say, it seems that if you were a legitimate commercial programmer for a living, you (and your family who rely on you to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads) wouldn't mind if I cracked your commercial program and made it available for free to the entire world.

Sorry, I won't be party to your further attempts at cute games of semantics, that have no correlation to any legal system...

[celtic_druid]

It doesn't eliminate the possibility. Someone who has a pirate copy may still buy an original due to ease of updates, support, guilt, legal reasons, etc. Also someone who uses a pirate copy at home may buy copies for work where they otherwise would not have.

[JohnnyMalaria]

but then everyone who has been involved with dvd backup software
is just as guilty lol. its a slippery subject :)

Well, I have never been involved with DVD backup software. I haven't created backups of any of my DVDs.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Wait, so you're saying piracy does devoid the victim of their original copy?

Possibilities don't mean much. There is a possibility that a meteor will crash through your lawn as you read this post. That doesn't mean it's at all likely.

You clearly have a naive and uninformed understanding of the value of intellectual property.

"You slept with my wife!!!"
"So what, you can still sleep with her, can't you?"

[celtic_druid]

Yes, but if she doesn't tell you and you don't otherwise suspect, then you won't be effected. On the other hand you could become paranoid and lose her even though she never cheated (DRM product activation, etc. effecting legitimate users).

[foxyshadis]

You clearly have a naive and uninformed understanding of the value of intellectual property.

"You slept with my wife!!!"
"So what, you can still sleep with her, can't you?"

That's a much better analogy than most of the attempts to turn it into a car analogy (car cloning?), but I'd certainly hope you aren't charging regular customers for use of your wife. >.>

[Shinigami-Sama]

That's a much better analogy than most of the attempts to turn it into a car analogy (car cloning?), but I'd certainly hope you aren't charging regular customers for use of your wife. >.>

Actually I compared it to the license to drive the car I believe
though I can't remember exactly.

[HyperHacker]

From what you say, it seems that if you were a legitimate commercial programmer for a living, you (and your family who rely on you to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads) wouldn't mind if I cracked your commercial program and made it available for free to the entire world.
Where are you getting this? I'm only saying piracy is not the same as theft. Read carefully, I'll explain it one more time as simply as I can:
If someone breaks into your house and steals your computer, this is theft. You no longer have the computer.
If someone cracks your program and uses it without paying, this is piracy. You still have the program.

[setarip_old]

@HyperHacker

One last time - You are not going to convince me (or anyone else) that "piracy" (theft of intellectual property) is not a form of "theft". So, from my hippie days:

Give it a rest...

and, I'm outta here ;>}

[Wilbert]

@setarip_old,

One last time - You are not going to convince me (or anyone else) that "piracy" (theft of intellectual property) is not a form of "theft".
Please stop talking for all of us, because you don't. In fact you have been proven false, at least if you live in America:

The notion of copyright infringement as theft was clearly addressed in the 1985 Supreme Court decision of Dowling v. United States. While this case involved hard goods (phonograph records), Justice Harry Blackmun was most certainly speaking of abstract property (copyrights) when he wrote these words in his majority decision overturning Dowling's conviction of interstate transport of stolen property: "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=768610#post768610

I see that you also participated in that thread, but apparently your memory is short.

[HyperHacker]

@HyperHacker

One last time - You are not going to convince me (or anyone else) that "piracy" (theft of intellectual property) is not a form of "theft". So, from my hippie days:

Give it a rest...

and, I'm outta here ;>}
And one last time - that is not what I am trying to do. I did not say that piracy is not a form of theft. I said piracy is not identical to theft. Just like a calculator is a form of computer, but is not identical to your PC.

[setarip_old]

I did not say that piracy is not a form of theft.Okay...

[spuddog]

Thank You Wilbert, for the excellent quote.

[celtic_druid]

Don't think that there is any country where when your copyright is infringed you can go down to the local cop shop, fill in a report then file an insurance claim.

[setarip_old]

Don't think that there is any country where when your copyright is infringed you can go down to the local cop shop, fill in a report then file an insurance claim.Maybe not, but here in the U.S. (based on a far more current successful implementation of felony laws than the 1985 Supreme Court finding cited by "Wilbert"), you'll find that the Department of Justice continues to aggressively pursue and successfully prosecute (including jail sentences) people it refers to as having perpetrated "intellectual property theft". Read the entire content of each of the following links:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060620.html
Multiple references to "intellectual property theft"

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ip.html
"criminal copyright infringement"

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/April/04_crm_263.htm
"We are committed to combating this theft and will pursue these thieves regardless of their location.”

And then, there's the "Family Entertainment Copyright Act":

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00167:@@@D&summ2=m&

[Wilbert]

Maybe not, but here in the U.S. (based on a far more current successful implementation of felony laws than the 1985 Supreme Court finding cited by "Wilbert"), you'll find that the Department of Justice continues to aggressively pursue and successfully prosecute (including jail sentences) people it refers to as having perpetrated "intellectual property theft".
Just because your DoJ calls it theft, that doesn't imply it is theft. It's up to the courts to address that.

[delacroixp]

The American legal system has developed an ever increasing level of sophistication... to deal with ever more subtle means of theft... which is probably a real sign of 'progress and developement' and...
Software Piracy is theft as much as stealing a TV, breathing oxygen (if someone else is getting less or not enough) or spying on your neighbours wife tanning nude in the backyard...

Sure, theft is theft, if you can prove it or anybody cares about it anyway... but is theft always a bad thing...
What happenned to the good ol days of Robin Hood when it was a noble cause (among many) to steal from the rich and give to the poor......
Picasso said: 'Bad artists copy. Good artists steal. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/pablo_picasso.html)'.

Life is all about theft... if you believe it...


:):D:eek:
Pascal

[setarip_old]

@Wilbert

Please read the content of the last link I provided:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00167:@@@D&summ2=m&

The "Familiy Copyright Act" is now a LAW in the U.S. - and it refers to THEFT of intellectual property:Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 109-9Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 -Title I: Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention - Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005 or ART Act"But, perhaps more importantly, semantics aside, the activities covered by this law (and the others that the DOJ is operating under) define them as CRIMINAL (not simply civil") behavior...

[Wilbert]

@setarip_old,


Please read the content of the last link I provided:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@D&summ2=m&

The "Familiy Copyright Act" is now a LAW in the U.S. - and it refers to THEFT of intellectual property:
Did you even read it yourself? In the act itself, it is not stated that copyright infringement is theft. Theft is not even mentioned in the act itself, except only in the name of the act (in my view for misleading purposes).

[setarip_old]

@Wilbert

This law, as well as several of the other newer than 1985 laws that the DOJ is utilizing, refer to either "theft" or "criminal" or "felonious" in their titles. The title is a blanket for that entire law.

And yes, I certainly did read "Family Copyright Act" (which is now a law)that states, among other things:(Title I: Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Sec. 103) Establishes criminal penalties for willful copyright infringement by the distribution of a computer program, musical work, motion picture or other audiovisual work, or sound recording being prepared for commercial distribution by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if the person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.As I said previously, But, perhaps more importantly, semantics aside, the activities covered by this law (and the others that the DOJ is operating under) define them as CRIMINAL (not simply "civil") behavior.

I guess if some of the posters to this thread cannot accept the term "theft", perhaps they should simply substitute the phrase "criminal act"...

[Wilbert]

This law, as well as several of the other newer than 1985 laws that the DOJ is utilizing, refer to either "theft" or "criminal" or "felonious" in their titles. The title is a blanket for that entire law.
No it's not. What matters is what is stated in the law. Ask Adam about this if you want an opinion of a legal expert.

I guess if some of the posters to this thread cannot accept the term "theft", perhaps they should simply substitute the phrase "criminal act"...
I don't disagree with this.

[setarip_old]

I don't disagree with this.Okay...

By the way, with no slight intended toward "Adam" - As I've posted here and at several other forums, I don't believe it's a wise thing to seek legal advice or opinions from posters at forums, who can claim to be anything they choose ;>}

[int 21h]

This thread is painful to read. I won't take the time to inline quote all of the things I disagree with or have counter points to, but hopefully whoever I am replying to will take care of that for me ;)


While circumventing CSS is certainly illegal in the United States under the DMCA, the following passage in the DMCA provides anyone taken to court for simply copying DVDs to their hard drives with what is known as an 'affirmative' defense:
"(d) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." That means that while you may still be arrested and taken to court for it, as long as that is the only crime you are charged with, and as long as you can prove that is what you were actually doing, it is unlikely you will be found guilty (think self defense in a murder case, etc.) This does not give you the right to copy DVDs to your hard drive, make copies, and distribute them to your friends because of course this action would then invalidate your fair use defense, but for persons out there legitimately backing up DVDs that they own, copying those DVDs to their iPods, etc. there is a legal defense.
Operation Buccaneer wasn't specifically targeted at DoD, or any group really. It was a typical law enforcement sting. One of the bigger goals was gathering information (this is common in any type of sting, drugs, mafia, etc.). Well, if DoD wasn't specifically targeted, why did we hear so much about them? DoD was made an example of because most of the members were doing more than just 'copyright infringement'. Some of them were selling apps and games on the side, one or two were involved in carding (in fact, many times hardware that winds up on a Topsite is obtained in this manner), they weren't just uploading and trading software. Many of the DoD people initially got pretty unrealistic sentences because they stonewalled authorities... except for Kent Kartadinata (email admin) who turned and in exchange, got no prison time. In almost all of the cases, after they were sentenced, their sentences were later reduced to much more realistic lengths (46 months -> 18 months, 30 months -> 30 days, 41 months -> 6 months community confinement [no jail]).
Customs didn't go after the pirates, the pirates went after the pirates. James Cudnay came forward and offered logs+info for cash. He gave the feds the start to what they needed to go through with the operation, mainly information and an inside man. After they had that, they setup the fed Topsites to get evidence for arrests.
In my opinion, copyright owners who fail to protect their copyright are just as culpable. What kind of decrease in piracy has Microsoft seen after the implementation of online activation? And then WGA? No government can be expected to protect everyone and their property from every eventuality, owners have to take some of the responsibility.
Microsoft should be seen as a sort of aberration. Any computer with Windows on it, even pirated Windows, will increase their market share. Therefore they go after large distributors, large operations, etc. This has also been the case in the past (i.e. DirecTV waited until they had significant market share then began wide scale litigation and enforcement).
The FCA was not the first act that made it illegal to distribute copyrighted materials online, the NET act was. The FCA simply made the penalties steeper. You can thank Bill Clinton and his Republican controlled congress for both the NET and the DMCA.

[Asiadeep]

I suppose the whole idea we're talking about here is harm and if harm has been inflicted by any party onto another party. If we look at the back-up scenario although technically illegal does not cause harm unless the back-up copy finds its way to a non-paying person who uses the software.

If it is a person burning a cd with programs to give to his neighbour then some harm would have been done but not much.

If a person puts up the software on a warez site and 10000 people download and install the software without paying for it then huge amounts of harm would have been done and ofcoz the punishment should be appropriate the the harm caused.

[celtic_druid]

What if the neighbour never would have bought that software? What harm is done there? What if by using this pirated software they convince their employeer to buy it for work? What harm was done then? What if they are a teacher and they tell their students about this great software and 20% of them buy it? What if they think it is great, a new version comes out and they decide to buy it?

Take the warez site. Out of those 10,000 probably half will install but never use it. Out of the remaining 5,000 how many would have bought it if it wasn't free? Once again how many of them will buy updates, convince other people to buy copies, get jobs based on the skills they have learnt? How many people here got to know Photoshop by using a pirated copy?

On a site like this you probably have people doing video production (weddings and stuff). What if they start off using pirated software, but then expand and then have the resources to buy legitimate software (the larger you are the more risk and the lower the prices seem)? Were the companies who made the software hurt? What if instead they decided to borrow lots of money to buy all this software, but then their business fails? They aren't going to be buying updates or extra copies or spending money on other things with the loan to pay back.

Is there any definitive research on the harm done? Because anyone can just make numbers up (see above).

[foxyshadis]

I don't think there ever has been; I imagine if you went into a warez chat asking people to fill out a survey, you might have a hard time getting any responses, let alone honest ones, from the smarter folks.

New game piracy has little redeeming side, few who go through the hassle of pirating will later buy new if the people I've known are any indication, since new distractions will have come out by the time they could buy (although abandonware, renting, and used games both give the same amount back to the publisher, zilch, so there's a strong argument to be made there), while top-end applications like Photoshop took the market partly by documented mass piracy conversions (some BSA strong-arming, some simple conscience). Where any particular application lies is impossible to just guess at.

[int 21h]

...
Take the warez site. Out of those 10,000 probably half will install but never use it. Out of the remaining 5,000 how many would have bought it if it wasn't free? Once again how many of them will buy updates, convince other people to buy copies, get jobs based on the skills they have learnt? How many people here got to know Photoshop by using a pirated copy?
...

In the United States, 'harm' isn't considered in cases of copyright infringement in the general sense. Instead, the effect of the use upon the potential market for and value of the copyrighted work. This is considered along with the three other factors of the fair use provision (purpose or character of use, nature of the copyrighted work, and amount used in relation to the work).

In addition to the law's actual text, in the US legal system, precedence is also strongly considered. And with regards to computer software, bit by bit copies of the software, and distribution of the software, previous cases have pretty much all but established what will remain the law for many years to come.

Even if someone would have never bought the copyrighted work in the first place, their use of the work substantially compromises the ability of the copyright's holder to market the work to the user. Further, the court has already ruled that if the use in question essentially duplicates the original work and serves as a market replacement for the work, market harm has occurred.

Of those 10,000 warez users, 10,000 have infringed the copyright by simply making an unauthorized bit by bit copy of the work. What they do after that is irrelevant in US case law.

Let's say that the original copyright holder was gone, the software was no longer marketed, all applicable patents had expired, and the product you were distributing was for the students in your class to be educated with, well then perhaps this would be considered fair use of the copyrighted work.

Also remember, there is still the distinction between civil and criminal. It is possible that a fair use defense in criminal court would be successful and fail in civil court resulting in a judgement against you.

Finally, realize I am not saying that these laws are just or that the consideration of what the person does when they infringe shouldn't be taken into account, etc. I am simply informing you of the current laws that are on the books and the cases that will be considered when a copyright infringement claim (or charge) comes to a court. If you live in the US and don't like these laws, get involved and vote (one of the lowest voter turn outs in the world!). Also, on this forum I am not a lawyer, my discussion should not be construed as legal advice in any shape or form. If in doubt about what you are doing, contact an attorney in real life in your jurisdiction.

[Dr.Khron]

Really interesting discussion going on here... of course, its an OLD argument, but its being well-argued here. I remember having similar discussions over a 300 baud modem on static bulletin boards.

It also reminds me of an old Jewish joke... (for some reason, its much funnier if you say it with a "Fiddler on The Roof" type accent)

The old Rabbi says: Why is prostitution the greatest business?

"Because you got it, you sell it... you still got it!"

[Paragon]

I agree very interesting. I am one of those people in the try it before you buy it category. I own every stitch of software on my computer. I tried every one of them first before I paid money for it. Lets face it, some software is as much as a car. I test drive cars before I buy them, and TV's and every tangible item I spend money on. Is it ok to buy software that doesn't do all as advertised? So I appreciate the work that the warez scene puts out. The software companies do well when releasing time lock try before you buy. It lets consumers decide if the software does as advertised. I would surmise and I say lightly "surmise" if all were time lock, the general public would make the purchases based on software performance. I evaluated 4 3D CAD packages before settling on Solidworks. It was nice to have time lock to compare apples to apples. But far enough off topic. Fact remains, without any sort of evaluation I will look for underground to make sure it fits my needs.

[delacroixp]

The old Rabbi says: Why is prostitution the greatest business?

"Because you got it, you sell it... you still got it!"
I've seen many burnt-out programmers... not physically, but mentally... which is possibly the true source of inspiration, even for a prostitute...


:):D:eek:
Pascal

[SkilledAbbot]

I think we have to take it to song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOBroA2NPNY