(no subject)

[deathboy]

sorry, who's the sad fuck here?

some of the biggest and best hacker/crackers of all time (DrinkorDie crew) or the prosecution that likens them, to Jack Sparrow, "night-time tappers of keyboards"

"You might feel that their lives are rather sad, living as they do for very large parts of their days and nights in a virtual world, in front of a computer monitor, cocooned from existence."

Demagogue prosecution, anyone?

Burn the geeks! Burn the geeks!

Never mind their actual crimes - these people don't shower much, watch CSI and have no girlfriends - YOU MUST CONVICT!

*pours bottle of gin over floppy disk* - this one's for the DoD crew! *sniff*

Comments

[derleiermann.livejournal.com]

This is kind of incredible, looks like the lawyers have stepped from doing strong solid defenses to recurring to kindergarden strategies in this kind of cases, which I find somehow extremely funny

[deviblue.livejournal.com]

Yes and apparently they were inspired by Johnny Depp in pirates of the caribbean to put pirate copys of Windows 95on the net 2 weeks beofre its realease...and 8 years before that film came out.

hmmm this is starting to sound a lot like a piece from a monty python film. I wonder if the prosecution brought in a large set of scales and a duck to the court room?

[failed-bard.livejournal.com]

I think a good majority of people who actually downloaded the pirated software would have never bought it in the first place. I don't see how a dollar figure could have been placed on piracy to begin with.
If windows hadn't already come with every ibm based computer I have ever owned, I wouldn't have bought it. Why would I? It's inferior. The only reason I tolerate it is because the vast majority of programmers are so lazy they would rather use the windows specific visual cut and paste programming systems, than actually learn how to write their own code.
One of my friends entire job involves him searching the web for pages that do what he wants, and taking the source, changing the comments (if he feels like it), and calling it his own.

As for the legality of what they're doing... Nobody forced anyone to download the software they altered, I'm sure for entirely legal research purposes, except the companies that charge far too much for their software in the first place.


I have issues with authority. I suppose that's obvious from time to time. Without something actually being stolen, I just don't see how it can be called theft.

wwm.

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

the typical issue with 'piracy == theft' (which it does NOT) is that theft involves, by definition, depriving someone of the thing, as well as obtaining the thing illicitly.

The Few, that benefit from intellectual copyright legislation have paid many many bucks into campaigns to indoctrinate the idea that "piracy is theft" because when (I believe 2008 was mooted) we finally stop having new thoughts and just believe what the TV says, they'll be able to scrape an extra 1.4% profit out of our undeserving pockets.

[failed-bard.livejournal.com]

They've pushed hard to get laws changed here since, I can't remember the year, a judge ruled that any signal you can legally receive you are free to do with as you please. It had been in response to descramblers for cable and early sattelite dishes, but is still in effect.
That's why the canadian sattelite companies had the US sattelite signals declared illegal, on the premise that they had not been licensed for broadcast here.

It's all about making the very rich companies that control the governments richer. I don't look at the police and courts as anything but corporate thugs. They certainly don't do the job they're supposed to of 'Maintaining the right', whatever the hell that was supposed to mean.

wwm.

[echo-echo.livejournal.com]

The Origins of Copyright in the US

Though many copyright holders view copyright as an "economic right" that protects their ability to make money off content, US copyright law was actually established to promote the "public good" by encouraging the production and distribution of content. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution states:
The Congress shall have power ...to provide for the ... general welfare of the United States To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; [emphasis added]
The stated goal of copyright is to "provide for the general welfare" and "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by encouraging further creation. The rationale behind copyright is that granting creators temporary monopoly rights over their creations will encourage them to create more. The real goal of copyright is to ensure that new knowledge will be developed and circulated through society.

Underpinning much of the recent rhetoric by the "content industry" is a view of copyright as an unlimited economic right. This logic is misguided since the economic rights granted by copyright are just a byproduct of attempts to fulfill the societal need to increase creativity. Though it granted Congress the power to give creators monopoly control over their creations, the Constitution was careful to set controls on that monopoly by stating that it could only endure for "limited times".

Taken from a UCLA lecturers notes.

One thing I abhor is when the origin and reason for a law becomes either forgotten or twisted to serve other purpose.

[cyberspice.livejournal.com]

Never mind their actual crimes - these people don't shower much, watch CSI and have no girlfriends,

I'll be all right then as I have two girl friends.

The thing about harsh copyright protection and enforcement is that it assumes you have a monopoly on the market.

I could use a pirate version of product A at home. This will not hurt the manufacturer of product A since it is so expensive I'll never buy it anyway. But I like A so much that when I use it at work I pay for it. The company got a sale. If I couldn't use product A I'd use something else. The company still hasn't got any money from me personally but they've lost the business sale too.

If there's an alternative then stopping someone using your product just means they go and use someone else's. In this world of open source and the like, someone else's may be free.

[(Anonymous)]

I saw an article about that the other day, seems like every six months there is another DoD prosecution... sends a shiver down my spine every time I read about it :(

*pours bottle of gin over floppy disk* - this one's for the DoD crew! *sniff*

Thanks dude :(

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

there seems to be a very definite movement to make the convictions big and public, so as to serve as an example, I assume.

poor motherfuckers.

if they were kids, they'd get a suspended sentence and some community service. I don't see how/why they should get jailtime for this... nobody wins that way.

[captainweasel.livejournal.com]

FUck, someone used the Chewbacca Defence for real?

[hexadb.livejournal.com]

The w4r3z b34rz from Russia? :D