Posted on 10/23/2006 9:07:01 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Our law is now BS? You seemed to be holding it so high and mighty recently.
I just established that according to the information in the article they are not criminals. They may be liable for civil tort, but not criminal prosecution. IOW, they are not criminals as you claim (even if we assume they would lose any trial).
I know simple facts are difficult for you, but please try to keep up with at least the first graders.
Don't dare try to speak on behalf of our laws. You've already shown you're willing to lie in support those that wish to break them. Quantaties of theft can in fact without question reach criminal levels, such as when hacks are released that allow the pirating of software all over the world. Criminals, stealing from U.S. companies. That you support, with your lies. Lies that you have now admitted to. So simple even I can understand LMAO.
Don't give me that. You just dismissed our entire system of punishing copyright infringement.
Quantaties of theft can in fact without question reach criminal levels, such as when hacks are released that allow the pirating of software all over the world.
Nope, you actually have to be distributing the copyrighted works themselves in excess of $1,000 value in a 180-day period to be eligible for criminal prosecution under the NET Act. The article didn't say they were distributing OS X itself.
Contributory infringement (creating the means by which another can infringe) is not criminal unless it falls under the DMCA provisions, which still require profit, and none is shown in the article. Didn't you notice how the recent victories against file sharing companies were in civil court, not criminal?
Sorry, but the facts and the law are against you. What these hackers did does not carry any criminal penalties in this country, only civil. That doesn't mean that what they did was necessarily right, it only means that you were wrong in saying they were committing criminal offenses.
Wrong as usual. Provably wrong as usual. The copyright law is before you, the NET Act and the DMCA, as well as the rest of Titles 17 & 18 USC.
Shut up or quote me some law to prove me wrong.
LOL, this is hysterical. antiRepublican defending Russian hackers with the "180 day period to be eligible" rule. LMAO.
the NET Act and the DMCA, as well as the rest of Titles 17 & 18 USC.
Don't insult us again with your slander of our laws. Your only concern is how to exploit them, not enforce them. You're even willing to lie about these things, as you've admitted you've done before, on purpose, to confuse the facts as you wage your defense of these criminals.
17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2). And it's not "180 day period to be eligible," you can qualify for criminal prosecution in seconds. Again, it's the law, and it helps if you know it.
Don't insult us again with your slander of our laws.
If I'm wrong, then cite some law to the contrary, otherwise shut up or admit you're wrong. You did say you were capable of it.
Those were your words not mine. I simply quoted them. Sounds like you may even have a job defending criminal Russian hackers. Do you lie for them in court as well? You've already been busted for lying for them on this site.
Taken out of context to twist their meaning as usual. It was "in excess of $1,000 value in a 180-day period to be eligible" That means that giving away $1,000 worth of software in one second makes you eligible. I cited the law, I didn't write it. Talk to Congress if you have any complaints, but as it stands now they are potentially liable for civil infringement at most. IOW, your "criminal" statement is libel (but libel is nothing new for you, is it?).
You've already been busted for lying for them on this site.
No I haven't. You try to make it sound like I got busted leading you on, when I disclosed the truth myself after I felt the joke had run on long enough. You never even caught it, and you could not have caught it because you didn't have enough knowledge to do so (which was the whole point, mister security expert).
So is this your next case antiRepublican? Suing me for libel on behalf of your criminal Russian hacker clients? Good Luck LMAO.
I disclosed the truth myself
Yes, we know, you finally admitted you had lied, on purpose, in defense of the criminal Russian hackers. I have the link of course, from just the other day, in case you need it.
Yes, we are aware you see yourself as a master liar, that feels he can get away with lying for months while defending Russian hackers. Which is why no one can believe a word you say.
Wow that was a thing of beauty.... I never get tired of watching you string him along until he hangs himself.
It's bad enough we have globalist scum at the helm of Microsoft...but I figured Stallman's true colors of globalism would rear its ugly head one day. I guess I was right. Eventually Linux security will be no better than Windows security.
LOL so here comes some hacker that goes by the ID of "N3WBI3" telling antiRepublican his defense of criminal Russian hackers "was a thing of beauty". Hilarious, obviously, it was the ultimate incrimination LMAO.
You have still failed to define their crime..
Violating the license that governs the use of Apple's software, quite obviously. If it was Richard Stallman's GPL license that was being violated, you'd be running in the streets screaming bloody murder LOL. But Apple's software is a premium product, not some freeware givaway that already has 400 versions.
If it was Richard Stallman's GPL license that was being violated ....
I would not call the offenders criminal.
You have not shown any evidence whatsoever that their actions could be criminal. Subject to civil tort, yes. Criminal, no. Unlike you, I actually brushed up on the LAW before I made a claim on a law-related issue. You apparently like to make up the law as you go.
Yes, we know, you finally admitted you had lied, on purpose, in defense of the criminal Russian hackers.
No, to show you for a fraud. Big difference, and quite successful.
Your rantings can't distract from the fact that you've been had a second time, buried by your own ignorance. And this time I made sure to lead you on in the form of questions so you can't go running around saying I lied.
I would, depending on the case. Cisco/Linksys, for example, distributed copyrighted works without a license for the purposes of commercial advantage and financial gain. This is a violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1), part of the criminal provisions of the Copyright Act. If convicted, those responsible would have been subject to prison terms and the forfeiture of all their routers (at least the firmware) and the equipment used to produce them. Cisco got off lightly.
The amusing part is that in this article Lyons defends these "criminals," and GE defends Lyons. Thus, by proxy, GE is the one here defending criminals. And unlike GE I actually cited the section of criminal code and how they violated it.
Thanks for not blowing it early like that spoil-sport Swordmaker did earlier. ;^)
I obviously can, and will. You've already admitted to it, multiple times, including on this very thread when you yourself said quote "Yes, I lied". You won't ever lie your way out of that LOL.
You'll go running around saying I lied when all I did was ask you questions in order to force you to plainly state your false position so that I could counter it with the law? Now THAT'S a lie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.