Posted on 01/20/2007 1:24:47 AM PST by Swordmaker
Another lie, of course. I never gave it a pass, I simply refuted your claim it was a criminally punishable offense, which you attempted to claim as an excuse for the actual criminal actions of the foreign hackers you have endlessly supported with other lies. Just like when you lied and tried to claim the US DoD extensively used software from Russian hackers as an excuse for their criminal actions, a charade you carried on for months before finally admitting it was complete BS. There's obviously nothing you won't try as an excuse your foreign hacker heroes, it has now gone on for almost a year and you're still lying and attempting pitiful misdirects with every single post.
I never claimed it should be. I showed in law where it can be, and that law applies exactly the same to the "criminal" (according to you) OS X hackers and DVD backups. And I showed how by your previous logic, using your own posts, how you think such actions are illegal, if not criminal. However, in post #56 you don't seem to think backing up one's own media is a bad thing.
Back to the question: Why do you rail against some circumventions that violate the DMCA and not this one? Remember, it's your opinion I'm asking for to add some perspective that would make your posts consistent. There's no previously unmentioned legal or technical aspect like I've caught you on before.
Just like when you lied...
Since you keep posting this over and over and over, I can only assume that my little test had a far greater effect that I could have ever imagined. A woman scorned...
No I simply refuted your inference from 45 it was criminal, which it isn't, nor do you have any case history to show it can be, meanwhile you've endlessly lied in the face of case history that your foreign hacker heroes couldn't have possibly been criminal, even attempting to trot out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution" on their behalf and calling Apple's letter threatening criminal prosecution quote "BS". You can keep lying and lying lying trying to lower the bar for the criminal actions of your foreign hacker heroes, but there's no way to lie your way out of what you're trying to do, talking in circles and trying to put words in my mouth is obviously failing for you as well.
You refuted nothing. You in the past called criminal the same action (circumvention) on another copyrighted work. I was just applying your logic to the situation. What I want to know is what is different about the two situations that makes one criminal/illegal and the other not.
you've endlessly lied in the face of case history that your foreign hacker heroes couldn't have possibly been criminal
Lie. I said your claim to them being criminal was unsupported since there was 1) no evidence of financial gain, and 2) they weren't distributing OS X itself in quantities to qualify for criminal prosecution (that's the "180 day rule" that is our law that you keep mocking).
LOL don't worry, your attempted BS is perfectly clear, you've been defending your foreign hacker heroes that distributed hacks for months insisting they couldn't have been criminal, despite criminal case history and letters from Apple threatening criminal prosecution, but you now want to claim personal backups somehow ARE criminal, instead. It's obviously just a failed ploy on your behalf to yet again attempt to excuse your foreign hacker heroes that create and distribute illegal hacks by bluring the lines between what is criminal and what is not. Obviously not working, you exposed your evil intent long ago by trying to cite the "180 day rule" on behalf of the foreign criminals, making up lies about the US DoD using software written by foreign hackers, calling Apple's letter threatening criminal prosecution of your heroes "BS", etc etc etc.
You still haven't told me why you think DVD backups are fine, but the others aren't.
More deceit and talking in circles, completely backwards in fact. I said personal backups of LP's are fine, and what you should have done instead of illegally downloading digital copies from someone else without a license, which you have admitted to doing instead. You simply can't face the facts of the discussion in a single post, your lies are so thick they consume your every word and you appear to be babbling incoherently at this point LOL.
No, this was, as I told you, in response to #56. In that post you don't seem to have a problem with personal backups.
The word "DVD" never even appears in post 56, which is simply further proof of you lies. Personal backups of some things such as LP's are fine, and I was clearly referring to you illegally downloading digital copies from someone else without a license, which you have admitted to doing instead of making LEGAL personal backups. You simply can't face the facts of the discussion in a single post, your lies are so thick they completely consume your every word.
Context. #56 is a reply to my #45, which was written to someone who rips (backs-up) his DVDs to his hard drive. Backing up DVDs is the context of this whole conversation, so don't try to pull it off context.
which you have admitted to doing instead of making LEGAL personal backups
Which I can't do, as you know. So if backups of an LP are legal, are backups of DVDs legal too?
I have Photoshop, so .NET paint is pretty much useless for me. But .NET is rather fun. I call 1.1 a beta, but 2.0 just works great. Almost anything I need is automatically in the libraries. I went to do some encryption and ta-da! everything I needed was right there, easy to use with only Intellisense to guide me.
Yes, your post 45, which started your latest lies when you inferred it was "criminal", while you have no proof it is criminal, yet in fact have admitted to lying for months on behalf of other actual criminals, namely the Russian hackers that distributed cracks of Apple's OSX operating system. That is clearly the context that brought on your latest batch of lies, trying to equate non-criminal actions to the actual criminals you've been supporting with lies all along, now desperately trying to put words in my mouth and laughably claim I support illegal much less criminal activity. LOL you're the perfect example of liberal madness, what's great is you don't mind being on endless display. I don't think I've ever seen anyone melt down to the level you have, all in the defense of foreign criminals LMAO.
No, I inferred that by your previous logic it might be criminal. What, no more "The word "DVD" never even appears in post 56"? Your attempt at an out-of-context diversion didn't work.
now desperately trying to put words in my mouth and laughably claim I support illegal much less criminal activity
Actually, I'm asking you why you don't appear to think that backing up a DVD, or the tools with which to do it, are illegal.
No, Factually, that is another lie, since you're not asking that at all, you understand the difference between "illegal" and "criminal", and are now simply trying to blur the terms in an attempt to excuse actual criminals. Here are your own words LOL over what constitutes a criminal offense: Simply violating a license by not abiding by the terms (if those terms are deemed enforceable by the court) is a civil tort, not a crime, thus, no "criminals." .
LOL you can't just keep jumping from thread to thread trying to claim something completely opposite, although it's quite obvious you're trying to lower the bar and falsely claim something is criminal, to make an excuse for something else that actually IS criminal, and obviously worse. That link is hilarious though, you beg and beg on behalf of those foreign hackers that what they did wasn't criminal, only to go down in flames, just like you are here.
True, but we're not talking about the violation of a license. We're talking about the violation of the DMCA, which forbids circumvention of DRM. If you backup a DVD (a violation of Sec. 1201, DMCA) and it saves you the purchase price of a new DVD, then you've personally gained financially from the circumvention, which invokes Sec. 1204 of the DMCA, making the backup liable for criminal prosecution.
Now that's simply the law. And it is the same law you have, even if unknowingly, applied to the HD-DVD cracker and the OS X crackers who committed the exact same act (circumvention of a copyright protection device).
So what is your opinion? Do you think backing up a DVD is at least illegal? This is your opinion I'm asking for, not the law, not precedent, just GE's opinion as to whether backing up your own DVD is illegal.
I have Photoshop also... some people cant afford it... paint.net is a good editor for FREE.. ;)
More lies, as clearly a portion of the Apple case involved cracking Apple's DRM, which you insisted for months couldn't have been criminal. Remember you trotting out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution" on behalf of your foreign hacker heroes, and insisting they had to distribute the entire O/S to qualify as criminal, which of course turned out to be a another lie. Yet here you are trying to lie your way out of it again, being an admittedly Godless man who has no morals, no shame either obviously but I'm willing to keep bumping this thread because while it's mainly a waste of bandwidth it shows the depth of your evil and how far you're willing to go to defend foreign criminals.
... according to the information in the article, which showed no financial gain on the part of the hackers. Why do you keep going around in circles?
Remember you trotting out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution" on behalf of your foreign hacker heroes, and insisting they had to distribute the entire O/S to qualify as criminal
You were the one falsely claiming they were distributing the OS itself, which would allow prosecution under a law different than the DMCA. I explained that law to you, and you keep mocking that law. This is just a rehash too in order to avoid the issue at hand, which is DVD backups.
Yet here you are trying to lie your way out of it again, being an admittedly Godless man
I can always tell when you are losing, because you bring this up. You were caught on doing this before.
So back to the question: In your personal opinion, which can't be right or wrong, just your opinion, is backing up your own personal DVD illegal? If not, why?
More lies, as I've already shown you to be the one talking in circles, trying to claim the Russian hackers weren't criminal but that personal backups somehow are, which of course you know to be false and still have no case history or letters threatenning criminal prosecution, as I have repeatedly shown in the case of the Russian hackers that you laughably called "BS".
You were the one falsely claiming they were distributing the OS itself
Yet another obvious lie, as I have already linked above your exact quotes claimming the Russian hackers had to be distributing OSX itself before their actions could be criminal, and where I clearly exposed your lie and showed criminal prosecution of other Russians who simply distributed a crack and not the software package itself.
is backing up your own personal DVD illegal?
An irrelevant question, with the clear intent of bluring the lines between criminal and illegal, as you continue your attempts to excuse the actual foreign criminals you've been defending with lies for months, which started again on this thread in post 45. LOL you're so far gone even your hell hound FLAMING DEATH has abandoned you this time LMAO.
Simply wrong. I said the article showed no evidence that what they were doing could be liable for criminal prosecution, since no personal financial gain was shown. It is the financial gain that is necessary for criminal prosecution in a DMCA circumvention case. Despite the lack of evidence, you continued to call them criminal. You didn't say possibly criminal, you said criminal.
which of course you know to be false and still have no case history or letters threatenning criminal prosecution
I don't need those. I simply need the law, which as clearly stated can make personal DVD backups criminal.
and where I clearly exposed your lie and showed criminal prosecution of other Russians who simply distributed a crack and not the software package itself.
Again you confuse the applicable laws. You said they were distributing OS X itself, which was a lie. Distributing OS X would not require personal financial gain or profit to be criminal according to the NET Act. But this is about the DMCA, circumvention. And as you've been told many times before, the Elcomsoft case started with an admitted for-profit motive, as opposed to this one.
A good lawyer knows not to use a precedent when it actually hurts his case. Take the advice.
An irrelevant question, with the clear intent of bluring the lines between criminal and illegal,
No, it goes back to the beginning of this, which you have been avoiding. ALL of your previous posts on the subject of circumvention have shown you think it is illegal, if not criminal. I want to know if you think that applies to personal backups.
To mollify your cries of "equivalence" I will state that I do not think that a hacker ripping DVDs so he can put them on the 'net is a good thing. That makes him a bad person who infringes on the rights of others and raises the prices for all of us. I don't use the term "theft" because that is legally incorrect and too soft a term -- they violated someone's rights, which is worse than theft in my book. And as you know I am on the record for supporting fair use despite DRM measures that try to prevent it.
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.