Posted on 01/20/2007 1:24:47 AM PST by Swordmaker
More lies in defense of the foreign criminals that not only circumvented Apple's DRM but distributed the circumvention to the world at large. Your attempts to compare those crominal actions to personal backups, which can be legal as in the case of LP's, is absurd, especially since you yourself refused to legally perform personal backups and illegally downloaded seperate content instead. You've also already outright admitted to knowingly lying on these subjects, which is apparently feel you might as well lie in every future post, but obviously that tactic is doomed to failure, however it will allow me to continue to bump this thread so others will see your evil intent.
But that's not the question. The question is whether you think a backup of a DVD is legal. An LP doesn't have the DRM that brings the DMCA into play. A CD doesn't have DRM, yet the RIAA has stated that ripping (a backup) is not fair use, i.e., it infringes on copyright.
especially since you yourself refused to legally perform personal backups
I didn't refuse. I didn't have the means. You know this, yet you persist in your libel.
You've also already outright admitted to knowingly lying on these subjects
Really? Prove it. Notice plural, "these subjects," aside from the fact that my test of you wasn't even about any of these subjects, instead being on the subject of network security tools.
No that remains irrelevant, other than additional proof of your evil intent. You clearly used the word "criminal", not "illegal", in post 45, to lower the bar of acceptability for the actual criminal behavior of the foreign hackers you have been defending for months with lies. Further lies aren't helping you, you're already on the record insisting the Russian hackers weren't criminal, now trying to claim something else is criminal without equivalent proof is just more proof of your deceit.
No, I used it because both people who backup a DVD and foreign hackers circumvent DRM, which is covered by the DMCA. This is aside from the fact that foreigners who do no business here aren't subject to our laws (Elcomsoft sold their PDF cracking program in America).
Are you saying that motive has something to do with whether it's illegal?
Further lies aren't helping you, you're already on the record insisting the Russian hackers weren't criminal
False. I'm on the record insisting that you provided no evidence that they qualified for criminal prosecution IAW Sec. 1204, DMCA or the NET Act.
now trying to claim something else is criminal without equivalent proof
The proof that was required was any evidence of personal financial gain, which you didn't provide. However, anyone who backs up a DVD (Sec. 1201, DMCA) and takes advantage of that backup due to destruction of the original does by definition meet that personal financial gain requirement for criminal prosecution (Sec. 1204, DMCA) because he financially gained from not having to buy a replacement DVD. Likewise, those hackers selling their OS X slipstreaming tool would have fallen under Sec. 1204 -- but the tool was free.
Now quit going around in circles. I've explained all of this before several times, and even you can't be that dense.
Do you personally think that backing up a DVD is illegal? If not, why?
I did throw away the mickey mouse-mouse, however, and got a regular mouse to go with my mac.
I can work (potography), watch tv on the mac or listen to music at the same time I'm surfing here. And I never have to worry about a systems crash. Mac goes to sleep at night, and behaves like a good boy every morning when I wake him up. He does what is asked of him, and he doesn't give me trouble, and I don't have to read parenting manuals to figure him out! LOL
This is another obviously contradictory lie, as you have endlessly claimed the foreign hackers couldn't possibly be criminal, but those making personal backups now somehow magically are, despite having no threatening letters, previous case history, etc. Face it, you've been busted trying to lower the criminal bar for your foreign hacker heroes by claiming something else is criminal without having equivalent evidence. It's actually worse than that LOL since you still insist your foreign hacker friends couldn't even be criminal in the first place, apparently according to you everyone BUT them are the criminals now LMAO.
The first gen Mac-mini with OS 10.4xx and the latest Win Vista press has me convinced that I will replace 3 of the 4 Win boxes I have with Macs, and leave the last Win box with XP Pro .
re: Processing digital photgraphy on the Mac, what software are you using?
A bit more? Photoshop Elements.
A bit more? I hand it over to my husband so he can work his magic in PS2. LOL
Apperture's pretty neat, but it doesn't take the place of PS. I have the 24 inch screen. Whoa. I can process and watch the news at the same time. LOL The larger screen was definitely worth the money. Great for comparing captures. And the sound system is not too bad, especially when your hearing isn't so great anymore, and you can't hear all the highs and the lows anyway. :) It's my high def tv in this room.
The iPhoto slideshow is extremely easy for simple viewing.
Are you a pro photog?
Oops. I'm using Photoshop Elements 4, and hubby uses CS2...??? I'm terrible remembering letters. Anyway, I think you get the point!
I've read the Vista takes the initiative to DOWNGRADE reproduction of "suspect" sounds and images. To maintain predictable resolution, i've read, you need to avoid Vista. True?
What were the specs for WinXP? I recall 64 minimum and 256 recommended. Ever try to run XP on 64mb? Everyone knows XP's a coffee grinder if you run it with less than 512.
It's a simple task to extrapolate from that eXPerience to Vista.
You continue to labor under the misconception that an act is only criminal if it has been criminally prosecuted. If a statute makes an act a crime, then committing that act is a crime, even if the perpetrator is never prosecuted....even if the statute is so new that NO ONE has ever been prosecuted for that act.
If backing up your DVDs is defined as a crime, you commit that crime when you copy that DVD. Prosecuted or not, in that hypothetical, the act is still criminal.
No, there is a difference between "illegal" and "criminal", if you follow the links above back to antiRepublican's defense of the Russian hacker's distribution of OSX cracks, search for the word "criminal" and look at how many times he basically admits it was illegal but claims it couldn't have been criminal. It's obvious he understands the literal difference, but was caught here trying to merge the two together to lower the bar for criminal actions, whereas before he was claiming a much more serious offense was simply illegal but not criminal. That's his game though, talk in circles, and baffle the casual reader with BS, it's too bad you fell for it, although I'm sure he's grinning about it.
A statute can make an act criminal even if that act is never prosecuted.
I haven't fallen for anything.
The request he provide letters threatening criminal prosecution, case history of criminal prosecution, etc, is because that is what I provided when he was attempting to claim the Russian hackers couldn't have possibly been criminal. He also lied in claiming that OSX had to be distributed for their actions to be criminal, which I quoted and linked above, making his current claims that personal backups are somehow criminal instead of the Russian hackers all the more ludicrous.
I saw that exchange. Your description of it is just not accurate.
...making his current claims that personal backups are somehow criminal...
What you call "his current claims" are in fact his attempts to argue the force of your position (although he has made it clear that position is not his own).
...instead of the Russian hackers all the more ludicrous.
"Instead of?"
I did not see on this thread where he claimed the OSX hack was NOT illegal but ripping DVDs is. I have seen where you claim he said that, several times. But your shrill repitition does not serve to make it any more true.
[Courtesy ping to Antirepublicrat.]
Here is his quote I linked above, which is merely one of them from the former thread, it's quite clear he is now attempting to claim a lesser offense somehow IS actually criminal, without subjecting it to his own previous requirements for criminal.
What you call "his current claims" are in fact his attempts to argue the force of your position
My position is obvious, he needs to provide equal evidence that personal backups of one's own media is more "criminal" than distributing cracks to the entire world. I've shown case history and threatening letters that distributing cracks is more criminal, yet he's called that "BS" without having anything equivalent of his own.
I did not see on this thread where he claimed the OSX hack was NOT illegal
You're lost again. "Criminal" is the context, not "illegal". He brought the word up in post 45, and the overall context is he's been defending these hackers from Russia for almost a year now, insisting they weren't "criminal", even trotting out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution", and claiming Apple's letter threatening "criminal" prosecution was quote "BS", all linked above. He clearly brought up the word in the one false context he thought he could pretend, that personal backups were equivalent to the actions of the Russian hackers, which he might even believe himself. But since there's no factual reason to believe that, he's had to resort to lying once again, something he's already admitted to knowingly doing before, including when he knowingly made up lies regarding the US Department of Defense, only to claim months later it was some sort of "trick" he was trying to play, to make up these lies about the US DoD on behalf of his Russian hackers, then claimed it was quote "fun", accused me of sex with goats and other psychotic babble. You can read more here, by all means please do.
He's not doing that at all. You're delusional. I've been following these threads and you seem to believe you can make your claims into truth by sheer repetition.
The reality is that you are a laughingstock. Your babbling is not as lucid as that of an irrational Greenwich Village panhandler.
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.