From owner-freebsd-chat Sun May 3 20:01:37 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA28367 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 20:01:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA28357 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 20:01:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36]) by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA10288; Mon, 4 May 1998 03:01:29 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id FAA02217; Mon, 4 May 1998 05:01:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19980504050129.52485@follo.net> Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 05:01:29 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: "Matthew N. Dodd" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/ijb - Imported sources References: <19980504041342.42915@follo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: ; from Matthew N. Dodd on Sun, May 03, 1998 at 10:41:43PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 10:41:43PM -0400, Matthew N. Dodd wrote: > On Mon, 4 May 1998, Eivind Eklund wrote: > > Blocking software a la ijb only end up repeating the endless war between > > crackers/pirates (that's you), and those writing copy/content protection. > > I beg your pardon. I don't believe that you have any valid basis for > calling me a cracker/pirate. You've gone a bit too far too quickly on > your moral high horse. Ah, so you _do_ have a respect for copyright at some level. Neat - it means there is some way to evoke your feelings ;-) You're employing a crack (that's ijb) to avoid paying for (that's viewing ads) the production of software/content. You may or may not be inside the law - that's not something that I'm qualified to determine. However, it is fairly clear that what you're doing deprive the rightful owner/creator of their payment - which is what is the point of piracy. It might not feel like it, but in practice it has the exact same results. You don't have to like it, but I can't see any reason to retract my statement :-( > > I don't even remember if that was the correct case. I remember that > > there is a California statute against 'instruments for crime' or > > information which makes things work as an instrument for crime; I'm not > > certain if it came up in the Neidorf case. I remember having seen it in > > use about 5 years ago, and I think I remember it being in CUD. I'd have > > to dig through old CUDs to find it - I haven't saved them (I haven't > > read CUD for 5 years or so, so it is some time ago). > > This isn't the 'criminal paraphernalia' (most of the junk I haul around in > my backsack could be considered such) is it? Thats so broad as to be > absurd. Porobably. It was used against people selling blue boxes at one time, and I believe it was attempted employed against Craig (but I might remember wrongly here). > However, since you seem to be a practicing copyright lawyer I'll have to > defer my opinions and conjecture on this issue to your expert judgements. I'm not in any way a practicing lawyer (as if you didn't know that ;-). I attempt to be a practicing ethical human being; I don't even always pass that test... Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message