Slashdot Mirror
ACTA Could Make Nonprofit P2Ps Face Criminal Penalties
dan of the north writes "Based on sources and leaked documents, Knowledge Ecology International now asserts that ACTA drafts are in fact 'formally available to cleared corporate lobbyists and informally distributed to corporate lawyers and lobbyists in Europe, Japan, and the US.' — The ACTA proposals currently include language that would make copyright infringement on a 'commercial scale,' even when done with 'no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain,' into a criminal matter. Both KEI and Canadian law professor Michael Geist, who has been working his own sources, say that the current proposals require all signatories to 'establish a laundry list of penalties — including imprisonment — sufficient to deter future acts of infringement.'"
There is no way this could be misapplied.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
The ultimate goal of all the "industries". This shifts the burden ( and cost ) to the government ( tax payers ) and even further stigmatizes a 'non societal' act.
It also introduces jail times, long term detention during proceedings and a life time of persecution after prison..
All they will have to do is randomly accuse people with and sit back and watch the show and collect money.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ah, nothing like learning from experience! Make everything a crime. Let's use some tried and tested methods.
It's just our laws are optional anyway ~
Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on
the internet as we know it :(
They may not like the result...
The stuff carrying the Free Licenses would get an extra edge...
Some thoughts on a "Copyright Offensive" - http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
I wonder if they've considered the consequences of jail time... throw a bunch of pissed off computer geeks in the slammer together (I know not everyone who shares copyrighted data is a geek, but just employ your suspension of disbelief for a nano second). Hell, throw in some geeks who haven't downloaded a single "illegal" thing in their life, just for good measure (no innocent people have ever been convicted of a crime, that's unfair to all those guilty people!). Now, simmer on medium heat for 3-5 years, good behavior.
;)
I predict a huge swell in the number of computer criminals actually doing harm to society in the next, say... 10 years. Those geeks are going to get out of prison and wreak havoc. And all because someone couldn't adapter their business model. Hope those media companies and their lawyers have no fear of identity theft
Notice how Russia and China are conspicuously absent from that list of countries....
We all know who to proxy through now, don't we?
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
It isn't that bad. We have similar law here in Finland. That part has only ever been applied once: When Finland's largest bit torrent tracker was busted a few years ago. The people who ran it got charged with criminal charges.
In all lesser cases the courts have been sure that individuals downloading music for some personal use and sharing some files hasn't been enough to cause commercial level profit loss for massive record companies. I have heard (from Teosto's - our RIAA - lawyers though that it could be applicable in other special cases. Such as sharing movie before it came to theaters, etc.)
That said, we haven't had those "These 7 songs meant 2 000 000 dollars of profit loss for our company" type of lawyers.
I seem to vaguely recall some media executive's child being identified as "a pirate" followed by "official apologies" and a case being dropped. I am sure someone else here can fill in those details.
But if this were to go through and actual CRIMINAL complaints filed, does this mean those same children of media executives could be charged criminally or can we expect the same unbalanced application of the law?
If it's not that bad how come you post anonymously?
They are going after non-profit P2P's. You mean like Shareaza, Kaza, Limewire? Who cares? All that stuff is absolute malware riddled crap. Those networks are not worth anything anyways. While outlawing them is problematic for preserving freedom, it would ultimately protect people. I don't support protecting the stupid out of principle, but we won't miss those networks too terribly. At least I won't have to spend so much effort blocking their installations anymore.
I don't think that this applies to the bittorrent protocol and any of those clients either as that is decentralized. The easy solution is for the client to remove all search abilities. Problem solved. Trackers are another issue, but it's not like any country has had great success shutting down tracker sites and blocking access to them.
In any case, this is moronic. The DMCA prevented companies from manufacturing and selling mod chips in the U.S. The result? Canada gets all the business and it never slowed its pace for a second. You would think that mod chips and pre-modded systems get stopped at the border. Nope.
There will be at least ONE country connected to the Internet that is not a signatory of ACTA. Guess where the repositories and websites will be located? Anyone? Anyone?
We already had several lawyers arguing that sharing one music album or one DVD counts as distribution on a commercial scale.
Honestly nowadays I think we need more of the Thomas-Paine-Muskets-And-Cannons Common Sense.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
which deters all murders
What is not covered in this article, but buried deep in the links, is that this treaty calls for nations to act immediately upon accusations without any burden of proof, and to absolve copyright companies from any responsibility if they engage in false accusations.
Imagine DMCA takedown notices for the physical world. Talk about a cudgel for anti-competitive harassment with impunity.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
They are trying to keep this secret because it would be politically poisonous if revealed.
As I think our friends in Europe have begun to realize, laws based on treaties prepared in secret by bureaucrats without democratic accountability are inherently corrupting of democracy itself. They are also an invitation for the corrupting influence of special interests, who will try and accomplish in secret what they cannot in public.
If these restrictions are worthwhile, let them be proposed and debated in public, as normal laws are. Otherwise, I think this whole process should be shut down. It has been going on far too long for any good that we have been getting from it.
So, if someone records a show off of TV, can it be assumed they're going to pirate it? Betamax decision no more? Fair use is out the window? Whatever happened to common sense? All your rights are belong to ACTA!
I suspect that this is targeted at the aXXos of the world. 30,000 peers on a TV rip probably qualifies in their eyes as "commercial scale" but not for financial gain. Lending a disk to a mate to get a copy of same probably does not.
The irony of course is that commerce starts with a transaction of 1, and it's the exchange and intent that is important. If we say a file piece has value, and is exchanged for another with intent to gain from the transaction, then perhaps there is barter going on, but really, that's rubbish and not how most P2P works anyway. The other implication is that only big guys do commerce, and frankly, I find that both offensive and very telling.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
If you live in the US, write to your congressmen and senators. If you dont, write to your local elected official (in Australia, you can write to your local MP). Write a physical letter (politicians are a lot less likely to listen to an email than to a physical letter although the anthrax scare in the US may have changed things there). Say that you do not support piracy/copyright violations and that you are not arguing that it should be OK to violate someone else's copyright but that you believe that too much power is being given to large copyright holders to take down content/shutdown distribution methods even when that content or those distribution methods do not violate copyright law. Say that you think that copyright holders should be going after individual people who are violating their copyright as long as there is clear proof that a violation did take place. (remember that in most of the lawsuits to date, the proof hasn't been up to snuff which is why the RIAA keeps dropping them rather than risk a precedent against them) Say that you believe that if these new copyright protection measures are introduced that they should be available for ALL copyright violations regardless of the size of the violation, the size of the holder of the copyright or the financial status of the violator (if they are available for everyone and not just the big boys, then they could be used for GPL violations) Say that you do not support their position on the increasing powers being given to large copyright holders and that this issue will affect how you vote at the next election in your country (thats assuming that the relavent local representitive is in fact supporting such increased powers, if they dont support increased powers, tell them that you support their position on this issue and that their position on this issue will affect how you vote at the next election in your country)
Another option is to get a real petition going (on real paper with real people signing it) and send this to your local representitive. Come up with real world examples of how increased powers for large copyright holders will affect normal people.
What does the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies have to do with this? I wish folks submitting stories wouldn't be so fucking lazy and print out the words in full that the acronym refers to at least once before using the acronym. Why do people always assume that everyone should know what all these short forms refer to? Give those of us who aren't into memorizing acronyms a break so we don't have to google every submission to figure out what they are talking about.
Or how about acronym namespaces ?
Requiem for the American Dream
I suspect that this is targeted at the aXXos of the world. 30,000 peers on a TV rip probably qualifies in their eyes as "commercial scale" but not for financial gain. Lending a disk to a mate to get a copy of same probably does not.
My question would be, why try to establish a multi-lateral global framework of fascist information distribution restrictions and not battling pirates with their own weapons? I'd pay for a movie as aXXo style 700MB rip. But only if I can watch a decent sample beforehand (not a shit trailer that gives me all the important moments). They don't try to evolve, what they do is to dig their trenches deeper and try to force everyone to pay for their lack of common sense and flexibility. Sure people trading free stuff is a huge problem but they're not even trying to combat that with improved offers. Screw all those region based single market corporate interest endeavors. They don't realize what their markets oughta be and don't even try to work there.
I can't accept this. There is no reasonable explanation to be such a blockhead and they blame their failure to adapt on their consumers by abusing policy. That's neither right nor justified. I feel ashamed that our politicians even cooperate with this corrupt sack of liars. But then again, what else is politics than a bunch of liars tickling each others balls.
It's all good then, isn't it - because the same people run the prisions and profit from every crime punished by jailtime.
Requiem for the American Dream
Harder punishments always caused people to refrain from breaking the law. That's why there are no murders in states that have the death penalty.
Nobody will heed a law that they don't consider "morally" wrong and that has a very low chance of getting caught. A law that has no public support will not work out. For reference, see prohibition laws.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It isn't that bad. We have similar law here in Finland. That part has only ever been applied once: When Finland's largest bit torrent tracker was busted a few years ago. The people who ran it got charged with criminal charges.
That doesn't mean it's a good law. At most it indicates a sane legal system.
Which is proven not to be the case in the US.
Mod up. In fact the word 'Canada' is only mentioned in relation to the law professor, so I had to read (skim) the paragraph several times before I knew which country this story was about. Another bad, bad summary.
No, of course not. The people doing the taking are the same ones writing the treaties.
So what will happen is that they'll sell one song at $1 to someone, and he'll share it, the manual way (but losslessly), with all of his friends (or as many as the legal system has indicated is "non-commmercial").
I wonder if we'll get to the point where putting up a semi-public list of all the content you own will be considered illegal.
Somehow, I don't think that's going to do anything except discourage industry from touching open-source with even a thousand-foot pole...
And I wonder who's going to end up in jail? It wouldn't be the embedded software engineer who did what his boss told him, eh?
Ugh.
Personally, I don't buy movies or music. I really only buy games anymore.
If it's not on cable, if it's not on the airwaves, it's not fit for human consumption. Think about it. With the exception of some movies (I liked Boondock Saints, for example) the classics will likely air at some point or another. Same for music. I had a friend who would keep a radio hooked up to his soundcard and just record the songs he'd want, as ogg files to boot. When you think the big bad wolf is looking you down, it's an option.
Maybe I'm just a stingy bastard. I'm not paying $0.99 per song for music I'll listen to maybe twice a month (when you have a big playlist and actually listen to people at work, I realised how little I use my MP3 player).
I'd pirate games if only to stick it to companies that make shovelware and movie games. Fuck right off, bud. Let me play it a bit. If I like it, I'll definately buy it. That's what we need more of; the option to download levels from games straight to your PS3/360/Wii. Let me try the first twenty minutes. Generally from that point you can tell what the controls are like, if the game looks ok, and the story starts there (but the story can be looked up; it's the actual "how does it play" that matters the most).
But then again, there's services like Gamefly for that.
I'm not necessarily opposed to buying my media. I've bought movies, I've gotten some as gifts. I rip them, and occasionally friends lend me burnt discs and video files of questionable origins. But it's not like I want something, can afford it, and instead I download it. Music is a bit of a different story. I'm willing to buy a CD if it has good tracks (no filler BS) and for a good price (10$ is the maximum), but only from a singer/band I like.
I have no qualms about downloading crap for the sake of downloading crap. It's not like I would have bought it in the first place. ACTA is ridiculous. People are still buying movies, games, and music. If anything, the rate decreases with more anti-piracy measures, and increases with pro-freedom ones. I'm very tempted to start buying my tunes from Amazon and such just because it's bullshit-free.
DRM and lawsuits aren't going to stop anyone. All it takes is one person and one hard drive.
Apparently their inability to stop is entirely the *AA's fault for being such pricks.
Either that or it's not a problem, and they can quit any time.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Expect these any day now:
- Copyright Infringers' Registry
- Scarlet letters: tatooing the foreheads of infringers with a big red "P2P"
You operate under the assumption that the international courts are as likely to react in a sane manner... My gut says that the content industries will just start filing in the international equivalent of the east Texas court where they file them in the U.S.
I really don't understand how a torrent site can be taken down because of copy right infrigement, all they do is host .torrent files and track them, they don't actually have copyright infringing material on the site itself
Here's what everyone on Slashdot seems to miss. IP goods - those easily-reproducible but hard-to-think-up-or-produce-in-the-first-place goods - are the future of modern society. Capitalism requires that IP creators be rewarded *monetarily* for their effors, so that they can buy the non-IP goods they need to survive, things like food and shelter and clothing and transportation.
We can either a) hope that somehow society will evolve to the point where the non-IP goods will become free or easily accessible to those of us involved in the production of IP (some sort of non-corrupt communal/communist state?), or b) we can try to make money from the things we're good at! I'm not betting on a non-corrupt a), which is why I have a hard time completely opposing these types of things which ostensibly to reward IP creators for their work.
I understand the corruption involved in rewarding IP creators (middle men like the RIAA taking all the profits, leaving the IP creators with nothing), but assuming THAT can be fixed, we're back to the basic question: how do we protect the value of IP so that we can be rewarded *monetarily* in our capitalist society?
P.S. - On one hand, I understand that most people on Slashdot are left-oriented "free" folk, but a lot are also employed in some sort of tech or IP-related field. Your future depends on getting this right!
The argument is that they are showing you where the infringing material is. That they are aiding and abetting copyright infringers, and they are becoming distributors of the content themselves, which is against copyright law in most countries. Not saying I agree with it, just presenting their argument as I see it.
But then shouldn't google, yahoo and live search be shut down too, because you can use them to find copyright infringing material?
I have no qualms about downloading crap for the sake of downloading crap. It's not like I would have bought it in the first place.
I have never gotten a clear answer to this. If you wouldn't have bought it in the first place, why do you feel entitled to it? Why not just go without?
Is it really so hard? Are you a paedo that just can't stop? Here's an idea - DON'T DO IT! And that includes GPL infringment, too, to keep the locals happy. You can't have it both ways, children.
Larger issues here, dude.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Notice how Russia and China are conspicuously absent from that list of countries....
We all know who to proxy through now, don't we?
No kidding. The way things are doing, it won't be long before a Russian Business Network server will be the safest place in the world to put your stuff.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I can't help but think that Mr. Paine would, at least prior to January 20, have been considered some sort of terrorist, were he to have published "Common Sense" today.
Now, to be fair, since then, that's probably been downgraded to mere "criminal". Still, not the smartest thing to be voicing support for a dude who advocated the overthrow of the government of the United States, albeit of a different form than it is today.
That being said, I agree. (Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.)
No, I'm pretty sure he'd still be considered a terrorist. The Obama administration will not make anything better, and will probably make things worse.
FYI, he was considered a terrorist of sorts in his own time (a seditionist, actually) by the effective gov't, King George.
If Thomas Paine is "currently" wrong, then, baby, I don't wanna be right.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
Because everyone talks about it. :)
Really, if you want an answer, it's not going to be easy to find one. I download them because it's there when I need it. I have the tunes I liked when I heard them on the radio. But these aren't the songs I love, and if someone would have asked me to pay for every single one of my songs, you'd likely see a lot less.
Rather than listen to commercials on the radio, I'd rather just download the songs and listen to them. But like I said, if you told me I can't do that, and I have to pay for all of my tracks... well, hello radio.
It stacks up; I'm not interested in spending 100$ on an MP3 player and another 100$ for songs to put on it. (I'm sure you could think of 100 songs that are playing right now somewhere) But even then, I'm not really download-happy.
Again, not necessarily that I'm entitled to it... But it's for the same reason that you find replicas of famous paintings. You're not decreasing the value of the real thing. You'd just like to appreciate the real thing too.
Then again, a lot of music is hit or miss. I'm not hooked up to a large private tracker, so I don't quite get everything, and not at the best qualities. So that's where buying legit has saved my ass. For example, looking for Rachel Ferguson's "Joshua" just nets me 300KB EXE/ZIP files called "FERGY_HOT_SEX".
Well.... personally I'd tend to agree that "sharing" one album or DVD with 10,000 or so people equals distribution on a "commercial" scale...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
OK, but if you have an insane legal system trying to enforce laws that are reasonable in principle, then it's the mechanics of your legal system that need fixing, not the laws.
I don't get the problem people have with this. You don't accidentally run a service that people use to commit commercial scale copyright infringement. Such infringement is bound to be damaging to some degree to the legal rightsholder; claiming that this is not so is no more credible than the opposite extreme of claiming that every copy represents a lost sale. And last time I looked, you didn't have to commit murder or GBH for financial gain in order for it to be considered a criminal activity.
I get that some people just have a problem with copyright in the first place, but I don't understand why anyone else would have a problem with a law that punishes exactly the people who knowingly commit acts that are certain to be significantly damaging to the holders of the legal rights. What other kind of law do you want, one that punishes accidental infringers, one that punishes minor/incidental infringers who do little real harm, or one that protects someone other than the legal rightsholder?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
But then shouldn't google, yahoo and live search be shut down too, because you can use them to find copyright infringing material?
But those entities have more money & lawyers, so are not low-hanging fruit for lawsuits or criminal charges.
With sufficient money & lawyers you can flout almost any law anywhere, and/or have them written to suit.
With sufficient money, guns, and lawyers you become government.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Even if you give the money away and derive no direct financial gain, robbig a bank is still a crime.
Rape engenders no financial gain and it is still a crime.
Not benefiting financial from a crime does not mitigate the crime. The ends do not justify the means.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
To see if it is really as shitty as everyone says? And as far as games go after getting burned one too many times I don't blame anyone who wants to try before they buy and I only buy in the bargain bin. Why? Two games: Max Payne I and Vampire:Bloodlines. I bought both at launch and spent 6 months waiting on a patch for MP and 1 1/2 years for V:bloodlines.So considering the fact they don't get to take it back if it is a $50 coaster I don't blame folks if they want to try first. I personally buy my games in the cheap bin and then chunk their wrapped boxes on the shelf and hit TPB to keep from getting DRM infections that are worse than trojans nowadays. Sad that the "pirate" one is safer than the one from the store, huh? But I think this guy says it better than I can.
But it never ceases to amaze me that folks forget there actually was an original purpose to copyrights, and it wasn't a license for rich old white guys to print money and maximize profits. It was a CONTRACT, nothing more. In return for a LIMITED length of copyrights so that the artist could profit from their work we got in return a richer public domain. But now that copyrights are essentially 2 human lifetimes that contract is irretrievably broken. We need to go back to the terms we had for 150+ years (before bribery..I mean lobbying bought all our laws) and I would argue that thanks to places like iTunes and Amazon allowing you to turn a profit quite quickly compared to the old days that they should be even less.
Finally for those of you that think copyrights aren't broken I have one sentence for you: Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright. The man has been dead for over half a century and yet his first work, one created when cars had to be started with a crank and antibiotics weren't even a dream in a doctor's eye is STILL under copyright. And I'm sorry but anyway you slice it that is just fucked up.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Not bloody likely. If the RIAA has their way, those geeks are going to meet real (by their own definition) criminals in prison. Some of them (likely including myself) aren't going to be able to eat sufficient shit and will be killed by the other prisoners. Most of the others, when they get out, will be _broken_ by the experience, and will likely die young after slouching through a series of minimum wage jobs.
The ACTA proposals currently include language that would make copyright infringement on a 'commercial scale,' even when done with 'no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain,' into a criminal matter.
Those who would equate filesharing with theft should note that the ACTA proposals are intended to do exactly that. Theft is criminal.
But until (if) it is adopted, that comparison is false. And it always has been. Not-for-profit filesharing is not illegal, or they wouldn't need to pass a new law (or sign a treaty) to make it so.
Until now, it's not whether you share that determines the legality, it's what you share. Not every artist agrees with the RIAA. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell the difference without more mental effort than Americans will spend. You'd think that after 6 years of suing people, the labels would start marking the leaked stuff as illegal so law-abiding people can block all of it from the search results.
Finally, what is a "commercial level"? The RIAA is suing one kid for a million dollars -- for 7 songs. Supposedly, they only sue "aggregious" file sharers. So I'm betting a "commercial level" is five songs.
HAHAHAHAHA, I think decriminalizing pot is about to find itself on the back-burner!
*REAL* geeks would be in jail for having DVD-rips of the first season of Prison Break.
The solution to treaties like the ACTA as well as laws like the DMCA is simple:
The only way to stop the stupidity is to pull the rug out from under the corporations and organizations that support this stupidity in the first place, both financially and legally.
Besides, how many songs or recent movies are worth the plastic they're distributed on anyway ?
To AcidPenguin9873: You're comment is really on a larger subject than treaties like the ACTA and DMCA. You're right that western cultures are moving towards an information based economy. A big part of the problem is that the existing laws help the large players in the entertainment industry but cripple smaller players and also cripple other industries. Therefore, these treaties and laws are really not beneficial to our society as a whole. The laws also marginalize existing rights under copyright: first sale rights and fair use rights, both of which are important to allow commerce on used material continue and to allow commentary, satire and, in some cases, innovation.
Why: For the most part, at least in engineering and also to a somewhat lesser extent in entertainment, every new idea (or song, or movie plot) is simply a rehashing of existing ideas with some new wrinkle or improvement. Innovation is almost always incremental, not revolutionary. I have seen this over and over at multiple employers over my 30 year career (I used to work in professional audio, I now work in data storage).
For one product I worked on, legal pared down the number of possibly infringing patents to over 60,000 which a team of 20 of us spent months reviewing over evenings and weekends while also working on product development. Of that 60,000, roughly 100 actually overlapped what we were working on in some way and caused us to find ways to work around them or cross-license them.
Question: What happens when this number of patents (or trademarks, copyrights) increases 100 fold ?
Question: How will smaller players and start-ups ever be able to compete if they must cross-license with a larger player that does not want them in the market ? The chance of this occuring increases with the number of companies that the small player must negotiate with which also increases with the number of overlapping patents.
Question: Given how the laws are going and if the number of patents, and/or copyright increases substantially (which will happen in an information society), how can smaller players with limited cash flow successfully compete with larger players with much greater cash flow.
Point is that, should such a society develop with the laws moving in the direction they're moving (and assuming their fully enforced):
While protection of ideas and content is important for
I think I just took 36d6 of sarcasm damage.
How do you kill that which has no life?
The question here isn't really if people who perform extensive duplication of copyrighted material on a large scale should be punished, but what the limits are that define that act.
I've seen "commercial scale" duplication... and often little effort to get it stopped as well. It is a matter of perspective. I do support shutting down DVD duplicators that make copies without permission of the original copyright holder... or of video games and more.
One interesting question does lie with those who make tools that can be used to make duplications of both copyrighted and "legal" content. It doesn't matter if it is a Xerox machine, a CD-ROM burner, a flash card, or in this case a P2P distributed file sharing network. Are the makers of these tools liable for the duplication of content done by individuals who use these tools for illegal duplication on a large scale?
The answer is typically "yes" until somebody can prove that the tool is necessary for ordinary life. P2P networks suffer from the problem that their use is mostly for infringing copyrighted material, in spite of the fact that legitimate communication systems and file storage can happen with these protocols. In fact, I've seen far too often when legitimate content is put onto P2P networks, cries that it is a waste of network resources often happen by those using those protocols.
The FFII has a page about ACTA including an analysis.
FAIL
What you would have is draconion even by today's standards copy-protection, and rampant trade-secrets.
Auto-cad would have dongles, inter-net activation and more.
So would Adobe.
In areas with really expensive software, they may even force you to use purpose-built appliances, to protect their revenue stream.
And there are industries where it would be a requirement to use that software still.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Broken people in minimum wage jobs are prime candidates fro committing crimes to support themselves. They may likely feel that they have little to lose at that point and everything to gain.
Since they will have had it thoroughly demonstrated that they can never again be really part of society, society becomes the enemy.