Sorry, but Congressional laws override case law. (Except when a judge rules a law unconstitutional.) In other words, you've given an
example of case law which basically proves that although fair use has been used by the courts for the past many years, it still isn't actually a
guarenteed right. It can be taken away through legislation.
You're missing my point entirely. If not for explicitly granted fair use or an interpretation of copyright law that includes fair use, copyright law as it currently exists would be unconstitutional. Remember that Congress's right to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries[.]" as granted by the constitution is abridged by the first ammendment, since the first ammendment by very nature of being an ammendment modifies the rights of both the people and the government as set forth in the main body of the constitution.
If not in the decision that my citation references, then in other important copyright related decisions, fair use has been used as one of the only logical excuses for the constitutionality of copyright. (There was one rather illogical argument based on the premise that ammendments don't really ammend the constitution. It's weak). Based on existing case law, how can one come to any rational conclusion other than either always interpreting copyright statutes to include fair use (as is currently done even when it is not explicitly stated in the statute) or to throw out copyright law altogether as unconstitutional. Since the latter might have undesired side effects for authors and artists without a good understanding of contract law and also cause a revolution within the publishing industry, it's quite likely that the former will prevail.
Wouldn't the impact of this vunerability be reduced significantly if the various public keyservers were reconfigured to reject keys uploaded with unsigned ADK's?
Actually, fair use isn't protected by the constitution - sorry.
During constitutional challenges to copyright, these Supreme Court has ruled that because of the provisions for fair use, copyright permitted by the constitution. The first ammendment is an ammendment the constitution, and is thus carves out an exception to Congress's power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries[.]"
If copyright law is interpreted not to include fair use, then the constitution prohibits copyright. As such, the constitution protects fair use. Even before fair use was explicitly written into copyright law, the courts interpreted copyright as allowing fair use in order to avoid declaring it unconstitutional. See among other things CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC. (1994), especially footnote 7 and the text that references it. I'm sure we'll see these citations come up again when the Federal Appeals Court or Supreme Court overturns portions of the DMCA prohibiting fair use in Universal v. Corley.
I think Judge Kaplan was a little too friendly with the MPAA to see through their mudslinging. However, mud alone will wear very thin after a few appeals.
Cellphone conversations are encrypted with a weak cypher using a short key that has been deliberately weakened by zeroing several bits. Using a powerful PC to perform a codebook attack from a large hard drive enables near real-time decoding. Don't trust your digital cellphone for sensitive conversations any more than you'd trust an analog cell or cordless phone.
You can get a D-Link 100Mbps 8-port switch for $80.95 from buy.com...
The DSH-8 is a repeater hub, not a switch. While it gets you full duplex and overcomes some of the collision problems inherant in hubs, it doesn't allow more than one pair of ports to talk at full 100mbit speeds.
100Mbps 8-port Ethernet hub = $74, not $200 www.pricewatch.com
Ansible was talking about an 8-port 100mbit switch, not a hub. A hub and a switch are not the same device. A good switch can sustain a full-duplex 100mbit switched connection between every pair of ports. A hub will give you a total of 100mbit shared between all of the ports. Hubs are rarely full-duplex.
Acrobat reader which is all need for this purpose is available for - lets see 1. Windows (all) 2. Mac 3. Linux 4. HP 5. AIX 6. Solaris 7. BeOS 8. Java - the list grows
Unfortunately, this leaves out most handheld computers such as my Palm IIIx. What if I want to read my copy while I'm on a park bench, on a bus, or on the can? Also, it leaves out any emerging free operating system that can't run the proprietary Acrobat binaries. (There are truly Free viewers for the PDF file format that work on many of these platforms and could be ported to all bust the worst handhelds, but it's likely they wouldn't be able to support a security-by-obscurity access control method such as Acrobat Merchant without breaking it at the same time.)
I seriously doubt that most Metallica/Dr. Dre fans even know what Napster is.
I used to listen to Metallica's older albums quite a bit before I heard about their intent to interfere with non-commercial sharing of copyrighted music between individuals via Napster. Now I'm so angry with them that I refuse to buy or listen to any of their music ever again. Bad laws are bad enough without strongarm enforcement of them through DMCA process abuse and civil lawsuits by deep-pocketed members of the copyright cartel.
Thats means there were...counting on fingers and toes... 28000 copyrighted songs to every song by an unsigned artist.
All songs, including those by unsigned artists, are copyrighted as soon as they are fixed onto a physical medium. Even songs without explicit copyright notices or on which such a notice has been intentionally omitted are copyrighted under the international Berne Convention, in effect in most countries including the United States.
I'm not an NSA cryptographer, but unless the NSA knows of some magical math, I don't think the NSA is cracking 128 bit RSA keys (for example) in a few hours, no matter how much computer resources they have.
I can factor a 128-bit integer on my TI-89 calculator in just a few minutes. The TI-89 is not a supercomputer by any standard: it uses a 10mhz m68k CPU and has just over 1mB of memory. If you can factor the public key, you can decrypt any messages encrypted using it.
I think you're confusing symmetric cypher key strength with asymmetric key strength. While a key that is 128-bits is considered strong for the latter, it takes roughly ten times that length to be good enough for use with the former.
Counterexample to what? I don't believe they [the pentagon papers] were copyrighted, I believe they were a military secret.
Even things without explicit copyright notices are copyrighted under the international Berne Convention, in effect in most countries including the United States.
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
Why do you think that it is wrong of Slashdot to deny Microsoft's request for Slashdot to tamper its own news archive? If a large paper like the New York Times had printed an editorial containing copyrighted information, Microsoft would not even think of asking them remove it from their archives. And no doubt, any paper with the slightest shred of journalistic integrity would decline such a request.
But what Microsoft is asking Slashdot to do goes even further: It's akin to asking a newspaper to go around and ink out the potentially infringing text in every copy of the newspaper distributed, including those in libraries, archives, bird cages, etc. For people who've bookmarked those posts in the hope of returning to them (similarly to how they might dogear the edge of a newspaper or clip out an article and put it aside) posts that are removed from Slashdot simply disappear. Someone who goes to their local public library to get the May 2 edition of Slashdot after such a removal will find a version that differs from what Slashdot actually published on May 2! How would you feel if a newspaper clipping in your scrapbook suddenly disappeared because the newspaper that printed it was threatened with a copyright infringement lawsuit?
Why should Slashdot be any different from the New York Times simply because it's printed with bits instead of on paper? Why should a corporation like Microsoft be able to retroactively alter or delete the historical record provided by a news outlet, effectively rewriting the past?
Remember, rewriting history has been used as a tool to justify all sorts of evil things: holocaust denial, racial prejudice, etc. History changing was a large source of the government's power in Orwell's 1984. We don't want to give a power as dangerous as this to anyone, especially not Microsoft.
The message gets right to the point of the matter, but does it really get to the legal issues. Whether or not it makes any -sense- for Microsoft to do what it is doing, does it not still have the legal -right- if not a legal obligation to protect its copyrights, or face an inability to enforce its position at a later date?
Microsoft's inaction in this matter would have no effect on their ability to prevail in another matter surrounding the same copyright. Unlike a trademark, which can become invalid as a result of failure by the mark holder to prevent unauthorized use, copyright continues to be valid even if the holder chooses not to enforce it.
Sites Give Permission for Caching via HTTP Headers
on
Dialectizer Shut Down
·
· Score: 3
What then of Google and it's locally cached copies?
Now, suppose people write code based on this patents and the owner decides to revoke the GPL-use license. Fine, we can't write new code based on that patent any longer. But what happens to GPL code already written? So one can't use the algorithm but can re-use the code? Doesn't make sense.
The language "fully paid up" in the patent grant at http://www.levien.com/patents.html, and the fact that document is called a grant indicate that it is a non-revokable conveyance of rights. While I find software patents in general to be execrable, a grant like this allows patent holders to do right for the public benefit while putting themself at minimal disadvantage to proprietary competitors. Until we get widespread patent reform, we can only hope for more grants like this one.
If the New York Times had printed an editorial containing copyrighted information, Microsoft would not even think of having them go around and ink it out in every copy of the New York Times distributed, including those in libraries, archives, bird cages, etc. Why should Slashdot be any different because it's printed with bits instead of on paper? Why should a corporation be able to retroactively alter or delete the historical record provided by a news outlet, effectively rewriting the past?
A while back I bought some PC100 ECC SDRAM from eBay and it showed up with a metal shield similar in appearance to the one this article suggests installing. Of course, it was aluminum instead of copper and appeared to have been soldered onto the dimm at the factory. I think the dimm was OEM'd for Compaq or Dell.
Let's also remember that recent versions of Netscape Communicator include the Winamp MP3 player, and that recent versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer include the Windows Media Player, which has MP3 playback capability. If you use Realaudio streams, there's a much higher chance that customers will have to make a rather large download versus no download at all.
A few months back, I received persistant and undesirable telemarketing calls, and decided to do a little bit of research. As it turns out, it's a violation of federal law for telemarketers to continue to call you after you've asked them not to. For each call they make after you've asked them to stop, you're entitled to $500. Certain exceptions apply, but the most obnoxious and persistant telemarketing tactics are illegal and entitle you to monetary compensation.
Many states including Massachusetts, where I live, allow you to sue telemarketers in their small claims court. In small claims court, you can represent yourself, but have the benefit of a judge who is willing and prepared to explain the law to you if you don't have a lawyer. You plead your case in plain English - and anything that the other side has to say will be explained in plain English. If the Telemarketer you're suing is from another state and opts not to appear because of the expense entailed, you win by default. If the person you're suing fails to make good on the judgement, you have a wide variety of collection methods at your disposal including court ordered asset seizure.
However, it's far more likely that the Telemarketer will opt to settle with you rather than show up or default in court. After all, if they owe you $1500 for three undesired calls and it would cost them a few thousand to fly their corporate counsel Massachusetts, obtain a lawyer here, etc., it's very much in their best interests to settle with you for $500 or even $1000.
In my case, the telemarketing firm called me first in November 1999, and then three nights in a row in December. I sent them a demand letter asking for $500 and threatening to sue in Massachusetts small claims court if they did not pay. Just before Christmas, I received a letter of appology and acknoledgement of responsibility and a check for $500. I sent them a thank you letter in which I thanked them for their appology and the $500 payment for the earliest December offense. I hinted that I would attempt to collect the remaining $1000 of their liability if they ever called again.
On March 4th and 5th, I received two more calls from the telemarketing firm, and sent another demand letter this time asking for $1000. On the way to my car on March 24, I found a UPS next day air envelope on my porch, and inside was another appology letter and a check for $1000.
So do yourself a favor. Whenever a telemarketer calls you, find out who you're talking to. Ask them never to call you again, and record their name and the time of call in a log. When they call again, give them another reminder. On the third call, threaten to sue if they don't agree to a favorable settlement.
But when I find and download a copy of a new game on tripod (without it being advertized as warez) and download it, isn't this illegal?
Someone's breaking the law here - but it's probably not you. You'd be no more at fault than if you had bought a book at a bookstore that later turned out to be counterfeit.
About your first point, yes there this aspect of fair use. But here it's more like a friend giving me a cd of photoshop. Now it's clearly not fair use if I install it on my computer without purchasing a license.
Your friend, having lawfully aquired Photoshop, is free to give it to you provided he doesn't keep any copies for himself. Then you, having lawfully aquired the CD as a gift from your friend, are free to use it fairly by installing and running it on your PC.
If a bundle of hundred dollar bills is left in the middle of the street, is it a crime to take that money and use it for your own purposes because it was in a public place?
If you've deliberately abandon your own property in a public place, you've in effect surrendered your property rights to the first taker. (Parking a vechicle isn't considered abandoning it for obvious reasons, including the ignition lock and registration, so I don't even want to hear that lame argument. Accidentally lost property differs from abandoned property for similar reasons - but it's not at issue here, since you're talking about money that was "left" or abandoned in the street.)
OF COURSE IT IS, YOU MORON!
If this was the case, it would be impossible to give things away.
It's time to get off the crack and actually learn something about the subject before shooting off your mouth. Just because a piece of software is on a publically-accessible FTP site doesn't indicate anything about its legal status.
It sure does. If you've aquired the software from a public FTP site in good faith, then you've lawfully aquired it. Sure, aquiring Microsoft Office from ftp://ftp.copyrightinfringement.com/warez/msoffice .rar might not be considered an aquisition in good faith, but there's no question that grabbing beos via anonymous FTP from ftp://ftp.be.com/ is. Having lawfully aquired the software by download, you have all the same rights as if you had lawfully aquired it in a cash for box swap at a software store.
What about distributing it? IIRC, distributing copyrighted work without permission is illegal. Does the fact that it was on a public server give implicit rights to redistribute it?
You have the same rights with a book or software you lawfully aquired by download as you would have if you bought that book or software at a store. You can transfer the book or software to someone else only if you do so completely, without retaining a (photo)copy for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but Congressional laws override case law. (Except when a judge rules a law unconstitutional.) In other words, you've given an example of case law which basically proves that although fair use has been used by the courts for the past many years, it still isn't actually a guarenteed right. It can be taken away through legislation.
You're missing my point entirely. If not for explicitly granted fair use or an interpretation of copyright law that includes fair use, copyright law as it currently exists would be unconstitutional. Remember that Congress's right to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries[.]" as granted by the constitution is abridged by the first ammendment, since the first ammendment by very nature of being an ammendment modifies the rights of both the people and the government as set forth in the main body of the constitution.
If not in the decision that my citation references, then in other important copyright related decisions, fair use has been used as one of the only logical excuses for the constitutionality of copyright. (There was one rather illogical argument based on the premise that ammendments don't really ammend the constitution. It's weak). Based on existing case law, how can one come to any rational conclusion other than either always interpreting copyright statutes to include fair use (as is currently done even when it is not explicitly stated in the statute) or to throw out copyright law altogether as unconstitutional. Since the latter might have undesired side effects for authors and artists without a good understanding of contract law and also cause a revolution within the publishing industry, it's quite likely that the former will prevail.
Wouldn't the impact of this vunerability be reduced significantly if the various public keyservers were reconfigured to reject keys uploaded with unsigned ADK's?
Actually, fair use isn't protected by the constitution - sorry.
During constitutional challenges to copyright, these Supreme Court has ruled that because of the provisions for fair use, copyright permitted by the constitution. The first ammendment is an ammendment the constitution, and is thus carves out an exception to Congress's power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries[.]"
If copyright law is interpreted not to include fair use, then the constitution prohibits copyright. As such, the constitution protects fair use. Even before fair use was explicitly written into copyright law, the courts interpreted copyright as allowing fair use in order to avoid declaring it unconstitutional. See among other things CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC. (1994), especially footnote 7 and the text that references it. I'm sure we'll see these citations come up again when the Federal Appeals Court or Supreme Court overturns portions of the DMCA prohibiting fair use in Universal v. Corley.
Fair use is not protected in the constitution;
Fair use is protected by the constitution. Without fair use, copyright would not be constitutional, and thus could not exist at all.
I think Judge Kaplan was a little too friendly with the MPAA to see through their mudslinging. However, mud alone will wear very thin after a few appeals.
Cellphone conversations are encrypted with a weak cypher using a short key that has been deliberately weakened by zeroing several bits. Using a powerful PC to perform a codebook attack from a large hard drive enables near real-time decoding. Don't trust your digital cellphone for sensitive conversations any more than you'd trust an analog cell or cordless phone.
You can get a D-Link 100Mbps 8-port switch for $80.95 from buy.com...
The DSH-8 is a repeater hub, not a switch. While it gets you full duplex and overcomes some of the collision problems inherant in hubs, it doesn't allow more than one pair of ports to talk at full 100mbit speeds.
100Mbps 8-port Ethernet hub = $74, not $200 www.pricewatch.com
Ansible was talking about an 8-port 100mbit switch, not a hub. A hub and a switch are not the same device. A good switch can sustain a full-duplex 100mbit switched connection between every pair of ports. A hub will give you a total of 100mbit shared between all of the ports. Hubs are rarely full-duplex.
Acrobat reader which is all need for this purpose is available for - lets see 1. Windows (all) 2. Mac 3. Linux 4. HP 5. AIX 6. Solaris 7. BeOS 8. Java - the list grows
Unfortunately, this leaves out most handheld computers such as my Palm IIIx. What if I want to read my copy while I'm on a park bench, on a bus, or on the can? Also, it leaves out any emerging free operating system that can't run the proprietary Acrobat binaries. (There are truly Free viewers for the PDF file format that work on many of these platforms and could be ported to all bust the worst handhelds, but it's likely they wouldn't be able to support a security-by-obscurity access control method such as Acrobat Merchant without breaking it at the same time.)
I seriously doubt that most Metallica/Dr. Dre fans even know what Napster is.
I used to listen to Metallica's older albums quite a bit before I heard about their intent to interfere with non-commercial sharing of copyrighted music between individuals via Napster. Now I'm so angry with them that I refuse to buy or listen to any of their music ever again. Bad laws are bad enough without strongarm enforcement of them through DMCA process abuse and civil lawsuits by deep-pocketed members of the copyright cartel.
Thats means there were...counting on fingers and toes... 28000 copyrighted songs to every song by an unsigned artist.
All songs, including those by unsigned artists, are copyrighted as soon as they are fixed onto a physical medium. Even songs without explicit copyright notices or on which such a notice has been intentionally omitted are copyrighted under the international Berne Convention, in effect in most countries including the United States.
I'm not an NSA cryptographer, but unless the NSA knows of some magical math, I don't think the NSA is cracking 128 bit RSA keys (for example) in a few hours, no matter how much computer resources they have.
I can factor a 128-bit integer on my TI-89 calculator in just a few minutes. The TI-89 is not a supercomputer by any standard: it uses a 10mhz m68k CPU and has just over 1mB of memory. If you can factor the public key, you can decrypt any messages encrypted using it.
I think you're confusing symmetric cypher key strength with asymmetric key strength. While a key that is 128-bits is considered strong for the latter, it takes roughly ten times that length to be good enough for use with the former.
Counterexample to what? I don't believe they [the pentagon papers] were copyrighted, I believe they were a military secret.
Even things without explicit copyright notices are copyrighted under the international Berne Convention, in effect in most countries including the United States.
The point is that they did copyright it. Slashdot is in the wrong.
Why do you think that it is wrong of Slashdot to deny Microsoft's request for Slashdot to tamper its own news archive? If a large paper like the New York Times had printed an editorial containing copyrighted information, Microsoft would not even think of asking them remove it from their archives. And no doubt, any paper with the slightest shred of journalistic integrity would decline such a request.
But what Microsoft is asking Slashdot to do goes even further: It's akin to asking a newspaper to go around and ink out the potentially infringing text in every copy of the newspaper distributed, including those in libraries, archives, bird cages, etc. For people who've bookmarked those posts in the hope of returning to them (similarly to how they might dogear the edge of a newspaper or clip out an article and put it aside) posts that are removed from Slashdot simply disappear. Someone who goes to their local public library to get the May 2 edition of Slashdot after such a removal will find a version that differs from what Slashdot actually published on May 2! How would you feel if a newspaper clipping in your scrapbook suddenly disappeared because the newspaper that printed it was threatened with a copyright infringement lawsuit?
Why should Slashdot be any different from the New York Times simply because it's printed with bits instead of on paper? Why should a corporation like Microsoft be able to retroactively alter or delete the historical record provided by a news outlet, effectively rewriting the past?
Remember, rewriting history has been used as a tool to justify all sorts of evil things: holocaust denial, racial prejudice, etc. History changing was a large source of the government's power in Orwell's 1984. We don't want to give a power as dangerous as this to anyone, especially not Microsoft.
The message gets right to the point of the matter, but does it really get to the legal issues. Whether or not it makes any -sense- for Microsoft to do what it is doing, does it not still have the legal -right- if not a legal obligation to protect its copyrights, or face an inability to enforce its position at a later date?
Microsoft's inaction in this matter would have no effect on their ability to prevail in another matter surrounding the same copyright. Unlike a trademark, which can become invalid as a result of failure by the mark holder to prevent unauthorized use, copyright continues to be valid even if the holder chooses not to enforce it.
What then of Google and it's locally cached copies?
Web sites give or deny permission to cache via the facilities provided by various headers returned on HTTP requests. See RFC 2068: Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1
Now, suppose people write code based on this patents and the owner decides to revoke the GPL-use license. Fine, we can't write new code based on that patent any longer. But what happens to GPL code already written? So one can't use the algorithm but can re-use the code? Doesn't make sense.
The language "fully paid up" in the patent grant at http://www.levien.com/patents.html, and the fact that document is called a grant indicate that it is a non-revokable conveyance of rights. While I find software patents in general to be execrable, a grant like this allows patent holders to do right for the public benefit while putting themself at minimal disadvantage to proprietary competitors. Until we get widespread patent reform, we can only hope for more grants like this one.
If the New York Times had printed an editorial containing copyrighted information, Microsoft would not even think of having them go around and ink it out in every copy of the New York Times distributed, including those in libraries, archives, bird cages, etc. Why should Slashdot be any different because it's printed with bits instead of on paper? Why should a corporation be able to retroactively alter or delete the historical record provided by a news outlet, effectively rewriting the past?
A while back I bought some PC100 ECC SDRAM from eBay and it showed up with a metal shield similar in appearance to the one this article suggests installing. Of course, it was aluminum instead of copper and appeared to have been soldered onto the dimm at the factory. I think the dimm was OEM'd for Compaq or Dell.
Let's also remember that recent versions of Netscape Communicator include the Winamp MP3 player, and that recent versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer include the Windows Media Player, which has MP3 playback capability. If you use Realaudio streams, there's a much higher chance that customers will have to make a rather large download versus no download at all.
A few months back, I received persistant and undesirable telemarketing calls, and decided to do a little bit of research. As it turns out, it's a violation of federal law for telemarketers to continue to call you after you've asked them not to. For each call they make after you've asked them to stop, you're entitled to $500. Certain exceptions apply, but the most obnoxious and persistant telemarketing tactics are illegal and entitle you to monetary compensation.
Many states including Massachusetts, where I live, allow you to sue telemarketers in their small claims court. In small claims court, you can represent yourself, but have the benefit of a judge who is willing and prepared to explain the law to you if you don't have a lawyer. You plead your case in plain English - and anything that the other side has to say will be explained in plain English. If the Telemarketer you're suing is from another state and opts not to appear because of the expense entailed, you win by default. If the person you're suing fails to make good on the judgement, you have a wide variety of collection methods at your disposal including court ordered asset seizure.
However, it's far more likely that the Telemarketer will opt to settle with you rather than show up or default in court. After all, if they owe you $1500 for three undesired calls and it would cost them a few thousand to fly their corporate counsel Massachusetts, obtain a lawyer here, etc., it's very much in their best interests to settle with you for $500 or even $1000.
In my case, the telemarketing firm called me first in November 1999, and then three nights in a row in December. I sent them a demand letter asking for $500 and threatening to sue in Massachusetts small claims court if they did not pay. Just before Christmas, I received a letter of appology and acknoledgement of responsibility and a check for $500. I sent them a thank you letter in which I thanked them for their appology and the $500 payment for the earliest December offense. I hinted that I would attempt to collect the remaining $1000 of their liability if they ever called again.
On March 4th and 5th, I received two more calls from the telemarketing firm, and sent another demand letter this time asking for $1000. On the way to my car on March 24, I found a UPS next day air envelope on my porch, and inside was another appology letter and a check for $1000.
So do yourself a favor. Whenever a telemarketer calls you, find out who you're talking to. Ask them never to call you again, and record their name and the time of call in a log. When they call again, give them another reminder. On the third call, threaten to sue if they don't agree to a favorable settlement.
But when I find and download a copy of a new game on tripod (without it being advertized as warez) and download it, isn't this illegal?
Someone's breaking the law here - but it's probably not you. You'd be no more at fault than if you had bought a book at a bookstore that later turned out to be counterfeit.
About your first point, yes there this aspect of fair use. But here it's more like a friend giving me a cd of photoshop. Now it's clearly not fair use if I install it on my computer without purchasing a license.
Your friend, having lawfully aquired Photoshop, is free to give it to you provided he doesn't keep any copies for himself. Then you, having lawfully aquired the CD as a gift from your friend, are free to use it fairly by installing and running it on your PC.
If a bundle of hundred dollar bills is left in the middle of the street, is it a crime to take that money and use it for your own purposes because it was in a public place?
If you've deliberately abandon your own property in a public place, you've in effect surrendered your property rights to the first taker. (Parking a vechicle isn't considered abandoning it for obvious reasons, including the ignition lock and registration, so I don't even want to hear that lame argument. Accidentally lost property differs from abandoned property for similar reasons - but it's not at issue here, since you're talking about money that was "left" or abandoned in the street.)
OF COURSE IT IS, YOU MORON!
If this was the case, it would be impossible to give things away.
It's time to get off the crack and actually learn something about the subject before shooting off your mouth. Just because a piece of software is on a publically-accessible FTP site doesn't indicate anything about its legal status.
It sure does. If you've aquired the software from a public FTP site in good faith, then you've lawfully aquired it. Sure, aquiring Microsoft Office from ftp://ftp.copyrightinfringement.com/warez/msoffice .rar might not be considered an aquisition in good faith, but there's no question that grabbing beos via anonymous FTP from ftp://ftp.be.com/ is. Having lawfully aquired the software by download, you have all the same rights as if you had lawfully aquired it in a cash for box swap at a software store.
Are you really that stupid?!
No, I'm not. But perhaps you are.
What about distributing it? IIRC, distributing copyrighted work without permission is illegal. Does the fact that it was on a public server give implicit rights to redistribute it?
You have the same rights with a book or software you lawfully aquired by download as you would have if you bought that book or software at a store. You can transfer the book or software to someone else only if you do so completely, without retaining a (photo)copy for yourself.