So the pages are worthless, but now you're concerned about the quality of them...
Bullshit.
I'd find it easier to maintain one article of all US presidents. I mean, what have they done except eat donuts and sit in meetings, occasionally starting some wars. A page for each! And most of their stupid cabinet, etc. What a waste. I should be to cut it down to a five-page article without sacrificing details anyone but an imbecile or someone into American history could care about.
extort - obtain by coercion or intimidation; "They extorted money from the executive by threatening to reveal his past to the company boss" "They squeezed money from the owner of the business by threatening him"
Seems to be common usage.
Yelp is essentially lying to customers. ('reviews' implies all reviews, not just selected ones.)
I can't imagine the life of anyone here would be enriched by listening to a lawyer yammer on about the technicality in the legal definition of extortion merely makes this jackassery instead of criminal. It's still antisocial and the people involved need to be ostracized.
Oh yeah, and it because it happened once everyone with a camera is a psycho! You truly are a genius. Why don't you go into business against the FBI. I figure you know how to spot psychos so reliably (which appears to be a combo of looking for a camera and failing to recognize sarcasm) that they'll just fold up and go home once you start making justice happen.
Truly, you are a god among men, not only for your profound wisdom and insight into new-age grammar, but also because your benevolence and humility are a beacon to everyone.
May we all, with time and patience, hope to attain such an enlightened level as your one day.
If the detective they sent to investigate the rape had a camera, did he rape your girlfriend as well? After all, it appears to be the camera that drove the psycho crazy. I mean, you seem so sure and you must have such high standards for evidence...
Ah, yes, that's quite a great demonstration of how right you are. Name calling.
Considering the derogatory comments were your addition I thought you'd like them. I'm not really surprised you're slimy enough to complain about them as if you didn't do the same thing seconds ago.
Please, tell me more.
I keep trying. As I mentioned, you're dumb, it's taking a long time.
All the more unfortunate that you don't seem to understand the concepts.
Oh, do tell.
You do not own the software. You do not own rights to the software when you buy a copy. What you own is the copy,
Yes. I know. You know that bit of my earlier post where I used the words "Owner of a COPY"? I said that because I was specifically trying to say that the OWNER owns a COPY.
The words I wrote. If you read them, they would enlighten you.
you can legally do whatever you want with it so long as you don't make other copies. If you want to make other copies, there are certain things that the law is particularly spelling out that you are permitted to do. Any other copies you wish to make are forbidden unless you have some kind of license agreement.
Yes, again. You can't copy the software for anything other than an "essential step" for the "utilization of the program". I used those words earlier, if you look for them you can figure out what you missed.
The law you yourself quotes gives you two explicit rights, which are to install the software
Wrong.
[...] owner of a copy of a computer program [...] making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such [...] is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program
The right is not limited to installing, it's good for ANY step that would violate copyright, provided that it's required to using the program. If the program didn't require being installed to the HD, that would not be allowed. If the program DID require install, it would be allowed.
So the default is that you can't copy.
Yes, and the default doesn't apply because this (hypothetical scenario) is software that needs to be installed to work, thus 17-117a1 overrides default behavior.
That's how law works. Does that make sense to you, or do you have questions about that?
It's comments like this that make me treat you rudely. Do you have any questions? Yes, I am rude to you, but you're stupid and I am funnier than you so it's a victimless crime.
What I'm saying is, there's no sign to me in that law that the intention of the law is to specifically to permit people to circumvent the need to have a copyright license in order to copy software. I doubt a judge would interpret it as a blanket right to subvert any and all other license agreements.
Well duh. 117a1 only applies to things required to use the software. You couldn't use it to justify giving your friend a copy.
But you could copy it from your CD to your HD, provided you follow those restrictions, which roughly amount to not transferring the original without transferring or destroying the backup/installed copies.
This installing and running of software is all most people ever do, and 117a explicitly says that for uses in paragraph 1, no license is required.
However, it doesn't give you any particular rights to do anything with the software other than to install it under those normal circumstances.
Wrong again.
an essential step in the utilization of the computer program
I don't think anyone would agree that expected utilization stops at install. If it was going to stop there, why include an exception at all.
Not only does the noob player increase his chances of losing, he increases the chances of losing for everyone else but the house.
Only if you keep playing when the count is unfavorable. (Yes, I know it's hard to come and go or vary your bets widely, but this is part of why card counting doesn't pay well in "real life".)
And yes, that player can get tens, tens which would have gone elsewhere. Like all other cards would go elsewhere if anything had been different.
But it's roughly the equivalent of that ten going to you and depriving the player after you of it. You taking that ten "legitimately" reduces his chances just as much as the newb taking it because of incorrect strategy.
But the newb might get the card that would have made you bust, and you seeing another card helps your count, so it's not like you can focus only on the negative aspects.
If newb mistakes bother you so much switch to playing poker. It takes more skill, isn't a waste as people play it outside of casinos for fun unlike most "gambling", and it turns the fleecing of newbs into part of the game. Make them pay to learn basic strategy by being better than them and exploiting their mistakes.
Law must be something other than the dictates of the toughest, or we wouldn't have bothered giving it a special name. That's not morality, that common-sense. We wouldn't codify that kind of law, it just be whatever the biggest person around wanted at the moment.
And no matter what you want to believe, the British government of the America colonies was as legal as any government.
Rather, what we see as a legal government (the USA) was formed as a direct result of rebellion against the crown. We couldn't see today's government as anything other than a treasonous colony unless we acknowledged the fundamental right to rebel against that old government.
For us to feel that any rebellion is ever justified must mean that there is a measure of legitimacy other than brute force.
And seriously, what standard for illegitimate government is more obvious than "own population is trying to get away"?
If you deny that, you must be an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Heaven, because no real human government is legitimate then.
Right, no existing government is fully legitimate by any standard other than might. Some are much more legitimate than others. North Korea is towards the bottom... But they wouldn't get more legitimate if they got nukes, just more dangerous.
What, to you, other than killing power, produces a legitimate right to rule?
Okay, I'll make a law. Oh wait, I have no legitimate authority with which to subject people to my law.
And of course, you have no more authority than me unless I grant it to you, so you can't impose your will on me...
Legitimate government is derived solely through a mandate from the people. Anything else is ultimately derived through force of arms. A king has no claim to power but the latter.
Not in years. But it wasn't a single-purchase scenario so didn't resemble the usual EULA scenario where a customer has no prior exposure to the terms, and the case involved Z's use of the product in such a way as to almost make it available for other users, not usual conditions for an end-user.
Is there a facet to this which you believe is directly related to EULAs that you believe I am missing, or are you just saying 'ProCD' all day?
You are ferociously dumb. I'll reply to you largely in hopes that someone with an open mind reads this.
The owner of a work has a legitimate copy, the one they own.
"volume licensing",
Volume licensed software clearly isn't purchased at retail, where software with EULAs is sold. Do you understand the difference between the two?
You said it yourself, the software was sold.
No, the software was not sold. The particular copy of the software was sold.
Sigh, yes. I know that. Everyone knows that. It's only the title of the fucking section I'm quoting.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.
Owner of a COPY.
[...] it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
Sometimes when you buy software, you want to actually use it in some way other than not-using it. In order to do that, we do what's called "installing", where we make one copy from another copy.
Which, amazingly enough, being what you do when you want to actually use it in some way, is considered an essential step. And you might notice from that quoted section above, that essential steps in utilization of the program are, get this: not an infringement.
100%. That is the amount of wrong you are. There is not a single thing, except perhaps the spelling of your nickname about which you are not in grievous error. Not only are you wrong, you're arrogantly wrong ("Sorry, I forgot I was talking to people who don't know jack about software.")
But then notice that it [117] still puts restrictions on what kind of copying you can do and what you can do with those copies? How could they do that if, otherwise, installation wouldn't be copyright infringement.
One more try...
It would be copyright infringement to just copy the software and give it to someone, yes. But if in the process of 'utilizing the software' it is essential to copy it to HD (it usually is - known as installing as you so helpfully point out), or to RAM, etc, you may do so.
Ditto backups. Backups are fine, but claiming something as a backup and selling it is not. The 'restrictions' are not restrictions, but rather the limit on what will be considered backups.
I think most people in that sort of line of work would tend to shove back when shoved.
I see, they're likely to be unreasonable (implications of violence) when challenged and that's why we shouldn't challenge them for being unreasonable...
Obviously you'd start by saying "Hey Bob, did you know the DEA did X, Y, and Z and you working for them means you're supporting these things". Only when they refuse to take responsibility do you move to open condemnation, progressing to outright social excommunication as required to get through to them, or failing that, make clear to others that their behavior is not socially acceptable.
a position of legal authority
An official performing duties they know to be corrupt, or supporting an organization whose actions are known or should be known to be corrupt, can hardly be said to be a legal authority. Willful ignorance is no excuse - any newspaper could have explained the facts for this agent or any in a similar position.
What else can you call someone who willfully ignores any evidence about possible problems with their behavior and blindly supports their organization against criticism?
And we're back to the beginning of your circular argument. No, the courts don't support EULAs or the theory that software must be licensed.
Do you have a precedent, other than ProCD, that you think is related?
Besides, you don't even know what your argument is, if it's that EULAs are valid contracts or that copyright law somehow limits your right to use a copyrighted work that you own. You'd need a tripod to support your argument.
I think it was more aimed at making it so you generally can't get sued for making backups of software or installing software in cases where there isn't a EULA that clearly and explicitly grants you that right.
You don't need a license, because 117 says you don't. Thus there's no assumption that licenses are needed and EULAs must be valid to fill this niche. Therefore, as was always obvious, software is sold, not licensed, by default - like all other products.
I think it still imagines, however, that you're talking about cases where you have a legitimate copy
The owner of a work has a legitimate copy, the one they own.
I wouldn't feel confident that it gives me a blanket right to install software in terms expressly forbidden by the license agreement under which the software is sold.
You said it yourself, the software was sold. Under a sale there are no further conditions upon the software's use.
[...] and are using the software in ways that are also legitimate.
Fascist asshole. Whose business is it how you use a product you own?
Sorry, but it mattered when people disliked prohibition and now we see many of their actions as reasonable, instead of criminal actions as the state of the day would have had you believe. Had they sat back and followed an unjust law, or those who promoted the law, we'd still have the unjust law.
Moreover, beyond drugs, is the issue of the civil liberties stepped on in combating the supposed drug problem.
I have a medium problem with society telling someone they can't smoke pot.
It becomes a large problem when tobacco and alcohol are provably more dangerous in all measurable ways and yet legal.
It becomes a huge problem. One that has totally destroyed all trust in, or respect for the government in all ways, when it becomes legal to confiscate someone's car and give that money to the police without ever having to 1) prove a crime was committed 2) the car aided it or 3) that the police deserve the money from the seizure.
I can't even describe my contempt for the people who execute armed no-knock raids over alleged victimless crimes. The ones who can't even be bothered to check the details of their orders before kicking down the wrong door are even worse.
however you will be facing the legality portion much like everyone else that has taken that route.
Why people expect protesters to sit quietly and be jailed by, to them, criminal regimes is beyond me.
Besides, this isn't an issue of my freedom to do harmless things, this is an issue of my dislike for people who participate in destroying my civil liberties and my society, all to collect their paycheck, regardless of any law that attempts to justify their behavior.
If everyone treated that specific DEA agent (and all others, on an individual basis) like an asshole murderer until he not only quit the DEA but helped shut them down for their abuses perhaps we'd actually see some change. But instead people are willing to give the peons a free pass because they were just following orders. It doesn't matter if he's officer of the year, as measured in unreasonable confiscations and unjustified arrests, people want to give him a get-out-of-responsibility card just because someone else signed his paychecks (likely using money he stole in the first place.)
So I'd say he shares about the same amount of blame as....pretty much anyone?
Certainly no more than any other supporter of these laws.
But certainly more (blame) than someone who was outspoken against these laws knowing the harm they'd do, or someone who voted against them.
There's an amount of blame in paying taxes, but considering they'll come and arrest you (ultimately jailing or killing you if you resist) for withholding taxes, it's certainly not cut and dried.
If, for instance, there was a law that required you to turn in people of a certain religion for "re-education" which you knew to be a euphemism for torture or death you'd be expected to disobey it. Presumably you wouldn't be to blame at all for the law if you did this...
How, in your eyes, can someone not allowed to leave a group or stop funding all the actions of that group, be considered responsible in the same fashion, and to the same degree, as someone who signs up to take a more active part?
If it quacks like a sale, it's a sale. The customer exchanges money for a box in the same fashion as with laundry detergent.
You have the option to return the software
There's an old scam that involves selling junk to people who live just far enough away to not bother coming back. It's quite illegal to sell a known defective product, or to force the customer to pay unreasonably to return a defective product.
Then you are technically committing copyright infringement when you use the software.
Unless of course, simple ownership of the copy is enough to indemnify you from any claims for making copies essential for the intended functioning of the software. And of course, that is the case. usc 17-117
We've played out the 'you need a license to use software' line, so your argument that EULAs must be valid because they provide something necessary is pretty much shot. Gonna try again?
I am a mature and civil adult that will defend privacy to great extent; that is all. If I woke up in the middle of the night and you happened to be in my home
Oh, by privacy you mean safety. Because yes, certainly someone was in your house without your knowledge or permission they could be a threat.
Here we thought you were freaked out by something trivial like someone standing on the street taking pictures that included your house.
If any private citizen walked around and took pictures from public land and published them online they'd have a website like mine. What did Google do that I did not, except accidentally stray onto private property in a small number of cases?
How does this compare to Bush wiretapping all domestic and foreign phone calls, hoping to get lucky and make up convictions after the fact?
It's not a trade secret if you can wander in off the street and take its picture. You can't sue the pizza-guy because he saw your prototype beyond the opened door.
If you got a job there under false pretenses, intending to steal secrets, then it would be treated as such. (Assuming of course, that is really was a secret and people couldn't just walk in off the street...)
Even if they did, would they go and take a hundred snaps at once while standing out like a sore thumb or would they walk through a few hundred times (like anyone go to work in the building would - get a job there if need be) pretending to talk on their cell-phone while instead snapping pics.
And if this is such a threat, why haven't they beaten us already given that they know how to draw?
A word is reasonable. It's a free society and you're allowed to ask why I'm taking pictures. But you aren't allowed to demand an answer, or that I stop, even if you, your house, car, or kid are in or even are the subject of my photos.
Jump out from nowhere, at an unmarked junction, and start threatening/assaulting a group of people and you might get not only a lesson in the legal marking requirements for private property, but also shot.
I'd suggest you hail them from a distance, and suggest in a friendly tone that they are on your land and you'd appreciate it if they weren't.
I see this as a retard who doesn't understand that we're all allowed to stand on public property and look around. Curtains are to limit the view so that you don't have to shoot your neighbors to achieve some privacy.
Totally reasonable. After all, tons of psychos dare the police to catch them before their crimes by doing daylight stakeouts of their potential victims. They always take a ton of photos of the outsides of the houses, it really turns them on or something.
But what you can be sure of is that it wasn't an architecture or art student, a real-estate photographer, a private investigator looking for someone else, bird-watcher checking out the birds in the chimney, or anything harmless.
Certainly it's a danger to your family. Your kids. They're the cutest ones in the whole world and it's amazing psychos haven't found them yet. Act quickly to ensure this breach is rectified.
Remember, for safety, never let anyone photograph your children. In fact, any men (and 10% of women) who see them will likely be driven to extremes of lust - prepare for group attacks where an entire mob tries to seize your children.
Seriously! If you aren't panicking you don't love your children!
Slashdot Mirror
So the pages are worthless, but now you're concerned about the quality of them...
Bullshit.
I'd find it easier to maintain one article of all US presidents. I mean, what have they done except eat donuts and sit in meetings, occasionally starting some wars. A page for each! And most of their stupid cabinet, etc. What a waste. I should be to cut it down to a five-page article without sacrificing details anyone but an imbecile or someone into American history could care about.
extort - obtain by coercion or intimidation;
"They extorted money from the executive by threatening to reveal his past to the company boss"
"They squeezed money from the owner of the business by threatening him"
Seems to be common usage.
Yelp is essentially lying to customers. ('reviews' implies all reviews, not just selected ones.)
I can't imagine the life of anyone here would be enriched by listening to a lawyer yammer on about the technicality in the legal definition of extortion merely makes this jackassery instead of criminal. It's still antisocial and the people involved need to be ostracized.
Oh yeah, and it because it happened once everyone with a camera is a psycho! You truly are a genius. Why don't you go into business against the FBI. I figure you know how to spot psychos so reliably (which appears to be a combo of looking for a camera and failing to recognize sarcasm) that they'll just fold up and go home once you start making justice happen.
Truly, you are a god among men, not only for your profound wisdom and insight into new-age grammar, but also because your benevolence and humility are a beacon to everyone.
May we all, with time and patience, hope to attain such an enlightened level as your one day.
If the detective they sent to investigate the rape had a camera, did he rape your girlfriend as well? After all, it appears to be the camera that drove the psycho crazy. I mean, you seem so sure and you must have such high standards for evidence...
Go test reincarnation.
Ah, yes, that's quite a great demonstration of how right you are. Name calling.
Considering the derogatory comments were your addition I thought you'd like them. I'm not really surprised you're slimy enough to complain about them as if you didn't do the same thing seconds ago.
Please, tell me more.
I keep trying. As I mentioned, you're dumb, it's taking a long time.
All the more unfortunate that you don't seem to understand the concepts.
Oh, do tell.
You do not own the software. You do not own rights to the software when you buy a copy. What you own is the copy,
Yes. I know. You know that bit of my earlier post where I used the words "Owner of a COPY"? I said that because I was specifically trying to say that the OWNER owns a COPY.
The words I wrote. If you read them, they would enlighten you.
you can legally do whatever you want with it so long as you don't make other copies. If you want to make other copies, there are certain things that the law is particularly spelling out that you are permitted to do. Any other copies you wish to make are forbidden unless you have some kind of license agreement.
Yes, again. You can't copy the software for anything other than an "essential step" for the "utilization of the program". I used those words earlier, if you look for them you can figure out what you missed.
The law you yourself quotes gives you two explicit rights, which are to install the software
Wrong.
[...] owner of a copy of a computer program [...] making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such [...] is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program
The right is not limited to installing, it's good for ANY step that would violate copyright, provided that it's required to using the program. If the program didn't require being installed to the HD, that would not be allowed. If the program DID require install, it would be allowed.
So the default is that you can't copy.
Yes, and the default doesn't apply because this (hypothetical scenario) is software that needs to be installed to work, thus 17-117a1 overrides default behavior.
That's how law works. Does that make sense to you, or do you have questions about that?
It's comments like this that make me treat you rudely. Do you have any questions? Yes, I am rude to you, but you're stupid and I am funnier than you so it's a victimless crime.
What I'm saying is, there's no sign to me in that law that the intention of the law is to specifically to permit people to circumvent the need to have a copyright license in order to copy software. I doubt a judge would interpret it as a blanket right to subvert any and all other license agreements.
Well duh. 117a1 only applies to things required to use the software. You couldn't use it to justify giving your friend a copy.
But you could copy it from your CD to your HD, provided you follow those restrictions, which roughly amount to not transferring the original without transferring or destroying the backup/installed copies.
This installing and running of software is all most people ever do, and 117a explicitly says that for uses in paragraph 1, no license is required.
However, it doesn't give you any particular rights to do anything with the software other than to install it under those normal circumstances.
Wrong again.
an essential step in the utilization of the computer program
I don't think anyone would agree that expected utilization stops at install. If it was going to stop there, why include an exception at all.
And indeed, the word "install" i
Not only does the noob player increase his chances of losing, he increases the chances of losing for everyone else but the house.
Only if you keep playing when the count is unfavorable. (Yes, I know it's hard to come and go or vary your bets widely, but this is part of why card counting doesn't pay well in "real life".)
And yes, that player can get tens, tens which would have gone elsewhere. Like all other cards would go elsewhere if anything had been different.
But it's roughly the equivalent of that ten going to you and depriving the player after you of it. You taking that ten "legitimately" reduces his chances just as much as the newb taking it because of incorrect strategy.
But the newb might get the card that would have made you bust, and you seeing another card helps your count, so it's not like you can focus only on the negative aspects.
If newb mistakes bother you so much switch to playing poker. It takes more skill, isn't a waste as people play it outside of casinos for fun unlike most "gambling", and it turns the fleecing of newbs into part of the game. Make them pay to learn basic strategy by being better than them and exploiting their mistakes.
You keep talking about morality, not law.
Law must be something other than the dictates of the toughest, or we wouldn't have bothered giving it a special name. That's not morality, that common-sense. We wouldn't codify that kind of law, it just be whatever the biggest person around wanted at the moment.
And no matter what you want to believe, the British government of the America colonies was as legal as any government.
Rather, what we see as a legal government (the USA) was formed as a direct result of rebellion against the crown. We couldn't see today's government as anything other than a treasonous colony unless we acknowledged the fundamental right to rebel against that old government.
For us to feel that any rebellion is ever justified must mean that there is a measure of legitimacy other than brute force.
And seriously, what standard for illegitimate government is more obvious than "own population is trying to get away"?
If you deny that, you must be an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Heaven, because no real human government is legitimate then.
Right, no existing government is fully legitimate by any standard other than might. Some are much more legitimate than others. North Korea is towards the bottom... But they wouldn't get more legitimate if they got nukes, just more dangerous.
What, to you, other than killing power, produces a legitimate right to rule?
Okay, I'll make a law. Oh wait, I have no legitimate authority with which to subject people to my law.
And of course, you have no more authority than me unless I grant it to you, so you can't impose your will on me...
Legitimate government is derived solely through a mandate from the people. Anything else is ultimately derived through force of arms. A king has no claim to power but the latter.
Not in years. But it wasn't a single-purchase scenario so didn't resemble the usual EULA scenario where a customer has no prior exposure to the terms, and the case involved Z's use of the product in such a way as to almost make it available for other users, not usual conditions for an end-user.
Is there a facet to this which you believe is directly related to EULAs that you believe I am missing, or are you just saying 'ProCD' all day?
You are ferociously dumb. I'll reply to you largely in hopes that someone with an open mind reads this.
The owner of a work has a legitimate copy, the one they own.
"volume licensing",
Volume licensed software clearly isn't purchased at retail, where software with EULAs is sold. Do you understand the difference between the two?
You said it yourself, the software was sold.
No, the software was not sold. The particular copy of the software was sold.
Sigh, yes. I know that. Everyone knows that. It's only the title of the fucking section I'm quoting.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.
Owner of a COPY.
[...] it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
Sometimes when you buy software, you want to actually use it in some way other than not-using it. In order to do that, we do what's called "installing", where we make one copy from another copy.
Which, amazingly enough, being what you do when you want to actually use it in some way, is considered an essential step. And you might notice from that quoted section above, that essential steps in utilization of the program are, get this: not an infringement.
100%. That is the amount of wrong you are. There is not a single thing, except perhaps the spelling of your nickname about which you are not in grievous error. Not only are you wrong, you're arrogantly wrong ("Sorry, I forgot I was talking to people who don't know jack about software.")
But then notice that it [117] still puts restrictions on what kind of copying you can do and what you can do with those copies? How could they do that if, otherwise, installation wouldn't be copyright infringement.
One more try...
It would be copyright infringement to just copy the software and give it to someone, yes. But if in the process of 'utilizing the software' it is essential to copy it to HD (it usually is - known as installing as you so helpfully point out), or to RAM, etc, you may do so.
Ditto backups. Backups are fine, but claiming something as a backup and selling it is not. The 'restrictions' are not restrictions, but rather the limit on what will be considered backups.
I think most people in that sort of line of work would tend to shove back when shoved.
I see, they're likely to be unreasonable (implications of violence) when challenged and that's why we shouldn't challenge them for being unreasonable...
Obviously you'd start by saying "Hey Bob, did you know the DEA did X, Y, and Z and you working for them means you're supporting these things". Only when they refuse to take responsibility do you move to open condemnation, progressing to outright social excommunication as required to get through to them, or failing that, make clear to others that their behavior is not socially acceptable.
a position of legal authority
An official performing duties they know to be corrupt, or supporting an organization whose actions are known or should be known to be corrupt, can hardly be said to be a legal authority. Willful ignorance is no excuse - any newspaper could have explained the facts for this agent or any in a similar position.
What else can you call someone who willfully ignores any evidence about possible problems with their behavior and blindly supports their organization against criticism?
And we're back to the beginning of your circular argument. No, the courts don't support EULAs or the theory that software must be licensed.
Do you have a precedent, other than ProCD, that you think is related?
Besides, you don't even know what your argument is, if it's that EULAs are valid contracts or that copyright law somehow limits your right to use a copyrighted work that you own. You'd need a tripod to support your argument.
The king makes the law, but that doesn't make the law legitimate.
A government cannot legitimately exist except through the will of the people. Anything else is a dictatorship - slavery.
I think it was more aimed at making it so you generally can't get sued for making backups of software or installing software in cases where there isn't a EULA that clearly and explicitly grants you that right.
You don't need a license, because 117 says you don't. Thus there's no assumption that licenses are needed and EULAs must be valid to fill this niche. Therefore, as was always obvious, software is sold, not licensed, by default - like all other products.
I think it still imagines, however, that you're talking about cases where you have a legitimate copy
The owner of a work has a legitimate copy, the one they own.
I wouldn't feel confident that it gives me a blanket right to install software in terms expressly forbidden by the license agreement under which the software is sold.
You said it yourself, the software was sold. Under a sale there are no further conditions upon the software's use.
[...] and are using the software in ways that are also legitimate.
Fascist asshole. Whose business is it how you use a product you own?
Not if they left it, it wasn't their government. And rule by a king is never legitimate.
Sorry, but it mattered when people disliked prohibition and now we see many of their actions as reasonable, instead of criminal actions as the state of the day would have had you believe. Had they sat back and followed an unjust law, or those who promoted the law, we'd still have the unjust law.
Moreover, beyond drugs, is the issue of the civil liberties stepped on in combating the supposed drug problem.
I have a medium problem with society telling someone they can't smoke pot.
It becomes a large problem when tobacco and alcohol are provably more dangerous in all measurable ways and yet legal.
It becomes a huge problem. One that has totally destroyed all trust in, or respect for the government in all ways, when it becomes legal to confiscate someone's car and give that money to the police without ever having to 1) prove a crime was committed 2) the car aided it or 3) that the police deserve the money from the seizure.
I can't even describe my contempt for the people who execute armed no-knock raids over alleged victimless crimes. The ones who can't even be bothered to check the details of their orders before kicking down the wrong door are even worse.
however you will be facing the legality portion much like everyone else that has taken that route.
Why people expect protesters to sit quietly and be jailed by, to them, criminal regimes is beyond me.
Besides, this isn't an issue of my freedom to do harmless things, this is an issue of my dislike for people who participate in destroying my civil liberties and my society, all to collect their paycheck, regardless of any law that attempts to justify their behavior.
If everyone treated that specific DEA agent (and all others, on an individual basis) like an asshole murderer until he not only quit the DEA but helped shut them down for their abuses perhaps we'd actually see some change. But instead people are willing to give the peons a free pass because they were just following orders. It doesn't matter if he's officer of the year, as measured in unreasonable confiscations and unjustified arrests, people want to give him a get-out-of-responsibility card just because someone else signed his paychecks (likely using money he stole in the first place.)
So I'd say he shares about the same amount of blame as....pretty much anyone?
Certainly no more than any other supporter of these laws.
But certainly more (blame) than someone who was outspoken against these laws knowing the harm they'd do, or someone who voted against them.
There's an amount of blame in paying taxes, but considering they'll come and arrest you (ultimately jailing or killing you if you resist) for withholding taxes, it's certainly not cut and dried.
If, for instance, there was a law that required you to turn in people of a certain religion for "re-education" which you knew to be a euphemism for torture or death you'd be expected to disobey it. Presumably you wouldn't be to blame at all for the law if you did this...
How, in your eyes, can someone not allowed to leave a group or stop funding all the actions of that group, be considered responsible in the same fashion, and to the same degree, as someone who signs up to take a more active part?
If it quacks like a sale, it's a sale. The customer exchanges money for a box in the same fashion as with laundry detergent.
You have the option to return the software
There's an old scam that involves selling junk to people who live just far enough away to not bother coming back. It's quite illegal to sell a known defective product, or to force the customer to pay unreasonably to return a defective product.
Then you are technically committing copyright infringement when you use the software.
Unless of course, simple ownership of the copy is enough to indemnify you from any claims for making copies essential for the intended functioning of the software. And of course, that is the case. usc 17-117
We've played out the 'you need a license to use software' line, so your argument that EULAs must be valid because they provide something necessary is pretty much shot. Gonna try again?
I am a mature and civil adult that will defend privacy to great extent; that is all. If I woke up in the middle of the night and you happened to be in my home
Oh, by privacy you mean safety. Because yes, certainly someone was in your house without your knowledge or permission they could be a threat.
Here we thought you were freaked out by something trivial like someone standing on the street taking pictures that included your house.
Hah hah. How dumb that would be.
If any private citizen walked around and took pictures from public land and published them online they'd have a website like mine. What did Google do that I did not, except accidentally stray onto private property in a small number of cases?
How does this compare to Bush wiretapping all domestic and foreign phone calls, hoping to get lucky and make up convictions after the fact?
It's not a trade secret if you can wander in off the street and take its picture. You can't sue the pizza-guy because he saw your prototype beyond the opened door.
If you got a job there under false pretenses, intending to steal secrets, then it would be treated as such. (Assuming of course, that is really was a secret and people couldn't just walk in off the street...)
Even if they did, would they go and take a hundred snaps at once while standing out like a sore thumb or would they walk through a few hundred times (like anyone go to work in the building would - get a job there if need be) pretending to talk on their cell-phone while instead snapping pics.
And if this is such a threat, why haven't they beaten us already given that they know how to draw?
A word is reasonable. It's a free society and you're allowed to ask why I'm taking pictures. But you aren't allowed to demand an answer, or that I stop, even if you, your house, car, or kid are in or even are the subject of my photos.
Our military will protect our nation from invasion, just as I will protect my household from invasion.
Irrationally, without a sense of proportion, and ultimately uselessly.
You qualify to be Dubya's military advisor.
Jump out from nowhere, at an unmarked junction, and start threatening/assaulting a group of people and you might get not only a lesson in the legal marking requirements for private property, but also shot.
I'd suggest you hail them from a distance, and suggest in a friendly tone that they are on your land and you'd appreciate it if they weren't.
I see this as a retard who doesn't understand that we're all allowed to stand on public property and look around. Curtains are to limit the view so that you don't have to shoot your neighbors to achieve some privacy.
Totally reasonable. After all, tons of psychos dare the police to catch them before their crimes by doing daylight stakeouts of their potential victims. They always take a ton of photos of the outsides of the houses, it really turns them on or something.
But what you can be sure of is that it wasn't an architecture or art student, a real-estate photographer, a private investigator looking for someone else, bird-watcher checking out the birds in the chimney, or anything harmless.
Certainly it's a danger to your family. Your kids. They're the cutest ones in the whole world and it's amazing psychos haven't found them yet. Act quickly to ensure this breach is rectified.
Remember, for safety, never let anyone photograph your children. In fact, any men (and 10% of women) who see them will likely be driven to extremes of lust - prepare for group attacks where an entire mob tries to seize your children.
Seriously! If you aren't panicking you don't love your children!