I have cats in my apartment. I certainly did not have cats in my dorm room.
I think I can answer with basically one point. They are called dormitories, instead of apartments or houses, for a reason.
Public services have specified uses. Any other use is usually prohibited. You can't stable your horses in the library. You can't pitch a tent in the road.
Did you just tell me to die in a fire? Aren't you the civil one.
Have you ever lived in a dorm room? They tell you all kinds of things you cannot have. Alcohol. Cigarettes and cigars. A variety of electrical appliances. Extended stay guests. Overnight guests. King sized beds and most other self provided furniture. Most weapons. Cats, dogs, snakes--practically no pets. Power tools.
If you choose to live in a dorm (or choose a school that requires you to live in a dorm) then get over it. You won't have the same freedoms that someone who made different choices about their living circumstances.
$21,300 is not chump change, but unless $21,300 x the number of students at your school = the total operating cost of your school, then your lifestyle is being subsidized by someone else. They should get what they pay for, which is as highly educated a populace as is possible. You talk as if you are not getting what you rightfully paid for, yet you never ask the question, let alone answer it: is your community getting what they paid for when some slacker is skipping all her classes, downloading lesbian porn, and feminist propaganda movies over bittorrent?
Find me a school where you can remodel your dorm room and I'll consider your argument.
You're attending a school your education is being subsidized by someone else. When you are living in a dormitory your living expenses are being subsidized by someone else. Those subsidies are earmarked for the purpose of getting you an education. Sorry, but when you're living in student housing you're not paying your own way. You can't expect the same freedoms and choices as someone who purchased their own home.
Ack. I used to work for a computer department at a utah university. And I argued fairly regularily that if we were going to allow people to sit in the labs and browse sports illustrated for the latest scores, and browse religious websites, and send personal email, then we should allow people to sit quietly in the corner and download porn (and not jack off while doing it.)
I fail to see how this is appropriate, given that most large universities don't pay by the bit.
Universities aren't in the business of providing internet access. Yeah, they have it. For furthering their charters, ie. education.
In fact, most after-hours usage imposes almost no cost on the university, as they typically pay according to the 95th-percentile rule and daytime usage is much higher than after-hours usage.
Daytime use is higher in a business. Of course, residential networks have the opposite usage patterns. At a university where they have both types of usage on the same networks, it may well be that the 95th percentile hits right about the time everybody fires up their bittorrent clients and hits the sack.
...it really has nothing to do with cost.
It has nothing to do with cost recovery. It has everything to do with excess cost and ensuring usage is related to the purpose of the university. If 50% of your bandwidth is completely unrelated to the mission of the institution, then it seems perfectly reasonable to eliminate that usage. If the only way to do so is to shut it off, or bill exorbitant rates, then that's just great.
Right now Novell has a complete OS and it's licensed entirely under GPL v2 and other open licenses. That will continue to be true after the FSF finally finishes writing the holy scripture, err, GPL v3. The odds that Novell would be unable to keep up after a required fork are pretty high. Every major OSS app has been funded and managed, or written in it's entirety, by a private enterprise.
Why are you making up absurd hypotheticals that are in direct contradiction to the statements in the article? It says that access in the library would be available 24 hours a day. Presumedly that will included access to the library as a prerequisite. Therefore your story about the library closing at 6pm would be wrong.
The college they pay to educate them instead wants to make moral judgements on their hard drive content and free time.
You do know that very few colleges actually recover their operating costs via tuition? They are funded by state or private endownments. The tuition you pay is what the community members (or the board members of the private institution you are attending) consider is your fair share since you are the primary beneficiary of your education. Tuition pays for a very specific service, not the largest porn-pipe you can imagine.
If I'm going to school, and paying a fortune to attend, I expect to have access to every tool I might need any time I might need it (barring physical limitations).
As a taxpayer I expect that my state funded schools exist to serve the purpose of education. Since that appears to be your goal as well I think we should form a coalition to achieve this purpose. Our platform can be:
1) Internet banwidth is provided for the purpose of education. Any educational use that is associated with the student's current course work or field of study is included in tuition. 2) Any usage that does not fit under #1 will be billed at $1.00 per bit. Payable immediately. 3) In the event that a student falls $100.00 behind on their bandwidth bill, access will be restricted both by time of day (6:00 AM - 6:00 PM) and by rate (5 Kbps.) 4) In the event that a student falls $1,000.00 behind on their bandwidth bill, they will be suspended from school and their transcript held until they are paid current. 5) If a student manages to go from less than $1,000.00 due to over $2,500 due in a single data packet, said student will be charged with misuse of public property. And jailed until they have earned enough working for Prison Industries to pay off their bill.
It is amazing how many college welfare cases cry about their rights when taxpayers start looking askance at utterly inappropriate use of state funded resources.
Don't be so obtuse. You implied republishing equates to copyright infringement in every instance but even a single exception brings down your assertion, and the fact that most people don't care is that exception.
I absolutely did no such thing. Here's a cut-n-paste just in case it's too hard to scroll back:
Just because they republish content doesn't mean they're BREAKING the copyright.
No, that's exactly what it means.
We know exactly who they is. It's not a generic term.
The rest of your blather is pointless. It's worthless arguing with people who think that it is ok for search engines, etc. to externalize the costs of doing business.
I have the feeling that you just don't understand the way the internet works. People who "publish" content make it available, and people who "surf" the content pull down copies. Those copies are transmitted through several network systems on the way to their destination, and any network in the middle could copy the data for purposes of caching or otherwise.
Given, that you said "internet" instead of "world wide web", and I have contributed patches to ASF's httpd server, I assume that I know more about how the internet works that you do.
But ignoring that, just compare the words cache and archive. One means transient, the other means long term if not permanent.
Even ignoring that, as a web publisher one knows that actual visitors (as opposed to automation) to a site will pretty much never go into their web cache's and extract the content and republish.
Robots.txt can be used to advertise where a crawler should index as well as where a crawler should not. It is both opt-in and opt-out at the same time.
Can you show any evidence of that? Particularily in this case, archive.org uses it as opt-out. The general absence of robots.txt on websites and general appearance of the same websites in search results would demonstrate a default inclusion.
The main robots.txt site, and the RFC.
That's not an RFC. If you had read even the header you would know that. As such I'm going to end here.
Since we know precisely who "they" is in the original statement your attempt to generalize your way out of looking like an idiot fails. If you wanted to support you claim that archive.org is not engaging in copyright violations, you would have to identify why they in particular are not. Pointing out that under specific conditions republishing is not copyright violation is not enough.
Secondly, you don't have a right to not be disagreed with, regardless of the validity of the argument used in explaining the disagreement. If I were a malicious sort your threats of legal action could get you in trouble.
Thirdly, surprisingly enough, you hit on my exact point without understanding it at all. Municipalities and states have used the processes and methods required by statute to specify the nature of the notices for no trespassing signs. I, as a trespasser, cannot require that you provide me with notice written in very small print on the back of a hundred dollar bill. Robots.txt is not law. It's not even an RFC. It's just an expired draft document, portions of which are used by various companies. Archive.org saying "you didn't have a robots.txt so we're going to republish your content" is like me telling a cop "the road isn't painted green, so I'm going to drive 140 MPH."
Finally, you know what's really ironic? The first paragraph of Archive.org's Terms of Use is this:
This terms of use agreement (the "Agreement") governs your use of the collection of Web pages and other digital content (the "Collections") available through the Internet Archive (the "Archive"). When accessing an archived page, you will be presented with the terms of use agreement. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not use the Archive's Collections or its Web site (the "Site").
Wait! They're putting up an agreement page. But... but... what about robots.txt? If I was this lady, I'd just print that out and take it to court. Seems like a very clear statement that archive.org believes that such agreements are binding.
Oops! Looks like somebody doesn't understand the internet.
Robots.txt is the way to block web spiders from your site. That's not somebody "dictating your rights", that just the way it fucking works.
Are you really that much of a loser? You talk as if robots.txt is in the same ballpark as gravity. It's not "just the way it fucking works." It's how a few businesses have condescendingly dictated to you how you might be able to control some aspects of their automated software as it repeatedly hammers your website, using your resources for their profit.
If you want to talk about how the internet works, why don't you butch the fuck up and show me the RFC. Oh wait, you won't be able to because the only goddamned document regarding robots.txt that ever started the path towards being an internet standard is entitled "draft-koster-robots-00.txt" and it expired in June 1997. It never made it to being an RFC. You've heard of RFCs, right? The actual standards documents that define the internet. If anything, people who use robots.txt are specifically not within standards since the draft document was allowed to expire without ever being adopted.
When you have a blank or non-existant robots.txt, it's understood by billions of people on the internet that you don't mind if web spiders crawl your site and add it to their index, make cached copies, etc. That's the way it was designed, and that's the way its worked from the very beginning. It's not rocket science.
Really? Billions of people? Billions? Lie much? I bet you tell the girls you have a fifty-six inch cock. There aren't billions of people who can tell you what HTTP stands for, let alone the meaning of an after thought, didn't even make it as an add-on, specification.
And that's the way it's worked from the very beginning, really? Truly you are showing depths of cluelessness that rival members of congress. The draft document specifying the robots.txt format was written in November 1996, and published in December 1996. About seven years after "the very beginning." We'll not even get into your claim about that being the way it was designed. Talk about not even doing the most basic research.
Also, every person who visits your site gets a complete copy of the pages they visit in their browser cache. Once your page is cached in my browser, I have that information forever. I can delete it, view it, save it to CD, make a PDF, etc. Just like the person who owns a book that's no longer published. There's not some magic "delete fairy" who goes around deleting everyone's browser cache when you decide to delete a page.
Yeah, and going back to how the internet actually "fucking works" you can download and read the HTTP RFCs and see that caching is explicitly included in the standards. There are headers that specifically dicate whether a page should be cached or not and if cached, for how long. Having something in your browser cache doesn't give you the right to republish, you ignorant turd.
Maybe not everyone knows about their browser cache or robots.txt, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
So after parsing your barely literate double negative, you're claiming that because people do not know about browser caches and robots.txt such things exist? That is some real solid logic. I bet you ax people questions too.
You can't change the way the internet works because a bunch of morons failed to do even the most basic research before throwing their crap on the web.
In light of the fact that robots.txt is actually not an internet standard, are you really equating the dictates of a few dozen companies as being the carved-in-stone, laws-of-physics, "way the internet works?" As opposed to the thousands of actual RFCs that define the "way the internet works."
ps - Before you start painting your cardboard placards with "I heart robots.txt" you migh
Dictating opt-in is no problem. You want to do it, if you want to do it badly enough they can make the opt-in process particularily difficult, arbitrary, capricious, or even expensive. Like, you know, placing an advertisement in a magazine where you have to contact a specific person and give them, *gasp*, money to be included.
If search engines have to employ people to manually trawl sites looking for "you may index this site" notices in any possible language, then search engines will just disappear.
I wouldn't suggest that manual human intervention is required. But certainly, that "well understood" robots.txt file that gets you oozing in your shorts, could be used for opt-in as easily as the advertising parasites, I mean the search engines, want it to be used for opt-out.
And if there aren't enough sites that choose to opt-in it would be a very clear message that the whole search engine business model isn't interesting to the world's consumers and content producers.
Just because they republish content doesn't mean they're BREAKING the copyright.
No, that's exactly what it means. Especially in the day of publishing on the web, where when you decide to stop pulishing, it's gone. If you publish a book and sell it, whoever bought the book can come back to it over and over. If you remove your webpage it's gone -- unless some asshat corporation (non-profit or otherwise) comes along and decides to republish your content without your permission. Archive.org, Google, etc. are massive copyright violators. It's not for you to dictate to me the method I have to use to tell you not to violate my rights. Being indexed should be opt-in. Just like being spammed. Being employed. Being in a relationship. Being called by telemarketers.
Jesus. You act as if being marginally interesting and marginally techie is the same as a presidential pardon and a blessing from the pope.
Do you not see the perfectly logical conclusion in your post? The content producers want to protect their interests so they pay a third party to provide a harware solution. Duh. You do know it's completely legal for a company to do business with another company? "Kick backs" my ass.
Just out of curiousity do you know what precedent is? I'm thinking you don't. First, this case was settled. It never went before a judge or jury, it wasn't decided. So no precedent. Second, let's go ahead and say this did go to trial and a judge actually rendered a judgement. It would mean zero to the next DMCA case that comes along unless it's "on all fours" with the original case. So your theory that a case about false DMCA notices will reflect on legitimate DMCA cases is complete bullshit. Thirdly, the only time precedent is established is when there is some ambiguity in the statute. There's nothing in the DMCA that is ambiguous about non-copyright holders submitting take down notices.
Going all digital benefits us in that the frequency range can be repurposed. The license fees for that frequency range are surely going to exceed $990 million.
Maybe. Maybe not. A quality HDTV digital signal runs right about 6 Mbit/sec. Depending on signalling, that puts it in the exact same ballpark as current analog signals.
Whatever it looks like, this hand out is not to consumers. It's to the entire broadcast industry. The people who build and sell televisions. Who build and sell broadcast equipment. Who build and sell HD cameras. If digital HDTV was worth it to consumers they'd buy into themselves. The fact that the government is forcing it just means that those asshat fucking crooks have sold out. Check that revolving door.
The only consumers who really give a shit are the boneheads who would look like complete fucking idiots for buying $2,000 television if this wasn't forced.
Constitutional law is the study of the intersection between the constitution and municipal, state, and federal codes. You can't break Article 1, Section 1. It's just not legal code.
What should be worrying you is not which FBI agents are improperly access information, but rather which private investigators are pretending to be FBI agents and submitting national security letters to get information for use in civil proceedings. With a paragraph attached informing the bank, telco, whatever that discussing the letter will result in jail or significant fines. Nobody is even aware that these things are being passed around. The FBI doesn't hear because the banks aren't talking, as required by the law.
No the article says there is no indication of criminal misconduct. It has zero to do with intent. It has nothing to do with knowledge. It has everything to do with criminal vs. not criminal. There certainly was misconduct, but there also apparently was not criminal misconduct. If you can't understand that you need to go have a serious talk with your parents and teachers for failing to teach you to read.
Slashdot Mirror
I have cats in my apartment. I certainly did not have cats in my dorm room.
I think I can answer with basically one point. They are called dormitories, instead of apartments or houses, for a reason.
Public services have specified uses. Any other use is usually prohibited. You can't stable your horses in the library. You can't pitch a tent in the road.
Did you just tell me to die in a fire? Aren't you the civil one.
Have you ever lived in a dorm room? They tell you all kinds of things you cannot have. Alcohol. Cigarettes and cigars. A variety of electrical appliances. Extended stay guests. Overnight guests. King sized beds and most other self provided furniture. Most weapons. Cats, dogs, snakes--practically no pets. Power tools.
If you choose to live in a dorm (or choose a school that requires you to live in a dorm) then get over it. You won't have the same freedoms that someone who made different choices about their living circumstances.
Interesting. And wow. For $3,000/mo, I'd grab my two buddies and go rent a huge house.
$21,300 is not chump change, but unless $21,300 x the number of students at your school = the total operating cost of your school, then your lifestyle is being subsidized by someone else. They should get what they pay for, which is as highly educated a populace as is possible. You talk as if you are not getting what you rightfully paid for, yet you never ask the question, let alone answer it: is your community getting what they paid for when some slacker is skipping all her classes, downloading lesbian porn, and feminist propaganda movies over bittorrent?
Find me a school where you can remodel your dorm room and I'll consider your argument.
You're attending a school your education is being subsidized by someone else. When you are living in a dormitory your living expenses are being subsidized by someone else. Those subsidies are earmarked for the purpose of getting you an education. Sorry, but when you're living in student housing you're not paying your own way. You can't expect the same freedoms and choices as someone who purchased their own home.
Ack. I used to work for a computer department at a utah university. And I argued fairly regularily that if we were going to allow people to sit in the labs and browse sports illustrated for the latest scores, and browse religious websites, and send personal email, then we should allow people to sit quietly in the corner and download porn (and not jack off while doing it.)
Universities aren't in the business of providing internet access. Yeah, they have it. For furthering their charters, ie. education.
Daytime use is higher in a business. Of course, residential networks have the opposite usage patterns. At a university where they have both types of usage on the same networks, it may well be that the 95th percentile hits right about the time everybody fires up their bittorrent clients and hits the sack.
It has nothing to do with cost recovery. It has everything to do with excess cost and ensuring usage is related to the purpose of the university. If 50% of your bandwidth is completely unrelated to the mission of the institution, then it seems perfectly reasonable to eliminate that usage. If the only way to do so is to shut it off, or bill exorbitant rates, then that's just great.
Yeah. That'd be why I said "state funded".
Right now Novell has a complete OS and it's licensed entirely under GPL v2 and other open licenses. That will continue to be true after the FSF finally finishes writing the holy scripture, err, GPL v3. The odds that Novell would be unable to keep up after a required fork are pretty high. Every major OSS app has been funded and managed, or written in it's entirety, by a private enterprise.
You do know that very few colleges actually recover their operating costs via tuition? They are funded by state or private endownments. The tuition you pay is what the community members (or the board members of the private institution you are attending) consider is your fair share since you are the primary beneficiary of your education. Tuition pays for a very specific service, not the largest porn-pipe you can imagine.
As a taxpayer I expect that my state funded schools exist to serve the purpose of education. Since that appears to be your goal as well I think we should form a coalition to achieve this purpose. Our platform can be:
1) Internet banwidth is provided for the purpose of education. Any educational use that is associated with the student's current course work or field of study is included in tuition.
2) Any usage that does not fit under #1 will be billed at $1.00 per bit. Payable immediately.
3) In the event that a student falls $100.00 behind on their bandwidth bill, access will be restricted both by time of day (6:00 AM - 6:00 PM) and by rate (5 Kbps.)
4) In the event that a student falls $1,000.00 behind on their bandwidth bill, they will be suspended from school and their transcript held until they are paid current.
5) If a student manages to go from less than $1,000.00 due to over $2,500 due in a single data packet, said student will be charged with misuse of public property. And jailed until they have earned enough working for Prison Industries to pay off their bill.
It is amazing how many college welfare cases cry about their rights when taxpayers start looking askance at utterly inappropriate use of state funded resources.
I absolutely did no such thing. Here's a cut-n-paste just in case it's too hard to scroll back:
We know exactly who they is. It's not a generic term.
The rest of your blather is pointless. It's worthless arguing with people who think that it is ok for search engines, etc. to externalize the costs of doing business.
Given, that you said "internet" instead of "world wide web", and I have contributed patches to ASF's httpd server, I assume that I know more about how the internet works that you do.
But ignoring that, just compare the words cache and archive. One means transient, the other means long term if not permanent.
Even ignoring that, as a web publisher one knows that actual visitors (as opposed to automation) to a site will pretty much never go into their web cache's and extract the content and republish.
Can you show any evidence of that? Particularily in this case, archive.org uses it as opt-out. The general absence of robots.txt on websites and general appearance of the same websites in search results would demonstrate a default inclusion.
That's not an RFC. If you had read even the header you would know that. As such I'm going to end here.
Secondly, you don't have a right to not be disagreed with, regardless of the validity of the argument used in explaining the disagreement. If I were a malicious sort your threats of legal action could get you in trouble.
Thirdly, surprisingly enough, you hit on my exact point without understanding it at all. Municipalities and states have used the processes and methods required by statute to specify the nature of the notices for no trespassing signs. I, as a trespasser, cannot require that you provide me with notice written in very small print on the back of a hundred dollar bill. Robots.txt is not law. It's not even an RFC. It's just an expired draft document, portions of which are used by various companies. Archive.org saying "you didn't have a robots.txt so we're going to republish your content" is like me telling a cop "the road isn't painted green, so I'm going to drive 140 MPH."
Finally, you know what's really ironic? The first paragraph of Archive.org's Terms of Use is this:
Wait! They're putting up an agreement page. But... but... what about robots.txt? If I was this lady, I'd just print that out and take it to court. Seems like a very clear statement that archive.org believes that such agreements are binding.
Are you really that much of a loser? You talk as if robots.txt is in the same ballpark as gravity. It's not "just the way it fucking works." It's how a few businesses have condescendingly dictated to you how you might be able to control some aspects of their automated software as it repeatedly hammers your website, using your resources for their profit.
If you want to talk about how the internet works, why don't you butch the fuck up and show me the RFC. Oh wait, you won't be able to because the only goddamned document regarding robots.txt that ever started the path towards being an internet standard is entitled "draft-koster-robots-00.txt" and it expired in June 1997. It never made it to being an RFC. You've heard of RFCs, right? The actual standards documents that define the internet. If anything, people who use robots.txt are specifically not within standards since the draft document was allowed to expire without ever being adopted.
Really? Billions of people? Billions? Lie much? I bet you tell the girls you have a fifty-six inch cock. There aren't billions of people who can tell you what HTTP stands for, let alone the meaning of an after thought, didn't even make it as an add-on, specification.
And that's the way it's worked from the very beginning, really? Truly you are showing depths of cluelessness that rival members of congress. The draft document specifying the robots.txt format was written in November 1996, and published in December 1996. About seven years after "the very beginning." We'll not even get into your claim about that being the way it was designed. Talk about not even doing the most basic research.
Yeah, and going back to how the internet actually "fucking works" you can download and read the HTTP RFCs and see that caching is explicitly included in the standards. There are headers that specifically dicate whether a page should be cached or not and if cached, for how long. Having something in your browser cache doesn't give you the right to republish, you ignorant turd.
So after parsing your barely literate double negative, you're claiming that because people do not know about browser caches and robots.txt such things exist? That is some real solid logic. I bet you ax people questions too.
In light of the fact that robots.txt is actually not an internet standard, are you really equating the dictates of a few dozen companies as being the carved-in-stone, laws-of-physics, "way the internet works?" As opposed to the thousands of actual RFCs that define the "way the internet works."
ps - Before you start painting your cardboard placards with "I heart robots.txt" you migh
I wouldn't suggest that manual human intervention is required. But certainly, that "well understood" robots.txt file that gets you oozing in your shorts, could be used for opt-in as easily as the advertising parasites, I mean the search engines, want it to be used for opt-out.
And if there aren't enough sites that choose to opt-in it would be a very clear message that the whole search engine business model isn't interesting to the world's consumers and content producers.
No, that's exactly what it means. Especially in the day of publishing on the web, where when you decide to stop pulishing, it's gone. If you publish a book and sell it, whoever bought the book can come back to it over and over. If you remove your webpage it's gone -- unless some asshat corporation (non-profit or otherwise) comes along and decides to republish your content without your permission. Archive.org, Google, etc. are massive copyright violators. It's not for you to dictate to me the method I have to use to tell you not to violate my rights. Being indexed should be opt-in. Just like being spammed. Being employed. Being in a relationship. Being called by telemarketers.
Jesus. You act as if being marginally interesting and marginally techie is the same as a presidential pardon and a blessing from the pope.
Perjury doesn't mean being wrong. It means being intentionally wrong.
Do you not see the perfectly logical conclusion in your post? The content producers want to protect their interests so they pay a third party to provide a harware solution. Duh. You do know it's completely legal for a company to do business with another company? "Kick backs" my ass.
Just out of curiousity do you know what precedent is? I'm thinking you don't. First, this case was settled. It never went before a judge or jury, it wasn't decided. So no precedent. Second, let's go ahead and say this did go to trial and a judge actually rendered a judgement. It would mean zero to the next DMCA case that comes along unless it's "on all fours" with the original case. So your theory that a case about false DMCA notices will reflect on legitimate DMCA cases is complete bullshit. Thirdly, the only time precedent is established is when there is some ambiguity in the statute. There's nothing in the DMCA that is ambiguous about non-copyright holders submitting take down notices.
Maybe. Maybe not. A quality HDTV digital signal runs right about 6 Mbit/sec. Depending on signalling, that puts it in the exact same ballpark as current analog signals.
Whatever it looks like, this hand out is not to consumers. It's to the entire broadcast industry. The people who build and sell televisions. Who build and sell broadcast equipment. Who build and sell HD cameras. If digital HDTV was worth it to consumers they'd buy into themselves. The fact that the government is forcing it just means that those asshat fucking crooks have sold out. Check that revolving door.
The only consumers who really give a shit are the boneheads who would look like complete fucking idiots for buying $2,000 television if this wasn't forced.
Constitutional law is the study of the intersection between the constitution and municipal, state, and federal codes. You can't break Article 1, Section 1. It's just not legal code.
What should be worrying you is not which FBI agents are improperly access information, but rather which private investigators are pretending to be FBI agents and submitting national security letters to get information for use in civil proceedings. With a paragraph attached informing the bank, telco, whatever that discussing the letter will result in jail or significant fines. Nobody is even aware that these things are being passed around. The FBI doesn't hear because the banks aren't talking, as required by the law.
The constitution is not a code of law. It details the structure of the government and the extent and nature of the government's powers.
No the article says there is no indication of criminal misconduct. It has zero to do with intent. It has nothing to do with knowledge. It has everything to do with criminal vs. not criminal. There certainly was misconduct, but there also apparently was not criminal misconduct. If you can't understand that you need to go have a serious talk with your parents and teachers for failing to teach you to read.