Actually, that's badly stated. Watch the 'Tikka to Ride' episode for the proof. Silly me... I was so excited I forgot to include some details. Baka Dabido!
'I'm mostly surprised that noone has thought of a (P)rogramming language.:)'
Probably prior art... P is another word for p*ss and how many programmers have had their programs rejected for being as weak as p*ss? So 'P' is what poor programmers write in. [Only to have their programs flushed away!]:-)
But isn't your ESCAPE a way of getting away from it all... in which case, its fulfilling your need to remove yourself from the stress etc. of the real world. It's still fulfilling a need you have.
Buy him a copy of 'The Rabbit Trap' starring Ernest Borgnine. I'm unsure if it's on DVD at all... not even sure if it is on Video Cassette, but it seems pretty relevant.
The author is putting things into context. In Gen 1 the author talks about the order in which things occurred, but in Gen 2 he's talking about the interaction which lead to the creation of Eve. It's similar to any story where an author goes into more details concerning some things they've just mentioned. Happens all the time in modern books [both fiction and non-fiction]. The author didn't go into the creation of the earth and the heavens the second time either, that's because it is irrelevant to the point they are making.
Why does the author mention the plants again?
Because the Author is explaining the Garden of Eden, so the formation of the plants is relevant.
Why does it mention mans creation again?
Because it then places man fair and square in the Garden of Eden.
The point in question isn't creation, the author already handled that. The point is, when God made the plants he also made this 'Garden of Eden', and when he made man he placed the man 'in the garden'.
The formation of the Earth, beasts etc doesn't have to be mentioned, as it's irrelevant to what's being discussed. I mean, when trying to show that God put the man into the Garden of Eden, talking about beasts and other things is on par with discussing surfing or cars. It's irrelevant to the point being made, so the author doesnt' discuss it.
When the author does mention that the beasts had been created earlier, it's because it now become integral to the story. That's because the author is now discussing how a suitable mate couldn't be found amongst animals, so God decided to form Eve.
Your four explanations really come back to you either WANTING the Bible to say something other than what it is talking about, or you not understanding it. After all, it has come from a different culture and time. So it is easy to misunderstand what the author is talking about without better understanding of the times, places etc when it was written.
For all intensive purposes YOU might as well be asking why it doesn't mention surfing or cars. That's why there simply isn't any missing verse, the author is keeping the story straight, [you're just missing what's being said, not that I am saying that is unreasonable. I also read a lot of Japanese works, and I'm sure as a Non-Japanese I miss an awful lot of what would be obvious to someone who is Japanese. I did once ask one of my Japanese friends regarding a very old poem, but even they didn't understand and told me it was becasue the language was so old.] Gods not being sloppy, NOR is there some mystery. Just read what's written and see what's being said. [And remember, if it doesn't make sense, it might have someting to do with a context you are unfamiliar with].
'we're back to my original worry, namely, that the passing of the Bible down the generations has been very unreliable.'
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that the passing down of the Bible has been very reliable. The original Hebrew Old Testament was basically held together with checks and balances. After writing a page, the copier would count what the letters added up to [as the letters were also numbers], and if there was a discrepancy they'd wipe the parchment/papyrus and re-write the lot again. Even if they did add up correctly, they'd then pass it to a higher Priest to have them check it. So the Old Testament was VERY accurate, and I [personally] have never heard of a discrepancy amongst Old Testament texts.
New Testament was a bit trickier, as a lot of the copying was performed by slaves who were made to write what was dictated to them from another slave reading off a parchment/papyrus. Most Bibles have footnotes in them in regards to some discrepencies, but the only two discrepencies which I would say are BIG, would be:
1. Is the fact that the end of Mark [Mark 16:9-20], seems to have been tact on by someone later. The earlier copies of Mark don't have the verses. Like I said, most Bibles have footnotes pointing this out.
and
'I thought that you couldn't release works that aren't copyrighted, into the public domain any more.'
Um... I think you mean something other than what you wrote. If a work ISN'T copyrighted, it is in Public Domain. So, Yes, you can't release works that aren't copyrighted into public domain, as they're already there.
If you are the copyright holder of a work, then you can certainly release your work into public domain. Copyright is just the legal ability to make copies of a work. If you write on the work that as the creator you are allowing people to do what they want with it, as you are relinquishing your copyright, then legally what can anyone else do? After all, they can't force you to take people to court for copying your work, can they. Plus, you've given everyone permission to copy it and do as they wish.
I'm not sure about other countries, but I'm pretty sure about it being that way in Australia still. [I'm too lazy to go get my copyright books at the moment, and some of them are almost twenty years old. But, I'm sure we haven't changed the copyright laws in this country since 1968].
BUT, I do know that I have some musical works in books that specifically state they are Public Domain, and they were written only about thirty or so years ago. [The creators put them straight into public domain when they created them].
'I want to take some of the ideas, and to make a better book out of it.'
You can already do that. As long as you're not using the original text. [You also can't use the same characters etc. So, for instance, you can't re-write the Maltese Falcon and use Sam Spade etc. BUT, if you started basing your story on the Maltese Falcon you could use different characters and change the plot where you want it changed... and like I aid, you'd have to use all your own words].
I'm pretty sure the copyright for 14 years with a possibility of renewing for 14 years was the copyright held by the publisher NOT the writer/creator. Back in those days the writer got ONLY what the publisher was willing to pay the author and the author didn't ahve a copyright on the work. So, if the publishers paid the author $15 for the book and then made 1 million, it's tough luck for the author, though the author would have been able to proabably demand more money on a second book deal.
So, it's not good to use that as an example, as some books now give the publisher less than 14 years and some more depending on the deal struck. But, those old copyright laws really screwed the creators over,which is why I like the newer laws better [Life + 50 years].
Of course copyright laws existed before the founding fathers of the US. Australia laws were pretty much based ont he English ones up to 1968. [In fact, they're still based on them, but 1968 was when they sort of became 'detached' from what the English were doing, if you understand what I mean]. So, the 'encouragement of learning' [which I am all for], really only relates to US copyright. I think most other countries had copyright to protect the publishers at first, and now to protect the creators as well. The release into public domain at such early times was often detrimental to creators as they get a small piece of the pie and as such were often unable to make a living off just writing.
Life + 70 years I agree is too long. I've always liked the life + 50 years we have in Australia, as the added 50+ year at least takes care of the creators families if the creator dies at early ages. [In fact, I would probably in favour of life + 20 years. I'd only really disagree with shortening it beyond that, because if they just made it something like 'life of the creator', then people might start knocking the creators off in order to use their works.]
As for NOT being able to re-mix or re-use older content, in music it is relatively easy to get permission to use songs and the copyright on using it is paid in CENTS and not dollars or anything. That's why there are so many DJ's and artists now who use other peoples music to mix and create other things.
In writing etc it is a little harder, because if you start using other peoples words in your book, you can get sued for plagarism [and the writing community will probably look down on you as well]. Though, with permission from the creators you can contribute to their work, such as all those Star Trek and Star Wars novels based on their Universe. But, I'd hate for it to become an 'open slather' on a creators work. Imagine if they didn't have editors to keep those Universes consistent? We'd have R2D2 beingkilled off in one book, only for him to save everyone ten years later in another book. It'd be a total mess. BUT, if you wanted to do something similar, you could have a similar Universe with similar characters [like who didn't notice the similarity between Star Wars and Battle Star Galactica when it first came out?], and it isn't copyright infringement. [Though you'd have to put up with everyone screaming, 'rip off rip off' all the way to the bank.]
So, in a way, copyright is stopping every Tom, Dick and Harry from messing up an Authors fine work [because after all, if their enemies wanted to stuff them around, they'd start using the same characters and same universe and make things as inconsistent as possible with the Author just to make them starve].
'Everything you bring out nowadays is automatically copyrighted. Everything. '
No, I think you misunderstood the parent. I think they were refering to publishing things in Public Domain [which some publishers still do]. For instance, the works of Shakespeare are in public domain. If I wanted to form a publishing company and release a book of Shakespeares Sonnets, I can. No need to pay royalties or get copyright permission. So, just because I brought out a book, doesn't mean the content is automatically copyrighted. It isn't. [Though, I can possibly get copyright on it, if I 'translate it' from Shakespearian English into Australian English
However, in my country (Australia), as soon as someone CREATES a work, it is automatically copyrighted. [They don't even have to realese it either. So, unpublished works are ALSO copyrighted, though it might be difficult to defend in a court of law if someone swipes it, as the judge might lean towards the people who released the work first, as they'd have solid evidence in the form of the release, while the other person is likely to only have their notes and personal testimony].
ALSO, the creator does not NEED to copyright their work. If they wish, they can automatically release their works into public domain. So you can bring out an original work which is not copyrighted. Copyright just means that someone has a right to copy it, so as soon as you tell EVERYONE they can use the material, the copyright is gone.
Not sure about other countries, but that's how it works here.
'Yes. The bargain was we allow them hold a monopoly over their creations for a short term (20-30 years), at which point it becomes public domain.'
In Australia and NZ for over one hundred years copyright has been the life of the creator plus fifty years. After those fifty years it becomes public domain.
'They started to break that agreement (by perpetually extending copyright to the point where none of us will ever get to enjoy something produced in our lifetime), long before We did (by infringing copyright).'
AFAIK, the creators lifetime plus fifty years is still in effect in Australia and NZ. No, extension has taken place, and as far as I'm concerned it's not too bad a law. Because after all, once something becomes public domain a lot of publishers start to publish public domain stuff and sell it to people who don't know it's in public domain. The creator then starts to get nothing in way of payment, while the publishers still make money.
Copyright fees are relatively small [about one cent per song, and one cent on the recording and a few cents per book], which is why these things fall in price over time. [Like, CD's and books finding their way into bargin bins and being sold for $2]. The actual agreement with the publishers doesn't last as long as gthe copyright, so after fifty years a songs recording should fall into public domain [but not the song, only the recording of it], and books will depend on the agreement signed, with some text books agreements only lasting a few year [as they go out of date so quickly], and fiction lasting a lot longer.
Once the agrement stops, book copyright reverts back to the creator, who can then try selling the book to another publisher, or release it into public domain, or just sit on it.
As far as music copyright is concerned, you can get permission from the relevant authority [In Australia that's APRA], and record your own version of the song. OR, get some muso friends to record it [if they're good enough]. As the copyright fee is releatively small [like I said, about 1 cent on the song... depends on the song and artist though, because EACH creator gets one cent each, so if the song is written by four people, it'll be four cents etc.], and a license to play copyrighted material normally isn't too much.
It's the reason bands can make a living playing covers, and we get such classics cover albums as Chipmunk Punk.
I'm not sure what you mean by, 'none of us will ever get to enjoy something produced in our lifetime'. You can get to enjoy the works in your life time. You just have to pay... If you mean you can't get the song or book for free in your life time, I'd have to ask why you'd think you deserve it for free?
If you produce a work of art, a book, or something, then you deserve the right to get some income for your effort. Most copyrighted things fall in value over time, so while the work you want might be at full price for a year or so, it'll slowly reduce in value till it hits the bargin bins at a relatively small price. Sure, you're still paying for it, and the creator is getting their one cent royalty, but it's a lot cheaper. In the case of less popular works, the creator may never make back an amount equivalent to the time and effort they put in, and in the case of popular works, i think it's good if the creator gets a LOT for producing a work of high quality [or at least high popularity... some popular things are just crap, but who are we to dictate our tastes on others].
So, whether you enjoy the piece in your lifetime or not is entirely relative to WHEN you think it is value for money. If you think a CD or Book is worth full price, then I'm sure you'd buy it at full price. If you think it should be worth half as much, then you will need to wait till it hits half price.
I will give an example of something from my own experience. PC Games when they first come out usually cost
I think the point of law here is they're providing means for people to break the law, whom they know are going to break the law. As such are effectly accessories to the fact. It's like providing a car for someone you know is going to go drag racing in the street, or providing a weapon for an armed hold up. They may not be actually committing the crime, but providing the means when they know a crime is going to occur.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that's badly stated. Watch the 'Tikka to Ride' episode for the proof. Silly me ... I was so excited I forgot to include some details. Baka Dabido!
JFK Shot himself Here is the proof :-)
'I'm mostly surprised that noone has thought of a (P)rogramming language. :)'
... P is another word for p*ss and how many programmers have had their programs rejected for being as weak as p*ss? So 'P' is what poor programmers write in. [Only to have their programs flushed away!] :-)
Probably prior art
'Experimentalists, though, haven't yet found a route to reach the center of the island.'
Now we'll never save nano Gilligan!!!!
But isn't your ESCAPE a way of getting away from it all ... in which case, its fulfilling your need to remove yourself from the stress etc. of the real world. It's still fulfilling a need you have.
'I had a Linux system about the time I was 14'
Linux didn't even exist when I was fourteen. They did have Hollerith machines though for punching cards.
They're a huge step up from WebDOSPrompt. :-)
'There are indeed some systems that could probably take that sort of punishment, though.'
Yeah, my Ex-wife did that sort of testing on me, and I'm only slightly damaged. '-)
This is a Eunuch system! I know this! :-)
Most companies I've worked for have never given out Xmas bonuses.
'In contrast, it's highly unlikely that anyone from 2207 would have ever seen Windows Vista screens.'
:-)
I dunnno, depends how long they put the release date back.
Buy him a copy of 'The Rabbit Trap' starring Ernest Borgnine. I'm unsure if it's on DVD at all ... not even sure if it is on Video Cassette, but it seems pretty relevant.
They might have left with the Dolphins. So long and thanks for all the fish!
'...also qualifies under the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation's definition of a robot: You're plastic pal who's fun to be with.'
Yeah, but I still don't know whether to tell it to fall apart here, or just sit in the corner and rust.
The author is putting things into context. In Gen 1 the author talks about the order in which things occurred, but in Gen 2 he's talking about the interaction which lead to the creation of Eve. It's similar to any story where an author goes into more details concerning some things they've just mentioned. Happens all the time in modern books [both fiction and non-fiction]. The author didn't go into the creation of the earth and the heavens the second time either, that's because it is irrelevant to the point they are making.
Why does the author mention the plants again?
Because the Author is explaining the Garden of Eden, so the formation of the plants is relevant.
Why does it mention mans creation again?
Because it then places man fair and square in the Garden of Eden.
The point in question isn't creation, the author already handled that. The point is, when God made the plants he also made this 'Garden of Eden', and when he made man he placed the man 'in the garden'.
The formation of the Earth, beasts etc doesn't have to be mentioned, as it's irrelevant to what's being discussed. I mean, when trying to show that God put the man into the Garden of Eden, talking about beasts and other things is on par with discussing surfing or cars. It's irrelevant to the point being made, so the author doesnt' discuss it.
When the author does mention that the beasts had been created earlier, it's because it now become integral to the story. That's because the author is now discussing how a suitable mate couldn't be found amongst animals, so God decided to form Eve.
Your four explanations really come back to you either WANTING the Bible to say something other than what it is talking about, or you not understanding it. After all, it has come from a different culture and time. So it is easy to misunderstand what the author is talking about without better understanding of the times, places etc when it was written.
For all intensive purposes YOU might as well be asking why it doesn't mention surfing or cars. That's why there simply isn't any missing verse, the author is keeping the story straight, [you're just missing what's being said, not that I am saying that is unreasonable. I also read a lot of Japanese works, and I'm sure as a Non-Japanese I miss an awful lot of what would be obvious to someone who is Japanese. I did once ask one of my Japanese friends regarding a very old poem, but even they didn't understand and told me it was becasue the language was so old.] Gods not being sloppy, NOR is there some mystery. Just read what's written and see what's being said. [And remember, if it doesn't make sense, it might have someting to do with a context you are unfamiliar with].
'we're back to my original worry, namely, that the passing of the Bible down the generations has been very unreliable.'
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that the passing down of the Bible has been very reliable. The original Hebrew Old Testament was basically held together with checks and balances. After writing a page, the copier would count what the letters added up to [as the letters were also numbers], and if there was a discrepancy they'd wipe the parchment/papyrus and re-write the lot again. Even if they did add up correctly, they'd then pass it to a higher Priest to have them check it. So the Old Testament was VERY accurate, and I [personally] have never heard of a discrepancy amongst Old Testament texts.
New Testament was a bit trickier, as a lot of the copying was performed by slaves who were made to write what was dictated to them from another slave reading off a parchment/papyrus. Most Bibles have footnotes in them in regards to some discrepencies, but the only two discrepencies which I would say are BIG, would be:
1. Is the fact that the end of Mark [Mark 16:9-20], seems to have been tact on by someone later. The earlier copies of Mark don't have the verses. Like I said, most Bibles have footnotes pointing this out.
and
'With the possible exception of a chick with a yeast infection?'
:-)
This is slashdot. What are the chances of a geek from here getting a girl, let alone one with a yeast infection?
'I thought that you couldn't release works that aren't copyrighted, into the public domain any more.'
... I think you mean something other than what you wrote. If a work ISN'T copyrighted, it is in Public Domain. So, Yes, you can't release works that aren't copyrighted into public domain, as they're already there.
Um
If you are the copyright holder of a work, then you can certainly release your work into public domain. Copyright is just the legal ability to make copies of a work. If you write on the work that as the creator you are allowing people to do what they want with it, as you are relinquishing your copyright, then legally what can anyone else do? After all, they can't force you to take people to court for copying your work, can they. Plus, you've given everyone permission to copy it and do as they wish.
I'm not sure about other countries, but I'm pretty sure about it being that way in Australia still. [I'm too lazy to go get my copyright books at the moment, and some of them are almost twenty years old. But, I'm sure we haven't changed the copyright laws in this country since 1968].
BUT, I do know that I have some musical works in books that specifically state they are Public Domain, and they were written only about thirty or so years ago. [The creators put them straight into public domain when they created them].
'I want to take some of the ideas, and to make a better book out of it.'
... and like I aid, you'd have to use all your own words].
You can already do that. As long as you're not using the original text. [You also can't use the same characters etc. So, for instance, you can't re-write the Maltese Falcon and use Sam Spade etc. BUT, if you started basing your story on the Maltese Falcon you could use different characters and change the plot where you want it changed
I'm pretty sure the copyright for 14 years with a possibility of renewing for 14 years was the copyright held by the publisher NOT the writer/creator. Back in those days the writer got ONLY what the publisher was willing to pay the author and the author didn't ahve a copyright on the work. So, if the publishers paid the author $15 for the book and then made 1 million, it's tough luck for the author, though the author would have been able to proabably demand more money on a second book deal.
So, it's not good to use that as an example, as some books now give the publisher less than 14 years and some more depending on the deal struck. But, those old copyright laws really screwed the creators over,which is why I like the newer laws better [Life + 50 years].
Of course copyright laws existed before the founding fathers of the US. Australia laws were pretty much based ont he English ones up to 1968. [In fact, they're still based on them, but 1968 was when they sort of became 'detached' from what the English were doing, if you understand what I mean]. So, the 'encouragement of learning' [which I am all for], really only relates to US copyright. I think most other countries had copyright to protect the publishers at first, and now to protect the creators as well. The release into public domain at such early times was often detrimental to creators as they get a small piece of the pie and as such were often unable to make a living off just writing.
Life + 70 years I agree is too long. I've always liked the life + 50 years we have in Australia, as the added 50+ year at least takes care of the creators families if the creator dies at early ages. [In fact, I would probably in favour of life + 20 years. I'd only really disagree with shortening it beyond that, because if they just made it something like 'life of the creator', then people might start knocking the creators off in order to use their works.]
As for NOT being able to re-mix or re-use older content, in music it is relatively easy to get permission to use songs and the copyright on using it is paid in CENTS and not dollars or anything. That's why there are so many DJ's and artists now who use other peoples music to mix and create other things.
In writing etc it is a little harder, because if you start using other peoples words in your book, you can get sued for plagarism [and the writing community will probably look down on you as well]. Though, with permission from the creators you can contribute to their work, such as all those Star Trek and Star Wars novels based on their Universe. But, I'd hate for it to become an 'open slather' on a creators work. Imagine if they didn't have editors to keep those Universes consistent? We'd have R2D2 beingkilled off in one book, only for him to save everyone ten years later in another book. It'd be a total mess. BUT, if you wanted to do something similar, you could have a similar Universe with similar characters [like who didn't notice the similarity between Star Wars and Battle Star Galactica when it first came out?], and it isn't copyright infringement. [Though you'd have to put up with everyone screaming, 'rip off rip off' all the way to the bank.]
So, in a way, copyright is stopping every Tom, Dick and Harry from messing up an Authors fine work [because after all, if their enemies wanted to stuff them around, they'd start using the same characters and same universe and make things as inconsistent as possible with the Author just to make them starve].
'Only police in a helicopter, if you're on one of the upper floors.'
... :-)
Or Spiderman, or the A-Team
'Everything you bring out nowadays is automatically copyrighted.
Everything.
'
No, I think you misunderstood the parent. I think they were refering to publishing things in Public Domain [which some publishers still do]. For instance, the works of Shakespeare are in public domain. If I wanted to form a publishing company and release a book of Shakespeares Sonnets, I can. No need to pay royalties or get copyright permission. So, just because I brought out a book, doesn't mean the content is automatically copyrighted. It isn't. [Though, I can possibly get copyright on it, if I 'translate it' from Shakespearian English into Australian English
However, in my country (Australia), as soon as someone CREATES a work, it is automatically copyrighted. [They don't even have to realese it either. So, unpublished works are ALSO copyrighted, though it might be difficult to defend in a court of law if someone swipes it, as the judge might lean towards the people who released the work first, as they'd have solid evidence in the form of the release, while the other person is likely to only have their notes and personal testimony].
ALSO, the creator does not NEED to copyright their work. If they wish, they can automatically release their works into public domain. So you can bring out an original work which is not copyrighted. Copyright just means that someone has a right to copy it, so as soon as you tell EVERYONE they can use the material, the copyright is gone.
Not sure about other countries, but that's how it works here.
'Yes. The bargain was we allow them hold a monopoly over their creations for a short term (20-30 years), at which point it becomes public domain.'
... depends on the song and artist though, because EACH creator gets one cent each, so if the song is written by four people, it'll be four cents etc.], and a license to play copyrighted material normally isn't too much.
... If you mean you can't get the song or book for free in your life time, I'd have to ask why you'd think you deserve it for free?
... some popular things are just crap, but who are we to dictate our tastes on others].
In Australia and NZ for over one hundred years copyright has been the life of the creator plus fifty years. After those fifty years it becomes public domain.
'They started to break that agreement (by perpetually extending copyright to the point where none of us will ever get to enjoy something produced in our lifetime), long before We did (by infringing copyright).'
AFAIK, the creators lifetime plus fifty years is still in effect in Australia and NZ. No, extension has taken place, and as far as I'm concerned it's not too bad a law. Because after all, once something becomes public domain a lot of publishers start to publish public domain stuff and sell it to people who don't know it's in public domain. The creator then starts to get nothing in way of payment, while the publishers still make money.
Copyright fees are relatively small [about one cent per song, and one cent on the recording and a few cents per book], which is why these things fall in price over time. [Like, CD's and books finding their way into bargin bins and being sold for $2]. The actual agreement with the publishers doesn't last as long as gthe copyright, so after fifty years a songs recording should fall into public domain [but not the song, only the recording of it], and books will depend on the agreement signed, with some text books agreements only lasting a few year [as they go out of date so quickly], and fiction lasting a lot longer.
Once the agrement stops, book copyright reverts back to the creator, who can then try selling the book to another publisher, or release it into public domain, or just sit on it.
As far as music copyright is concerned, you can get permission from the relevant authority [In Australia that's APRA], and record your own version of the song. OR, get some muso friends to record it [if they're good enough]. As the copyright fee is releatively small [like I said, about 1 cent on the song
It's the reason bands can make a living playing covers, and we get such classics cover albums as Chipmunk Punk.
I'm not sure what you mean by, 'none of us will ever get to enjoy something produced in our lifetime'. You can get to enjoy the works in your life time. You just have to pay
If you produce a work of art, a book, or something, then you deserve the right to get some income for your effort. Most copyrighted things fall in value over time, so while the work you want might be at full price for a year or so, it'll slowly reduce in value till it hits the bargin bins at a relatively small price. Sure, you're still paying for it, and the creator is getting their one cent royalty, but it's a lot cheaper. In the case of less popular works, the creator may never make back an amount equivalent to the time and effort they put in, and in the case of popular works, i think it's good if the creator gets a LOT for producing a work of high quality [or at least high popularity
So, whether you enjoy the piece in your lifetime or not is entirely relative to WHEN you think it is value for money. If you think a CD or Book is worth full price, then I'm sure you'd buy it at full price. If you think it should be worth half as much, then you will need to wait till it hits half price.
I will give an example of something from my own experience. PC Games when they first come out usually cost
I think the point of law here is they're providing means for people to break the law, whom they know are going to break the law. As such are effectly accessories to the fact. It's like providing a car for someone you know is going to go drag racing in the street, or providing a weapon for an armed hold up. They may not be actually committing the crime, but providing the means when they know a crime is going to occur.
IANAL, but that's my guess.
'And then they shoot you in the foot after you buy the vest.'
:-)
Or possibly the head!
That's still six degrees closer to a girl than most of us can get! :-)
That would depend on whether the rest of the Universe sucked as much as Earth does.