oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | reply to Kaltes
Re: Ignorance of the Law....
No one is saddling grandma with prison. So dramatic. You obviously need to get hooked on phonics as you seem incapable of comprehending the written word. |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to str7
It seems to me that it might be interesting for someone to hide a film or two (maybe 1984 or Brazil) on Valenti's and Ashcroft's computers and then see how everything turns out.
Of course I also wonder if Arlen Spector ever got a speeding ticket and how THAT was handled, but I clearly have too much time on my hands. *grin* |
|
TheHelpful1
Premium
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD
| reply to Kaltes
This reminds me of a worm story i read elsewhere. Over in britain i think, this guy and his wife were sitting in another room when the child-daughter comes from the computer room saying theres something weird on the screen.
Father comes in and theres kiddie porn on the monitor. Long story short - wife blames husband, takes daughter away, calls police on husband. Turns out a worm put on his computer through outlook left a backdoor open and someone was using his HDD to store their stuff. In the court case, a thorough review of his PC showed he was telling the truth. But his wife still doesnt believe him and he has to fight to rebuild his life because of a computer worm.
This is good that he was exonorated, but it opens a bad door for real pedophreaks. Same with this law. Illegal to have the file/movie, but what if you didnt put it there or even knew it was on your pc?
Question 1 - how likely is it that the hacker will put the file in the same shared directory that you have for kazaa/etc?
Question 2 - if he put it in another, unshared p2p folder and the media companies still found it - arent they guilty of hacking your network and compromising your secure data?
--
"Not that you would, but you could" |
|
TheHelpful1
Premium
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD | reply to AthlGrond
Just HAD to do that huh? |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to DSL Oberst
said by DSL Oberst  :
Very well, if the users are not to have responsibility, who should be responsible for the security of a user's machine?
How about making the HACKER the one responsible for the wrongdoing. Can't identify/locate the hacker? Tough. Don't punish the innocent party just because you want to punish SOMEONE.
If someone broke into your garage and stole your car, then used it to rob a bank, how would you like being thrown in jail for bank robbery, simply because you didnt go out of your way to constantly update the security on your garage? |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to oliphant5
said by oliphant5 :
No one is saddling grandma with prison. So dramatic. You obviously need to get hooked on phonics as you seem incapable of comprehending the written word.
oliphant you're just stooping to personal attacks because I pointed out your complete and total ignorance of the way the law really works, embarrassing you.
potentially, grandmas and grandpas COULD get nailed by this act if it becomes law, if hackers use their PCs to distribute camcorder movie rips. that is exactly what this news item is about: a draconian law attempting to hold people to account for things beyond their control.
if our democracy was in the hands of you, oliphant, and DSL Oberst, grandpas and grandmas would indeed be going to jail.
Im shocked that any of you can react with anything other than disgust and contempt for this proposed law. the movie industry is effectively bribing politicians into using massive amounts of public law enforcement money (OUR MONEY) to throw people into prison for DARING to endanger movie profits! |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| You're the fool who thinks there should be complete immunity in a case in which negligence permits your property to be used for criminal action.
Potentially the world could end tomorrow. With your brilliant logic, why do anything today because of "what ifs" tomorrow.
You cry of grandmas going to prison when that's not going to happen. Use your brain. What DA is going to bring up a case against some grandmother? Geez. Such paranoia...I'm surprised you can make it outside.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html
And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by oliphant5 :
You're the fool who thinks there should be complete immunity in a case in which negligence permits your property to be used for criminal action.
Potentially the world could end tomorrow. With your brilliant logic, why do anything today because of "what ifs" tomorrow.
You cry of grandmas going to prison when that's not going to happen. Use your brain. What DA is going to bring up a case against some grandmother? Geez. Such paranoia...I'm surprised you can make it outside.
Dude think about some of the world and things like this will make more sense. The problem is the hackers. Sure the people should secure thier pc. Maybe the people making the pc should include a firewall ??
What your using sn't your brain. If some one gets by your firewall and implants stuff there for you to be sent to jail how would you like it. And don't say ohh then it's my fault for not securing my system because you would be flat out lieing. Admit it you don't think of the way the world works. not every one should have to be a security expert to use thier pc's there is other people to blame.
And my anaolgy was fine and to the point.
If some one hijacks your system and causes it to down say ebay you would say that you should go to jail ??? And talk the trueth not some half assed attempt to save face.
--
This package does not contain a winner... |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to garagerock
My point was, and continues to be, that if you are ignorant of "intellectual" property that's someone elses handiwork on your computer, you are liable. Period. You cannot, under the premise of law, state "I didn't know it was there". That bullshit excuse doesn't cut it if you are caught with someone elses drugs, someone elses dirty money, weapons, etc. (Unless you work for government  )
Some poor bastard who gets pulled over in his car and the cops find marijuana seeds in the ashtray, even if they weren't his, goes to jail. Why is this any different?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you didn't know it was illegal, you should take safeguards to ensure that this kind of material doesn't end up on your computer. It's that simple. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| even if the safe guards are taken there is bugs in software. what happens if they get by your firewall??
go to jail ?? come on. They need to waste money on other things like getting broadband to the masses.
--
This package does not contain a winner... |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Do you have trouble reading? REASONABLE care. If you have a firewall up or have taken other basic measures then you aren't going to be gone after. You should actually READ the thread before replying to it.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| A few comments:
""That bullshit excuse doesn't cut it if you are caught with someone elses drugs"" - garagerock
- If you are arrested for possession of those drugs, and you claim that those drugs aren't yours, and you don't know how they got there, AND THE JURY BELIEVES YOU, then you will, in fact, be found not guilty. So yes, it is a valid excuse.
""Do you have trouble reading? REASONABLE care."" - oliphant
- Where does it say in the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act that you have a duty of reasonable care to secure your PC, OR ELSE? If you think that reasonable care applies to EVERYTHING in life, you are dead wrong. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and it is very clear that you know just enough about the law to make outlandishly wrong statements like you have been doing.
- THE DUTY OF REASONABLE CARE is relevant to a civil suit for negligence, not a criminal law punishing willful violations of intellectual property law. WILLFUL violations do not use the negligence standard. Stop spewing misinformation on these boards.
""You're the fool who thinks there should be complete immunity in a case in which negligence permits your property to be used for criminal action."" - oliphant
- So if you leave your car door unlocked, and a guy steals your car, then uses it to muder someone in a drive-by shooting, because your negligence permitted your property to be used for a criminal action, you should be found guilty of murder? If geniuses like yourself, oliphant, ran our society, people would indeed be getting the death penalty for unlocking their car door. The problem with you is that you don't THINK about what you say before you say it, so you spew nonsense that has more to do with your own resentment of the world than it does with a thoughtful policy argument.
""Potentially the world could end tomorrow. With your brilliant logic, why do anything today because of "what ifs" tomorrow."" - oliphant
- Ponder this: You are a legislator. You ignorantly and NEGLIGENTLY propose/pass a law that results in a man being given the death penalty for leaving his car door unlocked. Your own law is then applied against you, since your negligence caused the death of a man who merely left his car door unlocked. You are subsequently put to death for your negligence.
- That is what happens when you don't THINK before you make policy. People like you are incompetent to lead. |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| No but if you have a gun in that unlocked car and someone takes it and kills someone with it, you can bet you will be held as criminally negligent.
They can just as easily transfer this idea of contributory negligence to someone who due to their own carelessness permits their computer to be used for a crime...but it would have to be blatant or a DA would never bring the case...for instance, the owner is also involved in illegal file trading then claims only some of the files were his, or he owned a server and let his friends use it...and they used it to trade files or make files available (which is why ISP's and web hosting companies will shut you down your site immediately if you post copyrighted files in your webspace...because they too are liable both civilly and with this law, criminally).
Again...no one is going to haul off grandma...but they will go after say a web hoster who after being told to remove files or cut access to a infringing user simply ignores the demands of the state. |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| said by oliphant5 :
Again...no one is going to haul off grandma...but they will go after say a web hoster who after being told to remove files or cut access to a infringing user simply ignores the demands of the state.
You really can't get anything right, can you? Did you even READ the news post? What you are talking about it totally unrelated, and in addition the DMCA already gives ISPs safe harbor from liability/prosecution regarding infringements of their users!
Sheesh, just stop posting until you know what you're talking about! You're just spewing nonsense now because you want to get the last word. |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| said by Kaltes :
What you are talking about it totally unrelated, and in addition the DMCA already gives ISPs safe harbor from liability/prosecution regarding infringements of their users!
Sure sport...just like Title 17 gave everyone fair use rights that weren't overshadowed by the newer DMCA. No law is set in stone. And WTF are you talking about safe harbor. There IS NO SAFE HARBOR when it comes to providers not taking reasonable care to stop infringement. And reasonable care isn't exclusive to the DMCA guy.
If you had bothered to actually read Article II of the DMCA you would see that their immunity only extends to things like system caching, transporting of other's data, search technologies.
It's also REQUIRES that...LIKE I SAID providers
said by US Copyright Office:
must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers
- United States Copyright Office Summary of the DMCA of 1998. »www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf
Before you keep quoting the content of the DMCA, perhaps you should actually read it first.
So contrary to what you just claimed...the DMCA EXPLICITLY makes ISPs liable for their users infringement if they don't take reasonable steps to stop it...just like now home users would have to take REASONABLE steps to stop it.
If ignorance is bliss you must be on cloud nine.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html
And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to oliphant5
Re: Ignorance of the Law....
oliphant......
""Before you keep quoting the content of the DMCA, perhaps you should actually read it first. ""
Actually, I know more about section 512 of the DMCA than you'll ever know. You might be able to read it, but you don't understand what it means. I do. That is because I have a law school education and you don't. I'm not telling you aren't qualified to make any point, but you should have enough common sense to know when you are out of your league. In addition, you should not try to argue ABOUT THE LAW with someone who actually has an education. What, do you start arguing with your doctor about his diagnosis too? Google can only take you so far. Copy/pasting the opinions of people who DO know what they are talking about doesn't mean YOU understand what they are saying. Since you insist on attacking me personally, as well as claiming that you are something of an expert on the law when it is obvious that you aren't, I am not going to give your ignorant arguments the respect that the other posters on this forum deserve. If you stop posting ignorant and/or childish comments, I would be more than happy to refrain from belittling them.
""Sure sport...just like Title 17 gave everyone fair use rights that weren't overshadowed by the newer DMCA. No law is set in stone.""
The DMCA did not alter fair use rights under Copyright law. The anti-circumvention aspects of the DMCA simply granted copyright holders additional rights separate from their copy-rights. You just read a website that gave second-hand opinions about the DMCA and you're over here thinking you're an expert, lol. Are you actually trying to claim that this proposed act TARGETS ISPs? No, that would be stupid, because #1 ISPs would use their lobbying strength to kill the bill and #2 this is a criminal law, so who is held CRIMINALLY responsible at the ISP? It is very obvious from the article that the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act does not apply to ISPs. Your suggestion to the contrary, is NONSENSE.
""There IS NO SAFE HARBOR when it comes to providers not taking reasonable care to stop infringement. And reasonable care isn't exclusive to the DMCA guy.""
- Im sorry, but I didn't see the words 'reasonable care' anywhere in section 512 of the DMCA, why don't you copy/paste an example for me? I would especially like to have you show me where it says that an ISP loses safe harbor when the ISP does not take (your words) "reasonable care to stop infringement".
""It's also REQUIRES that...LIKE I SAID providers (insert CO quote)""
- Sorry, but what the copyright office says is not law. Congress determines what the DMCA requires, not the copyright office, unless specifically authorized to do so by Congress, which is not the case for section 512. This is yet another misunderstanding you have that a legal education would have resolved.
- I'd also like to point out that #1 the copyright office didn't use the word reasonable care #2 reasonable care is a term of art. Keep looking for that 'reasonable care' quote you owe me, lol!
""So contrary to what you just claimed...the DMCA EXPLICITLY makes ISPs liable for their users infringement if they don't take reasonable steps to stop it...just like now home users would have to take REASONABLE steps to stop it.""
- This really demonstrates how utterly ignorant of 512 you are, you couldn't be more wrong. Using the SAME copyright office document YOU QUOTED, allow me to QUOTE RIGHT BACK: "The failure of a service provider to qualify for any of the limitations in section 512 does not necessarily make it liable for copyright infringement" |
|
