how-to block ads
|
GeminiCub4U
Premium
join:2003-04-07
Livermore, CA | Are they even able to do that? That isn't legal, is it? | |
|  
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: Are they even able to do that? I was just wondering the same thing. I thought uploading/sharing protected work was a copyright violation, but not downloading.
I know the laws for software are a little different than they are for music, but it seems like I remember something about 24 hour educational evaluations being legal, so long as you delete the material after that time. I remember that from long ago though, can't say for sure it is even true.
--
AMD XP2500+ @2388mhz/ Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC3500/ WD 120Gb on serial/ Gainward GF4 4600/ Enermax 465P-VE/Custom water cooler | |
| | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Are they even able to do that? said by Camelot One  :
I was just wondering the same thing. I thought uploading/sharing protected work was a copyright violation, but not downloading.
Downloading is a copyright violation as well (at least in the USA, YMMV in other countries). It's simply harder to find out whether you've downloaded something you shouldn't (such as a copyrighted music file) versus uploaded something you shouldn't.
said by Camelot One :
I know the laws for software are a little different than they are for music, but it seems like I remember something about 24 hour educational evaluations being legal, so long as you delete the material after that time. I remember that from long ago though, can't say for sure it is even true.
The "24 hour rule" is a myth created by folks attempting to justify downloading music and other items. (You see this all the time on ROM download sites. They all state that you can download it so long as you delete it after 24 hours.) There is no basis to this in law. It falls into the category of "say it often enough and folks will think it's true."
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
| | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Are they even able to do that? I've been seeing that silly 24 hour warning since the days of Wildcat! BBS systems.... | |
| | | | | | | | | 
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
 ·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Are they even able to do that? said by Logan 5 :
Mustang Systems..wonder what ever became of them???
If I'm not mistaken, they wrote an ok Customer Messaging Tool for customer service via email. Could be a different Mustang.
--
A good idea expressed in a poor manner is a bad idea. | |
| | | | | 
Melchior
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Mars
clubs: | WildCat! was sold off and it was picked up by Santronics who still continue to make it.. there are a few systems running it still as it's very web/internet oriented now. | |
| | | | | | 
Sparkware
| Re: Are they even able to do that? Here's to the grand old days of BBSing!
Sparky
Father of QWK | |
| | | | | | | rmdir
join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL | Re: Are they even able to do that? Amen, my brothers. This talk reminds me of just how long I've been doing this stuff.
What a long strange trip it's been.:) | |
| | | | | travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM | I just tossed a Qmodem box out a couple of months ago. Traded emails with John Freil a couple of years ago. He runs an ISP in Iowa now. | |
| | | | djrobsd
join:2002-01-24
San Diego, CA
| Let's not forget the T.A.G. BBS system. One of the best ones in its days. I forget all the other crazy ones that were out there, but there were definately a lot of hacks of some of the more original one, and T.A.G. was one very good hack. I forget which system it was based off of, but I sure do miss running my T.A.G. BBS. | |
| | | | |
ionweb
@mi.cha | Re: Are they even able to do that? I believe T.A.G was based off of the WWIV bbs, which was a sort of open source at the time. | |
| | | | | Evoluder
join:2002-09-15
Woodstock, GA | WWIV RULES! | |
| | | | | | | 
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| Re: Are they even able to do that? »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html
Downloading copyrighted material is seen as copying, which is illegal without permission of the copyright holder. Some people think that downloading falls under fair use if they don't share the file, or it's legal for the first 24 hours. There's nothing in the law that supports either of these ideas.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
| | | | | 
RichMark
join:2001-05-10
Morgan Hill, CA
| Re: Are they even able to do that? Say Hey-
Read on just a bit more... especially the phrase
==> for purposes such as criticism ==
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
-Rich | |
| | | | | |
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| Re: Are they even able to do that? It may be legal to possess the software, or even distribute snippets of code under fair use. But I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to copy the entire source code, which is what happens when you download it. This is similar to the library, where it's technically illegal for you to photocopy an entire book. But in that case the library staff usually looks the other way.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
| | | | | jwcrim
join:2001-12-09
Wilton, CT | "Downloading copyrighted material is seen as copying"
Seen by who? | |
| | | | | |
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| Re: Are they even able to do that? said by jwcrim :
"Downloading copyrighted material is seen as copying"
Seen by who?
The courts, the prosecutors, and the copyright holders pretty much agree on this one. I honestly can't believe this is even a question. Of course it's illegal to download copyrighted material!
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
| | | | | | |
justanutter1
@kaballero.com
| Re: Are they even able to do that? Yep.. It is illegal. It is also illegal to release a virus onto the Internet and hose up a million PC's. Do they do it, yep. Still illegal, but impotence being what it is, sixteen year olds still do it because the FBI is impotent to stop it.
DLing music is illegal, but does that stop the copying of music? No if Kazaa doesn't provide sufficient anonymity then FREENET does... And the sixteen year old kid continues to download his music and nobody can stop him... the IMPOTENCE of the FBI and RIAA still determine what is going to happen.
There are so many people who have a copy of that code at this point that NOBODY is going to be prosecuted, guess why... Yeah, because Microsoft, yes even Microsoft is IMPOTENT to stop it.
So, "Anyone but Bush", why not do a reality check and let the issue drop. MS can send out whatever they wish and these kids can tell MS to "pee up a rope" and MS will just drop the issue.
All that said, you ARE going to discover that Microsoft has stolen more of the GNU/GPL code than Linux has stolen of the SCO code... Mark my words. | |
| | | | | | | |
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
1 edit | Re: Are they even able to do that? Why do you keep picking a fight with me, "nut buster"? I'm assuming that my tag has made you furious - good, that's my intention.
All I'm saying is it's illegal. Of course there's nothing that Microsoft can do to keep dedicated people from getting the source, but there's also nothing to stop them from suing a few unlucky people downloading the torrent.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
| | | | | | | | |
justanutter1
@kaballero.com
| Re: Are they even able to do that? RE: Why do you keep picking a fight with me, "nut buster"?
'scuse me... I didn't realize name calling was ok in this forum. I may join in then? Might I call you, "Anything but Bush"... meaning you're a real man's man? Honestly, if we're going to grovel in the mud, I expect I can do it as well as you but what say we don't?
Point is you can argue the legality of growing dandylions in the yard till your face is blue, but they will still grow, won't they?
So your crusade is a waste of your time, the worlds bandwidth, and well... it is entertaining for me...
 | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| Re: Are they even able to do that? said by justanutter1:
So your crusade is a waste of your time, the worlds bandwidth, and well... it is entertaining for me...
Why are you so angry? Take a deep breath, calm down already.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
justanutter1
@kaballero.com
| Re: Are they even able to do that? Your question: "Why are you so angry? Take a deep breath, calm down already."
You started with name calling... yet somehow I have wronged you? Interesting but a bit twisted. So if I don't agree with you then I am a "nut buster" and if I call you for calling names... then I am upset and need to calm down...
Interesting game you play. You offer up the offense and if one responds with anger, they are in the wrong. If they respond with logic you attempt to turn it into anger... and again they are wrong.
Where did you get that license to be deliberatly insulting and then to walk away offended when you are called for doing it? I want one of those.
Figure it out. | |
| | | | | | | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| said by justanutter1:
There are so many people who have a copy of that code at this point that NOBODY is going to be prosecuted, guess why... Yeah, because Microsoft, yes even Microsoft is IMPOTENT to stop it.
Really? I would guess they would take the same tactic that the RIAA is currently using. Sue the uploaders and the downloaders won't have anything to download. And unlike some of the RIAA's actions, this one I would completely agree with.
said by justanutter1:
All that said, you ARE going to discover that Microsoft has stolen more of the GNU/GPL code than Linux has stolen of the SCO code... Mark my words.
Is there any proof to this claim or is it just an anti-MS rant? Yes, I know Microsoft isn't exactly a "cute and cuddly" company, and they've done more than their share of bad deeds, but call me crazy for still demanding some proof to an allegation like this.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
| | | | | | | | |
justanutter1
@kaballero.com
| Re: Are they even able to do that? Justin;
I suppose they could take the same tactic RIAA is currently using if they could ever figure out who did it in the first place. Unlikely. They might stop kids from sharing the files but they won't stop the files from being shared via Freenet.
Personally, Jason, when I say that I believe one thing and then demonstrate that I only believe it when it is convienent for me... I only prove I have prejudices.
Your disregard for RIAA (and their rights) while you support Microsoft in precisely the same circumstances, demonstrates that you are in fact prejudiced in favor of Microsoft. That won't come to many as a suprise but it is nice to see you demonstrate it so clearly.
RE: ...CODE STOLEN...
That is speculation based upon the smoking gun of a makefile from GPL which found its way into the Microsoft sources. A smoking gun does not a murder make, and neither does 17 lines of code which SCO refuses to produce in a similar situation. Microsoft has a history of not being forth coming. I also speculate that the code in question was stolen in the breakin on the Microsoft network in the year 2000. I know Microsoft says it was another company that lost the code, still what would have happened with the sales of Win2K if it had been published in October of 2000 that significant portions of the code had been stolen and were thought to be in Russia? What would be the best way to handle that from a security perspective, would it be to tell people what had been compromised so that they could judge for themselves what the wanted to run, or would it be to not tell anyone what was compromised? Now let's ask the same question from a financial perspective? Like I said, Microsoft does not have a history of openess or honesty and they certainly must have had financial reasons for not telling us what was stolen in the breakin of 2000 because they impacted the security of millions of systems by not telling us. Such risks are weighed carefully. Microsoft chose the smaller financial risk and elected to keep Win2K alive.
Jason, you are so completely in love with Microsoft. You are such a champion of her cause, I would never even bother trying to prove anything for you. I'll just wait and Microsoft will prove it for me. It is just a matter of time. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Are they even able to do that? said by justanutter1:
Personally, Jason, when I say that I believe one thing and then demonstrate that I only believe it when it is convienent for me... I only prove I have prejudices.
Your disregard for RIAA (and their rights) while you support Microsoft in precisely the same circumstances, demonstrates that you are in fact prejudiced in favor of Microsoft. That won't come to many as a suprise but it is nice to see you demonstrate it so clearly.
I think the RIAA is making a big PR mistake because they are going to be seen as suing their customers. In addition, I think that they are using tactics to ensure settlements even if they have the wrong person. (I think the penalties are too high and out of proportion also, but that's the DCMA, not the RIAA directly.)
I do think downloading music is wrong and illegal. The little music I obtain is mostly from used CD shops with the occasional new CD. This way I can rip to high-quality, DRM-free MP3 for my own personal use. The online services look nice, but I've never been one to buy much music so my buying habits really haven't changed much through the years. (If anything, used CD shops have increased it slightly, but the RIAA wouldn't like that.  )
In Microsoft's case, we're talking about their source code. In this respect I admit I might be biased, but not because it's MS. I write software that isn't open source. If the source code to my applications were stolen and circulated world-wide I would feel quite violated.
If the source code was written by me, it belongs to me and only I should say what happens to it. If I were to decide to make an application open source, that would be my choice. However, no one should decide that my application needs to be open source and then take steps to release the source code despite my wishes.
said by justanutter1:
RE: ...CODE STOLEN...
That is speculation based upon the smoking gun of a makefile from GPL which found its way into the Microsoft sources. A smoking gun does not a murder make, and neither does 17 lines of code which SCO refuses to produce in a similar situation.
If there's evidence of this, I'd be interested in seeing it, but this would be the first I've heard of this claim. (How someone would know that something found it's way into MS's source when very few outside of MS have seen the source would be one of my first questions.)
As for SCO, they're simply blowing smoke and hoping that everyone believes their claims. I'm actually quite enjoying it every time IBM or Novell blows another hole in their argument.
said by justanutter1:
Microsoft has a history of not being forth coming. I also speculate that the code in question was stolen in the breakin on the Microsoft network in the year 2000.
I'd have trouble believing that the stolen code would be able to sneak beneath the radar for over 3 years. AFAIK, there is some pretty good evidence that Mainsoft was the source of the leak.
said by justanutter1:
Jason, you are so completely in love with Microsoft. You are such a champion of her cause, I would never even bother trying to prove anything for you. I'll just wait and Microsoft will prove it for me. It is just a matter of time.
Nah. I'm not in love with MS. (For the record, I run OpenOffice.org on all of my PCs because I think MS Office isn't worth near what they charge for it.) I just tend to be quite skeptical when someone presents a huge conspiracy theory with little or no evidence to back it up. Yes, MS is quite a despicable company at times, but that doesn't make every bad theory about them true.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
| | | | | | | | | |
justanutter1
@kaballero.com | Re: Are they even able to do that? Jason;
Well argued. Thanks for taking the time to work thur it reasonably. I don't disagree with anything you've said.
-m- | |
| |
HeyYa
@mindspring.com | Simply put: It's illegal to obtain something you never rightfully had access to. That's like saying, I'll download 10000 songs from people, and it was their fault, not mine. | |
| | |
Jacek
@198.208.x.x
| Re: Are they even able to do that? There are numerous precedents that might make it actually legal. One of the latest examples involves web site www.blueovalnews.com which posted secret Ford Motor Company documents that were damaging to the automaker. Ford was trying to fight the web site in court claiming, that the documents belonged to Ford, were trade secrets and copyrighted materials that were stolen from Ford by some disgruntled employee and should never get into the hands of the guy who published them. In the first instance and in the appeal FORD LOST and dropped the case !!!. In both cases judges gave verdict which in effect said, that it is Ford responsibility to find the guilty employee who have stolen the materials and then prosecute them. The guy who posted them was cleared from all the charges. I happen to disagree with this, since the web site was posting materials that were in fact stolen but I'm not the law
JM | |
| | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: Are they even able to do that? said by NewLife :
Yes they can do that because of the simple fact that downloading their code is not legal. Its proprietary, copyrighted code that has been illegally leaked to the internet and downloading it is illegal to.
Do you by change have any links to the laws on this? I thought the issue of illegally shared material applied specifically to video's protected under a law written just for that purpose. Using your thinking, downloading music would be a crime, and we all know it isn't.
--
AMD XP2500+ @2388mhz/ Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC3500/ WD 120Gb on serial/ Gainward GF4 4600/ Enermax 465P-VE/Custom water cooler | |
| | |
See 27 replies to this post | |
| 
Krispy
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-11
the stix
| said by gnotella_luvr:
I mean this leak, no mater how big or little the amount of code, has put all users in jeopardy including the security of our country.
Guess it depends on how you look it...it could be argued that it will actually make it safer as more eyes looking for more holes will prompt MS to fix bugs faster.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other I guess. | |
| | |
anomus
| Re: Are they even able to do that? Thats for sure, I am tired of this monopoly pumping out crappy code they EXPECT me to pay for. Then I get attacked by viri, worms, popups, spam, spyware, all exploiting holes in their crappy code they ignored till it was too late. Then when then the Gov steps in and finally acts like they are going to come down on this monopoly, they use a portion of their billions in cash to stall the legal system till a new pres is elected that they contributed millions in campain contributions. As then expected, convictions are minimised and cut down and essentially shoed away to a slap on the wrist. Getting that code really doesnt amount to much but its about time we got a peek at the headache weve had to live with for decades. Any new exploits discovered now are going to get a whole new perspective and judgement, from the people. Lets face it, this is the most battle tested os there is and it has lost so many wars that it will never be used to control a spacecraft. When a monopoly is amook the people get stuck with the crap. | |
| | | | 
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Yes, Yes, Mr. Ashcroft, everything has to do with the security of our country...I'm surprised you didn't blame the leak on terrorists. You're an idiot if you think our country is at risk because Microsoft's corporate security sucks.
--
::: Do, or do not, there is no try:::»www.kapilville.com | |
| |
Saltor the Dispenser
@mobisoft.fi | I'd say a bigger threat to the security of your country is your atrocious educational system.
(BTW your spelling is terrible.) | |
| | | 
jackknife
join:2001-02-24
Phoenix, AZ
clubs: | Re: Are they even able to do that? Our educational system is fine.
Our people are stupid! | |
| | | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
1 edit | Re: Are they even able to do that? Thank you AthlGrond. | |
| | | | 
dasesq
join:2001-10-07
Long Beach, CA |  | |
| |
GrnMessiah
@208.5.x.x
| Uh, DUDE!
As I recall from NETCRAFT, more than half of web servers are Linux. As I understand, the entire Linux system is GPL (which allows anyone to view or play with the code). Government servers run this, and to the best of my knowledge, none of them have been seriously raped.
Besides, it's 2000. Under the government licensing programs, they are required to use XP. The nation isn't is jeopardy if the code for a OS that M$ has all but stopped supporting gets released to the public. | |
|
jhustanutter1
@kaballero.com | Hello Microsoft (M$) are you listening?
That is the sound of another FREENET node being installed...
Looks like you have a problem. | |
|
Hagrinas
@pacbell.n
| It's perfectly legal for them to send you a letter if that's what you are asking. Unless they are making illegal threats, they have every right to do so.
As for copyright law, they own the code. If you knowingly download it, it's illegal. The only exception would be if you have permission.
In general, people are confused about what is legal and not legal. Prior to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), it was illegal to download files without permission, and illegal to upload them too. There was never a 24 hour rule, but there is a fair use rule; it would not apply to this case, but it would allow you to use portions of copyrighted material for educational use, magazine articles, etc. but you could not reprint a substantial portion of a copyrighted work.
As for music and software, you could copy it for backup purposes and for the purpose of changing the media, (such as transfer to hard disk) for the purpose of getting it to work on your machine. In the famous Sony Betamax case, courts ruled that you could copy an entire work, such as a movie that was broadcast on TV, so that you can watch it later (personal use only.) Logically, copying a movie from a broadcast or from a tape you rented or borrowed all serves the same purpose -- you had the right to view or hear the material, but you chose to do it at a later time. The same would hold true for copying a CD you borrowed. Not all of these were upheld (or even brought up) in any court. But it was not generally considered a problem for personal use.
Logically, downloading a song from the Internet does not seem much different. But the "on demand" nature was a problem for the recording industry, and it's all moot because the DMCA makes it illegal to upload or download music without permission from the copyright holder. That was an explicit change in copyright law.
You may have heard or read in the papers that the industry was only going after people who made things available for upload. This was not because downloading is legal. It's because it's an easier first step, and it's easier to make a legal case. In that case, they know that the songs are on your computer because you made them available. So it's easy for them to prove something. If you merely download, they don't know what's on your computer, and it's technically more difficult for them to track you. They can hunt for people who make things available for upload, but they would have to check the logs of those folks to try to find out if you downloaded and they still have no proof it's on your computer. But that does not make the download legal.
Before the DMCA, if you owned a CD and you downloaded an MP3 of a tune from the CD for your convenience (instead of just copying it from your CD,) chances are that a court would not have considered that you broke any law. That might have technically changed under the DMCA (I'm far from an expert on it but I think it changed) but I still doubt that anybody would prosecute you for it. | |
| | | |
|
·
Re: Are they even able to do that?
