In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.
-
@topspin said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
The very hypothetical benefit to humanity of having no scarcity at all would far outweigh any problems with ignoring copyright.
Now somebody needs to argue why that's so different for immaterial goods that you need to enforce their scarcity at gunpoint
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
It's been a while since I read the DMCA and I wasn't paying attention to most of the cracking stuff because I was more focused on the automated liability.
ITYM automating in the @Gąska sense.
-
@Weng In response to a hypothetical strawman.
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Here in Poland, piracy is older than the internet. Maybe USA is different, but over here it's easier to find someone who knows how to illegally obtain pirated copy of Windows - and who are fully aware it's illegal and pirated - than someone who knows how to get one legally.
Here in Laos, the DVDs with Windows on it you get for $1.50 in the market are the legal copies.
-
@LaoC So're the ones you download yourself off Microsoft's website. In case you forgot, they hand out the installer for free.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@LaoC So're the ones you download yourself off Microsoft's website. In case you forgot, they hand out the installer for free.
I don't think it comes with teh s3ri4lz though.
-
@LaoC A couple of stray cosmic rays seem to have corrupted your message, mind sending that again?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@LaoC A couple of stray cosmic rays seem to have corrupted your message, mind sending that again?
Sorry, I've been off craxx0r sites for a while. I think the correct spell0ring iz 53R¡4lZ
-
@LaoC See, shit like this is what you get when you pirate Windows. Update your network driver, man.
-
@pie_flavor I can read his posts just fine. Maybe the problem is on your end, with your pirated system?
-
@pie_flavor contributory infringement. It's a thing. Knowingly hosting links or methods to access illegal (yes, copyright infringement is a legal violation) material is a violation in and of itself, even if you don't host the material itself. And there's no safe harbor for that.
You don't seem to understand the law at all. Pro tip: if you think you've found an obvious loophole, you're wrong. Both because such a loophole would have been closed already and because no judge will let you get away with using it even if it did exist. Judges aren't bound to some robotic, hyper literal interpretation. They look at the overall meaning and purpose.
-
According to the pie-logic it's completely fine if I gain access to his house and his computer and copy all his personal data off of it and use it however I want, because there are no signs explicitly telling me I can't do that. And even if there would be such signs I can just claim that I did not see them and I am automatically cleared of all wrongdoing.
Also "the copy is made on the server" is an awesome defense. So if I want to make an illegal copy of something I can just hand it over to a third party to make the copies on a different computer to the one I'm going to use them on. Because then I can claim that I didn't make the copies, the already-made copies were just distributed to my computer and therefore fair game.
But yeah, because all software comes with a license, using software is always an IMPLICIT agreement to all applicable licenses and terms of use, regardless if they have been presented or not. There is no way of claiming ignorance, unlawful use of the product will always be unlawful. The judge may take circumstances into consideration, but it is a crime regardless.
If you drive on the road and is taken for speeding you cannot claim that you didn't see the sign with the speed limit. Because that was most likely either a lack of attention (meaning you maybe shouldn't be driving) or you're lying. Now, if it does turn out this sign was covered by a tree branch or was otherwise unclear the penalty may be dropped. But a crime was still committed, it's just the circumstances that may make it go penalty-free.
-
@dcon said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
you merely receive the copy
**mind blown** OMG!! I have a copy!
Wait. Or do I have a copy of a copy? Or is it the original? Fuck if I know - they all have the same hash... (closes eyes) I have a copy of a copy!!! I'm LEGAL!!!
Were your eyes open when you made the copy? This seems to be important.
Filed Under: Lie back and think of copyright reform
-
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
The judge may take circumstances into consideration, but it is a crime regardless.
Is it necessarily a crime though? It might just be a civil thing, no? Nevertheless, against the law.
This whole thing is like a quantum mechanical view of law: There's no license until the end user observes it.
-
@boomzilla If an EULA was written in the woods but nobody was around to see it, is it enforceable?
-
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
If an EULA was written in the woods
Depends who got it first ... if the shitting bear got it first ... I'm not touching it
-
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@boomzilla If an EULA was written in the woods but nobody was around to see it, is it enforceable?
Let's ask Judge @pie_flavor!
-
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
The judge may take circumstances into consideration, but it is a crime regardless.
Is it necessarily a crime though? It might just be a civil thing, no? Nevertheless, against the law.
This whole thing is like a quantum mechanical view of law: There's no license until the end user observes it.
Where it all comes from
Is a mystery
It's like the changing of the seasons
And the tides of the sea
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Pro tip: if you think you've found an obvious loophole, you're wrong.
Obligatory XKCD:
-
I ran @pie_flavor's argument past a lawyer I know. He laughed and said "don't try that in court."
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Is this a take-out from Burn After Reading?
I was about ready to strangle him half-way through.
-
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
But yeah, because all software comes with a license, using software is always an IMPLICIT agreement to all applicable licenses and terms of use, regardless if they have been presented or not.
That's wrong. There's been many precedents that a license you weren't presented with isn't binding. Of course this doesn't change the fact that using software without a license is illegal.
-
@topspin said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Is this a take-out from Burn After Reading?
Poe strikes again!
It's real. TFA that goes with the video:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/verbatim-what-is-a-photocopier.html
And previously:
-
@remi said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Pro tip: if you think you've found an obvious loophole, you're wrong.
Obligatory XKCD:
at least twice.
-
@topspin said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Is this a take-out from Burn After Reading?
Didn't see the video, but if it is what I think it is, and it most likely is, then the entire script was taken directly, without any changes, from a transcript of an actual real life deposition that actually happened.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall I disagree with that interpretation. The copy is made before it ever reaches your computer; you merely receive the copy. A judge could likely be convinced of the same.
What legal authority can you cite? I'd trust the chief lawyer of Harvard and his legal department over some random college student.
That didn't fly when I said I'd trust the Supreme Court. Why would it fly with some rando Harvard dude.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@LaoC A couple of stray cosmic rays seem to have corrupted your message, mind sending that again?
Oi. I found the answer to how software can magically appear on your computer without making a copy.
-
@topspin said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall I disagree with that interpretation. The copy is made before it ever reaches your computer; you merely receive the copy. A judge could likely be convinced of the same.
What legal authority can you cite? I'd trust the chief lawyer of Harvard and his legal department over some random college student.
That didn't fly when I said I'd trust the Supreme Court. Why would it fly with some rando Harvard dude.
This whole thing reminds me of nothing more than arguments over D&D rules and munchkins trying to abuse readings of the text. And claiming that the developers don't have the authority to say how it was supposed to be read. It's annoying there, but here it actually has RL consequences.
-
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@topspin said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Is this a take-out from Burn After Reading?
Poe strikes again! It's real.
@Gąska said:
Didn't see the video, but if it is what I think it is, and it most likely is, then the entire script was taken directly, without any changes, from a transcript of an actual real life deposition that actually happened.
Yes, it is. It even says so in the beginning of the video. Still, while you watch it, you get this "this cannot possibly be real" feeling. And also "if he murdered him, the jury would acquit".
-
@Benjamin-Hall though the difference is, insane troll logic sometimes actually works in court. Unfortunately for @pie_flavor, DMCA has been thoroughly proofed against that.
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall though the difference is, insane troll logic sometimes actually works in court. Unfortunately for @pie_flavor, DMCA has been thoroughly proofed against that.
I've seen insane troll logic work in D&D much more than it does in court. Contrary to what most believe, the majority of court cases have obvious outcomes, and when they don't it's not clever wordplay that wins, it's either a sober judgement of the best reading (for law and facts) or ideology. And mostly the first.
-
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@dcon said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
you merely receive the copy
**mind blown** OMG!! I have a copy!
Wait. Or do I have a copy of a copy? Or is it the original? Fuck if I know - they all have the same hash... (closes eyes) I have a copy of a copy!!! I'm LEGAL!!!
Were your eyes open when you made the copy? This seems to be important.
While reading this thread, I think it's best if they're not.
-
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
According to the pie-logic it's completely fine if I gain access to his house and his computer and copy all his personal data off of it and use it however I want, because there are no signs explicitly telling me I can't do that. And even if there would be such signs I can just claim that I did not see them and I am automatically cleared of all wrongdoing.
Nope. It is illegal to access a computer you are not authorized to access.
-
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
But yeah, because all software comes with a license, using software is always an IMPLICIT agreement to all applicable licenses and terms of use, regardless if they have been presented or not. There is no way of claiming ignorance, unlawful use of the product will always be unlawful. The judge may take circumstances into consideration, but it is a crime regardless.
No. This is simply not true. Not all software comes with a license; that is a modern invention that is not laid down in copyright law at all. Using software is not an implicit agreement to a license that you don't know where to look for. Why on earth else would literally every software installer for licensed software have agreeing to the license agreement as a required step?
If you drive on the road and is taken for speeding you cannot claim that you didn't see the sign with the speed limit. Because that was most likely either a lack of attention (meaning you maybe shouldn't be driving) or you're lying. Now, if it does turn out this sign was covered by a tree branch or was otherwise unclear the penalty may be dropped. But a crime was still committed, it's just the circumstances that may make it go penalty-free.
But by law every single road in the USA must have a speed limit. It is not the case that by law every piece of software have a license agreement.
What the fuck is this brainworm that every single piece of software in existence is licensed or not held at all? This has never been codified ever. Most copyright law was written with the intent that you actually own the thing after you buy it, not that it's temporarily licensed to you.
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
But yeah, because all software comes with a license, using software is always an IMPLICIT agreement to all applicable licenses and terms of use, regardless if they have been presented or not.
That's wrong. There's been many precedents that a license you weren't presented with isn't binding. Of course this doesn't change the fact that using software without a license is illegal.
Using software without a license is not and has never been illegal. There is no law that mandates licenses for software. There is no law that says use of an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work is infringement.
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall though the difference is, insane troll logic sometimes actually works in court. Unfortunately for @pie_flavor, DMCA has been thoroughly proofed against that.
Yep! It has been thoroughly proofed against exactly none of what you guys are saying.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Using software without a license is not and has never been illegal.
That's easy to test
Report yourself
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
According to the pie-logic it's completely fine if I gain access to his house and his computer and copy all his personal data off of it and use it however I want, because there are no signs explicitly telling me I can't do that. And even if there would be such signs I can just claim that I did not see them and I am automatically cleared of all wrongdoing.
Nope. It is illegal to access a computer you are not authorized to access.
What if someone took down the "Do Not Access This Computer" sign so I didn't know that I didn't have authorization?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Using software without a license is not and has never been illegal.
-
@TimeBandit said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Using software without a license is not and has never been illegal.
That's easy to test
Report yourself
https://i.imgur.com/7f9JkCF.png
The first one is a violation of a license agreement already agreed to (since they have some licenses). The second one is copyright infringement, as distribution of copyrighted content is reserved to the copyright holder.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
The first one is a violation of a license agreement already agreed to (since they have some licenses).
You have an amazing ability to ignore the ramification of what you're saying here. It's really brillant.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
But by law every single road in the USA must have a speed limit.
Never been to Montana I see.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor No, you're not. If you use the software, you're agreeing to its license terms, including any penalties for obtaining the software through an unapproved method. \n
Wow, licenses just get magically invoked whether or not I explicitly agree with them? That sounds incredibly prone to abuse.
Where am I supposed to find this intrinsically invoked license? The software typically doesn't show it to you after install, unless you go hunting for it.As I understand it, the default state of copyright law is "you may not copy, you may not distribute". A software license is effectively saying "if you agree to x, y, and z you may copy and/or distribute". So if you don't agree to the license then you're bound to the default state of allowed copyright use which is pretty much "you may not".
-
@mikehurley said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor No, you're not. If you use the software, you're agreeing to its license terms, including any penalties for obtaining the software through an unapproved method. \n
Wow, licenses just get magically invoked whether or not I explicitly agree with them? That sounds incredibly prone to abuse.
Where am I supposed to find this intrinsically invoked license? The software typically doesn't show it to you after install, unless you go hunting for it.As I understand it, the default state of copyright law is "you may not copy, you may not distribute". A software license is effectively saying "if you agree to x, y, and z you may copy and/or distribute". So if you don't agree to the license then you're bound to the default state of allowed copyright use which is pretty much "you may not".
But what if someone lied about the license to him!
-
@mikehurley said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor No, you're not. If you use the software, you're agreeing to its license terms, including any penalties for obtaining the software through an unapproved method. \n
Wow, licenses just get magically invoked whether or not I explicitly agree with them? That sounds incredibly prone to abuse.
Where am I supposed to find this intrinsically invoked license? The software typically doesn't show it to you after install, unless you go hunting for it.As I understand it, the default state of copyright law is "you may not copy, you may not distribute". A software license is effectively saying "if you agree to x, y, and z you may copy and/or distribute". So if you don't agree to the license then you're bound to the default state of allowed copyright use which is pretty much "you may not".
Good thing I'm not copying and I'm not distributing.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Good thing I'm not copying
How did you get it on your computer without copying it?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Nope. It is illegal to access a computer you are not authorized to access.
Just like it's illegal to use software you don't have a license for?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
According to the pie-logic it's completely fine if I gain access to his house and his computer and copy all his personal data off of it and use it however I want, because there are no signs explicitly telling me I can't do that. And even if there would be such signs I can just claim that I did not see them and I am automatically cleared of all wrongdoing.
Nope. It is illegal to access a computer you are not authorized to access.
I didn't agree to the agreement that I am not authorized access, therefore I'm not legally bound to comply with anything.
-
@TimeBandit said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Good thing I'm not copying
How did you get it on your computer without copying it?
A server sent it to me.
-
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Nope. It is illegal to access a computer you are not authorized to access.
Just like it's illegal to use software you don't have a license for?
Nope! The former is codified in law; the latter ain't.