Wanker Lies

["Quantum_Cat" <anonymous@cotse.com>]

Hiya RosyWanker...

Let me guess... You're the "brains" of the Turlettes, and the 
good Dorktor is the "looks"?  :)

Verbosity does not indicate correctness, Rosy... Usually it's 
smokescreen.  We'd best open some windows on your latest 
burning tire...


 *>      You have made an error in logic. "Whether there is 
any money involved
 *> or not" relates to the mode of distribution, not to value 
of the item
 *> distributed. What the law does is to remove the need for 
payment in order

Mode means method, Rosy... Whether by exchange of CD's, 
floppy disks, or online downloading.  Note that there is 
usually an exchange of funds or services tied to this 
distribution.  Therefore, your statement that "What the law 
does is to remove the need for payment" is incorrect.  Logic 
and you are worlds apart.

 *> to demonstrate commercial value. It does not eliminate 
the usual
 *> requirement that the distributed item have tangible 
commercial value.

And the law says nothing about the copyright material having 
to have commercial value.  Nothing.  It's ALL about the right 
of the copyright holder to do with his property as they wish.  
If it has no value and he doesn't want you and the Turlettes 
to mess with it, you can't legally mess with it.  

I know that gives you a major wedgie, but that's the facts, 
Rosy.

 *>      For example, the law you reference would not apply 
to free
 *> distribution of, say, an oldie like Wavy Navy. Wavy Navy 
is presumed to
 *> have no commercial value, the distribution does not 
obviously damage the
 *> property, and there is no charge for downloading.
 *>

Heh heh... You just LOVE to keep repeating the same old lie.  
Copyright has nothing to do with "damage".  It has nothing to 
do with commercial value.  It has everything to do with what 
the copyright holder wants to do with his property.  

So, the law DOES apply to Wavy Navy.  You lie once again.  
But we're not surprised.  

It appears that your strategy is to cloud the issue with 
lies, red herrings and misdirection in the hopes that you can 
con another fool into hosting your pirate ftp sites again.

Despite the fact that each one of your volunteers eventually 
lose their accounts.

Hey, if they can't keep up on law, or are easily snookered by 
your lies, then it will keep happening.  Us vogons can't 
protect EVERYONE from you.  :)
     
 *>      Yes, law enforcement authorities will, if so 
requested by a copyright
 *> owner, act to halt unauthorized free distribution of no-
commercial-value

And ISP's will remove accounts from folks who DON'T own the 
copyright to programs.  You see, the copyright owners and law 
enforcement agencies don't usually have to get into the 
matter to nuke someone's account who'd been misusing it.  
Each ISP should have an Acceptable Use Policy available, and 
in each one, there is a section concerning copyright 
materials.  Read it.

Why bring the lawyers into it?  :)

 *> items-- i.e. the distributor will be told to cease and 
desist. Whether or
 *> not some damage needs to be made good is left to the 
owner to decide and,
 *> if desired, to pursue in civil courts.

Heh heh... You make your argument, then shoot yourself in the 
foot a paragraph later.  "It's legal!" , "Until the copyright 
holder complains.".  Is it any wonder that so few folks 
believe you or the FAQS you maintain?  You are a fount of 
misinformation!

 *>      The purpose of the newer anti-piracy law is to 
strengthen protection
 *> of commercially valuable software products in response to 
the explosion of
 *> the internet. The law seeks to discourage such internet 
practices as
 *> malicious free distribution and use of the products as 
freebie attractions
 *> to build traffic.

And a side effect is that ALL copyright materials fall into 
the same protection.  You can weep about it, poor little 
pirate, but that's the facts.


 *>      Three important factors are involved:

 *> o- The wrongly distributed products have established real 
commercial value.
 *> It is important to society that commerce in such products 
not be ruined by
 *> thievery.

Real Commercial Value is unmentioned in the law, Rosy.  This 
is a Wanker invention.  Toss this red herring back in the 
pond.

 *> o- Via the net, a lot of damage can be done in a 
relatively brief time.
 *> Removing the requirement for notification from/counseling 
with the
 *> copyright owner helps to limit damage and increases the 
immediacy of the
 *> enforcement threat to would-be pirates.

Time is unmentioned in the law, Rosy.  Another Wanker 
invention.  I suppose this really chaffs your butt.

 *> o- Unauthorized distributions of commercially valuable 
products are usually
 *> easy to identify-- i.e. a law to oppose the distributions 
is reasonably
 *> easy to enforce.

Every work has copyright protection unless specifically 
released by the author.  Identification is not a problem in 
any case.  More Wanker inventions. 

 *>      Basically, you have a need for protection of 
something valuable. At
 *> the same time, a law which affords this protection is 
enforceable
 *> independent of rights owner complaints. So, you have the 
law.

Value is not mentioned in the law.  Try again, Rosy.


 *>      None of the conditions mentioned above hold for old, 
out-of-print
 *> software. Society, through Law, has nearly zero stake in 
protecting such
 *> property beyond honoring the copyright 'contract' to the 
extent of
 *> enforcing cease and desist orders.

Bald assertions without evidence are another name for "Big 
Friggin' Lies".  Old works have the same protection.  Read 
the law.  Note the number of years they are protected.  Weep, 
loser.

 *>      There is, per se, no law against freely distributing 
old software with
 *> no obvious commercial value. Doing so is no more illegal 
than walking
 *> across a neighbor's yard to get to a bus stop. In these 
and countless
 *> similar situations where liberties are taken with private 
property, nothing
 *> illegal can happen until the owner says "stop it" and the 
one taking
 *> liberties refuses to comply.

Were you trying to see how many lies you could get into a 
post, Rosy?  I lost count!

 *>      So long as the archives which distribute old Apple 
II software comply
 *> with the express wishes of rights owners, they are 
operating entirely

Yet we fail to see any archives like that from the Turlettes, 
don't we?

 *> within the Law. This is not the case for those who 
routinely attack these
 *> archives. Despite being repeatedly informed of the facts, 
they persist in
 *> libeling the archives with charges of "piracy" and harass 
ISP's which host
 *> the archives. These persons should cease their illegal 
behavior.

Get over it, loser!

Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat


-- 
Anon news web interface.  FAQ available for review at:
http://packetderm.cotse.com/cgi-bin/blockit.cgi