Re: Asimov performs a valuable service; so why fight over it

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:

>Jeffrey Robertson writes ...
>> 
>> Note that it doesn't matter if the pirate is selling or giving away
>> the product; the issue is whether someone is trying to sell it, and
>> hence is being deprived of legitimate income by the pirate.
>>
>
>     So far, the only direct legal definition of software piracy
>presented here with any support is the one posted by SUPERTIMER. It
>cited a court decision which rejected a software piracy charge because
>the accused person was not selling the software.

Just one comment since this refers to me...I did cite the court case
where one MIT student was pronounced innocent of piracy because
he was just making his account available and not doing the actual
uploading of the copyrighted software (stuff like Microsoft Office or
something).  I consider this a loophole where the student was
clearly in the wrong, but got away with it...the case spawned a new
law...

>SUPERTIMER mentioned a new law which seems to consider demonstrated
>damages to a seller; but, no specific, confirmed details were presented
>nor was it clear that the new law makes any change in the definition of
>software piracy from that established via the court decision.

The new law makes it a federal offense to have illegal copies of
software on a system even if you did not do the uploading.  It makes
the system operator responsible.  New law makes these sites
formally pirate sites...

Read the case...and draw your conclusions...
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Outlaws/LaMacchiaIndictment.html