Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald
I never said that breaking DRM was stealing.
|
That's how it came off. Regardless, clarification accepted (even though you insist of juxtaposing the two constantly. Another rhetorical trick? Fascinating
).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald
It's a violation of the DMCA. either way, it would still come under law breaking.
|
Debatable. The recent exemptions to the DMCA show that this is FAR from being the binary issue you make it out to be.
1. Ruhr?
2. No it isn't. The reason why we have a DMCA in the first place should make it clear why.
3. Finally, some usable advice
4. You're quite right. There is no question of exoneration when there is no crime to begin with (non-profit violations of the DMCA are a civil matter). You can keep writing "lame rationalizing" over and over. All that appears on my screen (after a 5 second delay) is "nuh uh". Must be my new rhetoric filter
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald
Again, you neither need nor are entitled to a copy of a book unless you are willing to meet the seller's terms. If you do not wish or cannot afford to do so, don't buy or steal the book.
|
To the stealing, I agree (and have done so from the start). To the rest, I would encourage you to take an inventory of the items in your house. Then read the instructions (and the MSDS for household chemicals) on every single item and evaluate whether you are using it exactly the way the manufacturer intended. Don't have the MSDS on hand? Well, I don't see the DMCA at the back of every book either - ignorance of the law is no excuse. Look them up on the internet. The EPA environmental laws are far more important than copyright law. Are you disposing of them exactly the way the law says? Are you using everything
exactly as the manufacturer instructs - no repurposing [sic], no hacking. After all, a covenant with the manufacturer is sacred - and may lightning fall on our heads if we ignore even the slightest part of the fine print, even if it hurts the seller (or anyone else for that matter) not a single whit.
By the way, please don't interpret that as a question to be answered here. It's none of my business
- just a bit of advice on how to gain perspective on the sort of "crime" [sic[k]] we're talking about here. Well, not crime really - as I said before, DMCA violations (without commercial gain) are a civil matter, to be settled between the alleged violator and the party that feels violated. Seems a bit voyeuristic for so many people to get involved in what appears to be a private squabble between two civil parties.
Ah, I feel re-magnetized already. Thanks very much
. I can see why people are tearing their hair out in clumps in this thread
. (I guess I should apologize for the jocular tone but I've made my points with the utmost seriousness and I suppose jocular is preferable to angry so I rather think I won't
).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubemonkey
There's your downfall. If you don't like these terms, then don't buy the book.
|
My downfall?
Fascinating use of the word. On the whole, I do believe I'll refrain from taking your peremptory advice.