[taustin]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

How is that so different than every single person that uses Alf's tools?

Alf's tools can be used for non-infinging purposes. Giggle's isn't talking about stripping DRM so you can make device independent backups, he's talking about stripping DRM so you can pass the book on to others. He started a thread about creating a web site for that specific purpose, in clear violation of, say, Amazon's terms of service, and pretty likely violation of Title 17 (and if more than a certain amount of value is involved, $1500, IRRC, criminal violation).

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

As for other things too numerous to quote for the most relevance, I'll just throw this in:

I, myself, possess some unpopular ideas. None relevant to ebooks, so I won't bother listing them. However, no matter how badly I would like certain aspects of reality to be different, I live in the current reality, and that is what shapes my actions. Because I'm not running around acting out in civil disobedience, am I dishonest? A hypocrite? I don't believe so. Would sharing those ideas in a forum automatically mean I'm acting on them? No.

There's a difference between sharing an idea and advocating an action. And certainly between sharing an idea and planning a web site that would be illegal from the word go.

If Giggles were arguing that copyright law was in need of reform, and encouraging people to write their congresscritters to say so, that would be a good thing. But he's not. If Giggles were talking about acts of civil disobedience, in which he fully expected to be punished, even go to jail, and accepted that possibility, that'd be courageous. But he's not. He's advocating other people simply breaking the law, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Granted, there have been people on this forum that advocate similar ideas to Giggles' that do so to justify their own actions (piracy, infringement), but they are generally pretty obvious. Some flat-out admit it. So far all I've seen from Giggles is ideas, but no evidence of action. I can't assume the latter due to the former.

Again, he claims to be dishonest and untrustworthy (unless you want to play games with what words mean). Either he's telling the truth, and he's dishonest and untrustworth because he says he is, or he's lying, which also makes him dishonest and untrustworthy. There is no analysis that does not arrive at the same conclusion.