[idea] Display illegal things - legal

[xtraa]

Hi,

 

would it be illegal, if we would not post links to - lets say - warez sites, but little screenshots of the URL?

 

if not, what about a Firefox plugin to automate screenshots for the addressbar of the browser, to autoupload

them in ImageShack, and put an (img) (/img) code around it.

 

Another way would be to just use the built in speech of OSX, and let OSX read the URL. We could save that as

an .mp3 file and publish it under a free copyright licence for everyone, except RIAA, music-biz, lawyers and

labels.

 

What do you think, would this be a kind of new way to share information without censorship?

 

or do you think this is just BS?

[kevin_4e]

That's some creative ideas. The voice would be very long and hard to use. The best bet would be the first one but who knows if that's legal. Good thinking. Hopefully someone can give us some assistance and tell us if it's possible.

[Superhai]

Thing doesn't get legalized by hiding it. But harder to find obviously. Thats a bit like the alcohol in paperbag you have in USA.

But presenting something in another way, I can't see the difference per se. But I don't see torrent links as illegal either.

[bofors]

I think the legal question comes down to dissemination, which of course any of the schemes you purpose do.

 

This website should stay well clear of any dissemination activity, illegal or not, it provides more ground for lawsuit.

[ampTK]

I think a linking to an offsite image would be legal. We wouldn't posting links to illegal files, not even to sites that storage illegal files, just linking to another site.

[domino]

Does anyone really know what the "Laws for Internet usage" is? Sometimes i don't think anyone does and basically makes there own "Laws" for a simple reason to take someone to court. If the owner of this sight writes a statement on the front page saying, "NO GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL OR ANYONE AFFILIATED TO APPLE COMPUTER OR THERE FAMILY MAY ENTER THIS DOMAIN. DOING SO FORFEITS YOUR RIGHTS TO SUE THE OWNER(S) OR IT'S MEMBERS." So does that make it legal?

 

PS. can't a site owner use the DMCA against Apple and it's pack of wolves?

[gwprod12]

No, it doesnt make it legal ;-p

 

If Apple has a problem with this site and the DMCA, they can take Mash to court. They cant just shut it down. Though they could call up his ISP and bluster and trick them into shutting him down. But that would be equally illegal. And Mash could sue his ISP.

 

Is Mash legally responsible for the content posted by others? Noish and Yesish. It's his site, it's his responsibility. Conversely, there is an issue with freedom of expression. I dont know if these two things cancel each other out, and I wouldnt want to test it.

 

Posting a picture of a link to a place where you can get a picture of a link to a torrent is disseminating copyrighted material (sort of). Which frankly, wont get anyone other than the site hosting the torrent or the uploaders in to any serious trouble.

[domino]

Well how can Apple know if they aren't allowed to enter the site in the first place? There is a disclosure and if they don't/can't accept the terms of agreement, then don't enter. Wouldn't that be the same as if you don't accept the agreement, you don't open the new packaged Windows XP CD?

[gwprod12]

I suppose they would be similar or equivalent. Unfortunately, neither end-user license agreements nor non-disclosure agreements nor agreeing to give up the right to sue have proved enforceable in court. To my knowledge anyways.

 

Of course, if you worded your disclosure in the right way, while it wouldnt prevent Apple Legal from suing you, it might allow you to sue them. Contract law might apply in this circumstance, but contracts require a quid pro quo relationship between contractees. I dont know if you could construct that sort of relationship with a public website. Also, non-disclosure or usage agreements dont apply to illegal acts.

 

EDIT: I'm not a lawyer btw. But lay people usually have an incredibly low understanding of the law. For instance, I went into a Gamestop a while back and asked why they stopped selling used PC games. The person at the counter told me that selling used PC games is illegal. The problem with that is that it isnt illegal. I dont know where the notion of selling something used (be it PC game or car) is somehow illegal. I think it might stem from the idea that the end user is only purchasing the right to use the product, which again is something that really isnt true.

[sHARD>>]

To futher clarify:

 

Does anyone really know what the "Laws for Internet usage" is? Sometimes i don't think anyone does and basically makes there own "Laws" for a simple reason to take someone to court. If the owner of this sight writes a statement on the front page saying, "NO GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL OR ANYONE AFFILIATED TO APPLE COMPUTER OR THERE FAMILY MAY ENTER THIS DOMAIN. DOING SO FORFEITS YOUR RIGHTS TO SUE THE OWNER(S) OR IT'S MEMBERS." So does that make it legal?

 

PS. can't a site owner use the DMCA against Apple and it's pack of wolves?

 

The site and it's owners reside in the United States, and are thus bound by it's laws.

 

Well how can Apple know if they aren't allowed to enter the site in the first place? There is a disclosure and if they don't/can't accept the terms of agreement, then don't enter. Wouldn't that be the same as if you don't accept the agreement, you don't open the new packaged Windows XP CD?

 

As gwprod12 said, they could still sue, the only difference is you could counter-sue for trespassing, I'd guess. But guess who would win?

 

On a final note, under the DMCA laws they don't have to sue you first to take you down. They are allowed to essentially sue all providers of bandwidth and internet resources as well as the actual content hoster. Thus, most likely a host would shut you down if you didn't comply with a request or file a counter-claim (which never work by the way).

[domino]

*shrugs*

 

What can one do? They try their best to stop this from happening but barely dents pedophile Pr0nz industry.

[br0adband]

Another way would be to just use the built in speech of OSX, and let OSX read the URL. We could save that as

an .mp3 file and publish it under a free copyright licence for everyone, except RIAA, music-biz, lawyers and

labels.

 

You're forgetting that you can't "freely" distribute mp3 files - they are all under the FhG copyright, actually. mp3 encoders are "legally" supposed to pay a fee to FhG for every single file that is encoded to the mp3 "standard" regardless of the encoder used.

 

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[sHARD>>]

You're forgetting that you can't "freely" distribute mp3 files - they are all under the FhG copyright, actually. mp3 encoders are "legally" supposed to pay a fee to FhG for every single file that is encoded to the mp3 "standard" regardless of the encoder used.

 

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

Well, not copyright but patent. The calculations required to generate an MP3 file are software patented. This means MP3s can be distributed, but the encoders cannot unless they've been licensed. That's why LAME isn't officially availible in a binary. The patent expires in 2010, however.

[bofors]

... the only difference is you could counter-sue for trespassing, I'd guess.

 

Umm... no, try breach of contract. But lawsuits are based on specific claims of monetary damages, Apple would have some weak ones and you would have none (i.e. no case).

 

EDIT: I'm not a lawyer btw. But lay people usually have an incredibly low understanding of the law.

 

Scarry isn't. How can a "democracy" function with such an incompetent electorate?

 

I mean, even if people were to go into a courtroom and examine the application of law, they would have no idea whether it was being followed properly or not. Yet at the same time they are "electing" judges in most jurisdictions.

 

The problems hardly stop there and bottom line is that if complete comphresion of the law requires anything more that high school education, than the law itself is illegal in the face the democratic principles outlined in the constitution.

[gwprod12]

I think what you mean is "actual" damages. There are "punitive" damages too.

 

In order for a tort to exist, one need not cause someone else to lose money or property. Depriving someone o their Civil Rights (free speech), is also a tort.

 

So, if Apple convinced whomever to shut down this site, Mash could sue his ISP for actual and punitive damages. ISPs usually have clauses in their contracts about illegal materials. However, the fact that Apple says something is "illegal" or "covered under the DMCA" doesnt mean it's fact. If his ISP shut him down without verifying Apple's claims, then they would be liable for breach of contract. No amount of legal mumbo-jumbo allows you to take someone's money and refuse to provide them a service because you dont feel like it.

 

EDIT: Bofors: In the State of Washington, there is an initiative to educate all high school students in the RCW (The Revised Code of Washington), which is the civil and criminal code of the state. This initiative has received an incredible amount of opposition. So much so, almost no one here has heard of it. The reasoning is that if comprehension of the law is required for graduation, then less people will graduate. Which is really putting the cart before the horse, because frankly, lowering the bar on graduation doesnt serve anyone. Least of all people who're going to have to compete with Troglodytes with diplomas. And knowledge of the law is important. 90% of drivers, for instance, dont know that pedestrians have the legal right of way at any intersection. Or that the age of consent is 16 (equivocated).

 

The law is kinda important to know. I'm not a lawyer, but I know a fair bit.

[bofors]

I think what you mean is "actual" damages. There are "punitive" damages too.

...

In order for a tort to exist, one need not cause someone else to lose money or property.

 

Ok, I was focusing on this specific instance. But punitive damages are pretty rare in reality and some states really do not permit them in normal circumstances.

 

Depriving someone o their Civil Rights (free speech), is also a tort.

 

A "tort" is an action based in "common law". Good examples are "neglience" and "liable/slander", but what is recognized as a tort varies from state to state.

 

Civil rights actions are not torts, they are based on specific statues. For example, 43 USC sec. 1983 et. seq. provides the basis for suing the government for civil rights violations like the deprivation of free speech:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...83----000-.html

 

So, if Apple convinced whomever to shut down this site, Mash could sue his ISP for actual and punitive damages. ISPs usually have clauses in their contracts about illegal materials. However, the fact that Apple says something is "illegal" or "covered under the DMCA" doesnt mean it's fact. If his ISP shut him down without verifying Apple's claims, then they would be liable for breach of contract.

 

Umm... in January this site was shut down in exactly this way.

 

This decision rules that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) does not require a copyright holder to conduct an investigation to establish actual infringement prior to sending notice to an Internet Service Provider (ISP) requiring them to shut-down an allegedly infringing web site, or stopping service all together to an alleged violator.

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/30/co...mca_good_faith/

 

No amount of legal mumbo-jumbo allows you to take someone's money and refuse to provide them a service because you dont feel like it.

 

This is the unfortunate reality in America, this is exaclty what attorneys really do. Not only can powerful people rip "little" people off and then very effectively hid behind attorneys, but attorneys themselves screw their lay clients left and right. I mean, they literally take the money and do almost nothing.

 

EDIT: Bofors: In the State of Washington, there is an initiative to educate all high school students in the RCW (The Revised Code of Washington), which is the civil and criminal code of the state. This initiative has received an incredible amount of opposition. So much so, almost no one here has heard of it. The reasoning is that if comprehension of the law is required for graduation, then less people will graduate.

...

And knowledge of the law is important.

 

The other issue is that the law is just too complicated and loaded with archaic jargon. Everyone graduating from high school should know how to go into court and enforce their rights. To the extent that people are dependant on attorneys, who should be severely regulated or outlawed, they have no rights per se.

 

The law is kinda important to know. I'm not a lawyer, but I know a fair bit.

 

It would be a lot more important if the law was actually followed. I know for a fact that the law is generally not followed in this country. Nor should we expect it to be followed: the people are apathetic, ignorant and just plan stupid. So, the ruling class does whatever then can get away with, which is quite a bit.

 

Because I could not afford or otherwise find an attorney, I spent a couple years studing the law suing a rather large and powerful institution who had gone way beyond just "taking my money and denying me service". When it became clear in numerous instances that several trial courts and government "watchdog" agencies, where not following law or going to enforce it, I quit. I was shocked by the scale of indifference, incompetence and just sheer corruption.

 

Although it was something that I "had" to do, and the legal education I gained from the experience has value, I also consider it a huge waste of time and a masive energy drain.

[sHARD>>]

Umm... no, try breach of contract.

 

It may not be a lawsuit, but it's definately not a breach of content. A server is private property, thought of in the legal world like a house might be. If you enter it without consent, you have trespassed. We consent to allow everyone to browse our website over HTTP, but we sure as heck don't consent to them connecting via a shell. Thus, they have trespassed on our property. Kinda weird, but it makes the most sense if you think about it. IANAL, but I have definately worked with a lot of datacenters, and their no entry warnings generally deal with illegal trespassing.

[bofors]

It may not be a lawsuit, but it's definately not a breach of content.

 

Here is what Domino proposed:

 

Well how can Apple know if they aren't allowed to enter the site in the first place? There is a disclosure and if they don't/can't accept the terms of agreement, then don't enter. Wouldn't that be the same as if you don't accept the agreement, you don't open the new packaged Windows XP CD?

 

The "agreement", the conditions accepted to access the site, is a "contract" which would have to be breached by Apple in this scenario. An NDA works the same way, a violation is essentially a breach of contract.

 

A server is private property, thought of in the legal world like a house might be. If you enter it without consent, you have trespassed.

 

You are mixing criminal law with civil. Trespassing is basically criminal, only the government can prosecute a trespassing case. Without some kind of claim to real material damages, sueing on a basis of "trespassing" per se is pointless.

[sHARD>>]

Here is what Domino proposed:

 

Well how can Apple know if they aren't allowed to enter the site in the first place? There is a disclosure and if they don't/can't accept the terms of agreement, then don't enter. Wouldn't that be the same as if you don't accept the agreement, you don't open the new packaged Windows XP CD?

 

The "agreement", the conditions accepted to access the site, is a "contract" which would have to be breached by Apple in this scenario.

You are mixing criminal law with civil. Trespassing is basically criminal, only the government can prosecute a trespassing case. Without some kind of claim to real material damages, sueing on a basis of "trespassing" per se is pointless.

 

Well from what I've seen, Domino's contract holds no water, so I just assumed we were talking about a more legal route. From what I've seen, the way you get money is by introducing a civil case involving damages incurred during an illegal entry. I don't quite follow how that works, but it sort of makes sense. What I do know is I've heard multiple times that entry contracts don't account for anything.

[gwprod12]

bofors:

 

No amount of legal mumbo-jumbo allows you to take someone's money and refuse to provide them a service because you dont feel like it. [legally, I should have said]

 

http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2004/20041201.asp

 

The plaintiff accused the MPAA of:

tortious interference with contractual relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

tortious interference with prospective economic advantage

libel and defamation

intentional infliction of emotional distress

 

Aside from the fact that the DMCA's "good faith" clause is subjective, thus allowing anyone to make any claim they like and have it be termed "good faith", I dont see how what this guy was claiming would have been false.

[bofors]

Well from what I've seen, Domino's contract holds no water...

...

What I do know is I've heard multiple times that entry contracts don't account for anything.

 

I am not disagreeing with this. My only point is that this "trespassing" theory is even weaker. To make this really simple, I going to say that I have the right to "trespass" to retrieve stolen property. Apple would make a similiar claim and it is basically valid.

 

To get anywhere with this "trepassing" defense, you would have to make the site explictly private. Not hand out access to anyone who clicks through an agreement. In a way, Apple has the same problem with Leopard. Anyone can effectively buy copies through the developer program, so Apple can not claim that the Leopard betas are bone fide trade secrets. They even give them to Microsoft.

[gwprod12]

Something else to consider is that under the DMCA, Apple can have "good faith belief" that a site named "OSX86PROJECT.org", that wont give them access is stealing their intellectual property, and have that site shut down.

 

This "good faith belief" is a dangerous precedent.

[xtraa]

You're forgetting that you can't "freely" distribute mp3 files - they are all under the FhG copyright, actually. mp3 encoders are "legally" supposed to pay a fee to FhG for every single file that is encoded to the mp3 "standard" regardless of the encoder used.

 

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

Ok, lets take .ogg then

 

I think that some hacker, who once cracked a CD copy protection used to make a song about the hex code, to make it public. I just can't remember his name but afaik he could not be sued for that.

[teppei]

sorry if this OOT.. but i used this website service more than i can remember to hide my email address on forums and blogs..

 

[bwhsh8r]

Hi,

 

would it be illegal, if we would not post links to - lets say - warez sites, but little screenshots of the URL?

 

if not, what about a Firefox plugin to automate screenshots for the addressbar of the browser, to autoupload

them in ImageShack, and put an (img) (/img) code around it.

 

Another way would be to just use the built in speech of OSX, and let OSX read the URL. We could save that as

an .mp3 file and publish it under a free copyright licence for everyone, except RIAA, music-biz, lawyers and

labels.

 

What do you think, would this be a kind of new way to share information without censorship?

 

or do you think this is just BS?

 

 

that would be perfectly legal except i think it would be in bad taste if you did it just for the link.... but still, becuase its not hosted on this server the only thing apple could do is report the image, and maybe try and sue the warez/torrent site.....

 

 

max