🚀 go-pugleaf

<telford@xenon.triode.net.au> wrote in message
news:10i959cmvn39nbe@corp.supernews.com...
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
>> telford@xenon.triode.net.au wrote:

> There is a simple connection between a mechanism that can
> reliably decode and read a proprietary format and the ability to
> manipulate that format. In many ways, the "results in" criteria is
> even more broad than the "circumvention device" criteria of the
> DMCA but they are both designed for the same purpose -- keeping
> proprietary formats incompatible with open source software.

Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

Our courts wont interpret it that sweepingly, whatever you claim.

> You are looking very closely at the fine details while carefully
> ignoring the big picture. The fact is that in the USA and in other
> countries copyright is being used to intimidate small developers
> and we can fully expect this trend to continue in Australia.

Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

Our courts wont interpret it that sweepingly, whatever you claim.

> The FTA is a big step in the direction of driving
> small developers out of the software industry.

More utterly mindless silly hyperventilation.

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

The FTA makes no practical difference on that stuff.

>> It's certainly true that companies are trying to leverage copyright
>> protection to maintain their business model, and I certainly believe
>> that this needs legislative attention, but I'm not yet aware of a case
>> where someone was legally prevented from producing compatible
>> software that did not otherwise compromise the protection of copyright.

> Your criteria is unrealistically narrow,

Nope.

> prosecuters can trivially make a case for compromised
> protection, and even if the case is hollow it is still an
> effective deterrent, especially with criminal implications.

Not in this country for anyone with a clue.

There will never be any criminal charges
laid in that particular situation here, fool.

And anyone with a clue knows that.

>> You bought Linux on a CD in a shop, or downloaded it
>> from a reputable mirror site. You understand that Linux
>> is free software than can be copied at will as long as
>> you comply with the GNU licence. Does the reasonable
>> person (and that's the test for the belief being reasonable)
>> believe that they can legally use the software in that
>> circumstance? I would say so, and that's all that's required.

> Which begs the question, what makes a website reputable?

Its obvious to anyone with a clue.

> I've been buying CDs from www.elx.com.au for years,
> suppose they were shut down by some copyright case,
> am I expected to find all those CDs I bought and destroy them?

Nope, and no chance of a prosecution of you either.

> Anyhow, your scenario might protect someone who
> just bought a CD or two and uses some free software.

No might about it.

> Those people aren't in the crosshairs,

The crosshairs are just another of your pathetic
little drug crazed paranoid fantasys, child.

> (a bit of SCO style FUD is good enough to rattle such basic users).

Nope, they arent even aware of it.

> However, active developers have no hope of an, "oh I
> just bought a few CDs and it seemed OK" type defence.

Wrong with that particular situation.

>> Note in passing that the belief has to relate to facts, not to the
>> law. An incorrect belief about what the law says is no defence.

> So the interpretation of vague terms like "results in" becomes
> pivotal in whether developers get a criminal record

Nope.

> -- how comforting.

How pathetic.

> The facts themselves are difficult enough to determine,
> an accurate legal interpretation is completely impossible.

Thats life in the real world, child.

> Little wonder there are a lot of people upset by this.

Only the legally terminally pig ignorant. You qualify.