🚀 go-pugleaf

In aus.computers.linux rock <tsf@tsrww.com> wrote:

> <telford@xenon.triode.net.au> wrote in message

>> 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.

So I have your personal guarantee on that... what exactly is that
worth again?

> Taint gunna happen, you watch.

Strangely enough, I like to take a bit of a proactive stance in
determining my future, sitting back and watching is something you
are welcome to do if that suits you.

>> 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.

Got any proof of that?

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

> And anyone with a clue knows that.

Proof by crystal ball and personal abuse,
a well established technique that has failed repeatedly.

> Its obvious to anyone with a clue.

Ahh the old proof by "it's obvious",
you have all the intellect of Rod Speed.

	- Tel