🚀 go-pugleaf

>> couple copies to users/former users, that is much less clear. It may
>> easily be fair use.

> Then again it may not be. In fact I contend it isn't. I also
> contend that nobody should ask others to commit illegal acts even if
> they "might" not be construed as illegal. As far as posting the ROM
> code with the emulator... if they do that the storage site for that
> program becomes liable. We aren't talking about esoterical thoughts
> here. If a complaint is filed the authorities can (and have) get a
> warrant and sieze all computer related property at the site. Get a
> few BBS magazines and read them. It is happening more frequently.
> As a sysop I am concerned by the attitude expressed here.

Carl, that is certainly the case. Civil forfeiture is a whole
different aspect. The truly sickening thing is that even if one is
found innocent, one may never get the seized property returned,
something which is patently illegal. However, simply having the
police arrest you is no proof that you've broken any law. You're
still not guilty of anything criminal until the jury says so,
irregardless of what the government and its laws say. Thank the gods
for that. Of course, in the meantime, the government will treat you
like you're guilty, and trample across a lot of your liberties. Maybe
even kill you.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not advocate giving away
copyrighted materials. I would not do it. My sole desire is to say
that doing so is not "clearly" illegal at all times. Copyright law is
a touchy subject. I honestly believe that in an upper court, using
ROMs, in a non-profit situation, from what is effectively an orphan
machine, and which are not marketed nor will likely ever be marketed
again by the copyright holder, would be considered fair use. It
simply is not black and white, as even a cursory study of the case
law shows.

Likewise, I do not generally advocate disobeying other laws which I
find wrong, such as much of the tax code and the immoral paternalistic
regulations we are burdened with. Ok, I do advocate enforcing the
rest of the U.S. Constitution, which would void most of the federal
government. That is nearly a seditionary thought these days.

However, I also do not find such advocation to be particularily
wrong. As many of our forebears felt, I'd rather see occasional
revolution than blind obedience to the law, thereby becoming nothing
more than servants. We are not subjects in this nation, and we have
no moral obligation to obey acts which we truly feel are illegal.
Pragmatism dictates that we let the courts decide those issues, yet,
without breaking the law in question, one cannot get standing to have
a court decide the issue. It would be so much better if we had moral
governmental representation which would obey the law, but instead we
elect utter morons, dishonorable and unprincipled. Politicians.

This doesn't belong on COCO, though. I've made my point, I hope. I'd
also hope that people can discern the difference between stating that
something isn't clearly illegal, and advocating doing it. Sorta akin
to Voltaire's "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend with
my life your right to say it."

Larry
--
Lawrence Weeks     | "I love my country, but I fear my government."
weeksl@cray.com    |   -- Jules D. Gliesche
-------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his
 fellow citizens." -- Thomas Jefferson