p2p, anonymity and security

Greg Rundlett greg at freephile.com
Fri Mar 12 12:53:01 EST 2004



Derek Martin wrote:

>>My intention is explicitly stated and legal 
>>    
>>
>
>I beg to differ on that.
>
> explicit - adj.  Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
>
>
>  
>
You're right, I was not explicit.  My statement was actually 'simple'.  
That simple statement carries a lot of implied meanings for most people, 
but I'm not like most people.  So that's why I said what I said without 
wanting to see it from the 'popular' point of view.  To clarify, I have 
very little interest in what is available on TV, Radio, or through 
Hollywood.  I'm much more interested in history, arts, science, folk 
music, world music and culture.  Most of this is very hard to find, but 
I think there are volumes of it that I could collect and share using p2p 
technologies without running afoul of any laws.  I'm interested in sites 
like ibiblio.org and seeing their numbers grow on the Internet.

>You can discuss illegal things all you like, so long as you don't
>announce intention to commit a crime, which is generally illegal.  For
>example, if you plot to commit a crime with your friends, you need not
>even actually attempt the act to be guilty of a crime.  This is called
>conspiracy.  If you are dumb enough to announce your intentions to
>kill the president, the Secret Service will make your life unpleasant.
>If you tell airport security that you intend to bomb a plane, you will
>almost certainly be arrested immediately.  You probably won't go to
>jail, but you probably will miss your flight.  Though, if you happen
>to be carrying anything that might be used to make a bomb...  Well, I
>wouldn't want to be you.  
>  
>
Well, I guess Carnivore picked up this thread by now.

>>>certainly possible to exchange materials which do not have copyrights
>>>to which you are not the owner via these file sharing networks;
>>>however I don't think anyone here is naive enough to believe that is
>>>(exclusively) what you intend...
>>>      
>>>
>>You confused me a bit with this wording.  I think you meant to say that 
>>    
>>
>[SNIP]
>
>I said precisely what I meant to say.  The sentences I wrote are
>grammatically correct and grammatically convey exactly what I meant
>them to convey.
>  
>
But you attribute to me motives which I do not have.

>
>Public speeches have copyrights, regardless of the fact that they are
>delivered publicly.  There may be some issue of how enforcable the
>copyright is in that case; I'm not sure.  Are you?  
>
>  
>
I sounds like you've bought into the notion promulgated by the popular 
media that because copyrights are automatically granted, that doing 
anything without obtaining and paying for permission is a crime.  
Realize that most people making a public speech have a message that they 
are intentionally delivering to a mass audience for mass consumption and 
re-telling.  If someone makes a speech on homosexual equality, which is 
recorded by a friend in the audience in MP3 format.  Do you think the 
speaker is more concerned with 'enforcing his/her rights against 
pirates' or 'enforcing his/her rights to equality'?  I don't think the 
homosexual will sue the friend.  I do think that you've by now many 
people think I'm homosexual--but I'm just a regular guy.


-- 
FREePHILE
We are 'Open' for Business
Free and Open Source Software
http://www.freephile.com
(978) 270-2425
Stay the curse.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20040312/95e9fc76/attachment.html


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list