"if he was just providing a service - the ability to solder surface mount technology - then I don't see how he can be liable for other people's violations of the law. Maybe if he encouraged them to pirate then perhaps "conspiracy to commit DRM circumvention"..."
One reason someone is liable is because the act itself was made illegal. There's no need to utilize aiding/abetting and conspiracy laws. Often when a otherwise harmless act is so closely, exclusively or so commonly related to another act that is to be regulated the corresponding act become regulated as well. Aiding and conspiracy laws are designed to regulate conduct with is in furternce of other illegal acts but is so differing in the ways it can be done that it can't be made illegal by itself. The overwhelmingly common reason that consoles are modified is to circumvent DRM systems. Since there was a desire to prevent the circumvention, the common means of doing so was also regulated.
Your argument can't realistically be against "how" such a law can exist, but WHETHER it should. Which, in this instance, should include whether circumvention itself should be illegal.
>>>You own the media it is on, and you have the right to use the software, but you don't have the right to reproduce it or make it better (unless it is GPL).
That's kind of like a book, isn't it? So should it be illegal to modify a book by making notes in it or even tearing pages out of it?
>>>the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause, which makes it illegal to circumvent any kind of DRM, even if it's for a totally legal purpose. It's difficult to see how that's constitutional. Making it illegal to do something that's perfectly legal
>>>The erosion of property rights in this and other countries is the cause for and other similar laws... ...the software we buy, the music we purchase, or the books we download.>>When you can be told you have to sell the land you own to the government for the price they set you don't own it.>>When you buy and download a song and but are told you can listen to it in this way or on this device you don't own it.>>The truth is we as consumers and voters have slowly allowed our right to own what we buy fade.
>>>You can pay someone to mod your car too. What difference does it make?>>Modded cars can break the speedlimit too, but we don't throw the mechanics in jail.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by JH.
Re: Re: Yeah, but c'mon...
"if he was just providing a service - the ability to solder surface mount technology - then I don't see how he can be liable for other people's violations of the law. Maybe if he encouraged them to pirate then perhaps "conspiracy to commit DRM circumvention"..."
One reason someone is liable is because the act itself was made illegal. There's no need to utilize aiding/abetting and conspiracy laws. Often when a otherwise harmless act is so closely, exclusively or so commonly related to another act that is to be regulated the corresponding act become regulated as well. Aiding and conspiracy laws are designed to regulate conduct with is in furternce of other illegal acts but is so differing in the ways it can be done that it can't be made illegal by itself. The overwhelmingly common reason that consoles are modified is to circumvent DRM systems. Since there was a desire to prevent the circumvention, the common means of doing so was also regulated.
Your argument can't realistically be against "how" such a law can exist, but WHETHER it should. Which, in this instance, should include whether circumvention itself should be illegal.
Re: Re: Re: Apparently the law forgets...
>>>You own the media it is on, and you have the right to use the software, but you don't have the right to reproduce it or make it better (unless it is GPL).
That's kind of like a book, isn't it? So should it be illegal to modify a book by making notes in it or even tearing pages out of it?
Re:
>>>If I buy something then it is mine to do with as I please. I did not rent it with conditions when I bought it.
Re: Re: talking head.
>>>THE MODIFICATION OF SOMETHING THAT I ALREADY OWN SHOULD BE LEGAL. BUT NOT NECESSARILY WHAT I DO WITH IT SHOULD BE LEGAL.
>>>the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause, which makes it illegal to circumvent any kind of DRM, even if it's for a totally legal purpose. It's difficult to see how that's constitutional. Making it illegal to do something that's perfectly legal
Re: It all comes down to property rights.
>>>The erosion of property rights in this and other countries is the cause for and other similar laws... ...the software we buy, the music we purchase, or the books we download.>>When you can be told you have to sell the land you own to the government for the price they set you don't own it.>>When you buy and download a song and but are told you can listen to it in this way or on this device you don't own it.>>The truth is we as consumers and voters have slowly allowed our right to own what we buy fade.
Re: Re: talking head.
>>>You can pay someone to mod your car too. What difference does it make?>>Modded cars can break the speedlimit too, but we don't throw the mechanics in jail.