Message-ID: <02c501c4affe$debdef40$5746370a@nsp.co.nz>
From: venom at gen-x.co.nz (VeNoMouS)
Subject: Hacking into private files, my credit card purchases, personal correspondence or anything that is mine is trespassing and criminal.

Is it just me , or are these converstations a waste of time for this mailing list, almost makes you want to unsubscribe.

Arent these type of convos better for irc where you can all have a group hug?? No this isnt a flame, im just wondering wtf has happened to the list is all, it started out good, now its full of talkive bitches that dont know what personal email is for.

EOF
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jesse Valentin 
  To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 12:33 PM
  Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Hacking into private files, my credit card purchases, personal correspondence or anything that is mine is trespassing and criminal.


  Hey Barry,

   

  Thanks for the info. (You're right it is odd.. :-)

   

  The "sophisticated" legal system never ceases to amuse me. You made me laugh with your statement - "they're fraudulantly using something they know they should be paying for". 

   

  See in my eyes, this is stealing... plain and simple regardless of whether or not you're talking bits and bytes and regardless of how many Harvard Law Graduates disagree with me.

   

  To illustrate my point check out this website: http://www.goerie.com/nie_civilrights/civil_rights_timeline__1619_-_.html

   

  One law in particular is the following passed in 1735:

   

  "South Carolina passes laws requiring slaves to wear clothing identifying them as slaves; newly freed slaves must leave the state within six months or risk re-enslavement."

   

  Now to us today living in the modern world, this law is recognized as being barbaric and foolish, and yet educated legislators of that time viewed this as a valid law and "civilized behavior".

   

  My point is that just because something isn't recognized as incorrect by a "legal entity" this doesn't necessarily indicate that the conclusion is sound.

   

  Thanks again though Barry, I do appreciate you submitting that information and I totally understand where you're coming from.

   

  Best Regards,

   

  Jesse Valentin



  Barry Fitzgerald <bkfsec@....lonestar.org> wrote: 
    Hey there Jesse,

    From a legal perspective (IANAL, but this was explained to me by a 
    copyright attorney) Vince is correct.

    Stealing, or theft, both legally and philosophically is the act of 
    depriving the rightful owner of an item of use of that item. Your 
    argument below is using the loose association of terms found in common 
    language. The misuse of those terms wandered into common language 
    through poor attribution and through emotional manipulation.

    Distributing copyrighted works is a tort violation and not theft. It's a 
    civil matter that is handled by laws centered around business and 
    scientific regulation, not a criminal matter (though that may change 
    soon, and that change would be catastrophic. Legislation like the INDUCE 
    act would have a chilling effect on the world of science and free 
    enterprise.).

    The ac! t of descrambling a cable signal is an act of fraud, not of theft. 
    The person using the service isn't "stealing" anything - they're 
    fraudulantly using something they know they should be paying for. Note 
    that the rules for this are different for services than they are for 
    products. That's why people who "steal cable" can go to jail. It's not 
    because they're actually stealing anything. It's just hard for people to 
    understand how fraud works and much easier for them to understand the 
    concept of "stealing".

    It is illegal, but it's not actually theft. Odd that way.

    -Barry




    Jesse Valentin wrote:

    > Hey Vince,
    >
    > With all due respect, while I find your argument interesting I think 
    > it's a case of "mental gymnastics".
    >
    > You mention that descrambling is "copyright violation". According to 
    > the Merriam Webster dictionary the term Copyright is defined as:
    >
    > the EXCL! USIVE legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter 
    > and form (as of a literary, musical, or artistic work).
    >
    > If we are talking about the "exclusive right" to sell cable television 
    > as a service, then anyone who "violates" this right would be 
    > committing . ah what is that term, - piracy?
    >
    > The Merriam Webster dictionary goes on to define the word "piracy" as:
    >
    > "an act of robbery on the high seas; /also/ *:* an act resembling such 
    > robbery"
    >
    > As we know "robbery" is.. yes you guessed it. stealing.
    >
    > Interesting how that term "stealing" keeps popping up, huh? J
    >
    > Jesse
    >

  __________________________________________________
  Do You Yahoo!?
  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20041012/2ceb1dec/attachment.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists