Welcome, Guest | Home | Search | Login | Register
Author Abandonware Legality (split...) (Read 28926 times)
Minimalist
128 MB
****
Posts: 186
View Profile 		Reply #15 on: February 28, 2008, 06:03
Quote from: "jjbomfim"


Ok, I understand what you are saying, but it is not what happened. What you state is that Dan said "You can private message pirated material here", when in fact what he said was "You can private message whatever you want".


What Dan said was:

Quote from: "dpaanlka"

I hate to be the nagging nanny here but that site is clearly quite abhorrently illegal - it took me 3 seconds to find a copy of File Maker there. Can't publicly have links to stuff like that, although you can private message whatever you want.


The above is a full *unedited* quote of his post.   In the first sentence he writes:

Quote from: "dpaanlka"

I hate to be the nagging nanny here but that site is clearly quite abhorrently illegal - it took me 3 seconds to find a copy of File Maker there.


This is a full acknowledgement of the illegality of the material posted.   Dan, in this sentence, demonstrates that he is aware of the questionable nature of the material posted.

In the second sentence, Dan writes:

Quote from: "dpaanlka"

Can't publicly have links to stuff like that, although you can private message whatever you want.


In the second sentence Dan recognizes the risk in having the material publicly accessable and states that such information cannot be publicly visible on System 7 Today.   Dan also says, "although you can private message whatever you want."

With that, Dan is implying that such questionable material should be moved to a "private message" so that he may 'shield himself from the knowledge' that software piracy is taking place on his system.   It wouldn't take much on the part of a plaintiff, in my opinion, to convince a Judge that Dan was providing a service for the "purpose" of infringing copyright.

It does not have to be exlicitly stated by Dan.   A court will take context into consideration and will accept what it deems to be implied.
dpaanlka
1024 MB
******
Posts: 1646
View Profile http://www.danpalka.net 		Reply #16 on: February 28, 2008, 09:00
Quote from: "Minimalist"
It wouldn't take much on the part of a plaintiff, in my opinion, to convince a Judge that Dan was providing a service for the "purpose" of infringing copyright.


In my opinion, you're grossly over-exaggerating the ease of proving copyright infringement, and what responsibility an online forum can play if users are private messaging each other links to remote web sites without the knowledge of the operators.  The Napster case was not a slam-dunk case - that was a very long, very difficult trial that the RIAA almost lost, despite tons and tons of evidence against Napster.

Admitting that it would be impossible for me to control private message doesn't prove or disprove anything other than the fact that I have no control over private messaging - which nobody would even have the ability to see unless a member shows authorities their own private messaging history - which would be insanely stupid!

Quote from: "System 7 Today Registration Agreement"
Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not System 7 Today, which hence will not be held liable.


With no new insight being posted by anybody, this thread is dunzo.
Pages: 1 [2]

© 2021 System7Today.com.
The Apple Logo, Macintosh™, Mac OS™, and others property of Apple Computer, Inc.
This site is in no way affiliated with Apple Computer, Inc.