tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7627949081196501935.post765991892449427311..comments2023-03-27T06:04:00.243-05:00Comments on Find A Pirate: Pirate intelligence - a sign of the times part 3YouDoWhyCan'tIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10111604783918622563noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7627949081196501935.post-11777543437506082532010-11-07T23:32:43.192-06:002010-11-07T23:32:43.192-06:00—quote—borders on cyberstalking, which is illegal ...—quote—borders on cyberstalking, which is illegal in most states. —end quote—<br /><br />— From the U.S. Department of Justice quote— Although there is no universally accepted definition of cyberstalking, the term is used in this report to refer to the use of the Internet, e-mail, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person. Stalking generally involves harassing or threatening behavior that an individual engages in repeatedly, such as following a person, appearing at a person's home or place of business, making harassing phone calls, leaving written messages or objects, or vandalizing a person's property. Most stalking laws require that the perpetrator make a credible threat of violence against the victim; others include threats against the victim's immediate family; and still others require only that the alleged stalker's course of conduct constitute an implied threat. While some conduct involving annoying or menacing behavior might fall short of illegal stalking, such behavior may be a prelude to stalking and violence and should be treated seriously. http://www.cyberguards.com/CyberStalking.html —end quote—<br /><br />Since I am simply researching information that is given to me and posting what is discovered via public channels, how am I stalking? I stay here on my blog and information is given to me to verify, which means I am not harassing or committing threatening behavior in any way nor repeatedly. I am not continuing contact of any individual.<br />I haven’t hurt or hunted anyone and I don’t contact anyone. However, I am contacted by many. I have the right to shield my sources because you as well as I and anyone else reading this knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that if a name is revealed, there are countless pirates that will attack and destroy that source.<br /><br />You seem more offended by the few reports on this blog and less offended by the massive act of piracy as your comments are directed against me with one small statement of you not approving of piracy. This is my heartfelt support and most able-bodied attempt to hinder on-line theft as well as to support those hurt by the act of piracy.<br /><br />What are you doing?YouDoWhyCan'tIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10111604783918622563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7627949081196501935.post-62732980630321734692010-11-07T23:32:21.975-06:002010-11-07T23:32:21.975-06:00It’s nice that the free statement was revised and ...It’s nice that the free statement was revised and not connected with or was unintentionally overlooked within the information I had previously gathered from the GNU/GPL site when I wrote this so on that fact I stand corrected. Thank you.<br /><br />The contents on that specific CD were hundreds of eBooks under legal contract between various authors and publishers, none of which gave anyone permission to compile a CD to sell on eBay. This fact already null and voids the GNU/GPL alone.<br /><br />It is fact the GNU/GPL does not protect someone compiling a collection of eBooks under legal contract between an author and a publisher and placed for sale where the only one who profits is the seller who does not have permission to do so in the first place.<br /><br />What exactly am I doing that is —quote—of dubious legality—end quote?<br /><br />Revealing factual information? Last I know such was legal.<br /><br />Fact: A certain woman’s distribution of a certain eBook revealed her own ISP to the world. Had she read the book as she claimed, she would have seen her ISP and name embedded in the footer as per her click on the agreement button when she purchased the eBook from the publisher. The fact she uploaded and distributed her single purchased copy of that eBook to the world was her own decision and proof of her illegal distribution. <br /><br />Fact: As for the other names being revealed, there is such a thing as ISP capture done by sites one uploads to/downloads from which are put into effect to protect the site one is uploading to/downloading from.<br /><br />—quote—defamatory, if the person you finger is not the one responsible—end quote.<br /><br />Legally, pirating unauthorized copyright protected material is theft, therefore saying piracy is theft or calling a pirate a thief—especially when so many admit they know pirating is illegal/stealing—is not defamation. If the pirate admits what they are doing is wrong, am I wrong in revealing what they themselves claim or reveal? You should visit some of the pirate sites and see for yourself how pirates explain removing protective measures in order to pirate—and they do say pirate, not share—a book. <br />If the pirating activity reveals a pirate’s ISP and is made seeable by the public and I Google the ISP, what am I doing that they themselves have not done, especially since anyone can do what I did from the public search engines for free? <br />Personally, I don’t see how I can give pirates a bad name when they’ve done such a fantastic job themselves.YouDoWhyCan'tIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10111604783918622563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7627949081196501935.post-39265132033274779252010-11-06T08:38:02.149-05:002010-11-06T08:38:02.149-05:00Without knowing exactly what is posted on that CD,...Without knowing exactly what is posted on that CD, I can't say for sure, but it is absolutely 100% clear that you can resell GPL'd works.<br /><br /><i>That means money cannot be made from sale of the GNU/GPL protected work because it violates the GNU/GPL.</i><br /><br />This is 100% wrong. There is nothing wrong with charging people for software/documentation released under the GPL, so long as the distribution comports with the terms of the license. The "free" part of free software refers to <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html" rel="nofollow">free as in speech, not free as in price</a>:<br /><br /><i>"Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere."</i><br /><br />It's quite clear that you can charge for distribution under the GPL.<br /><br />It's a stupid claim to say that you have permission to release something under the GPL when you don't. But you don't make yourself seem any smarter when you claim that the GPL doesn't allow you to charge for software.<br /><br />And as to your comment:<br /><br /><i>Legally, to cover their backside, eBay should ask for proof of the claimed permission as they might be a little stunned to discover they are facilitating pirating. </i><br /><br />Legally, to cover their backside, eBay's obligations extend to complying with the DMCA.<br /><br />I don't approve of piracy, but what you're doing is of dubious legality, too: it could well be defamatory, if the person you finger is not the one responsible; and it borders on cyberstalking, which is illegal in most states.<br /><br />The fact that someone may be engaged in criminal activity is no defense against a charge of cyberstalking.Courtney Milanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03585322886111438759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7627949081196501935.post-35049088766634830572010-08-01T12:55:16.513-05:002010-08-01T12:55:16.513-05:00I have two questions: Where and how savvy are eBay...I have two questions: Where and how savvy are eBay's attorney/s?<br /><br />Legally, to cover their backside, eBay should ask for proof of the claimed permission as they might be a little stunned to discover they are facilitating pirating.YouDoWhyCan'tIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10111604783918622563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7627949081196501935.post-1135920544779041392010-07-04T15:41:53.703-05:002010-07-04T15:41:53.703-05:00How is it possible, do you think, that this vendor...How is it possible, do you think, that this vendor can possible own the copyrights of both Stieg Larsson's and Stephanie Meyers' works.<br /><br />http://myworld.ebay.com/ebook_pdf/<br /><br />One, I could understand. Both? No!<br /><br />Also selling "more than 10" copies of Bree Tanner, also Justin Cronin, and Janet Evanovich, and Charlaine Harris, and Glenn Beck.<br /><br />And she writes:<br /><br />"Ebay Staff: I am authorized to list this content. The description, listing, and all images belong to me. All eBay rules and regulations have been met and followed. According to applicable law, I have permission to list this content."<br /><br />And the kicker is, EBAY believes her!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com