When is Tom gonna update his website and LibTomCrypt?
George Orwell
I'm calling out because I want to use his encryption library in an open-source program and I may need his help.
Tom please come back!
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Nightmix-Remailer
Greg Rose
Tom was severely harmed by joe-jobbing (people
forging posts in his name, causing other people to
try to "get even" with him, to the extent of
sending illegal images to him then reporting him
to the police). He has no intention of ever
putting himself in that position again, last time
I talked to him. What you see is what you get.
Greg.
--
Greg Rose
232B EC8F 44C6 C853 D68F E107 E6BF CD2F 1081 A37C
Qualcomm Australia: http://www.qualcomm.com.au
Le Chaud Lapin
> Tom was severely harmed by joe-jobbing (people
> forging posts in his name, causing other people to
> try to "get even" with him, to the extent of
> sending illegal images to him then reporting him
> to the police). He has no intention of ever
> putting himself in that position again, last time
> I talked to him. What you see is what you get.
Does anyone else see the irony in this?
This is a newsgroup for crytography. The primitives to create a system
to prevent such forgeries from happening already exists.
Yet, in 2008, we do not have a true, global identity system. We have
to rely mostly on username/passwords and other pseudo-identity
systems.
Whatever happen to the Holy Grail of universal identity?
[Not OpenID - too hackish, IMHO.]
Where is it?
What is it?
Who is making it?
When will it be available?
Millions of people would find it useful.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
Unruh
>On Aug 14, 1:07=A0pm, g...@nope.ucsd.edu (Greg Rose) wrote:
>> Tom was severely harmed by joe-jobbing (people
>> forging posts in his name, causing other people to
>> try to "get even" with him, to the extent of
>> sending illegal images to him then reporting him
>> to the police). He has no intention of ever
>> putting himself in that position again, last time
>> I talked to him. What you see is what you get.
>Does anyone else see the irony in this?
>This is a newsgroup for crytography. The primitives to create a system
>to prevent such forgeries from happening already exists.
>Yet, in 2008, we do not have a true, global identity system. We have
>to rely mostly on username/passwords and other pseudo-identity
>systems.
>Whatever happen to the Holy Grail of universal identity?
>[Not OpenID - too hackish, IMHO.]
I assume you mean the holy grail of all dictators and rogue states that
want to exerty total control over their citizens? While in an occasional
instance deniability it useful, the use of such a universal identity would
mostly be for state control.
>Where is it?
>What is it?
>Who is making it?
>When will it be available?
>Millions of people would find it useful.
Agreed. MOst of the rulers of the world would.
>-Le Chaud Lapin-
Le Chaud Lapin
> Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Does anyone else see the irony in this?
> >This is a newsgroup for crytography. The primitives to create a system
> >to prevent such forgeries from happening already exists.
> >Yet, in 2008, we do not have a true, global identity system. We have
> >to rely mostly on username/passwords and other pseudo-identity
> >systems.
> >Whatever happen to the Holy Grail of universal identity?
> >[Not OpenID - too hackish, IMHO.]
>
> I assume you mean the holy grail of all dictators and rogue states that
> want to exerty total control over their citizens? While in an occasional
> instance deniability it useful, the use of such a universal identity would
> mostly be for state control.
>
>
> Agreed. MOst of the rulers of the world would.
Hmmm...you make be glad to be an American. :)
-Le Chaud Lapin-
Unruh
>On Aug 17, 12:04=A0pm, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >Does anyone else see the irony in this?
>> >This is a newsgroup for crytography. The primitives to create a system
>> >to prevent such forgeries from happening already exists.
>> >Yet, in 2008, we do not have a true, global identity system. We have
>> >to rely mostly on username/passwords and other pseudo-identity
>> >systems.
>> >Whatever happen to the Holy Grail of universal identity?
>> >[Not OpenID - too hackish, IMHO.]
>>
>> I assume you mean the holy grail of all dictators and rogue states that
>> want to exerty total control over their citizens? While in an occasional
>> instance deniability it useful, the use of such a universal identity woul=
>d
>> mostly be for state control.
>>
>> >Millions of people would find it useful.
>>
>> Agreed. MOst of the rulers of the world would.
>Hmmm...you make be glad to be an American. :)
Hmm, assuming that b was supposed to be an m, you clearly have not been
following the news over the past 7 years. The Patriot Act means that the US
rulers are amongst those who would be glad.
>-Le Chaud Lapin-
Le Chaud Lapin
> >> mostly be for state control.
>
> >> >Millions of people would find it useful.
>
> >> Agreed. MOst of the rulers of the world would.
> >Hmmm...you make be glad to be an American. :)
>
> Hmm, assuming that b was supposed to be an m, you clearly have not been
> following the news over the past 7 years. The Patriot Act means that the US
> rulers are amongst those who would be glad.
[I was congested when I wrote "be".] :)
I am a big believer in Separation of Mechanism from Policy.
Every government should know by now that it is essentially impossible
to prevent covert communication between two determined parties, let
alone between millions of people who share your view of civil
liberty. Secure, digital, sometimes anonymous, communication is an
inevitable future fact. If an American government tries to block it,
the citizens will rebel. If the citizens do not rebel, then that says
something about whether the citizens deserve that liberty.
Fortunately I am Texan, which means I worry very little about this
type of thing. ;)
-Le Chaud Lapin-
WTShaw
Word from the Texas AG: "You have no rights." If you question that,
just call and ask about corruption and they will tell you there is
nothing you can do. Tomorrow, I go to the funeral of a friend to dared
to do the right thing. It would take some explanation of our case but
you should be very worried about your freedoms, crypto and otherwise.
Le Chaud Lapin
>Word from the Texas AG: "You have no rights." If you question that,
> just call and ask about corruption and they will tell you there is
> nothing you can do. Tomorrow, I go to the funeral of a friend to dared
> to do the right thing. It would take some explanation of our case but
> you should be very worried about your freedoms, crypto and otherwise.
Surely you don't believe that. Ever hear of due process?
I wonder what would happen if I told a close friend of my brother, an
ex-AG of Texas, that I feel "I have no rights". I wonder how he'd
respond to that.
Yes, there are defects in the system, but to say that "we have no
rights" is a bit extreme, I think. It offends all the good people who
bend over backwards to make our legal system work.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
Unruh
>On Aug 19, 12:35=A0am, WTShaw <lure...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Word from the Texas AG: "You have no rights." =A0If you question that,
>> just call and ask about corruption and they will tell you there is
>> nothing you can do. Tomorrow, I go to the funeral of a friend to dared
>> to do the right thing. =A0It would take some explanation of our case but
>> you should be very worried about your freedoms, crypto and otherwise.
>Surely you don't believe that. Ever hear of due process?
Sure, ask the people at Guantanamo about due process. Ask the people in
vaious detention camps across the US about due process. It was thrown out
the window with the Patriot act. All someone has to say is that you are a
terrorist, and due process is not for you.
>I wonder what would happen if I told a close friend of my brother, an
>ex-AG of Texas, that I feel "I have no rights". I wonder how he'd
>respond to that.
>Yes, there are defects in the system, but to say that "we have no
>rights" is a bit extreme, I think. It offends all the good people who
>bend over backwards to make our legal system work.
Yes, but the offense came from the Commander in Chief.
>-Le Chaud Lapin-
Le Chaud Lapin
> Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Sure, ask the people at Guantanamo about due process. Ask the people in
> vaious detention camps across the US about due process. It was thrown out
> the window with the Patriot act. All someone has to say is that you are a
> terrorist, and due process is not for you.
I am going to take extreme liberty here and presume that the
probability of my life being ruined by way of the Patriot Act is less
than that by a career criminal, repeatedly incarcerated and freed,
while enjoying due process for crimes obviously comitted by not
formally proven.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
Kristian Gjųsteen
>I am going to take extreme liberty here and presume that the
>probability of my life being ruined by way of the Patriot Act is less
>than that by a career criminal, repeatedly incarcerated and freed,
>while enjoying due process for crimes obviously comitted by not
>formally proven.
You are an idiot, but that isn't the problem here.
The problem is, you are off-topic. Please stop.
Follow-up set.
--
Kristian Gjųsteen
David Eather
You haven't studied much history have you. If the government doesn't
want the population to have free communications then it will only happen
at great cost in human lives.
Bert Manning
You call him an idiot, and then tell him, basically, not to respond back ?
I believe that makes you the idiot here.
Le Chaud Lapin
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> You haven't studied much history have you. If the government doesn't
> want the population to have free communications then it will only happen
> at great cost in human lives.
Certainly. In fact, there are places that I can go in the world today
and be murdered simply by exercising my (supposed) freedom of speech
and saying something highly offensive.
I was merely responding to the assertion that "I have no rights."
That's simply not true. We have due process in the USA, and for a
large percentage of people living here, it is generally followed.
There are special cases, but there are special cases for just about
anything.
I know people who pirate copyrighted material (songs, videos) off the
Internet and think nothing of it, even though, technically it's
illegal. But the moment due process is exercised in favor of the
copyright owner, the pirate might claim that his/her "rights" have
been violated, no matter how closely due process is followed. In
their mind, their fundamental right is to copy the material. It's a
one-sided view of things. I often wonder what these people would
think if the situation were reversed, where something of equivalent
value were taken from them, like a favorite pair of shoes, or a towel,
or even a PDA. Would they be just as eager to protect the thief?
Google brings up 9.6 million his for "Your Rights"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Your+Rights%22
Having actually had experience with incarceration, etc., I can say
that far more guilty people are freed because of due process than
innocents are held because of the lack thereof.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
David Eather
> On Aug 19, 1:33 pm, David Eather <eat...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>> You haven't studied much history have you. If the government doesn't
>> want the population to have free communications then it will only happen
>> at great cost in human lives.
>
> Certainly. In fact, there are places that I can go in the world today
> and be murdered simply by exercising my (supposed) freedom of speech
> and saying something highly offensive.
>
> I was merely responding to the assertion that "I have no rights."
> That's simply not true. We have due process in the USA, and for a
> large percentage of people living here, it is generally followed.
Bingo! Then for some people ("undesirables"?), you admit, "due process"
does not exist. How many does it have to be before you say a person
rights are infringed? And how does that stand compared to "I would
rather let a thousand criminals go free than condemn an innocent man".
Both rhetorical questions.
People have to speak up about wrongs in society even if it "only"
involves "undesirables" - or else one day you might wake up and yourself
be declared an undesirable and then you will have no voice at all.
Simon Johnson
wrote:
> I've noticed for some time that the LibTomCrypt website is decrepit, it's referring to another URL but that URL's dead. When is Tom going to take time out to update his website and find a new provider? If he needs a cheap hosting provider, I recommend One.com, which is very cheap and reliable.
>
> I'm calling out because I want to use his encryption library in an open-source program and I may need his help.
I think Tom's out of this game for good. He developed one of the
premier cryptographic libraries in the world and what did he get in
return? Nothing except a bunch of a child porn. Tom's one of the good
guys, it's sad the world shit on him so bad.
For all the time he developed the library he got very few donations.
In fact, I only know of one person who donated to him (he knows who he
is). LibTom is everywhere. I discovered that my Belkin Router contains
his software. That's probably millions of deployments world wide in
just one product and all he got in the way of support was one or two
donations.
Why should he help anyone? Why should he help *you*?
You'll be glad to know he's very handy on the piano these days. If he
carries on the way he has for the past few years, he'll probably be
playing in the Ottawa Philharmonic in no time.
I say good luck to him!
Simon
amzoti
Well, Tom generated two books from the projects and is working for a
crypto house the last time I read - so he did get something out of it
- as far as I can tell.
I wish he were still posting and the like, but I understand his
feelings of disgust over what people did. I think there were many who
didn't like his brash approach.
I wish him well - but it dies suck that he is no longer in the public
forums and that his libraries are falling from the wayside (at least
the public ones).
~A
rossum
wrote:
>People have to speak up about wrongs in society even if it "only"
>involves "undesirables" - or else one day you might wake up and yourself
>be declared an undesirable and then you will have no voice at all.
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I
did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade
Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came
for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when
they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
rossum
Le Chaud Lapin
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:37:23 +1000, David Eather <eat...@tpg.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >People have to speak up about wrongs in society even if it "only"
> >involves "undesirables" - or else one day you might wake up and yourself
> >be declared an undesirable and then you will have no voice at all.
There is an incredibly gross difference between saying...
"A relatively small percentage of the populous has been systematically
denied due process, and we must respond with ferocity that makes the
perpetrators think twice before doing it again.."
and saying.
"Le Chaud Lapin has no rights."
The former is true. The latter is not.
> "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I
> did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade
> Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came
> for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when
> they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
Nice quote.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
WTShaw
>
> Surely you don't believe that. Ever hear of due process?
Sure have but where due process is denied, what do you do? I won a
minor victory through the USDOJ but more to address details was later
considered inconvenient for them.
>
> I wonder what would happen if I told a close friend of my brother, an
> ex-AG of Texas, that I feel "I have no rights". I wonder how he'd
> respond to that.
Please inform him that I was told officially twice from AG office from
a local sheriff's and a constable in Alvarado that Texas only follows
federal law when specifically ordered to do so, never mind the
guidance to the contrary of many supreme court decisions. I'm fully
briefed on the statutes.
>
> Yes, there are defects in the system, but to say that "we have no
> rights" is a bit extreme, I think. It offends all the good people who
> bend over backwards to make our legal system work.
Yes, and it hurts. I am vocal on the part of myself and many others
near here who are being largely ignored as crime is sanctioned.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
Boon
> I know people who pirate copyrighted material (songs, videos) off the
> Internet and think nothing of it, even though, technically it's
> illegal.
Right. Copyright infringement is illegal in most countries.
> But the moment due process is exercised in favor of the
> copyright owner, the pirate might claim that his/her "rights" have
> been violated, no matter how closely due process is followed. In
> their mind, their fundamental right is to copy the material. It's a
> one-sided view of things. I often wonder what these people would
> think if the situation were reversed, where something of equivalent
> value were taken from them, like a favorite pair of shoes, or a towel,
> or even a PDA. Would they be just as eager to protect the thief?
Why do you help perpetuate the same old tired sophism?
Copyright infringement and larceny are fundamentally different.
Copyrighted material is nonrival whereas all your examples are
rival goods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)
> Having actually had experience with incarceration, etc., I can say
> that far more guilty people are freed because of due process than
> innocents are held because of the lack thereof.
False positives are not acceptable. Full stop.
Boon
> rossum wrote:
>
>> "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I
>> did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade
>> Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came
>> for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when
>> they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
>
> Nice quote.
Woosh.
Boon
> "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I
> did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade
> Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came
> for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when
> they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
>
> Dietrich Bonhoeffer
I thought it was Martin Niemöller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
Regards.
David Eather
A beautiful quote.
rossum
Thanks for the correction. I have seen it attributed to both, but it
seems you are right.
Whoosh indeed.
rossum
Le Chaud Lapin
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > I know people who pirate copyrighted material (songs, videos) off the
> > Internet and think nothing of it, even though, technically it's
> > illegal.
>
> Right. Copyright infringement is illegal in most countries.
>
> > But the moment due process is exercised in favor of the
> > copyright owner, the pirate might claim that his/her "rights" have
> > been violated, no matter how closely due process is followed. In
> > their mind, their fundamental right is to copy the material. It's a
> > one-sided view of things. I often wonder what these people would
> > think if the situation were reversed, where something of equivalent
> > value were taken from them, like a favorite pair of shoes, or a towel,
> > or even a PDA. Would they be just as eager to protect the thief?
>
> Why do you help perpetuate the same old tired sophism?
>
> Copyright infringement and larceny are fundamentally different.
But it's still illegal, yet people who commit this crime cry foul when
(legally) prosecuted. My point is that there seems to be a lack of
objectivity for some people regarding some rights. Yes, I would be
just as guilty as those I accuse, but at least I am trying to be
objective about it. The law is a two-way street.
Incidentally, I have been released by police officers many times for
various moving violations over the last 20 years. My technique for
being released is very simple: I tell the truth in first 10 seconds of
opening my mouth and take my chances. Sometimes I get a ticket. But
far more often, they let me go. The most famous case of this was when
I was driving, in an urban area, two blocks from police station, at 12
noon on a Tuesday, in Texas, with half-full open bottle of Bartles &
James wine cooler in my hand, up to my mouth, at stop light, next to
police cruiser with two large cops waiting at light next to me. [I had
imbibed the wine cooler the previous evening, in my vehicle, with a
companion.] The police officer starts staring at me. As soon as the
light turned green, his lights went on, pulled me over, and said,
Him: "You know why I pulled you over? It's your Bartles & James..."
I was caught off guard, as I had been in deepth thought about bug in a
circuit.
Me: "Oh this? I drank this last night...in the car...just now I was
only fidgeting, not actually drinking it."
He looks at his partner, and says, "I cannot believe this." Looks back
at me.
"License and registration!"
We chat for a bit. I just tell the truth. They let me go!
Less stressful similar incidents have happened several times in Texas
and Massachussetts. One officer in Massachussetts even gave me escort
to get to work (illegally) as I drove a vehicle for which I should not
have been driving for _many_ reasons.
You'd be surprised at the effect simple, honest talk has on someone
who is accustomed to being lied to, manipulated, disrepected,
scorned...on a daily basis for just trying to do a (good) job.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
Unruh
>On Aug 21, 3:57=A0am, Boon <root@localhost> wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>> > I know people who pirate copyrighted material (songs, videos) off the
>> > Internet and think nothing of it, even though, technically it's
>> > illegal.
>>
>> Right. Copyright infringement is illegal in most countries.
>>
>> > But the moment due process is exercised in favor of the
>> > copyright owner, the pirate might claim that his/her "rights" have
>> > been violated, no matter how closely due process is followed. =A0In
>> > their mind, their fundamental right is to copy the material. =A0It's a
>> > one-sided view of things. =A0I often wonder what these people would
>> > think if the situation were reversed, where something of equivalent
>> > value were taken from them, like a favorite pair of shoes, or a towel,
>> > or even a PDA. =A0Would they be just as eager to protect the thief?
>>
>> Why do you help perpetuate the same old tired sophism?
>>
>> Copyright infringement and larceny are fundamentally different.
>But it's still illegal, yet people who commit this crime cry foul when
So is jaywalking. Why did you not say that people who "jaywalk copyright
matererial"?
Note that piracy is not larceny. It is a separate crime.
And people who copy do something utterly unlike piracy.
From the Canadian Criminal Code:
Piratical acts
75. Every one who, while in or out of Canada,
(a) steals a Canadian ship,
(b) steals or without lawful authority throws overboard, damages or
destroys anything that is part of the cargo, supplies or fittings in a
Canadian ship,
(c) does or attempts to do a mutinous act on a Canadian ship, or
(d) counsels a person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or
(c),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding fourteen years.
None of those acts is anything like what one does when copying a CD say.
Jaywalking is a much better metaphore.
>(legally) prosecuted. My point is that there seems to be a lack of
In large part it is a civil tort, not a criminal, although some
juridictions have also made a criminial offense.
>objectivity for some people regarding some rights. Yes, I would be
>just as guilty as those I accuse, but at least I am trying to be
>objective about it. The law is a two-way street.
What is that supposed to mean?
Le Chaud Lapin
> Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> writes:
> juridictions have also made a criminial offense.
But it is still illegal, right?
> >objectivity for some people regarding some rights. Yes, I would be
> >just as guilty as those I accuse, but at least I am trying to be
> >objective about it. The law is a two-way street.
>
> What is that supposed to mean
It means that, if I were to do something illegal, like not paying for
1,000 copyrighted music/videos on the Internet, and the FBI showed up
with a warrant to seize the material, and I discovered that law says
that doing what I was doing is illegal, I will not consider myself the
victim, but the perpetrator.
Whether I plead for mercy with the court or employ other legal tricks
to get a reduced sentence is a different matter, but I would still
regard myself as the one who committed the crime, not the FBI or the
copyright owner.
I certainly would not feel that my rights have been violated. If
anything, I would think that the rights of the owner of the copyright
would have have had his/her/its rights violated when I copied the
copyrighted material.
Of course, it all depends on what the law currently says.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
Peter Fairbrother
> "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I
> did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade
> Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came
> for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when
> they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
The kids from Station Street
don't play 'round here no more
She doesn't exactly understand
but it's something to do with the war
So she learned some tunes on piano
She's very good for her age
But, sometimes, she pounds the keys
with her tiny fists in a rage
She doesn't exactly understand
but it's something to do with the war
Like when Aunt Mary took her to O'Riley's caff
He said "I can't serve your kind in here,
so don't go coming back"
So she took to painting pictures
Such a promising child
But, sometimes, the pictures she paints
are ugly and wild
She doesn't exactly understand
but it's something to do with the war
So she prays to the statues on Sundays
She says "please, won't you give me a sign?
If there's any sense to this,
move your hand or wink an eye"
But the statues are cold and stony faced
like the soldiers by the door
She doesn't understand anything at all
Anything at all
Anything at all
from fairground attraction
Unruh
>On Aug 22, 11:43=A0am, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> In large part it is a civil tort, not a criminal, although some
>> juridictions have also made a criminial offense.
>But it is still illegal, right?
>> >objectivity for some people regarding some rights. Yes, I would be
>> >just as guilty as those I accuse, but at least I am trying to be
>> >objective about it. The law is a two-way street.
>>
>> What is that supposed to mean
>It means that, if I were to do something illegal, like not paying for
>1,000 copyrighted music/videos on the Internet, and the FBI showed up
>with a warrant to seize the material, and I discovered that law says
>that doing what I was doing is illegal, I will not consider myself the
>victim, but the perpetrator.
>Whether I plead for mercy with the court or employ other legal tricks
>to get a reduced sentence is a different matter, but I would still
>regard myself as the one who committed the crime, not the FBI or the
>copyright owner.
And when a clerk of congress sticks into a bill that all works recorded for
a record company are works for hire, and thus the copyright rests with the
recording company, and congress passes that bill, and you as a composer are
sued by the record company because you used your own song, you are the
criminal and not the FBI or the copyright owner. And if you are hauled off
a plane in New York and are flown to Syria for torture, even though you have
never done anything wrong, you are the one who committed
the crime and not the FBI.
>I certainly would not feel that my rights have been violated. If
>anything, I would think that the rights of the owner of the copyright
>would have have had his/her/its rights violated when I copied the
>copyrighted material.
Yes and Arar should be thankful to the FBI for having pointed out to him
the error of his ways of being born in Syria.
>Of course, it all depends on what the law currently says.
And the law currently says that people can be imprisoned without trial, can
be shipped off to countries for torimprisoned -Le Chaud Lapin-
Le Chaud Lapin
> And when a clerk of congress sticks into a bill that all works recorded for
> a record company are works for hire, and thus the copyright rests with the
> recording company, and congress passes that bill, and you as a composer are
> sued by the record company because you used your own song, you are the
> criminal and not the FBI or the copyright owner.
I see no problem with this. I would expect that most composers know
how to read. The rules of engagement between the composer and the
company are probably written in the agreement signed by both parties.
I see nothing improper here, as long as the composer signed the
agreement.
> And if you are hauled off
> a plane in New York and are flown to Syria for torture, even though you have
> never done anything wrong, you are the one who committed
> the crime and not the FBI.
LOL. I am almost inclined to take up music lessons, get agent, record
song with label, then use it illegally, so I can get a free trip to
Syria and be tortured. :)
> And the law currently says that people can be imprisoned without trial, can
> be shipped off to countries for torimprisoned.
Generally speaking, not in the USA.
As for me personally, I still feel I have rights. In the USA.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
Unruh
>On Aug 22, 8:39=A0pm, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> And when a clerk of congress sticks into a bill that all works recorded f=
>or
>> a record company are works for hire, and thus the copyright rests with th=
>e
>> recording company, and congress passes that bill, and you as a composer a=
>re
>> sued by the record company because you used your own song, you are the
>> criminal and not the FBI or the copyright owner.
>I see no problem with this. I would expect that most composers know
>how to read. The rules of engagement between the composer and the
>company are probably written in the agreement signed by both parties.
>I see nothing improper here, as long as the composer signed the
>agreement.
You did not read. The law had nothing to do with contract. The law stated
that any music made for a recording company was "work for hire" which means
taht the music belongs to the company. By law. The composer had nothing to
say about it. There was no agreement. The law was changed so that the music
belonged to the company.
>> And if you are hauled off
>> a plane in New York and are flown to Syria for torture, even though you h=
>ave
>> never done anything wrong, =A0you are the one who committed
>> the crime and not the FBI.
>LOL. I am almost inclined to take up music lessons, get agent, record
>song with label, then use it illegally, so I can get a free trip to
>Syria and be tortured. :)
Two separate examples. Sheesh. You do not read do you.
>> And the law currently says that people can be imprisoned =A0without trial=
>, can
>> be shipped off to countries for torimprisoned.
>Generally speaking, not in the USA.
This was the USA.
>As for me personally, I still feel I have rights. In the USA.
Dream on. Many people in Afghanistan under the Taliban probably thought so
as well. They did not attract the attention of the authorities.
>-Le Chaud Lapin-
Boon
> As for me personally, I still feel I have rights. In the USA.
FBI To Allow Warrantless Investigations
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/08/22/2054229.shtml
Le Chaud Lapin
Certainly, I cannot be the only one here who sees the irony in such
"warrantless investigations" within the context of this thread:
To seek out those who have extremist, one-sided, points of views and
might be inclinded to act upon them. ;)
-Le Chaud Lapin-
David Eather
No, IN THE USA