Is it just me...

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
No, but...

11) Linking to, offering, requesting, or hinting at the existence or whereabouts of warez, abandonwarez or other illegal content, can result in immediate banning.

Wouldn't this include roms?
 

KrisV

Administrator
Of course it does.

Can you point out an offending post? I'm having trouble finding one.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Oh, it's probably nothing, but it just looked as if people were all for downloading roms is all. Like saying to download if off Kazaa and such. I just wanted to double check the rules. Oh well, if that's not a problem with you then I'll shut up about it then. Got some good stuff off Kazaa, as it happens.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Yup. Snuff an urban myth? No, I downloaded a snuff movie (thought it was somethng else) that made me sick. And all sorts of illegal material I used to fight against. But if it's Ginger Lynn movies you're after (yeah I can see all of you raising your hand) then they're there too. Personnaly I get Japanese animation and movies like Taliban Bodies and Die Terrorist Die.
 

Saturnyne

Vice Admiral
Eh. I'm not interested in a ROM of WCP for GBA. I'd rather have the real thing.

Besides, it'd be a sweet ride, what with the Afterburner mod from Tritonlabs.com.
 

Dominator

Rear Admiral
Originally posted by Delance
The government runs lots of warez servers on their sting operations. :) They also do all sort of illegal things, too. It's kind of bizarre... In 2001 the US revealed that the largest warez site on the US was actually run by FBI, as part of that large operation.

You can break rights protected by law (shortly - break law) if you do this in order to protect some other, more important rights, so by definition it is not illegal (I`m not sure if I use correct words - my english law language is rather poor) In my country it`s called `state of greater necessity`. It is one of most fundamental institutions of criminal law - but it must be used carefuly and wisely.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Delance
IRC logs was part of their case to prove the conspiracy. They run a long investigation to get more people. Your premise is wrong, your conclusion is completely mistaken. The reason they waited some time had nothing to do with the IRC logs, at all.
You may be right, but it just doesn't seem to make sense. I mean, there's just no way they would have needed nine months if they could use IRC logs to prove the conspiracy. These undercover things can go on for quite a while, but...

E-mail, chat logs and that sort of thing is widely used in a variety of legal cases.
You do understand why I find that difficult to believe, however. You may be completely right, but it's just too bizarre an idea for me to believe without proof.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Originally posted by Dominator
You can break rights protected by law (shortly - break law) if you do this in order to protect some other, more important rights, so by definition it is not illegal (I`m not sure if I use correct words - my english law language is rather poor) In my country it`s called `state of greater necessity`. It is one of most fundamental institutions of criminal law - but it must be used carefuly and wisely.

You’re right, such thing exist, but it’s not usually applicable to copyright issues. "State of necessity" is when you violate a right to protect an equal or superior right, in an emergency. Like if you invade your neighbor’s home to put out a fire, for example. It's a crime, but it's OK because you did it to save his property. It's similar to self-defense. You kill someone that was about to kill either you or someone else. You can't kill someone if they are not a direct threat, like for example to prevent them from robbing your car radio.

When it comes to breaking copyright law, it's rarely because of an "emergency". Let me give you a case: Adobe has the e-book format, which prevents the content to be accessible on text mode to the computer, to prevent the whole copy-paste thing. A russian guy did a software that would break this protection. This software could be used for a variety of legal and legitimate reasons, but the guy still was arrested. Now he is free, but the tool he created is still illegal on the US, even if it has legitimate use.

Originally posted by Quarto
You may be right, but it just doesn't seem to make sense. I mean, there's just no way they would have needed nine months if they could use IRC logs to prove the conspiracy. These undercover things can go on for quite a while, but...

They spent 9 months to get as much people as they wanted. When they do a similar operation to bust a drug cartel, you don't think they can already arrest the dealers way before all the time of the investigation?

You do understand why I find that difficult to believe, however. You may be completely right, but it's just too bizarre an idea for me to believe without proof.

What's so hard? Entire legal actions about harassment were entirely based on e-mail evidence. Surely, e-mail and IRC logs are not the ideal mean to prove a case when it comes to copyright infringement. But to other forms of crime, it’s more than enough. Certain crimes can be committed by simply sending e-mail, so the email is not only the proof, but also the consubstantiation of the crime itself.
 
Top