Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
It's not like everyone can see that the "random" avatar on your comments is exactly the same every single time. It's comical that you think you can disown the comments you've been making by pretending that I have you confused with someone else.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
I've got a friend ...
... who is an auto electrician and the majority of his tools now are a multitude of diagnostic computers for different manufacturers , and for the large part if you don't have the right one the car ain't getting fixed.
And therein lies the problem. They are attempting to create Vendor Lock-in (which they are absolutely free to try to do), but pretending that going against their corporate strategy (i.e. finding a way to fix the equipment that you OWN without their tools) is in some way illegal is asinine.
Just because you are so willing to prostrate yourself to your corporate masters doesn't mean that the rest of us are.
But in the end, it matters little what the actual laws are. If powerful interests want to put you away, then they'll find something to charge you with, whether it's conspiracy, fraud, or whatever else they can creatively construct and try to make fit out of the millions of laws on the books.
Thanks for proving that your original assertion ("it's illegal to modify a game console or cable modem that you own") is exactly, 100% bullshit.
Do you have any clue that what you just said is: modding is not actually illegal, but they will find some other way to fuck you over.
It's confirmation bias on your part to argue that the state is using the term of art incorrectly because there's some other statute written by probably some other people that you don't like.
Clearly you have no idea what Confirmation Bias is. Here's the link again. Try reading it and educating yourself for a change.
Nice use of weasel words, too ("probably", "some other", "somewhere") instead of addressing the specific ruling I referenced, the ruling that you yourself brought up. The very same ruling that comes out of a backwater state that has a loooooong history of idiotic laws. That very same ruling which James B. actually explained to you means the fucking opposite of what you think it means.
And you think I am the one who lacks a legal education? Bwahahahahaha.
Oh, and here's another thing (actually two points on the same thing)
You state: I cite to authority
You may not realize it (I'm actually quite sure you don't) that when you say that you "cite TO authority" you're revealing how much you are incapable of thinking for yourself.
To put it another way, this would be you: "I can see that the sky is blue. But my Masters are telling me it is yellow. The Masters are never wrong, therefore, the sky must be yellow. Damn my lying eyes!"
I would suggest that you get your nose out of your law book (or Westlaw or Google Scholar or whatever) and instead actually educate yourself rather than delving further into the morass of Confirmation Bias you are currently wallowing in.
Somehow you manage to cling to that single (and wrong) opinion of the court that James Burkhardt totally dismantled as proving the opposite of what you thought it proved.
That's a pretty good example (just one of many) of you being blunt and dull. It doesn't help your case at all that you couldn't be bothered to respond to either of the assertions I linked to.
So go ahead and fire up Westlaw or Google Scholar and find some other idiotic citation that in a VERY NARROW sense seems to support your position and continue to demonstrate to us all how you just don't (or, more likely, can't) get it.
“The difference between stupid and intelligent people – and this is true whether or not they are well-educated – is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. ”
- Neal Stephenson
It's pretty obvious that you fall into the "well-educated" camp but sadly on the stupid side. Just because you somehow learned enough to use Westlaw (or whatever) to find citations that you think agree with your opinion doesn't make you smart.
In fact, it shows your inability to think for yourself.
The same state where, say, you wanna throw a dinner party and would like to get a 6 pack of craft beer, a "case" (24 pack) of some regular beer, and a bottle of wine and you have to go to 3 different stores none of which sell anything but the above listed items (eg: you can't buy a loaf of bread at any of them).
Who is to decide that is does not have business potential? You, another? Business potential is decided by the market.
Yes, that's exactly correct. The market should be deciding whose works have value, but that is not what has been happening. Current IP laws have twisted the market immensely and have created an environment where everyone thinks their "art" has market value when that is clearly not the case. Worse, it makes the market treat them all as if they're valuable.
How are you managing to miss the point that badly?