are we CRIMINALS?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Paul Schmehl
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:08 AM
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Subject: RE: are we CRIMINALS?
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 21:57:22 -0800 Ted Mittelstaedt 
> <tedm at toybox.placo.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> >> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Paul Schmehl
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:25 AM
> >> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> >> Subject: Re: are we CRIMINALS?
> >>
> >>
> >> --On Tuesday, January 22, 2008 13:03:27 +0100 Wojciech Puchar
> >> <wojtek at wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
> >>
> >> > http://www.spamsuite.com/node/351
> >> >
> >> > jest first step to criminalize unix at all
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> We aren't criminals, but *he* is.
> >>
> >
> > Paul, you do realize that Sierra is a known newsgroup spammer and
> > that the lawsuit in question was just filed against a spamfighter
> > by a spammer?
> >
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Also, that the "judgement" that is in the post is actually
> > a prepared order, written by Plaintiff's counsel, it wasn't
> > written by the judge.
> >
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > This case is sitting in the appellate courts somewhere, gathering
> > dust.  Nobody has paid anything to anybody, except to the lawyers.
> > Sierra makes their money selling to morons what Google gives
> > out for free.
> >
> > Please, unless your willing to do the research, don't waste
> > time commenting.
> >
> 
> He disobeyed a court order.  That makes him a criminal.

Only if the court in question has jurisdiction over him.  The US
courts found in favor of an anti-trust lawsuit against DeBeers
around 20 years ago I think it was and the DeBeers family finally
decided it was too much of a nuisance to avoid travelling into the US
so they settled for some paltry 300 million this year (if you have
ever bought a diamond and you still have the receipt you can
get some settlement money)

Did the US court have jurisdiction over a corporation that has no
footprint in the US?  They thought they did.  DeBeers didn't.  What
do you think?

How would you like it if some kangaroo court in Iran issued a judgement
against you?  Would you consider yourself a criminal?

>  Whether 
> what he was 
> trying to do was "right" or not is irrelevant.

Absolutely untrue.  It is at the heart of the issue.

  Once the court 
> told him to 
> stop, he should have stopped.
> 

No.  Once ALL AVENUES of appeal are exhausted AND a judgement was
found against him, only then if he disobeys the final court order
then can he be considered a criminal.  As such happened with Microsoft
during the anti-trust trial, etc.  Until then, this is nothing more
than a civil dispute between a spamfighter and a spammer.  And as
the spamfigher in question undoubtedly has no assets to his name,
what is really going on here is a complicated political dance whereby
the spammer is manipulating the courts in an attempt to bluster
a threat against the spamfighter, and the spamfighter is manipulating
the courts in an attempt to cost the spammer money in lawyer fees.

A great many of these suits disappear when one or the other of the
parties gets tired of paying the court costs and lawyers fees.

> And yes, I know full well that bad people take advantage of our 
> courts every 
> day.
>

And good people often forget that courts are nothing more than another
arm of the government, and quite often the solutions that come out
of them are a result of political negotiation and compromise - exactly
the same way that the legislative arm solves problems.

You should read some history, there's been a lot of bad law that
has been overturned.  It never would have happened if people like
Rosa Parks hadn't "committed criminal acts" from your viewpoint,
and ignored court-supported orders and laws.

You cannot sit there and say that just because someone is a
criminal they are bad.  Nor can you say that just because someone
is not a criminal that they are good.  Look no further than the
current occupant of the White House for that.  What is criminal
in a good society is defined by what is "wrong"  Sadly, that
does not always happen.

If you buy a DVD and make a copy for your own use according to
DMCA you are a criminal. However if you buy a videotape of the
same movie and make a copy for your own use you are not a criminal.
Clearly, both actions are morally "right"  They are almost the same
action in fact.  But one is illegal the other isn't.  Can't you
see here that the problem isn't the action but the law?

In this lawsuit, the worst you can say is that both parties,
the spammer and the spamfighter, are in the wrong.  But I fail to
see how the spammer can be "right" and the spamfighter is "wrong"

You can, if you wish, argue the spammer is "legal" and the
spamfigher is "illegal"  But, this simply illustrates that the
law is bad - and for many people it is a moral duty to violate
bad law.  And I for one, am very glad that they feel this way.

Ted