Text 21182, 111 rader
Skriven 2006-01-06 19:24:07 av Carol Shenkenberger (6:757/1)
  Kommentar till text 20972 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Re: Editor's censorship
===============================
*** Quoting Michiel van der Vlist from a message to Carol Shenkenberger ***

MvdV>> for personal use. And mind you, the one making the copy need no
MvdV>> owner of a copy already. It is prefectly legal to lend a cd or
MvdV>> a friend and then the friend making a copy for *his* personal u

MvdV> Actually we have a levy on blank media to compensate author's for "hom
MvdV> copying".

We probably have one in the states too but I doubt it gets back to the specific
author in either place.  I mean, How could they know?  Publish something once
on a format copyable and everyone gets a cut?  Dunno.  Sounds not practible to
me.  (Humm, english as second language, that one is *very* hard to describe
the meaning of above if not obvious).

 > caught, it would not be legal in my land for me to buy a CD
 > and loan it to you then have you make a copy 'for any use,
 > including personal'.

MvdV> But would it be legal for you to just lend me the CD? Not knowing I in
MvdV> to make a copy of it.

Oh yes.  I can loan you a video tape or a CD or a book or anything else.  If
you do not give it back on some suitable time we agreed on, I can get mad
about it but it would be a silly thing to take you to court over (my only
option legally).  If you made a copy, I would never know.  If I loaned it
*knowing* you intended to make a copy, it would be a legal 'transgression' and
the top end fee can be 5,000$ but thats not something charged on a normal
regular 'loan a tape to a neighbor next door' but a mass copy production where
someone gets a first edition CD/Tape and makes 10,000 copies off it and sells
them.


MvdV>> Putting it on a website with a password and only give the
MvdV>> password to a select group of friends? Yes that would be ok.
MvdV>> But I think even weaker protection schemes than a password
MvdV>> would suffice.

MvdV> It all hoever around "sufficient protection". What the law considers "
MvdV> protection" may be totally different from what a technician would cons
MvdV> ficient".

Yes.  My job for 10 of my 22 years has been either partly that or exclusively
that (technician level security or the checking of such).  While I do know
that Bjorn's methods wouldnt pass my most basic of tests from what others have
said (if they are accurate there was no password), my job was protection of
far more important information than a mere CD or so.  The more important the
data, the more stringent the protection.

Digression moment:
Protection of data can be a misnomer.  There are several key points to
anything. If the need is highest to have it available but ossacional loss is
acceptable then protection is on getting it out there.  Fidonet echos are a
good example there.  A message or two may be lost but as long as all want fast
flow and it's just a few messages that get waylaid, we are happy.

If the need is accuracy and time delay is not as relevant to transactions (a
balanced scale between the two) then you have a whole nother set of rules to
ensure accuracy (integrity) of contents.  A sample of that would be the time
it takes to get an email back when you online purchase a book from Amazon.com
where no one really cares if it takes 15 mins sometimes as long as it is the
'right stuff'.

When total data integrity is the key (think your personal bank account), the
rules shift yet again to be even more 'protected'.  To find out any point was
left open, is a major bummer, especially if you got hit adversely by it.  Most
of the level I work in is this 3rd one though some spans the upper two levels.
End digression

 > So it may be.  I am not trying to pretend to be any specially
 > knowledgable sort on law, especially not outside the USA.

MvdV> "outside thge USA" is too big for anyone being an expert on it.

Seems true as far as I know.  The field I am a specialist in, doesnt even have
the same name in some places though i can 'speak both lingos'. DITSCAP is
easier for me but you would find it called 'Common Criteria'.  Both are
horribly redundant but in different places.

MvdV>> So if Bj*rn says that what is on his website is not in
MvdV>> violation of Swedish law we have no choice but to accept
MvdV>> that until contradicted by a Swedish court of law.

 > Especially since Bjorn says it's been reviewed and meets the
 > requirements there.

MvdV> Well, Dale has a point, we only have Bj*rn's word for that too.

Perhaps but as you say:

MvdV> is still on-line after all this time is a pretty strong point...

Yup.

Look, I do not pretend to be an angel.  I was not happy to find Bjorn had stuff
on his site that some of the folks said he had but that's possibly because I'm
an 'ald biddy' and I would prefer the internet didnt have any 'adult pics' at
all but to worry about Playboy?  Yeah, they have a copywrite.

When I moved to Hawaii I had a subscription to Playgirl.  Hey, I was young and
the pics were fun to look at and i sometimes read the stories too ;-) then I
found out the Playgirl was not ALLOWED in that state and was swapped to some
hunting magazine in compense?  RATS!  I got my money back for the remaining
subscription but I wanted my foldouts back!  Ah well. Such is life.  (It
probably is legal there now, but Playgirl wasnt then while Playboy was.  Go
figure).

                                       xxcarol

--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4
 * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS, Sasebo Japan 81-6160-527330 (6:757/1)