I don't care wut the government says.... [Archive]

Axel

12-11-1999, 01:21 PM

I'd say that ISP's or anyone else just put a disclaimer on their access agreement that states anything you put on the web that isn't behind a fire-wall/password protected is "Public domain" - link on!!!!

Those bone-heads who copy and post programs on hack sites get what's coming to them for copy-right infringement. I'm so happy stupid people can still find ways to remove themselves from the circulating population - they don't really have enough opportunities to do so early in life.

But to dis-allow a link to anything with an unprotected URL - it really isn't inforcable to any great degree. If you don't want it re-used, don't put it on the web.

Then there's how the link is presented. I've seen links that look like a Disney icon going to a porn site - When Disney finds them, I'm 100% behind suing them into grass-roots poverty on the spot.

So - I haven't seek the link and really couldn't say, but I think I've covered my views.

Mntsnow

12-11-1999, 01:52 PM

Edited http://www.sysopt.com/forum/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by Mntsnow (edited 12-11-1999).]

Apostle 83

12-11-1999, 01:57 PM

Hmmm... what is their site... we could link to it from here http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Mntsnow

12-11-1999, 02:41 PM

.

[This message has been edited by Mntsnow (edited 12-11-1999).]

U-96

12-11-1999, 04:29 PM

This mirrors cases brought by $cientology against various critical websites, especially those that have adapted $cieno banners etc to include the $ sign and other parodies of "official" material.
For more information, www.xenu.net (http://www.xenu.net) provides good links and resources, while http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.jl-jj-scientology.html is a paper on $cientology vs the Internet.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but "organised religion" (at least those that compromise personal liberty) and "World Wide Web" seem to be incompatible.

U-96

[This message has been edited by U-96 (edited 12-11-1999).]

KillerBug

12-11-1999, 04:33 PM

According the the moron, I mean mormon, sorry! Church, an advertisement like here on sysopt is illigal, quick scott, take them down! We don't want the site to get sued!

welsh wizard

12-11-1999, 06:05 PM

I have nothing against the 7th day, LDS or any other religion, my argument is with the link side of this, if you have a web site where links can be posted how are you going to monitor it, quite frankly it would be almost impossible, and this fact will lead to the ability to post any form of link being denied, just to protect the web host, and how would any site survive without links, did we all just type in Sysopt.com by accident, only when the law excepts that the person with the pirated information is the sole giulty party and not any one who has a link, will the site host be safe enough to allow links to be posted, do we want that sort of censorship.
this ruling will have a profound affect on the thinking of any WEB HOST.
Finally the web site didn't as far as I have read, did not type in the link but published a e-mail which contained the link, surely this e-mail is their copy right. even if it has contraversial content, they were the reciepients of it and its theirs to do what they want with it unless the sender puts a copyright claim on it.
So this is a question of whether it's legal to publish something that is yours, or not.
Regardless of it being a sneaky way to pervert the law, by useing the law. which is obvious.
Seems to me that we are in the realms of needing King Solomon and would need his help to conclude the matter.
WW

[This message has been edited by welsh wizard (edited 12-12-1999).]

pickel

12-11-1999, 06:41 PM

You cannot copywrite the words of God , only the words of men. To stiffle or surpress the written word ( the book may be copywritten
but not the words ) is in inself a transgression against the teachings of all
or any religious entity. These folks are brought up to spread the word, to propagate
and to mulitply. These folks are not only
defeating there own purpose but are contradicting their own teachings and values
Just another group of hipocritical finatics
with too much power.I guess if I had all those wives b--ching at me constantly, I'd have to take it out on someone else too.I mean ,like one's enough. Thou shalt not covet.... but when you have so many choices... Why not??? Give me a break, this is not a NORMAL relationship by any strech of the imagination. Double your pleasure?? But3,4,5. I wish these people would just let the net take care of itself.

A disgusted Pickel

Apostle 83

12-11-1999, 09:28 PM

I actually find this quite interesting as I am meeting with mormon "missionaries." I am a devout follower of Christ, and two of these fellows came to my door. We are discussing the whole scheme of things. From my studies, though, the mormon church has a hierarchy that most of its members know nothing of. Therefore, this issue is not about pirated texts, but about the church trying to protect itself from the truth.

I would like to say, though, that I am very cynical of the church today. The people of the mormon church are very sincere, and I respect them. I am saddened by the web they are in, and by the fact that they don't know they are there.

[This message has been edited by Apostle 83 (edited 12-11-1999).]

chipbgt

12-11-1999, 09:44 PM

Even though I dont know how we got on this Subject, I'm in agreement with Apostle. I have had similiar experiences with Mormon Missionaires...half of them dont know a thing about what happens in the underworkings of the church, mainly because they are all very trusting in there heart. But the leaders of the Mormon church are another story altogether...I'm not going to say anymore because, hey, this is a computer message board http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif SO, does anyone know of a tv tuner card that supports surround sound or should I just splurge and get the ati all in wonder? the tv tuner I have now only does stereo...im wasting two speakers!

Mntsnow

12-12-1999, 12:10 AM

I'm saddened by the way that this thread went http://www.sysopt.com/forum/frown.gif

There is very few subjects that I will not discuss...but religion is one area I will NOT discuss as I personally feel it is up to each individual person to decide for his/her own self if they decide to believe in Christ, Budda, Satan ect. but I do not believe in calling believers of one religion names or anything thing like that to do so is improper and inmature.

Mntsnow
(Edited to remove my personal feelings caused by another member of this forum...I should not have taken it personally and for that I am truely sorry)

[This message has been edited by Mntsnow (edited 12-12-1999).]

Apostle 83

12-12-1999, 12:33 AM

Mntsnow, the issue is not pirated text, but the right to link to sources.

Todd Beck

12-12-1999, 02:45 AM

*

[This message has been edited by Todd Beck (edited 02-28-2000).]

chipbgt

12-12-1999, 05:03 AM

Hey Mntsnow, in the gaming Forum I have posted something you and all other snow monkeys might like, check it out http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif I added this here since I dont know how often you check there.

Mntsnow

12-12-1999, 07:08 AM

Thanks Chip. I already saw it and it is downloading. I do visit all the forums http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Mntsnow

Todd,
I personally will not discuss religion as that is a subject that I am not comfortable with in this type of forum. I am currently a inactive member of the church. having been raised my whole life in the church. I have become inactive thru choices that I have made that are personal and private. I will post the link to the LDS homepage (http://www.lds.org) as I called my bishop and he said It is fine to provide a link to the site
For those that want to visit the site may and they can see from the first page there is only 2 links one of which goes to the useage clause and the other leads into the LDS website.

Good morning http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Mntsnow

commodsquad

12-12-1999, 01:29 PM

seems to me like the key factor in all of this is the fact that the defendants have been singled out by church vendetta because the couple have a longtime standing for active opposition against the organization and the copyright allegations and linking issues comes across as a smokescreen of the fact that the church really wants to make an example of them to prevent what is viewed as threatening and dangerous free thinking and freechoice. if this follows thru in favor of the church this will set some very dangerous precedents
and will only serve to give way to other freedom infringing laws and enactments that other organizations that have radical conformist views will use as a standing base to their advantage. Just a thought: ( anyone wonder what organized religion the judge is associated with?...this organization has high authority and influence in that state and the term conflict of interest comes to mind....)
just my 2 cents......

[This message has been edited by commodsquad (edited 12-12-1999).]

pickel

12-12-1999, 02:09 PM

Could someone send me a copy of this so called " copywritten text" that was the root of all this controversy. How bad can it be!!
We're talking about something ,I assume, that
is should be of a reverent nature and it seems we're beating around the bush with all this rehortic. I surely would like to see for myself the extent of the infraction where by a lawsuit was filed. Was it for the content or the the principle behind the link????
I have questions.. Who has the answers????

the pickel

Zotzmein

12-12-1999, 02:34 PM

Two Points

-----One-----

The correct term for what the Tanner’s did is criminal facilitation.

The Tanner’s knowingly provided a link to a site that contained materials illegal appropriated and posted on the web. Their actions facilitated the commission of a crime, the violation of an individual or organizations legal obtained copyright.

------Two------

The New York Times article clearly stated, “The copyrighted material was the text of the Church Handbook of Instructions, a limited-distribution book that enables lay clergy to administer the affairs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”

Hence I don’t believe anyone is trying to claim to own the copyrights for either the bible or the words of God.

Zotzmein two cents.

Regards to All,

Zotz Mein

[This message has been edited by Zotzmein (edited 12-12-1999).]

KillerBug

12-12-1999, 02:37 PM

I said "moron" church because in their work to spread gods word they are suing people that want to spread the word for them.

Mntsnow

12-12-1999, 02:44 PM

Pickle,

From what I understand (as I have not had privy to the text in question as I am not in a position to have been issued it and if I were I would not be in a position to share it) is that it came from one of the church manuals (that is given to people of "position" such as Bishops, stake presidents ect. to give them written direction on how and when to perform sacred and private church ordenances. such as weddings in the temple and such. and is not "to be out in the open")

Commodsquad,
I dont feel that the church as a "vendetta" with the Tanners.
The church doesn't tell its members to boycott the Tanners store or website or anything like that. There is no "picket lines" or demostrations in front of their store or even "letters to the newspapers" decrying the tanner's before this or since.

As for knowing wheither or not the Judge is a "member" of the church I don't know. I personally do not feel that is relavent as I would hope/feel that their judgements were made according to the law. As for the church having "influence and high authority" in the state I will basicly agree with that as the about 45-50% of the state is of the LDS faith so would be rational to assume that some "members" are holders of public office positions but I can also tell you that my city's mayor is not of the LDS faith nor my police chief like many others. So I can say this, They were ELECTED officals NOT appointed by the church http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Mntsnow

U-96

12-12-1999, 03:27 PM

If it were the case that information was being linked to and was being claimed to be official, but was actually distorted to reflect an opposing point of view, that would be wrong.

Also, one could argue that because the text is effectively an operational manual for church management, it is not public domain. In the same way as if someone in the Army started linking to Army manuals, or someone in Goldman Sachs linked to confidential trading manuals.
Whatever one's views on the religion in question, their right to copyright protection is the same as everyone else, unless disclosure of that information is deemed to be "in the public interest", a VERY subjective term.

U-96

Apostle 83

12-12-1999, 03:52 PM

I have created a monster! Ahhhhh! Seriously, this is the longest subject I have ever seen that is serious. The comments have been very thought provoking.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of me, I do respect people and their right of choice in religious areas. We have the right, not only to choose our religion, but to have our opinions made known, as long as we do so in a respectful manner. I am very opinionated, I know that. I am not concerned if I offend people with my statements as much as if I offend people with my manners.

Apostle 83

commodsquad

12-12-1999, 04:51 PM

Ok, I didnt mean to offend you mtnsnow. Just so you know, I'm not directing this post just at you, it is more of a general statement even though some of it directly answers to your last post.... I know "vendetta" seemed like a harsh word to use. I tend to gravitate towards dramatics sometimes when making a point..I meant that to come off as stating that they appear to be "singled out" since there are (I'm sure) many sites out there with the same information and even the exact text out there on the "World Wide Wait"...Why only this couple held for prosecution? Because they happen reside in Utah's jurisdiction and other areas' local govmnts would need to take action on the other offenders? Which, if implemented, could possibly lead to other problems if this starts a chain of events that only adds fuel to the fire of censorship advocates...

I dont mean to sound cynical but Most of us would like to believe that elected and appointed officials would follow ethical paths when making decisions or acting in power. But as history has proven, this isnt always the case and many end up regarding politics and religion with a sour taste...Being influenced by something or somebody doesnt necessarily have to do with how one gets into their position unless that is the very way they got there in the first place. But that influence is still there and can affect the position regardless of association if the influence is coming from the top of the rung.... I know that there are those that deserve the benefit of the doubt because of their honesty and integrity but most of the time they tend to get lost in the shuffle or lumped into the wrong category because of human tendancy to sterotype. Any hint of secrecy pretty much leads to suspicions by the general public which you can see from some of the posts on this thread..I dont know...maybe I'm just rambling here......once again, my apologies to those I may have offended....

Zotzmein

12-12-1999, 05:43 PM

The Tanner’s are not being singled out; they have demonstrated* a complete lack of disregard for jurisprudence.

Point of fact the Tanner’s have earned the right to strenuous prosecution by continually violating directly or indirectly copyright laws designed to protect an individual or organizations respective intellectual property.

I find it incredulous that anyone who read this article would consider this matter a free speech issue. This is a cut and dry case about one’s ability to protect his or her intellectual property through due process.

Sorry if I seem to analytical and straight forward, I just don’t see this as being a case to rally around the flag.

Regards to All,

Zotz Mein

*This is the SECOND time they’ve appeared in court concerning copyright infringement. The first time concerned copyrighted material on their site, the second time they knowingly provided links to said copyrighted material.

pickel

12-12-1999, 06:06 PM

Still not actually knowing the content of the
controversial writings, the significance of such seems to be diminished by the fact of the overprotection of the subject matter. I went to a parochial grammar and high school,
and after many years of the study of Theology
( with reference to Catholicism), it's hard for to conceive of any text or printed matter that would or could not to "linked" to on the web, unless it was in a defaming or detrimental way. To me , any extention of the writings of a church would be educational and
forthgiving to those of different denominations, and might lend to a curiousity
that may even bring new members to their particular church. Seems like much ado about nothing. It makes me think that these people have something to hide, instead of something to share. So be it. We all have our right to follow in the path we choose. So be it.
May all of be thankful that we have the freedom to be able to express our veiws and
have the medium to do so. No matter what might be your own personal feelings, I would like to teminate my comments with a sincere
wish for a happy and safe holiday season, and may we in the coming years be able to converse in a like manner. I have really enjoyed this thread. I believe it has brought
out the essense of our membership, and that's what life is all about.

the pickel

commodsquad

12-12-1999, 06:53 PM

Point well taken zortman..
I understand about the FIRST time and were actually guilty of posting copyrighted material without permission so they complied and took down the offending pages..
and yes this is the SECOND time they are in court which is what I was talking about in the first place. And I would also like to point out that I didnt take all of this to BE a freedom of speech issue..I was merely pointing out that this case can set a precedent towards that direction since it involves the action of "posting links" to said copyrighted material which the judge deemed the Tanner's as guilty of being a accessory of crime by posting those links to those sites (which IMO should be on trial for the infringement) with the information. It wasnt stipulated in the first injunction that that links couldnt be posted for those the sought this info, only that they remove the material from the site. and yeah, I know that they basically ticked off the powers that be by finding a way for making access and not actually having any physical material on their pages and that they posted them intentionally (I would even bet that it was most likely to make a taunting statement something like "You cant do anything to me now these are only links, I dont have the actual material.").
An example of what I'm getting at about the potential of dangerous precedents is this:
would if I posted a link to this same material or even another site with other non related copyrighted material in a message board or even a chatroom or on one of my webpages because someone requested the info and someone saw it and reported it? should I be the one on trial or the offending site with the actual material?
think of how many times that has most likely happened since the web was born...How many people should have or would have been or should be on trial for the same thing that is happening now in that court... what about when this sets a precedent and someone in a key point of power misinterprets this intentionally but logically enuff so that one could potentially misconstrue the law or twist it to affect any posted link in general whether it be copyrighted or not just to fit their agenda? Many of us post links daily to intellecual domain, property and even copyrighted material for educational, entertainment,and many other reasons that would take too long to list. I know I for one wouldnt want to live in fear of prosecution for merely helping someone out, passing along a link to information or just pointing the way to something that might have some interest for someone.. That is all I was stating..so please dont find me incredulous http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

Zotzmein

12-12-1999, 09:39 PM

Pickel,

I think that the document involved in this current litigation is not so much a religious document but handbook of conventions for lay clergy proscribed by the church leaders.

Its publication bears little religious significance to the parishioners; the correct comparison would not be a Bible or book of Canons but instead to a student or employee manual. Though it’s written by a religious organization it’s intent is mostly secular, perfunctory and managerial.

commodsquad,

My incredulity is more in a general nature and was not directed at anyone person. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

The courts found the Tanner’s to be purveyors of illegal material, thus they where order to cease and desist, they complied and removed the offending material.

However from the point they initially gave access to this information to the point that they where forced to remove the offending data, the Tanner’s clearly established themselves as a distributor of this type of unlawful material.

To simply remove the offending text and point to another location violates, in my humble opinion, not only the spirit but also the intent of what the court had ordered.

-----------------------------------------
The Tanner’s situation is analogous to the following:

I’m dealer-selling crack on corner XYZ. I’m arrested, found guilt and told not to push anymore. I then return to corner XYZ and instead of distributing the drugs myself, I direct you to another peddler selling drugs.

That’s criminal facilitation and it’s against the law.
-----------------------------------------

If the Tanner’s had simply from the start provided a link to an offensive site, the merits of this case would be totally different but given the Tanner’s proclivity for criminal behavior I believe that such punitive actions are necessary.

Regards to All,

Zotz Mein

Apostle 83

12-12-1999, 10:28 PM

This thread has been truly interesting. Some of the comments have been very interesting, others full of truth, and others cowardly.

I can't seem to find it, but earlier, I read a reply in which the Mormon church was called the "moron" church. I am in no way affiliated with this faith, nor do I wish to be, but THAT WAS COWARDLY. IT ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING. I BELIEVE MNTSNOW DESERVES A PUBLIC APOLOGY.

I feel that this thread has been excellent in getting issues out. For those of you who are angered and say this is a computer bb, this is the GENERAL DISCUSSION. It started out as a discussion of free speech. My opinion has changed on the case in question, but not on the precedent set by the judges decision.

I believe most of you have conducted yourselves well, and stuck to the issues. Thank you for an interesting thread.

If we can not conduct ourselves without religious slurs, I will ask Socalgal to shut this thread down. I am not asking people to make buttered up statements, just no name calling.

Thank you.
apostle 83

chipbgt

12-12-1999, 10:49 PM

I think a well-deserved "Amen" is in order right now http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

chipbgt

12-13-1999, 12:10 AM

Im still confused, what was the whole issue? The lds didnt want people linking to there pages? So is it legal for me to do this?
http://www.bible.ca/mor-questions.htm

Mntsnow

12-13-1999, 12:46 AM

Chip,

The problem all stemmed from the
"Tanners" "end running" a court order to take down LDS COPYRIGHTED TEXT that they had on THEIR website.(This information is not avaliable to the "general public").
They were first sued for COPYRIGHT infringment (back in October if I am remembering correctly) and ordered to take down the copyrighted text by the courts they did.

Then a few weeks later THEY (the Tanners) then posted LINKS to OTHER SITES (trying to "end run" the court order) that HAD the ILLEGAL COPYRIGHTED TEXT on THEIR websites..(all of the other websites have taken down the information)
btw the LDS church doesn't even have the "Copyrighted text" that is in question even avaliable to it MEMBERS much less the "general public" online that I'm aware of)

This had NOTHING to do with providing links TO the LDS website. It dealt with a SITE (the tanners)that was providing links to ILLEGAL Copyrighted information. That the Courts had already deemed the "Tanners had no right to have.

The LDS church welcomes people to provide links to Church website as it "helps" provide information about the church for those that are interested in hearing about the LDS faith. (kinda like missionary work)

Mntsnow

[This message has been edited by Mntsnow (edited 12-12-1999).]

Axel

12-13-1999, 06:19 AM

Yikes!!

Just a LITTLE passion out there....

Zotzmein - thanks for the details

Mntsnow - I respect your views, don't agree with them all, but I respect them and your right to have them.

It just seems to me, any organized religion not willing to post their documents on the web ( possibly because they aren't there personally to support/defend them ) seems really hypocritical. From what little of religion I understand, copy-righting a religious text seems counter-productive.

The only real advantage I can see in creating just such a row would be to get more media attention.

How twisted things have become.... - one reason I stay away of "organized" religion in favor of personally held views.

[This message has been edited by Axel (edited 12-13-1999).]

Apostle 83

12-13-1999, 08:01 AM

Does this court ruling set a precedence for infringement of free speech? We all know that a ruling made for one reason can be distorted. Will this one, at a time in the future?

Zotzmein

12-13-1999, 09:15 AM

Stirring up the bee’s nest?

Those of you who have read the majority of my posts on this bulletin board know that I am an affirmed believer that individual rights supersede those of business or government.

If I had the slightest inclination or feeling this was a first amendment issue I would be the first to rally the troops and launch an all out campaign against those who would subordinate, degrade or marginalize those freedoms guaranteed me in the Bill of Rights.

I absolutely don’t believe this case will impact free speech or the first amendment.

This case and the attention it has received is more a product of media sensationalism than earth shaking, ground breaking law. The “NET” is currently a hot topic and anything that can make a headline will.

Zotzmein two cents.

Regards to All,

Zotz Mein

Todd Beck

12-13-1999, 10:23 PM

I think the point that is being missed is that the Morman church owns the text of the documents, and as the owner, they did not give permission for the text to be reproduced on another media, i.e., the internet.

When you link to, say, a news story at The Register, you are not violating any copyright because The Register has given permission for that story, the text of which they own, to appear in that medium. The Mormon church had given no such permission for their material to be published on the internet, which made publishing that material anyway AND linking to publications of that material both illegal. That is why they won both court hearings. As was mentioned earlier, this is a fairly simple issue, and I doubt that religious inclination had anything to do with the judge's decision.

I, too, agree that an individual's freedom to believe whatever they want supercedes ANY dictates of the state. I just think it's very unfortunate that some of the things people choose to believe are so misguided.

[This message has been edited by Todd Beck (edited 12-13-1999).]

welsh wizard

12-14-1999, 01:41 PM

I think every one agrees that the pages that were linked to are copy right, no one can challange that.
But on Sysopt we have all posted links to sites, Boot.com is one that has just been forced down by MS does this now mean if the operator of that site starts something sim else where and a member comes accoss it, and then send a email to Scott telling where it is Scott can't inform any one, or is he allowed as the recieptient of the email allowed to forward it on to any one he wishes to share this email with.
WW