Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by DatacomGuy, Apr 16, 2008.
Taken from Engadget..
I foresee this whole thing turning into one giant clusterfuck. Should be interesting to watch.
the OSX86Project people do NOT have a valid claim. You can't commit one crime and then get pissy when someone else borrows your already-illegal work to commit further crime.
"waaah waah waaaaah we stole it first!"
And getting more interesting.....
this is actually kinda funny. i do hope apple cracks down on this, i like the idea but meh
that hoax thing is hillarious
That reminds me of another fight between MS and Apple back in the day with Xerox....
That depends on whether the OSx86 people developed any of their own intellectual property over the course of their project, and whether Psystar swiped it.
not rly. You can't devise a device whose sole purpose is theft and then cry about infringment if someone copies your design for their own theivery.
Sure you can. Nothing's sole purpose is theft; there is a legitimate use for everything, and an illegitimate use for everything. You could argue that a lockpick's original sole purpose was theft, but then some dude locked himself out of his own house and another dude with a lockpick saved the day.
if you're a locksmith, maybe. but if you're not, and you're caught with bona-fide lockpicks you're getting shinny bracelets and a free cab ride.
No, they're sold in tool catalogs. There is nothing illegal about them. It's the intent of the user that matters.
I've told you about the almost century-old lawsuit against crowbar manufacturers, in which it was determined that OEMs and vendors are not responsible for misuse of their products. The same goes for lockpicks, guns, ROM emulators, and everything else that can possibly be misused for some fell purpose.
You're in Virginia, right???
what's wrong deusexaethera.... no comment now???
No. DeCSS is used to decrypt DVDs, but the source itself is NOT illegal, it's what you do with it that is an illegal act.
In fact, DeCSS is technically a trade secret. Once a trade secret is out in the open, my understanding is that enjoys very little legal protection from claims like that.
Stop acting like a little bitch. Laws like that are tenuous at best. Do you even know what prima facie even means? For an arrest on those grounds to successfully turn into a conviction, the prosecution would have to prove an obvious (and likely imminent) intent to commit a crime with those tools. All the defendant would have to prove is that he has a reasonable basis for owning and/or carrying lockpicks.
If the arrest was pursuant to a search at home, the case would probably not stick, if the lockpicks were even admissible as evidence in the first place (which they shouldn't be if their discovery is outside the scope of the warrant, for example).
If you have them on your person then it becomes harder to justify convincingly, but several people may have jobs where carrying those tools is in fact a reasonable expectation.
So basically stfu about the law unless you know what you're talking about.
P.S. that particular law is extremely vague, and owning anything less than very obvious lockpicks would be pretty hard to prove as intended to commit a crime with. I'd bet that a good enough lawyer could build a pretty solid case against that law being unconstitutional as well, but the fact is that this kind of law never gets tested up to high enough courts for that to ever happen.
Um, no. Actually you're very wrong. Prima ficie means that possession alone demonstrates intent. Basically once the prosecution has prima facie evidence, they have demonstrated all that is neccessary, legally, for conviction. It is now the burden of the defense to demonstrate how possession and INTENT were legal in their insance (for example, being a licensed lock-smith who had the tools in his truck)
A normal citizen, served a warrant to search their home, once found in possession of a lock-pick in VA would have "prima facie" evidence demonstrating intent to commit burglary -- even if the item was simply in a sock drawer. The buden is on the defense to demonstrate how posession was legal. Simply saying "I wasn't gonna commit burglary" is *not* a sufficient defense.
That is correct. That is why there is a clause that states "other than a licensed dealer". If you are licensed as a locksmith, then it is reasonable and acceptable to be in possession of a lockpick. However, if you are not licensed, it is not legal.
It has been demonstrated that I know WAAAAY more about this than you.
Doubtful. You're not going to get prosecuted for having a paperclip unless you're caught with the paperclip in a lock, or you're asked "whats this for" and you tell the cop that it's to pick a lock. Obviously assuming you're not actively-engaged in the act, haven't already commited the act, the part is not bent into the shape of a tool, and you don't tell them you're going to commit a crime with it, then they're not going to prosecute you for it.
I don't own a Mac, so I don't come into the Mac Shack very often.
I've never actually heard of someone being convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime just because they had something that could be used to commit a crime. Hell, just think of the impact that would have on people who own guns, if that law were used as a primary means to charge someone with conspiracy.
Conclusion: it's only intended to be used as a means to reinforce an existing charge based on other evidence.
then it wouldn't be prima ficie. But it is prima ficie. You get caught with them, you're fucked.
There can be all the evidence in the world that you possessed the ability to do something, and it may be taken as prima facie evidence of the intent to do so, but the deciding body in the court still has the final call as to whether the prosecutor is full of shit or not.
You don't really think evidence decides cases, do you? It doesn't. People decide cases. No, you can't be that naive; I'm sure you already knew that and you were just being obtuse so you could argue about something.
I think the original question was "is it ILLEGAL to have this" and now your argument is "sure, it's illegal but nobody will actually CONVICT someone for it."
that's semantics. Legally, it doesn't matter what a juror personally believes they are supposed to make a decision based on the facts presented by both sides within the scope of the law.
The law only matters if it's enforced.
If you'd spent five minutes in a courtroom you'd know that 99% of what goes on in there is semantics. Lawyers spent months arguing about semantics. They do matter.
Well...maybe not to you. You have shown a propensity in the past to care only about the letter of the law, despite the fact that laws exist solely to serve as approximations for what people really care about.