(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); oh baby get fukin rekt
rip apple






You must login or register to view this content.

I would say copyright still important along with a long list of other issues like voting reform and fiscal policy :p

if you read the article with the flute music playing it gives a good laugh

To put it bluntly, the article is somewhat vague and borderline misleading.

Irrespective of the legality of ripping and storing media from copyright sources (for personal use only) - you can't declare a product illegal because it contains a feature or feature that enables/allows the infringing process to happen on a basis of possession defines actual intent. With the exception of a few countries who handle legal cases with the guilty-by-default attitude that black S.Af. citizens used to be faced with, on the whole, default defined guilt by association of that nature gets thrown out like dirty dishwater.

So yes, maybe intent and use of iTunes and/or any other media ripper enabled software (in context of copyrighted media) for creating electronic copies may indeed be not permitted legally, but to misleadingly state that the product is 'illegal' without defining specific grounds/scope, is about as misleading and therefore inaccurate as it gets (and typically i don't expect much better from what i consider to be 'ham' correspondents).

It's no different, possession of iTunes or any other media-ripper and installation of isn't illegal, but you can fall foul of the law for using the components that are used to infringe copyright - similar to how 'radar detectors' were not illegal to own/possess in the UK. Ironically, nor was having them active and installed - where it became legally iffy (don't think anyone actually suffered a conviction over it) was to use it with intent to obstruct traffic and speed management processes in the way of using the devices to interfere with due process if you were speeding - and even then, the radar detector itself wasn't an issue if you were caught bang to rights fors speeding, since unless you can prove that (which almost certainly requires more evidence than mere presence of the device) it was being used actively to monitor for an early warning to enable you to interfere (by reducing speed at a point where your vehicle may already be 'clocked', then there's no grounds for seizure by the police nor ground for prescibed prohibition of use by warning by the police.

Bearing in mind the analogy isn't totally in sync, it echoes the concept of use with intent vs mere possession and legit lawful use.

If mere possession and use of (with no consideration of the actual activity being performed and intent) something legally sold/distributed was convictable, then damn near every UK radio listener owning and using a VHF FM receiver would have been in deep crap for many decades, since up until relatively recently, police radio traffic was accessible via ordinary domestic radio receivers. Ditto for every SWL who ever listened on HF and tuned around and kept stopping to observe mysterious unidentified telegraphy traffic (which could easily have been secure encrypted TOR or similar traffic).

Any idiot can write an article with a blunt chisel representation of a legal decision, such as was written in the article, but they sure don't do anything better than spread misinformation etc. A talented/intelligent correspondent would have a least touched on it with considered fine blade precise analysis of which aspects were affected and how those aspects (and the presence of the features) affects the end user.