"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...

You are wrong. I never admitted he broke the law.

You defended him with a rule that applies once violation has taken place.
If he broke no law, then your "no court action" reply does not apply.

The problem is that you have
yet to show which law you claim was violated.

I have answered that, even giving you the links. Not my fault you lack the
ability to understand English. However, you have yet to show how
non-registration makes it legal for *anyone* to copy, display, and even
alter such items.

The willingness of a victim to take action has nothing to do with whether
a law
was violated or not.

At last, you agree... so whether or not a copyright owner decides to take
required action for a civil action to be possible makes no difference - the
law was broken.
I am beginning to think you are losing the plot... forgetting whether you
should be arguing the "pro-legal" point, or that of the criminal mind.

Doesn't the phone use some sort of unique
identification (like, for instance, a 'phone number')?

How do these give your name and address... the police cannot arrest a
number.
Unless that ID is linked to a name and address, it is useless for anything
but contacting the person.

Is it immune to triangulation?

The key word here is "mobile". Sure, if someone is stupid enough to use it
from home for that kind of thing. Even then, it would require time, money,
and workforce - yet the police are not even given the funding to chase those
who have already been identified.

If these tactics were available here and used for anything, it would be used
for things such as missing people. Two 10 year old girls, carrying a mobile
phone, go missing... yet the phone was not tracked down to find them.

And if you dispose of the phone, does it somehow sterilize itself
of any trace evidence

Depends on if you put it on the fire (or in the furnace at your work place).
I wouldn't imagine that much could be obtained from the ashes left over from
the fires used in the houses around here.

(remembering that a phone is something you hold to your
head and speak into; i.e, it collects hair, dandruff and saliva)?

Only any use if the police already have the name and address, so they can
collect samples from the suspect... no good for "tracking" someone down.
Plus, it also comes down to the commitment of the service provider to make
sure that they are able to track down that phone... even if it has been
changed to another provider (as they often are).
Heck, Frankie, they cannot even track down the 1000s of mobile phones that
get stolen.

And not forgetting how this world is turning into a giant television
studio, does this
phone somehow render you invisible to surveillance cameras and microphones
whenever you use it? If it does all of that then I would consider it to be
'untraceable'.

You do sound rather paranoid. Next time you go to take a p*ss in a
lavatory, better check for a camera first.
The only cameras in this small town would be the few used privately for
private areas. As long as someone doesn't break in to a property, just to
use their phone, I would say that they needn't worry too much. I would
imagine that many areas are the same, apart from large town and city
centres.

The fact is that some -do- get busted, which was my point.

So do *many* copyright criminals. When they get names of violators, they
act on it - breaking down doors in "dawn raids" and collecting evidence.
They also walk round "car boot" sales and "flea markets", where copyright
infringement is most common, busting people on the spot.
They are even smart enough to pin-point and grab the "look-outs" (often
children), before they get to warn their boss that the "fuzz" are coming.

3) no child pornographer is ever going to file a claim of copyright
infringement, and therefore the issue of child porn has absolutely
nothing to do
with copyright infringement;

If you think that violating laws is OK when the victims are unlikely or
unable to take action is fine, then you must love child pornographers and
their customers - their victims are often unwilling (or even unable) to
speak out or take any action.

Again, willingness to enforce the law does not nullify its violation.

EXACTLY.
You are now arguing MY point... just because the copyright holder may not be
willing to take action (which he could if he registers the material or if it
is not of US origin), it doesn't mean that a law has not been violated.

Yet they still operate. If the violators were impossible to trace (your
own
words), then there is no point in trying, is there? But they still try. If
their
conviction rate is zero, why do they keep trying, Peter?

Your problem is your lack of understanding when it comes to the nature of
some people. You can only understand the "urges" you feel to vent your
anger at anyone you can.
So, it is not surprising that you do not understand the desire of some
people to keep trying against the odds when they know that what they are
doing is good for other people. By keeping going, they are getting some
"busts", and making a big issue of the under-funding.
The fact that it is public knowledge that they lack funds is proof that they
are getting the issue known.

With enough pressure, the government may give them the funding - specially
if they feel it is a vote winner. Just like the lack of CB enforcement and
some people putting pressure on by reporting those taking Amateur band space
illegally. I hear that some CBers have noticed that, due to that pressure,
enforcement has been on the increase - and aimed at the big targets.

Even after all this time, you -=STILL=- haven't even read the code.
Registering
a copyright allows the victim to take -civil- action. There is
also -criminal-
action for copyright violators for which the owner of the copyright needs
no
registration, and those violations are specified in the -criminal- part of
the
code which I have already quoted and you subsequently ignored.

You mean section 412, the one that refers to what can or cannot be done in
the case of an infringement?
You still seem to be relying on the "they can do nothing about it" theory.
If the works are unregistered, it is because the copyright owner decided not
to take that action. Now, remember your words?

The willingness of a victim to take action has nothing to do with
whether a law was violated or not.

So, now show us the part where it says that anyone can legally copy,
display, or "mutilate" copyright material, as long as the material is
unregistered.
Never mind the childish insults, someone of your "advanced" years really
should know better. It seems to display a loss of control of a situation
and your emotions.

Maybe Tim can give you something to calm you down, put you at peace with the
world. Just watch where you stub the thing out - I hear that you can be in
trouble if you are not careful about disposal of cigarette ends. With all
those cameras watching, you are sure to get caught.

You claim to be "pro-legal", yet stand up for breaking certain
laws... because you can get away with it.

You are a hypocrite for even suggesting such a thing.

Sure, Frankie, just because I refuse to see how a "pro-legal" person can
defend copyright infringement, that makes me a "hypocrite", huh.
Like the emperor's new clothes... if we cannot see your imaginary "cop out",
we must be stupid hypocrites.