Is it legal/ethical ...

[Gutza]

If that's the case, will you kindly explain why Adobe for instance doesn't allow full downloads of Photoshop on their site? You certainly wouldn't be allowed to download it and use it if your assertions are correct, so what's the difference? I mean, if you want to pirate Photoshop, then there are zillions of sources anyway, so Adobe wouldn't "make your job easier" by posting it on their site.

Do you see where I'm getting at? The value of an image resides in viewing it. Simply viewing the image on some site equals "using" the image. Photoshop on the other hand needs to be installed and run in order to be used. As long as the author allow you to use their work legitimately -- by providing a means to download it -- then you are allowed to keep it for your own personal use . Which is why Adobe doesn't provide Photoshop for download -- they do not allow you to simply get it and use it. Similarly, if the author of an image doesn't want you to download his work, then he doesn't provide a full-sized image. They would only provide a thumbnail. And you could keep the thumbnail, but would have to pay for the full image. Oh well, but I'm sure you knew all this.

Gutza

See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

I'd point your attention to

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes;

Certainly not educational, and if it is the person's wallpaper or
they print their own copy of it then it must be of value to warrant
retention and display - if you want it - either ask nicely or PAY!

and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.

If people take it for free they are effectively undermining the
market value. The value per image may be cents or dollars - but it
is still value.

I feel that the previous poster does not "spouting junk", as you
gracefully put it; also, if anyone's a troll in here, I think that
should be you.

I don't think so - you think that if anything is out there you have
a 'right' to make a copy and keep it for yourself - you don't - it
is that simple.

Regards,
Gutza

In around 99.999% of cases images are subject to full copywrite and
you are not authorised to use them in any way but view them as the
owner intends.

Wrong, it's technically, legally and ethically OK.

Why?

Copyright officially excludes non-commerical private use, a.k.a.
"fair use" in legal terms.

No it doesn't. Your saying that any software you buy, any music
you buy, any video you buy is fair game as long as you don't make
money off it yourself (non-commercial)? BS! I'm terribly sorry to
inform you that distributing any of this to people who have not
bought any rights to the product is illegal. You are entitled to
make a copy - if you are able - of the work you have purchased
providing it does not deprive the seller of reasonable revenue.

In the case we are describing the copyright owner has received no
payment and made no release in any way so fair use for an
individual would not apply since you haven't bought it in the first
place.

Try and use some common sense before spouting this kind of junk
around the place.

This understanding extends to all, e.g.
you are allowed to make backup copies of software and music cds, as
well as copy a record for a friend.

Regards, d-og

Actually I belive that in the license for the music you buy, you
are NOT allowed to make a copy of music for a friend. If that were
the case the RIAA would be having a hard time generating any
lawsuits don't ya think?

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

 

[peteb]

If that's the case, will you kindly explain why Adobe for instance
doesn't allow full downloads of Photoshop on their site?

Because people are scum-bags and would steal it - common sense prevents them doing this. Of course they may provide trial versions that expire, or versions with limited functionality (your thumb-nail I guess) that loses them nothing but allows the customer to experience the real thing at limited benefit.

You certainly wouldn't be allowed to download it and use it if your
assertions are correct, so what's the difference? I mean, if you
want to pirate Photoshop, then there are zillions of sources
anyway, so Adobe wouldn't "make your job easier" by posting it on
their site.

Do you see where I'm getting at? The value of an image resides in
viewing it. Simply viewing the image on some site equals "using"
the image.

You probably think borrowing a book from a library entitles you to photocopy it, but it doesn't, it allows you to read it. If you want to keep it, you have to buy a copy.

Yes you CAN photocopy pages out of a book without getting into trouble, and you CAN download images off the 'Net and keep them or display them for yourself. You CAN get dodgy copies of Adobe software and nothing will probably happen either however that doesn't make any of the actions right or legal.

Photoshop on the other hand needs to be installed and
run in order to be used. As long as the author allow you to use
their work legitimately -- by providing a means to download it --
then you are allowed to keep it for your own personal use .

BTW, by publishing work in this way on the WEB you are not really granting permission to retain it - the technology happens to be that currently the browsers do copy to a cache, and anyone who knows a little about technology CAN copy almost any image - that does not mean it is being used in the way that was intended - the same applies to shop-lifting. Just about everyone knows you can get away with a little thing here and there - but do you? No becuase you might be caught.

People do this becuase they feel they are anonymous on the 'Net. If I displayed work in a gallery off the street (and it was good enough that anyone would want to see it - a completely different issue ) - would you expect to be allowed in to take photographs of that work?

Which is why Adobe doesn't provide Photoshop for download -- they
do not allow you to simply get it and use it. Similarly, if the
author of an image doesn't want you to download his work, then he
doesn't provide a full-sized image. They would only provide a
thumbnail. And you could keep the thumbnail, but would have to pay
for the full image. Oh well, but I'm sure you knew all this.

Gutza

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

 

[Ger Bee]

Software is not the issue of this thread.

You probably think borrowing a book from a library entitles you to
photocopy it, but it doesn't, it allows you to read it. If you
want to keep it, you have to buy a copy.

..... actually you are not necessarily correct here either. One of the main functions of a library is sharing writings and in fact copying them.

The usual rules of copyright apply, if you look up your membership card you can copy passages and use them in your own work provided you quote the book as reference and do not claim the contents as your own.

 

[Wild-Mike]

Usually personal use has no restrictions, if a commercial aspect is
introduced, so is the legal aspect.

Actually, that is incorrect. Copyright laws do apply whether one wants to accept that fact or not. It is not unlike "cable tv theft" for personal use.

Regards,
Mike

--
300D Gallery:
http://tkis.com/mike/

Joy in looking and comprehending is nature's most beautiful gift. -- Albert Einstein

 

[Archermoo]

BTW, by publishing work in this way on the WEB you are not really
granting permission to retain it - the technology happens to be
that currently the browsers do copy to a cache, and anyone who
knows a little about technology CAN copy almost any image - that
does not mean it is being used in the way that was intended - the
same applies to shop-lifting. Just about everyone knows you can
get away with a little thing here and there - but do you? No
becuase you might be caught.

People do this becuase they feel they are anonymous on the 'Net.
If I displayed work in a gallery off the street (and it was good
enough that anyone would want to see it - a completely different
issue ) - would you expect to be allowed in to take photographs
of that work?

The problem with this analogy is that you don't have to take a picture of a piece of art in a gallery before you can view it. However, you DO have to download an image from the internet before you can view it on your computer.

IANAL, but it seems to me that if you publish a work in such a fashion that people have to possess a private copy of that work to be able to read/view it, then you don't really have a leg to stand on to object to those people having that copy of the work in question.

--
Gary

 

[Wild-Mike]

IANAL, but it seems to me that if you publish a work in such a
fashion that people have to possess a private copy of that work to
be able to read/view it, then you don't really have a leg to stand
on to object to those people having that copy of the work in
question.

This should clear up some of the miss-conceptions a little bit:
http://resnet.albany.edu/rules/copyrightshort.htm

Regards,
Mike

--
300D Gallery:
http://tkis.com/mike/

Joy in looking and comprehending is nature's most beautiful gift. -- Albert Einstein

 

[Archermoo]

IANAL, but it seems to me that if you publish a work in such a
fashion that people have to possess a private copy of that work to
be able to read/view it, then you don't really have a leg to stand
on to object to those people having that copy of the work in
question.

This should clear up some of the miss-conceptions a little bit:
http://resnet.albany.edu/rules/copyrightshort.htm

I understand the law at that level. My point is that if the creator of the image has made it available to be viewed via the internet, they have already given permission for you to have a local copy of the image, because you cannot view it without having a local copy. I don't see any real difference between viewing the image in a browser and viewing the image as a desktop wallpaper. You already have permission to have a local copy of the image, and you already have permission to view it. What more do you need?

--
Gary

 

[photoguynorth]

I don't know the legal ramifications, but the local copy that you download (which is not neccesary, by the way - browsers do it because it is faster, not because they have to) is in a temporary cache - it is deleted automatically, and only used to refresh the screen faster. That means if I post a picture, I do not assume you have a copy in a form that would allow you to use it as a screensaver. In fact - I would suggest that almost everyone using a downloaded image did not copy it out of the cache, but rather right-clicked and downloaded to a file - it is much easier.

IANAL, but it seems to me that if you publish a work in such a
fashion that people have to possess a private copy of that work to
be able to read/view it, then you don't really have a leg to stand
on to object to those people having that copy of the work in
question.

This should clear up some of the miss-conceptions a little bit:
http://resnet.albany.edu/rules/copyrightshort.htm

I understand the law at that level. My point is that if the
creator of the image has made it available to be viewed via the
internet, they have already given permission for you to have a
local copy of the image, because you cannot view it without having
a local copy. I don't see any real difference between viewing the
image in a browser and viewing the image as a desktop wallpaper.
You already have permission to have a local copy of the image, and
you already have permission to view it. What more do you need?

--
Gary

 

[kevin44958]

Right click on any picture you find on the internet and select "set as background".

Private use of anything you find in the public domain is fine. Just don't go re-posting it on your own "my favorite wallpaper site" - you could link to the original but not repost it w/o permission.

 

[kevin44958]

Make sure you plug your ears next time a friend of yours is listening to a CD he/she bought and is withing your hearing range. You wouldn't want to unethically overhear a song you didn't pay for.

As for the subject at hand the copyright holder of the images shouldn't be posting them on the internet if they don't want them freely available for private use. ITS THE INTERNET folks!

Someone who buys music and posts it somewhere freely available is one thing, but a photographer posting his own work is a completely separate issue. I'm not suggesting that by posting that it is now in the public-domain but it is freely available for private use. Otherwise DON'T publish your pictures.

In around 99.999% of cases images are subject to full copywrite and
you are not authorised to use them in any way but view them as the
owner intends.

Wrong, it's technically, legally and ethically OK.

Why?

Copyright officially excludes non-commerical private use, a.k.a.
"fair use" in legal terms.

No it doesn't. Your saying that any software you buy, any music
you buy, any video you buy is fair game as long as you don't make
money off it yourself (non-commercial)? BS! I'm terribly sorry to
inform you that distributing any of this to people who have not
bought any rights to the product is illegal. You are entitled to
make a copy - if you are able - of the work you have purchased
providing it does not deprive the seller of reasonable revenue.

In the case we are describing the copyright owner has received no
payment and made no release in any way so fair use for an
individual would not apply since you haven't bought it in the first
place.

Try and use some common sense before spouting this kind of junk
around the place.

This understanding extends to all, e.g.
you are allowed to make backup copies of software and music cds, as
well as copy a record for a friend.

Regards, d-og

Actually I belive that in the license for the music you buy, you
are NOT allowed to make a copy of music for a friend. If that were
the case the RIAA would be having a hard time generating any
lawsuits don't ya think?

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

 

[Archermoo]

I don't know the legal ramifications, but the local copy that you
download (which is not neccesary, by the way - browsers do it
because it is faster, not because they have to) is in a temporary
cache - it is deleted automatically, and only used to refresh the
screen faster. That means if I post a picture, I do not assume you
have a copy in a form that would allow you to use it as a
screensaver. In fact - I would suggest that almost everyone using
a downloaded image did not copy it out of the cache, but rather
right-clicked and downloaded to a file - it is much easier.

Sorry for being unclear, but I wasn't necessarily refering to a cache copy of the image file on your hard drive. You have to download the file as it has to exist somewhere on your computer for you to be able to view it. That could be in file storage on your hard drive, that could be in memory. With most computers it is both. The only place it really HAS to be for you to be able to view it is in memory. Saving a cache copy is just a way of storing a copy of the file so that if you look at it again you already have a local copy of the file and do not need to download another one.

My point however still stands. You have already been given permission to have a local copy of the image file by the simple fact that it was published via the internet. The obvious intent of publishing the image file is to have it viewed. To say that you can view the image in a browser window but cannot view it on your desktop is like saying the publisher of a newspaper can require that you only read it at your kitchen table, but not in your den.

--
Gary

 

[bill1]

Sorry for being unclear, but I wasn't necessarily refering to a
cache copy of the image file on your hard drive. You have to
download the file as it has to exist somewhere on your computer for
you to be able to view it. That could be in file storage on your
hard drive, that could be in memory. With most computers it is
both. The only place it really HAS to be for you to be able to
view it is in memory. Saving a cache copy is just a way of storing
a copy of the file so that if you look at it again you already have
a local copy of the file and do not need to download another one.

My point however still stands. You have already been given
permission to have a local copy of the image file by the simple
fact that it was published via the internet. The obvious intent of
publishing the image file is to have it viewed. To say that you
can view the image in a browser window but cannot view it on your
desktop is like saying the publisher of a newspaper can require
that you only read it at your kitchen table, but not in your den.

You are mistaken.

You have not been given permission to download, distribute or reuse the image. You have been given permission to use your computer to view that site. Note the distinction (site vs image). The site controls what you see, how you see it and when you see it.

For instance a site could have popup ads or even just links that constitute advertising. That advertising pays for the site and by reusing that content without without the attached advertising you are depriving the content provider of revenue. This by the way is easily the foundatiuon for economic damages if you are sued--even if you don't derive income from that image.

Look at a site like pbase.com. By hosting (sometimes free) galleries, pbase.com is effectively advertising itself. Some gallery viewers wil become aware of the site and its services. Some of these will sign up for that service. Merely by hosting those images, pbase.com is advertising itself. You are depriving them of revenue by bypassing that.

Why do you think pbase only allows you to hot-link images (on sites like dpreview) if you're a paying subscriber? Because the non-paying subscribers do only one thing for them: create awreness of pbase. Hot-linking would deprive them of that.

You are concentrating on process rather than purpose and thats a mistake. Think of it this way. Say someone breaks into your house and in defending your home and family you shoot and kill the intruder. The law (can) regard this as justifiable force and self-defense. What you're saying is this: well if I can shoot someone in my own home then why not shoot someone I invite in? Why does it even have to be my house? CAn't I go down the street and shoot somebody?

Yes a browser (can) download and cache data fromt he Internet. But that isn't its purpose. Its purpose is to allow a user to browse that content. Downloading it to your computer is only the means to do this.

 

[Archermoo]

You are mistaken.

You have not been given permission to download, distribute or reuse
the image. You have been given permission to use your computer to
view that site. Note the distinction (site vs image). The site
controls what you see, how you see it and when you see it.

For instance a site could have popup ads or even just links that
constitute advertising. That advertising pays for the site and by
reusing that content without without the attached advertising you
are depriving the content provider of revenue. This by the way is
easily the foundatiuon for economic damages if you are sued--even
if you don't derive income from that image.

Look at a site like pbase.com. By hosting (sometimes free)
galleries, pbase.com is effectively advertising itself. Some
gallery viewers wil become aware of the site and its services.
Some of these will sign up for that service. Merely by hosting
those images, pbase.com is advertising itself. You are depriving
them of revenue by bypassing that.

Why do you think pbase only allows you to hot-link images (on sites
like dpreview) if you're a paying subscriber? Because the
non-paying subscribers do only one thing for them: create awreness
of pbase. Hot-linking would deprive them of that.

You are concentrating on process rather than purpose and thats a
mistake. Think of it this way. Say someone breaks into your house
and in defending your home and family you shoot and kill the
intruder. The law (can) regard this as justifiable force and
self-defense. What you're saying is this: well if I can shoot
someone in my own home then why not shoot someone I invite in? Why
does it even have to be my house? CAn't I go down the street and
shoot somebody?

Yes a browser (can) download and cache data fromt he Internet. But
that isn't its purpose. Its purpose is to allow a user to browse
that content. Downloading it to your computer is only the means to
do this.

No, you are mistaken. Never did I claim that any redistribution of a file downloaded would ever be considered acceptable. I re-iterate: By publishing the image to the web, the intent is for it to be viewed. The only way for me to view that image is for it to be downloaded to my computer. Therefor I have implicit permission to download the image and view it.

Your attempt to link the viewing of images published on the internet and murder is a fallacy. You can shoot someone in your own home that is threatening you because the intent of the law is to allow you to defend yourself. The intent of posting an image on the internet is to allow it to be viewed. An accurate comparison to limiting which application you can use to view the picture (browser vs. desktop wallpaper) would be saying that you can only defend yourself in your living room, but doing so in your den would be illegal.

You already have permission to view the image on your computer. This means that you already have permission to download the image and have a local copy of it, as there is no other way for you to view it. You would need further permission to redistribute that picture, as redistribution is not implicitly allowed simply by allowing the image to be viewed.

Heck, the courts in the US at least have already made similar case law. Broadcast television shows are copyrighted. However, it is perfectly legal for you to record those shows and watch them at a later date. It is even legal for you to skip the commercials if you want.

--
Gary

 

[Bruce Hamilton]

You already have permission to view the image on your computer.
This means that you already have permission to download the image
and have a local copy of it, as there is no other way for you to
view it.

You seem to be missing the point that copyright protects the owner, and if your use of that image deprives the owner of revenue ( eg selling you a copy to use a wallpaper ), then it's illegal - unless covered by one of the fair use provisions.

You don't "own" that image, and you only have rights to view it for the original ( and only intended ) purpose. It doesn't matter whether you would actually purchase the image as wallpaper if you had to pay for it, you appropriated the image and potentially deprived the owner of revenue. It also doesn't matter if others have done it, it's still illegal without the owner's consent.

The copyright rules are really quite simple, and the Berne Convention covers copyright globally. The owner is protected from potential loss of revenue due to illegal copying. The legal grounds for copying without the owner's specific consent are covered under any " fair use " provisions that may apply, however those provisions are not as liberal as many believe.

Refer to my earlier posts, and a Google search on Internet Copyright will yield far more than you ever wanted to know. The simplest solution is to always ask the owner if you can use an image ( or any other copyrighted work) that you discover and want to use for any purpose, regardless of the convenience of the form it's in.

Bruce Hamilton

 

[thejaybird]

They'll never know.

 

[Daniella68313]

I would ask permission by email before doing so but to download it is NOT illegal because you do need to download it before you can view it.

it goes on your computer cache directory but you still download it. what is illegal is to reproduce it like to print it or to distribute it.

to download a pic from somebody's web-site and use it as a wallpaper.
There are times when a picture impresses you so much that you have
to have it on your desktop. You do not claim that it was taken by
you but you just download it and set it as your background.

I used to do this a lot previously, but after being a member and
following the threads here I now have my doubts. So I just wanted
to know what you think about this.

Asking the same question in a different way
How would you feel if somebody had your pic on their desktop ?

If they only use it for their desktop I would not mind. But most of my photos are too small for that anyway. Some people downloaded some of my 3d artwork before for their desktop without asking me. They simply told me that they were using this or that image for their desktop. I would have prefered that they ask permission first.

Personally I would'nt mind, but (lol) I dont have pics so
impressive that someone would consider saving as their desktop,
yet. Just learning the art of photography

Cheers!

--
Minë Corma hostië të ilyë ar mordossë nutië të
Mornórëo Nóressë yassë i Fuini caitar.
Un thoron arart’a s’un hith mal’kemen ioke.
Saurulmaiel

 

[Colorofthewind999]

to download a pic from somebody's web-site and use it as a wallpaper.
There are times when a picture impresses you so much that you have
to have it on your desktop. You do not claim that it was taken by
you but you just download it and set it as your background.

I used to do this a lot previously, but after being a member and
following the threads here I now have my doubts. So I just wanted
to know what you think about this.

Asking the same question in a different way
How would you feel if somebody had your pic on their desktop ?

Personally I would'nt mind, but (lol) I dont have pics so
impressive that someone would consider saving as their desktop,
yet. Just learning the art of photography

I think it's ok, if that photo is allowed to be downloaded and you don't use it for any commericial use.

Cheers!

 

[Bruce Hamilton]

They'll never know.

Contrary to popular opinion, Ethics isn't an English county. Your actions should be determined by the illegality of your behaviour. If many people make illegal copies, the owners will know and will be harmed by lack of revenue from illegal copies. Consider P2P music and software copying.

Wasia's firmware copying and modification is illegal ( a team would have to have documented reverse engineering of the firmware for his software to be legal ). Canon may choose to not bother pursuing firmware hacks freely available, provided the hacker doesn't try to make money from Canon's firmware. However, if Canon did take Wasia to court, he would lose, as he is modifying their firmware.

Bruce Hamilton

 

[Noah_Mercy]

Peteb is right and makes some very good points here.

There are a couple of issues we would do well to divorce and distiguish between. Namely: Is it right or wrong (moral/ethical) and Is it LEGAL?

Some believe anything that becomes illegal is then ALSO wrong because breaking a law is wrong. I don't believe lawmakers are infallable and therefore don't think that breaking the law is always wrong.

To examine the legal issue, let's start with the law.

The Fair-Use Statute:
The following is the full text of the fair-use statute from the U.S.
Copyright Act.

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive rights:
Fair useNotwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

1.. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2.. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3.. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

4.. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair
use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
(Emphasis added)
Well documented examples followed, illustrating applications of the fair use
standard. Very liberal interpretation of the standard is applied to
educational use, especially if it is non-commercial. However, significantly
competing with the original publisher's sales strongly diminishes an
argument for fair use.

http://www.cetus.org/fair5.html

To come more directly to you point, if you are downloading the picture to avoid buying the work (whether in print or desktop wallpaper) then you are in a gray area w/regards to the copyrights law, but probably this is unethical and you should avoid it.

If, on the other hand, you would NOT have bought it, and restrict your usage to one copy for personal use, then it is probably NOT illegal. Is it still unethical? I would lean towards saying NO it's not unethical.

Ultimately, only you can know if you are depriving the author or their income and whether it is right or wrong.

There has always been a freedom of exchange of ideas and art among humans and many feel copyrights enforced by governments are themselves immoral.

This is a question that is hard to give a clear yes or no answer to. If it bothers you, ask permission. If you in no way profit from your use of it, if it brings you joy, I would say it is not unethical.

I say this as my OPINION because as I would feel this way whether I was the USER OR AUTHOR!

In areas that are gray sometimes the golden rule can show you the way!

Cheers,
KC

the only time its OK to print other peoples work is if you got it
from a stock-photography site, where it was placed with no
restrictions on useage.

Generally, go for this rule: if you see a picture/photo/painting
online, and want to use it for your own personal desktop wallpaper,
then do it. No-one will know so no harm done.

And by the same logic it is fine to copy software and download any
music you like as long as no-one knows about it. As with all good
right/wrong issues and where morals are concerned, nothing is ever
illegal or wrong if the victim doesn't actually know about it right?

Whether you choose to do it or not is your own choice, I do I'll
admit. But it is also wrong - becuase it is secret doesn't make it
right.

You CANNOT, however,
distribute this wallpaper, send it to a friend, put it on your
website, even if you've spent 4 hours mangling it in photoshop.
Always contact the owner of the photo BEFORE you start if that is
your intention.

Same with printouts. If you find a nice photo on the web and want
to print it out to put on your wall/on your desk, fine, no-one can
stop you. But you cannot sell or give away those prints without the
owners permission.

Simple netiquette

Thanks for the reply

also how about low resolution print outs. For example I see print
outs of Anne Geddes' baby photos all over the place where as I
would assume they were not put on the internet for that purpose.
Would you not mind if someone did this to your photos ?

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

 

[DannyV]

Usually personal use has no restrictions, if a commercial aspect is
introduced, so is the legal aspect.

Actually, that is incorrect. Copyright laws do apply whether one
wants to accept that fact or not.

Yes, copyright laws do apply.

It is not unlike "cable tv theft"
for personal use.

No it is not, the "assumption" and intent of the cable companies is that there is no signal at your house if you do not pay. If there is a signal, then either the cable company screwed up or you modified the cable box illegally, in either case, the intent is quite clear. Now, if the cable companies were lazy enough to leave all ports turned on nation-wide, my guess is that they would have some real legal problems enforcing payment. The courts would probably conclude that they had not done enough to protect their IP, and had therefore created an environment where free use of cable was a "reasonable" assumption. This is effectively what people are doing when they post their pictures on the internet.

Regards,
Mike

--
300D Gallery:
http://tkis.com/mike/

Joy in looking and comprehending is nature's most beautiful gift.
-- Albert Einstein

--
Daniel
http://www.pbase.com/dvogel11

300D tips and russian hack at http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html
300D FAQ at http://www.marius.org/fom-serve/cache/3.html