Safari 2.0.4

[Andrew Brown]

On 20 Nov 2007, at 19:27, Dan Lowe wrote:

> On Nov 20, 2007, at 12:03 AM, Andrew Brown wrote:
>
>> On 19 Nov 2007, at 22:25, John Musbach wrote:
>>
>>> Rapidshare has finally deleted the file, again I apologize for
>>> illegally distributing Safari, I was completely unaware that it was
>>> illegal to distribute Safari in this manner.
>>
>> Which statute or precedent-setting court says it's illegal ? one  
>> should always distinguish clearly between what is illegal and what  
>> corporations employing lawyers do not want you to do, and use a  
>> different term for the latter, perhaps "unwise" would serve.
>
> In the US at least, this falls under copyright law. Safari is a  
> copyrighted product of Apple, which means they get to control its  
> distribution. Distributing copyrighted material without permission  
> carries potentially heavy penalties.

All sorts of things fall under copyright law, and under the Title 17  
mentioned by Roger Howard, but they are not illegal until the courts  
have determined the matter. In the meantime, they are "potentially  
illegal", "apparently illegal", "actionable", and so on. In the UK,  
for example, an action taken against the distribution of an old  
version of Safari could well find itself dismissed by the courts as  
"frivolous and vexatious". And take a look at the Bridgeman versus  
Corel case, where acts which numerous bodies with vested interests  
termed illegal turned out to be quite the opposite.

AB