"My dad is a pirate."
Ingoramus21499
using Bit Torrent. I also share them after I download them and make
sure that my share ratio (amount of gigabytes that I upload, divided
by gigabytes that I download) stays above 2, so that I contribute to
the worldwide piracy.
I do not pirate software, however, as I only use software that is
free. I do not use proprietary software.
I am completely unapologetic for it. I do not believe in im aginary
intellectual property.
I do not buy the usual argument of "if no one pays for music or
videos, no one will write music or make videos". The greedy people
surely will not do so. But I am not going to miss their
productions. So the music and videos, would be done only by people who
have a non-commercial interest in art. Those who want to make a movie
because they want to actualize themselves. Great.
Anyhow, my question is that of child rearing. I have a 6 year old.
Should I tell him that "your dad is a pirate" or not? Would it hurt
him to know that his dad is a pirate?
He is already aware that I get his movies at "Pirate Bay".
My own answer is that I should tell him, and that he should know, but
I wanted to hear what you think.
Thank you!
i
Franz Daniel
> ...
> Anyhow, my question is that of child rearing. I have a 6 year old.
>
> Should I tell him that "your dad is a pirate" or not? Would it hurt
> him to know that his dad is a pirate?
I don't know if it might /hurt/ him. I could rather imagine him boasting
about it towards his comrades at Elementary School. "Hey, see, *my*
father is a *pirate*!!!" ;) I'm not sure if that would be in your
interest...
--
Regards
Franz
Moshe Goldfarb
From: Ingoramus21499 <ingoram...@NOSPAM.21499.invalid>
Subject: "My dad is a pirate."
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1pl1 (Linux)
You are a typical Linux user.
Cheap.
Hypocritical..
And a thief.
Hopefully your son doesn't turn out like you.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.
Snit
47B48761...@seanet.com on 2/14/08 11:24 AM:
> At 6 years old, he'll just wonder where the peg leg and parrot are at.
Arrrrrg!
--
BU__SH__
chrisv
>Anyhow, my question is that of child rearing. I have a 6 year old.
>
>Should I tell him that "your dad is a pirate" or not? Would it hurt
>him to know that his dad is a pirate?
Doesn't matter. In either case, he'll eventually figure-out that
you're an immoral, thieving scumbag.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
Moshe Goldfarb <brick....@gmail.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> You are a typical Linux user.
Riiiiiiight...
> Cheap.
> Hypocritical..
> And a thief.
Where's the theft?
And are you seriously stating to all in this newsgroup that bittorrent is
not equally widely used amongst windows users?
Are you also going to claim that windows users don't also pirate the
software they run on their computers?
SERIOUSLY?
> Hopefully your son doesn't turn out like you.
Yeah, right, like you're all holier than thou.
You've never pirated anything, you... oh nonono...
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Ingoramus21499 wrote:
What's he stolen?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignoramus21499
Or, perhaps, he wil grow up to be a caring, sharing, person.
i
Phil Da Lick!
Newsflash: Linux is free and "free". So how can piracy or theft come
into it?
Rick
"steal software".
--
Rick
Snit
13r94i4...@corp.supernews.com on 2/14/08 12:11 PM:
Rick told me I would have to risk breaking the law in order to get Amarock
to function fully.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Stephanie
"Ingoramus21499" <ingoram...@NOSPAM.21499.invalid> wrote in message
news:qaadnZj7V58v5ina...@giganews.com...
>I am a pirate. I download music and movies without paying for them,
> using Bit Torrent. I also share them after I download them and make
> sure that my share ratio (amount of gigabytes that I upload, divided
> by gigabytes that I download) stays above 2, so that I contribute to
> the worldwide piracy.
>
> I do not pirate software, however, as I only use software that is
> free. I do not use proprietary software.
>
> I am completely unapologetic for it. I do not believe in im aginary
> intellectual property.
Except, apparently, for software.
>
> I do not buy the usual argument of "if no one pays for music or
> videos, no one will write music or make videos". The greedy people
> surely will not do so. But I am not going to miss their
> productions. So the music and videos, would be done only by people who
> have a non-commercial interest in art. Those who want to make a movie
> because they want to actualize themselves. Great.
>
And don't particularly need to eat. Neat trick.
> Anyhow, my question is that of child rearing. I have a 6 year old.
>
> Should I tell him that "your dad is a pirate" or not? Would it hurt
> him to know that his dad is a pirate?
>
> He is already aware that I get his movies at "Pirate Bay".
>
> My own answer is that I should tell him, and that he should know, but
> I wanted to hear what you think.
>
> Thank you!
>
> i
I guess my answe to this is.... what, precisely are you going to tell him,
why and what will be the impact? If you feel that you are doing wrong and
are going to have to dance around to explain why you are doing it even
though it is illegal, then really, rather than worry about what you are
going to say to your child, you should stop doing it. I don't think that is
the case. So I would
- Make sure my moral argument sits well in my *own* mind and heart.
- Explain it only at such time as there is a fighting chance he will
understand what I mean compared to say, stealing a candy bar at the store.
- Make sure the morality of one kind of stealing compared to another is
understandable and meritorious so it does not lead to massive confusion down
the line.
I, personally, think your arguments stink. And your 6yo may well be able to
shred them as well. I would like to get my son, your son on debate team A
against you and my husband on debate team B. I wonder who would win!
Moshe Goldfarb
> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> Moshe Goldfarb <brick....@gmail.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>> You are a typical Linux user.
>
> Riiiiiiight...
>
>> Cheap.
>> Hypocritical..
>> And a thief.
>
> Where's the theft?
See, what did I tell you.
Here we have another Linux loony who thinks he is entitled to everything
for free.
This one is quite a specimen!
He can't even conceive of the concept of theft because everything is free
for him to take, illegally if necessary.
Downloading commercial, copyrighted movies without paying for them is
theft.
Moshe Goldfarb
He's talking about movies you idiot.
Linux can't be stolen.
Hell, Linux can't even be given away!
It's free every day of the year and yet still has about 0.6 percent of the
desktop market.
Canopus
>Or, perhaps, he wil grow up to be a caring, sharing, person.
Well of course. When he gets into his teens he'll probably turn around
and say, "I thoroughly reject all your values starting with file sharing!"
You are on the way to making him a model citizen, completely straight and boring to boot. :-))
--
Canopus
Ignoramus21499
>
> "Ingoramus21499" <ingoram...@NOSPAM.21499.invalid> wrote in message
> news:qaadnZj7V58v5ina...@giganews.com...
>>I am a pirate. I download music and movies without paying for them,
>> using Bit Torrent. I also share them after I download them and make
>> sure that my share ratio (amount of gigabytes that I upload, divided
>> by gigabytes that I download) stays above 2, so that I contribute to
>> the worldwide piracy.
>>
>> I do not pirate software, however, as I only use software that is
>> free. I do not use proprietary software.
>>
>> I am completely unapologetic for it. I do not believe in im aginary
>> intellectual property.
>
>
> Except, apparently, for software.
I do not believe in imaginary property as it applies to software, as
well.
>> I do not buy the usual argument of "if no one pays for music or
>> videos, no one will write music or make videos". The greedy people
>> surely will not do so. But I am not going to miss their
>> productions. So the music and videos, would be done only by people who
>> have a non-commercial interest in art. Those who want to make a movie
>> because they want to actualize themselves. Great.
>
> And don't particularly need to eat. Neat trick.
They can eat and shoot movies at different time (and can have a day
job also). Also, there are ways of making money from performance art,
such as concerts, so popular performers would still make money, just
not as much.
>
>> Anyhow, my question is that of child rearing. I have a 6 year old.
>>
>> Should I tell him that "your dad is a pirate" or not? Would it hurt
>> him to know that his dad is a pirate?
>>
>> He is already aware that I get his movies at "Pirate Bay".
>>
>> My own answer is that I should tell him, and that he should know, but
>> I wanted to hear what you think.
>
> I guess my answe to this is.... what, precisely are you going to
> tell him, why and what will be the impact?
I would say something like "your dad is a pirate and gets movies and
music for free and shares it with other people".
As to "why", I think that it is to reinforce what he was taught
before, namely, that sharing is a good thing and is to be encouraged.
> If you feel that you are doing wrong and are going to have to dance
> around to explain why you are doing it even though it is illegal,
> then really, rather than worry about what you are going to say to
> your child, you should stop doing it. I don't think that is the
> case. So I would
>
> - Make sure my moral argument sits well in my *own* mind and heart.
I agree.
> - Explain it only at such time as there is a fighting chance he will
> understand what I mean compared to say, stealing a candy bar at the store.
There is a difference.
If, say, you have a candy bar, and I take it, then you no longer have
a candy bar.
However, if I have a movie, and share it with my friend, then we both
will have a movie.
> - Make sure the morality of one kind of stealing compared to another is
> understandable and meritorious so it does not lead to massive confusion down
> the line.
Another great point.
> I, personally, think your arguments stink. And your 6yo may well be
> able to shred them as well. I would like to get my son, your son on
> debate team A against you and my husband on debate team B. I wonder
> who would win!
Sounds like a great family building exercise!
i
Banty
says...
Maybe "sharing".. :-D
Banty (BTW, can I share your car?)
Ignoramus21499
ROTFLMAO.
This was hilarious.
i
Ignoramus21499
> Maybe "sharing".. :-D
>
>
> Banty (BTW, can I share your car?)
I have a pickup truck and, as a matter of fact, do lend it to my
friends from time to time.
You can have several of my free software programs that I wrote and am
releasing under the GNU Public License.
One of them, for example, allows you to sell on eBay from command line
(opening up numerous possibilities for automation).
i
macca
main ardtwackle yah mad parrot.
Tell the boy about you wearing yer wifes dresses on a Sunday eh eh go on
go on !
"Stephanie" <ha...@noway.net> wrote in message
news:GKOdnb3ZK_GxByna...@comcast.com...
chrisv
>You can have several of my free software programs that I wrote and am
>releasing under the GNU Public License.
Hell, why bother with things like the GNU Public License? It's not
like people like you give a rat's ass if they've got permission to
take what they want (as long as they don't get caught, of course).
Moshe Goldfarb
If you get a request from Roy Schestowitz for this thing, don't give it to
him!
He will figure out a way to hook it into his AI SPAMMING program and send
his Linux SPAM over to eBay, somehow.
BTW kudos for releasing your program via GNU.
That's more than [Homer] the hypocrite will do with his Linux
comp.os.linux.advocacy stats program.
He, however expects everyone else to give away THEIR programs and source
code.
That's why we call him [Homer] the hypocrite.
chrisv
>They can eat and shoot movies at different time (and can have a day
>job also). Also, there are ways of making money from performance art,
>such as concerts, so popular performers would still make money, just
>not as much.
How would movie makers make money?
Phil Da Lick!
"You are a typical linux user"
</quote>
Inference? Relevance?
chrisv
>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>> Ingoramus21499 wrote:
>
>>>Anyhow, my question is that of child rearing. I have a 6 year old.
>>>
>>>Should I tell him that "your dad is a pirate" or not? Would it hurt
>>>him to know that his dad is a pirate?
>
>> Doesn't matter. In either case, he'll eventually figure-out that
>> you're an immoral, thieving scumbag.
>
>What's he stolen?
Music and movies.
Banty
This is so clearly a crossposted troll (might be one of those interesting ones,
though...).
If someone truly thinks they're doing the moral thing, this question doesn't
come up. If you think going to church on Sunday is a good thing, you just go to
church on Sunday. If you think ignoring the leash law is an OK thing, you just
let your dogs loose. You don't ask around if you should sit your kid down and
say "you Dad is a breaker of the town ordinances."
It's just a dumb question, tailored to get responses about stealing creative
work.
Banty (did I say "stealing creative work..??!?" - - nawwwww)
Moshe Goldfarb
Cheap.
Everything for free.
Steal any Divix CODECS this week?
Banty
Phil Da Lick!
So *now* you see the connection.
And no, I haven't stolen anything this week. Have you?
Moshe Goldfarb
If you live in the USA and downloaded the divix codec for Linux from some
off shore site, you might have.
JEDIDIAH
> At 6 years old, he'll just wonder where the peg leg and parrot are at.
...and repeat everything he's told to his little friends, his
teachers, the firemen at the local fire station and any passing
copy he manages to bump into.
--
Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
who has pirated their music / | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
JEDIDIAH
> Ingoramus21499 wrote:
>> ...
>> Anyhow, my question is that of child rearing. I have a 6 year old.
>>
>> Should I tell him that "your dad is a pirate" or not? Would it hurt
>> him to know that his dad is a pirate?
>
> about it towards his comrades at Elementary School. "Hey, see, *my*
> father is a *pirate*!!!" ;) I'm not sure if that would be in your
> interest...
Regardless of what your moral position is on copyright, it's
just plain dangerous to flaunt your piracy activity. It can carry
some stiff penalties and walking around with a big "kick me" sign
simply isn't a good idea.
The moguls have the man in their pocket. Bad situation.
If you engage in any activity that can be used against you
or your family then it's best not to advertise it. It's better
to avoid it altogether but at least don't advertise it.
Ignoramus21499
I release things under the GNU Public License to make sure that people
have no doubt that they can legally use and share my programs, and
that they cannot possibly "get caught" as long as they do not infringe
on software freedom of these programs.
i
Banty
says...
>
>On 2008-02-14, Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Maybe "sharing".. :-D
>>
>>
>> Banty (BTW, can I share your car?)
>
>I have a pickup truck and, as a matter of fact, do lend it to my
>friends from time to time.
But I'm not a friend not fair you not giving it to me only to your friends, all
I wanna do is have your pickup truck and share it with friends. If you don't
notice it gone, what's it to you.
BTW - how do you earn your living?
Banty (you're immoral you're not letting me be nice to my friends...)
Ignoramus21499
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:37:44 -0600, Ignoramus21499 wrote:
>
>> On 2008-02-14, Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> Maybe "sharing".. :-D
>>>
>>>
>>> Banty (BTW, can I share your car?)
>>
>> I have a pickup truck and, as a matter of fact, do lend it to my
>> friends from time to time.
>>
>> You can have several of my free software programs that I wrote and am
>> releasing under the GNU Public License.
>>
>> One of them, for example, allows you to sell on eBay from command line
>> (opening up numerous possibilities for automation).
>>
>> i
>
> If you get a request from Roy Schestowitz for this thing, don't give
> it to him! He will figure out a way to hook it into his AI SPAMMING
> program and send his Linux SPAM over to eBay, somehow.
Since you have to pay for listing stuff on eBay, the incentives are
against excessive listings.
> BTW kudos for releasing your program via GNU.
Thanks. I released a few more programs "via GNU", and am even making
money from one of them.
> That's more than [Homer] the hypocrite will do with his Linux
> comp.os.linux.advocacy stats program.
>
> He, however expects everyone else to give away THEIR programs and
> source code.
>
> That's why we call him [Homer] the hypocrite.
>
I would say that a linux newsgroup stats program should indeed ideally
be available under free terms.
I do not share your feelings about Roy, however.
Maybe I should write my own if no alternatives exist. So, are there
any alternatives, free newsgroup stats programs?
i
Ignoramus21499
From movie theater shows, for instance. Or (shudder) from product
placement.
i
Ignoramus21499
> In article <eNKdnWDxEMsFOyna...@giganews.com>, Ignoramus21499
> says...
>>
>>On 2008-02-14, Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> Maybe "sharing".. :-D
>>>
>>>
>>> Banty (BTW, can I share your car?)
>>
>>I have a pickup truck and, as a matter of fact, do lend it to my
>>friends from time to time.
>
> But I'm not a friend not fair you not giving it to me only to your friends, all
> I wanna do is have your pickup truck and share it with friends. If you don't
> notice it gone, what's it to you.
If you could make a copy of my truck, I would surely let you. (sans
license plates)
> BTW - how do you earn your living?
Computer programming and own some websites.
It is actually a very comfortable living.
i
st...@worldbadminton.com
>>
>
> I release things under the GNU Public License to make sure that people
> have no doubt that they can legally use and share my programs, and
> that they cannot possibly "get caught" as long as they do not infringe
> on software freedom of these programs.
>
I know it is crazy to jump into this, but---
Since you feel free to ignore everyone else's license/copyright/etc,
why in the world would you expect anyone to abide by yours?
Are you so important that _your_ rights count but nobody else's?
Stan
--
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com
Banty
says...
How can they infringe on software freedom of the programs?
Banty
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:40:23 +0000, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> Moshe Goldfarb <brick....@gmail.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>> You are a typical Linux user.
>>
>> Riiiiiiight...
>>
>>> Cheap.
>>> Hypocritical..
>>> And a thief.
>>
>> Where's the theft?
> See, what did I tell you.
> Here we have another Linux loony who thinks he is entitled to everything
> for free.
> This one is quite a specimen!
> He can't even conceive of the concept of theft because everything is free
> for him to take, illegally if necessary.
I'm quite aware of the concept of theft.
And much as the major copyright owning corporations would love to redefine
the word to suit their needs, copyright infringement is not and has never
been theft.
Soooo sorry to squash your puny little arguments.
> Downloading commercial, copyrighted movies without paying for them is
> theft.
Copyright infringement.
NOT theft, dumbo.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Music and movies.
He has?
I don't recall him admitting engaging in shoplifting or burglary.
He didn't even admit to mugging someone for a DVD or CD they were
carrying... So... what did he steal?
What physical property did he deprive some other entity (be it person or
company) of?
Copying a file is not theft because the so called "victim" is not deprived
of the original.
Ignoramus21499
> In comp.os.linux.misc Ignoramus21499 <ignoram...@nospam.21499.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I release things under the GNU Public License to make sure that people
>> have no doubt that they can legally use and share my programs, and
>> that they cannot possibly "get caught" as long as they do not infringe
>> on software freedom of these programs.
>>
>
> I know it is crazy to jump into this, but---
>
> Since you feel free to ignore everyone else's license/copyright/etc,
> why in the world would you expect anyone to abide by yours?
> Are you so important that _your_ rights count but nobody else's?
I find it a little unlikely that someone would infringe on my licenses
due to their economic nature. Personally I would not sue someone for
violating terms of the GPL attached to my software, precisely because
I do not like copyrights and how they are enforced. So, to me, GPL on
my software provides peaace of mind to the users. They know that they
use free software.
i
Ignoramus21499
For example, by reselling it and not providing source code. Not very
likely to happen, and I would not go around suing people for violating
this condition, but GPL prohibits such actions.
Banty
says...
>
>On 2008-02-14, Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <eNKdnWDxEMsFOyna...@giganews.com>, Ignoramus21499
>> says...
>>>
>>>On 2008-02-14, Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> Maybe "sharing".. :-D
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Banty (BTW, can I share your car?)
>>>
>>>I have a pickup truck and, as a matter of fact, do lend it to my
>>>friends from time to time.
>>
>>But I'm not a friend not fair you not giving it to me only to your friends, all
>> I wanna do is have your pickup truck and share it with friends. If you don't
>> notice it gone, what's it to you.
>
>If you could make a copy of my truck, I would surely let you. (sans
>license plates)
>
>> BTW - how do you earn your living?
>
>Computer programming and own some websites.
>
>It is actually a very comfortable living.
Can I shadow a copy of your websites? Give me your code, too.
You'll still have your programs and your websites, they're not like candy
bars...
Banty
Banty
>
>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>>>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>>> Ingoramus21499 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Anyhow, my question is that of child rearing. I have a 6 year old.
>>>>>
>>>>>Should I tell him that "your dad is a pirate" or not? Would it hurt
>>>>>him to know that his dad is a pirate?
>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter. In either case, he'll eventually figure-out that
>>>> you're an immoral, thieving scumbag.
>>>
>>>What's he stolen?
>
>> Music and movies.
>
>He has?
>I don't recall him admitting engaging in shoplifting or burglary.
>He didn't even admit to mugging someone for a DVD or CD they were
>carrying... So... what did he steal?
>
>What physical property did he deprive some other entity (be it person or
>company) of?
>
Notice how these folks always specify "physical"...
>Copying a file is not theft because the so called "victim" is not deprived
>of the original.
Have you heard of theft of services?
Banty
Banty
says...
But movie theaters would like to share, too!
Banty
Johnny Rocket
> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>
> > spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> >>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> >>> Ingoramus21499 wrote:
>
> >>>>Anyhow, my question is that of child rearing. I have a 6 year old.
>
> >>>>Should I tell him that "your dad is a pirate" or not? Would it hurt
> >>>>him to know that his dad is a pirate?
>
> >>> Doesn't matter. In either case, he'll eventually figure-out that
> >>> you're an immoral, thieving scumbag.
>
> >>What's he stolen?
> > Music and movies.
>
> He has?
> I don't recall him admitting engaging in shoplifting or burglary.
> He didn't even admit to mugging someone for a DVD or CD they were
> carrying... So... what did he steal?
>
> What physical property did he deprive some other entity (be it person or
> company) of?
>
> Copying a file is not theft because the so called "victim" is not deprived
> of the original.
Idiot. So "identity theft" isn't a crime because no physical property
was stolen and the "victim" still gets to keep their name?
Or "stealing" the recipe for Coca-Cola isn't a crime because Coke
still has the original formula so there's no damage their either?
Or "stealing" military secrets isn't a crime because no physical
property was stolen and the USA still gets to keep their nukes?
You are simply an IDIOT. Do yourself a favor and return your piece of
shit degree back to the website you bought it from. It wasn't worth
the $5 you paid for it.
> --
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> | spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
> |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
> | in | suck is probably the day they start making |
> | Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JEDIDIAH
> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:55:42 +0000, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>
>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:11:10 +0000, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:34:42 -0600, Ingoramus21499 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are a typical Linux user.
>>>>>> Cheap.
>>>>>> Hypocritical..
>>>>>> And a thief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully your son doesn't turn out like you.
>>>>> Newsflash: Linux is free and "free". So how can piracy or theft come
>>>>> into it?
>>>> He's talking about movies you idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Linux can't be stolen.
>>>>
>>>> Hell, Linux can't even be given away!
>>>>
>>>> It's free every day of the year and yet still has about 0.6 percent of the
>>>> desktop market.
>>> "You are a typical linux user"
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> Inference? Relevance?
>>
>> Cheap.
>> Everything for free.
>> Steal any Divix CODECS this week?
I dunno. What I saw was a big fat sign with a big
red arrow pointing to a table and a basket. The basket
had CDs and the sign said "Get your free codecs here!".
>>
>>
>
> So *now* you see the connection.
>
> And no, I haven't stolen anything this week. Have you?
chrisv
chrisv
>Copyright infringement.
>NOT theft, dumbo.
OK, whatever. It's immoral, whatever you call it.
Tim Smith
Ingoramus21499 <ingoram...@NOSPAM.21499.invalid> wrote:
> I am a pirate. I download music and movies without paying for them,
> using Bit Torrent. I also share them after I download them and make
> sure that my share ratio (amount of gigabytes that I upload, divided
> by gigabytes that I download) stays above 2, so that I contribute to
> the worldwide piracy.
> I do not buy the usual argument of "if no one pays for music or
> videos, no one will write music or make videos". The greedy people
> surely will not do so. But I am not going to miss their
> productions. So the music and videos, would be done only by people who
> have a non-commercial interest in art. Those who want to make a movie
> because they want to actualize themselves. Great.
Here's an experiment for you. Take a look at the list of movies you've
downloaded, watched, and enjoyed.
Where they all movies made non-commercially by people who wanted to
actualize themselves?
--
--Tim Smith
Stephanie
> On 2008-02-14, Stephanie <ha...@noway.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Ingoramus21499" <ingoram...@NOSPAM.21499.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:qaadnZj7V58v5ina...@giganews.com...
>>> I am a pirate. I download music and movies without paying for them,
>>> using Bit Torrent. I also share them after I download them and make
>>> sure that my share ratio (amount of gigabytes that I upload, divided
>>> by gigabytes that I download) stays above 2, so that I contribute to
>>> the worldwide piracy.
>>>
>>> free. I do not use proprietary software.
>>>
>>> I am completely unapologetic for it. I do not believe in im aginary
>>> intellectual property.
>>
>>
>
> I do not believe in imaginary property as it applies to software, as
> well.
>
>>> I do not buy the usual argument of "if no one pays for music or
>>> videos, no one will write music or make videos". The greedy people
>>> surely will not do so. But I am not going to miss their
>>> productions. So the music and videos, would be done only by people
>>> who have a non-commercial interest in art. Those who want to make a
>>> movie because they want to actualize themselves. Great.
>>
>
> They can eat and shoot movies at different time (and can have a day
> job also). Also, there are ways of making money from performance art,
> such as concerts, so popular performers would still make money, just
> not as much.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Should I tell him that "your dad is a pirate" or not? Would it hurt
>>> him to know that his dad is a pirate?
>>>
>>>
>>> My own answer is that I should tell him, and that he should know,
>>> but I wanted to hear what you think.
>>
>> tell him, why and what will be the impact?
>
> I would say something like "your dad is a pirate and gets movies and
> music for free and shares it with other people".
>
So you are planning on not sharing with him the fact that it is illegal? I
would be concerned that he will not trust you to lead him straight later.
Also I would be concerned with the Mr Hero connotation that Pirate has. Also
itmight be interesting to share with him what happened to Blackbeard, who
also engaged in illegal activity. Now granted, no one is likely to behead
you... But your choice of words seems weird to me to be telling a 6yo.
> As to "why", I think that it is to reinforce what he was taught
> before, namely, that sharing is a good thing and is to be encouraged.
>
So is it also appropriate for the grocery store to unwittingly share their
candy bar with him for free? Look, I don't have an enormous issue with music
downloading. But you seem to not have thought this through all the way. It
is generally considered wise to obey the law at the bare minimum so you dont
suffer the consequences of failure to do so. 6yos are not stupid, and if I
recall correctly, yours is somewhat less stupid than average. So he is going
to see Daddy making an exception to this don't do illegal things idea. What
are you going to fill in so that he understands that breaking the law has
consquences. Etcetera.
>> If you feel that you are doing wrong and are going to have to dance
>> around to explain why you are doing it even though it is illegal,
>> then really, rather than worry about what you are going to say to
>> your child, you should stop doing it. I don't think that is the
>> case. So I would
>>
>> - Make sure my moral argument sits well in my *own* mind and heart.
>
> I agree.
>
>> - Explain it only at such time as there is a fighting chance he will
>> understand what I mean compared to say, stealing a candy bar at the
>> store.
>
> There is a difference.
>
> If, say, you have a candy bar, and I take it, then you no longer have
> a candy bar.
>
> However, if I have a movie, and share it with my friend, then we both
> will have a movie.
Kinda shaky. To a 6yo the store still has a whole CASE of candy bars. Hell
12 grocery store aisles full.
>
>> - Make sure the morality of one kind of stealing compared to another
>> is understandable and meritorious so it does not lead to massive
>> confusion down the line.
>
> Another great point.
>
>> I, personally, think your arguments stink. And your 6yo may well be
>> able to shred them as well. I would like to get my son, your son on
>> debate team A against you and my husband on debate team B. I wonder
>> who would win!
>
> Sounds like a great family building exercise!
>
> i
Or destroying. Personally, if you could manage not to share, don't share.
Give it time.
chrisv
>> How would movie makers make money?
>
>From movie theater shows, for instance
Naturally, since it's not practical for "pirates" to make a
high-quality copy of the movie, at that point.
Of course, as soon as high-quality copies are available, you'll swipe
it, right?
Tim Smith
> >>What's he stolen?
>
> > Music and movies.
>
> He has?
> I don't recall him admitting engaging in shoplifting or burglary.
> He didn't even admit to mugging someone for a DVD or CD they were
> carrying... So... what did he steal?
>
> What physical property did he deprive some other entity (be it person or
> company) of?
>
> Copying a file is not theft because the so called "victim" is not deprived
> of the original.
Are you playing word games because you don't have a real point to make?
--
--Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH
>>
>>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>>>> Ingoramus21499 wrote:
>>What physical property did he deprive some other entity (be it person or
>>company) of?
>>
>
> Notice how these folks always specify "physical"...
The abuse of terms by others makes this necessary.
If it would make you happier we could use actual legal terms
like "real property" and "personal property".
Physical things are scarce. The notion of exclusion makes
remarkably more sense with physical objects since harm and
deprivation are much more obvious and much more real.
>
>>Copying a file is not theft because the so called "victim" is not deprived
>>of the original.
>
> Have you heard of theft of services?
Something else that is a recent invention. The nice thing about
genuine theft is it is something that is unambigiously not OK and this
goes back to the dawn of civilization. The earliest written laws
mention the theft of physical things.
>
> Banty
JEDIDIAH
> On Feb 14, 4:27 pm, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>
>> > spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> >>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> >>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>> >>> Ingoramus21499 wrote:
>>
>> >>>>Anyhow, my question is that of child rearing. I have a 6 year old.
>>
>> >>>>Should I tell him that "your dad is a pirate" or not? Would it hurt
>> >>>>him to know that his dad is a pirate?
>>
>> >>> Doesn't matter. In either case, he'll eventually figure-out that
>> >>> you're an immoral, thieving scumbag.
>>
>> >>What's he stolen?
>> > Music and movies.
>>
>> He has?
>> I don't recall him admitting engaging in shoplifting or burglary.
>> He didn't even admit to mugging someone for a DVD or CD they were
>> carrying... So... what did he steal?
>>
>> What physical property did he deprive some other entity (be it person or
>> company) of?
>>
>> Copying a file is not theft because the so called "victim" is not deprived
>> of the original.
>
You are trying to conflate things that are mass produced and
distributed as widely as possible with SECRETS.
Who's the idiot.
The harm that tends to come from the abuse of secrets doesn't
come from merely from the fact that the information has been
replicated.
>
> Idiot. So "identity theft" isn't a crime because no physical property
> was stolen and the "victim" still gets to keep their name?
>
> Or "stealing" the recipe for Coca-Cola isn't a crime because Coke
> still has the original formula so there's no damage their either?
>
> Or "stealing" military secrets isn't a crime because no physical
> property was stolen and the USA still gets to keep their nukes?
>
>
>
> You are simply an IDIOT. Do yourself a favor and return your piece of
> shit degree back to the website you bought it from. It wasn't worth
> the $5 you paid for it.
>
>
>
>
>> --
>> ______________________________________________________________________________
>> | spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
>> |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
>> | in | suck is probably the day they start making |
>> | Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
JEDIDIAH
No, he is making a genuine legal and economic distinction.
Infact, you will likely recieve a much lesser punishment from
actual theft than you would from computer piracy. Although you
are probably much more likely to be caught commiting genuine
theft.
JEDIDIAH
Not necessarily.
If I were to seed a torrent of Beatles 1 there would be
absolutely NOTHING morally wrong with that. The same goes for
Rollerball. Only an abusive state of the law would make it a
potential felony for me to do so. That abusive state of the
law would also make it a large civil liability.
Ignoramus21499
>>> BTW - how do you earn your living?
>>
>>Computer programming and own some websites.
>>
>>It is actually a very comfortable living.
>
> Can I shadow a copy of your websites? Give me your code, too.
>
> You'll still have your programs and your websites, they're not like candy
> bars...
>
Actually, I thought about releasing my code under the GPL. I mean code
of http://www.algebra.com/.
I do not think that doing so, would harm my business all that much. I
make money because people come to my site. If more sites appeared that
used my code, visitors probably will still come to my site and might
even become more aware of it.
However, I decided against releasing my code because it is messy due
to years of proprietary development, tied to my linux account, etc,
and I do not want to deal with supporting it.
Think of Wikipedia, they let anyone copy their site, and yet are one
of the top websites. Sharing makes them more important,and more
visible, and brings more visitors.
Slashdot released their code under GPL, and it did not harm them
either.
i
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>>Copying a file is not theft because the so called "victim" is not deprived
>>of the original.
> Have you heard of theft of services?
If you mean "Ooo, he copied a file which he would otherwise have paid money
for..."
Rubbish. Chances are, if the person was going to watch the film in the
cinema, he WOULD.
There's also the issue of "try before you buy"
MANY people download music illegally before they actually BUY it.
Meaning of course, the sale wouldn't've been made WITHOUT the illegal file
transfer in the first place.
As for TV episodes.... So big deal, some people download them in a country
where they won't otherwise be seen for days, weeks or months in advance.
Doesn't mean they won't actually watch the prog when it comes on too.
The Natural Philosopher
> I am a pirate. I download music and movies without paying for them,
> using Bit Torrent. I also share them after I download them and make
> sure that my share ratio (amount of gigabytes that I upload, divided
> by gigabytes that I download) stays above 2, so that I contribute to
> the worldwide piracy.
>
> I do not pirate software, however, as I only use software that is
> free. I do not use proprietary software.
>
> I am completely unapologetic for it. I do not believe in im aginary
> intellectual property.
>
> videos, no one will write music or make videos".
Obviously not: You get it for free.
>The greedy people
> surely will not do so. But I am not going to miss their
> productions.
Its not greed, its business.
You have just helpe put thousands of studios and their staff out of
business.
~Well done you!
So the music and videos, would be done only by people who
> have a non-commercial interest in art.
And zero money to spend on tools to make it with.
Those who want to make a movie
> because they want to actualize themselves. Great.
>
So music will get like Usenet, full of self opinioated ego trippers with
nothing better to do that talk about themselves.
> Anyhow, my question is that of child rearing. I have a 6 year old.
>
> Should I tell him that "your dad is a pirate" or not? Would it hurt
> him to know that his dad is a pirate?
Better he knows before you get arrested. OTOH, maybe he will blab to the
kids in the schoolground, and they will grass you iup.
Gosh what a dilemma to save a few cents on CD's..
>
> He is already aware that I get his movies at "Pirate Bay".
>
> My own answer is that I should tell him, and that he should know, but
> I wanted to hear what you think.
>
You dont want to hear what I think at all.
You just want someone to agree with you to make you feel better.
Have a wank and avoid making more babies. You are setting them a truly
dangerous example.
> Thank you!
>
> i
AZ Nomad
>On 2008-02-14, Moshe Goldfarb <brick....@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>I do not share your feelings about Roy, however.
>Maybe I should write my own if no alternatives exist. So, are there
>any alternatives, free newsgroup stats programs?
please don't feed the troll
rjack
> I am a pirate. I download music and movies without paying for them,
> using Bit Torrent. I also share them after I download them and make
> sure that my share ratio (amount of gigabytes that I upload, divided
> by gigabytes that I download) stays above 2, so that I contribute to
> the worldwide piracy.
I am a crack dealer. I sell my crack and smack without fear of
consequence. I also share a high now and then with my little
friends. Six is not too young to try a little high now and then.
After all we can pick and choose our path in life without any
interference from society and its laws. To hell with government
and laws we disagree with – we are free to pick and choose
according to our own idea of morality. Beauty and morality is in
the eye of the beholder. Snort, my little one, snort.
Regards,
Rjack :)
bval...@aol.com
21499.invalid> wrote:
> On 2008-02-14, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> >>Anyhow, my question is that of child rearing. I have a 6 year old.
>
> >>Should I tell him that "your dad is a pirate" or not? Would it hurt
> >>him to know that his dad is a pirate?
>
> > you're an immoral, thieving scumbag.
> Or, perhaps, he wil grow up to be a caring, sharing, person.
.
If he does, it will be in spite of your thieving ways, not because of
it. What you almost certainly will raise is an entitled monster, who
believes that he can take anything he feels like.
When a parent teaches that a certain kind of theft is acceptable, the
child can only make the leap that ALL forms of theft are acceptable.
After all, if it's OK to download, then why not shoplift a CD from
Tower Video? And if it's OK to shoplife a CD, why not break into the
neighbor's home to steal a computer? After all, property is theft,
right?
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Idiot. So "identity theft" isn't a crime because no physical property
> was stolen and the "victim" still gets to keep their name?
> Or "stealing" the recipe for Coca-Cola isn't a crime because Coke
> still has the original formula so there's no damage their either?
> Or "stealing" military secrets isn't a crime because no physical
> property was stolen and the USA still gets to keep their nukes?
Where did I say anything about such things not being crimes?
They're not theft.
1 is fruad
Hint: people were pretending to be other people long before the internet.
I refer you to an episode of randall and hopkirk [deceased] as proof of
such.
The actual motivation for the fraud may well be theft of personal property,
but the actual "identity theft" is not theft, it is fraud.
1 is industrial espionage
1 is international espionage
See the difference?
> You are simply an IDIOT.
You are simply incapable of the simple faculty of reading english and
understanding it.
> Do yourself a favor and return your piece of
> shit degree back to the website you bought it from. It wasn't worth
> the $5 you paid for it.
Ooo look... another moron attacking me for my audacity of saying I've got a
qualification they obviously lack...
*shock horror*
Hint: don't take advice from hardon, he's a bigger moron and liar than you
could ever hope to be.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
amicus_curious
"Ingoramus21499" <ingoram...@NOSPAM.21499.invalid> wrote in message >
> him to know that his dad is a pirate?
>
would understand. Legally, you are performing an unauthorized conversion
which means using someone's property without their express permission. Thus
you are a cheapskate and are an ingrate that should be scorned by one and
all. If you use it, you should pay for it if that is the way that society
is organized. You are antisocial and should be ashamed of yourself. When
and if your kid finds out, he will scorn you as well unless you turn him
into an equal cheapskate and ungrateful abuser.
amicus_curious
cc
21499.invalid> wrote:
> On 2008-02-14, Banty <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe "sharing".. :-D
>
> > Banty (BTW, can I share your car?)
>
> I have a pickup truck and, as a matter of fact, do lend it to my
> friends from time to time.
>
> releasing under the GNU Public License.
>
I don't believe in intellectual property or licenses either. There
shouldn't be any problem with me stealing your code.
Andre Majorel
> In comp.os.linux.misc Ignoramus21499
> <ignoram...@nospam.21499.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> I release things under the GNU Public License to make sure that people
>> have no doubt that they can legally use and share my programs, and
>> that they cannot possibly "get caught" as long as they do not infringe
>> on software freedom of these programs.
>
> I know it is crazy to jump into this, but---
>
> Since you feel free to ignore everyone else's license/copyright/etc,
> why in the world would you expect anyone to abide by yours?
>
> Are you so important that _your_ rights count but nobody else's?
By making your work available under the terms of the GPL, you
allow everybody to "pirate" it (freely redistribute it). In that
regard, the OP cannot be accused of wanting to have it both ways.
--
André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
(Counterfeit: acuq...@hoc.com uheg...@flack.com)
"I drink, I smoke, I gamble, I chase girls--but postal chess is
one vice I don't have." -- Mikhail Tal
--
André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
(Counterfeit: fup...@darn.com je...@ahead.com)
"I drink, I smoke, I gamble, I chase girls--but postal chess is
one vice I don't have." -- Mikhail Tal
cc
21499.invalid> wrote:
> On 2008-02-14, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Ignoramus21499 wrote:
>
> >>releasing under the GNU Public License.
>
> > like people like you give a rat's ass if they've got permission to
> > take what they want (as long as they don't get caught, of course).
>
> I release things under the GNU Public License to make sure that people
> have no doubt that they can legally use and share my programs, and
> that they cannot possibly "get caught" as long as they do not infringe
> on software freedom of these programs.
>
You can infringe on the rights of others, but others can't do the same
to you and your code? Interesting concept.
cc
> On 2008-02-14, Banty <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> >>> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >>>>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> >>>>> Ingoramus21499 wrote:
> [deletia]
> >>What physical property did he deprive some other entity (be it person or
> >>company) of?
>
> > Notice how these folks always specify "physical"...
>
> The abuse of terms by others makes this necessary.
>
> If it would make you happier we could use actual legal terms
> like "real property" and "personal property".
>
> Physical things are scarce. The notion of exclusion makes
> remarkably more sense with physical objects since harm and
> deprivation are much more obvious and much more real.
>
>
>
> >>Copying a file is not theft because the so called "victim" is not deprived
> >>of the original.
>
> > Have you heard of theft of services?
>
> Something else that is a recent invention. The nice thing about
> genuine theft is it is something that is unambigiously not OK and this
> goes back to the dawn of civilization. The earliest written laws
> mention the theft of physical things.
>
Because the only things around to steal were physical. Times have
changed and the updated meanings given to words reflect that. "You
stole my idea" goes back to the dawn of civilization too. It may not
have been written down though.
Banty
>
>On 2008-02-14, Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>In article <7aoe85-...@ridcully.ntlworld.com>, spi...@freenet.co.uk says...
>>>
>>>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>>> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>>>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>>>>> Ingoramus21499 wrote:
>[deletia]
>>>What physical property did he deprive some other entity (be it person or
>>>company) of?
>>>
>>
>> Notice how these folks always specify "physical"...
>
> The abuse of terms by others makes this necessary.
>
> If it would make you happier we could use actual legal terms
>like "real property" and "personal property".
>
> Physical things are scarce. The notion of exclusion makes
>remarkably more sense with physical objects since harm and
>deprivation are much more obvious and much more real.
Heh. I can just hear you saying that :) "The noe-shun of exclooosion...".
So creative work is unlimited, you mean :-/
>
>>
>>>Copying a file is not theft because the so called "victim" is not deprived
>>>of the original.
>>
>> Have you heard of theft of services?
>
> Something else that is a recent invention. The nice thing about
>genuine theft is it is something that is unambigiously not OK and this
>goes back to the dawn of civilization. The earliest written laws
>mention the theft of physical things.
Meaning - you don't think there is such a thing as theft of services..?
Banty
Banty
OK. So - would you care to address his *other* points?? Below...
And while you're doing this, can you respond *after* the part you're responding
to, which is the convention?
>
>>
>> Idiot. So "identity theft" isn't a crime because no physical property
>> was stolen and the "victim" still gets to keep their name?
>>
>> Or "stealing" the recipe for Coca-Cola isn't a crime because Coke
>> still has the original formula so there's no damage their either?
>>
>> Or "stealing" military secrets isn't a crime because no physical
>> property was stolen and the USA still gets to keep their nukes?
>>
>>
>>
>> You are simply an IDIOT. Do yourself a favor and return your piece of
>> shit degree back to the website you bought it from. It wasn't worth
>> the $5 you paid for it.
Banty
Banty
<reply_in_group-1B9...@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Tim Smith
says...
These folks honestly believe this. Not being able to "help a friend" or "share
with a neighbor" is held up as the primary evil. (Never mind that what is being
helped with, or shared, is not the work of the helper or sharer...)
Check out www.gnu.org
Banty
Banty
says...
>
>
>
>Think of Wikipedia, they let anyone copy their site, and yet are one
>of the top websites. Sharing makes them more important,and more
>visible, and brings more visitors.
And they have to go begging for contributions.
Banty
JEDIDIAH
> In article <slrnfr9f3...@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH says...
>>
>>On 2008-02-14, Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>In article <7aoe85-...@ridcully.ntlworld.com>, spi...@freenet.co.uk says...
>>>>
>>>>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>>>> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>>>>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>>>>>> Ingoramus21499 wrote:
>>[deletia]
>>>>What physical property did he deprive some other entity (be it person or
>>>>company) of?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Notice how these folks always specify "physical"...
>>
>> The abuse of terms by others makes this necessary.
>>
>> If it would make you happier we could use actual legal terms
>>like "real property" and "personal property".
>>
>> Physical things are scarce. The notion of exclusion makes
>>remarkably more sense with physical objects since harm and
>>deprivation are much more obvious and much more real.
>
> Heh. I can just hear you saying that :) "The noe-shun of exclooosion...".
>
> So creative work is unlimited, you mean :-/
More importantly, creative work is HIGHLY DERIVATIVE.
[deletia]
--
Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
events not in their control.
JEDIDIAH
You mean they didn't have things like books and music?
Sophocles might beg to differ.
--
Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
events not in their control.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
JEDIDIAH
><reply_in_group-1B9...@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Tim Smith
> says...
>>
>>In article <7aoe85-...@ridcully.ntlworld.com>, spi...@freenet.co.uk
>>wrote:
>>> >>What's he stolen?
>>>
>>> > Music and movies.
>>>
>>> He has?
>>> I don't recall him admitting engaging in shoplifting or burglary.
>>> He didn't even admit to mugging someone for a DVD or CD they were
>>> carrying... So... what did he steal?
>>>
>>> What physical property did he deprive some other entity (be it person or
>>> company) of?
>>>
>>> Copying a file is not theft because the so called "victim" is not deprived
>>> of the original.
>>
>>Are you playing word games because you don't have a real point to make?
>>
>
> These folks honestly believe this. Not being able to "help a friend" or "share
That and we view "intellectual property" in the context of it's original intent.
[deletia]
Lines have been blurred to suit particular corporate interests and rhetoric
hasbeen chosen specifically to appeal to the BusyBody mentality common in a
lot of people.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> with a neighbor" is held up as the primary evil. (Never mind that what is being
> helped with, or shared, is not the work of the helper or sharer...)
Where, in all of this conversation have I stated anything about copyright
infringement not being illegal?
My only argument is it is NOT theft. It is copyright infringement.
Something that hasn't even been a criminal offence for more than 10 years.
Civil offense, yes, you could always get sued for it, but it was only when
the greedy mega-media-corporations got their hooks into the judicial system
that they actually managed to made it criminal.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignoramus21499
I think that if my site was 1/100 as successful as Wikipedia, I would
be ecstatic.
i
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> I wanna do is have your pickup truck and share it with friends. If you don't
> notice it gone, what's it to you.
Come up with a matter replication machine and I'm sure he'd be only happy to
allow you to take a copy of it.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Road to Damascus
<siniste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Copying a file is not theft because the so called "victim" is not deprived
>> of the original.
>
Poor choice of metaphors.
>
>Idiot. So "identity theft" isn't a crime because no physical property
>was stolen and the "victim" still gets to keep their name?
At any given moment quite a few people are in possession of all our
personal information, yet until it's used to commit an actual crime,
fraud, the imaginary crime "identity theft" hasn't occurred.
>
>Or "stealing" the recipe for Coca-Cola isn't a crime because Coke
>still has the original formula so there's no damage their either?
Coca-Cola refused ever to patent their recipe, since it would then be
available for public scrutiny...and the patent would have long ago
expired. Anyone is free to reverse engineer it, PERFECTLY, and no
crime has taken place.
>
>Or "stealing" military secrets isn't a crime because no physical
>property was stolen and the USA still gets to keep their nukes?
Only the USA has military secrets???
Swampfox
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:mia9r3ttm3umqk0gp...@4ax.com...
> Ignoramus21499 wrote:
>
>>They can eat and shoot movies at different time (and
>>can have a day
>>job also). Also, there are ways of making money from
>>performance art,
>>such as concerts, so popular performers would still
>>make money, just
>>not as much.
>
> How would movie makers make money?
By people watching them in the cinema, just like they
always have.
Movie attendances are up, not down, and the only
income studios are deprived of is a relatively small
percentage of the post screening DVD sales, which is a
comparatively recent income stream in any case.
Recorded music is another matter, and CD sales have
suffered from piracy without a doubt, although not by
as much as we are led to believe, but live concert
attendances are healthy and popular artists are still
making extraordinary amounts of money.
I downloaded a 60's blues CD yesterday.
If I couldn't get it free would I have purchased it -
no.
Sarah Vaughan
> On 2008-02-14, Stephanie <ha...@noway.net> wrote:
>> "Ingoramus21499" <ingoram...@NOSPAM.21499.invalid> wrote in message
[...]
>>> I do not buy the usual argument of "if no one pays for music or
>>> surely will not do so. But I am not going to miss their
>>> have a non-commercial interest in art. Those who want to make a movie
>>> because they want to actualize themselves. Great.
>
> They can eat and shoot movies at different time (and can have a day
> job also).
Thereby being unable to spend nearly as much time as they'd like on
their art, and possibly being unable to produce some decent stuff that
they could otherwise have produced, due to having to spend much of their
time earning a living.
I'm not getting into the whole piracy argument - I just wanted to refute
the implication that the only reason to want paying for ones efforts is
that you're a greedy bastard only in it for the money, and I wanted to
point out why this is not a very useful theory to hold. It is perfectly
possible to care passionately about what you do yet also face the
reality that you need to pay the bills and keep a roof over your head.
If we refuse to pay people for doing something that they love to do, on
the grounds that they shouldn't be in it for the money, then we set up a
situation where they have far less time to do what they want to do,
because they have to do something else to make money before they can get
any time to do whatever it is they love doing. If what they want to do
is something that we also want them to do, because we're benefiting from
their efforts, then refusing to pay them for it is simply cutting off
our noses to spite our faces.
(Please note here that I am responding to the fallacy quoted above in a
general sense, rather than specifically in terms of the context of piracy.)
All the best,
Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com
"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell
Banty
chrisv
>Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>> But I'm not a friend not fair you not giving it to me only to your friends, all
>> I wanna do is have your pickup truck and share it with friends. If you don't
>> notice it gone, what's it to you.
>
>Come up with a matter replication machine and I'm sure he'd be only happy to
>allow you to take a copy of it.
You can't be sure of that. Someone put effort into the design, and
deserves to be compensated for it.
chrisv
>Only an abusive state of the law
A very bizarre point of view, IMO. Sorry.
chrisv
>If I couldn't get it free would I have purchased it - no.
Then go without.
Banty
>
>On 2008-02-15, Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article
>><reply_in_group-1B9...@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Tim Smith
>> says...
>>>
>>>In article <7aoe85-...@ridcully.ntlworld.com>, spi...@freenet.co.uk
>>>wrote:
>>>> >>What's he stolen?
>>>>
>>>> > Music and movies.
>>>>
>>>> He has?
>>>> I don't recall him admitting engaging in shoplifting or burglary.
>>>> He didn't even admit to mugging someone for a DVD or CD they were
>>>> carrying... So... what did he steal?
>>>>
>>>> What physical property did he deprive some other entity (be it person or
>>>> company) of?
>>>>
>>>> Copying a file is not theft because the so called "victim" is not deprived
>>>> of the original.
>>>
>>>Are you playing word games because you don't have a real point to make?
>>>
>>
>>These folks honestly believe this. Not being able to "help a friend" or "share
>
>That and we view "intellectual property" in the context of it's original intent.
Was it you who wrote the poorly-rated Wikipedia article on that? :) (Or maybe
it was 'Ignoramus'...)
>
>[deletia]
>
>Lines have been blurred to suit particular corporate interests and rhetoric
>hasbeen chosen specifically to appeal to the BusyBody mentality common in a
>lot of people.
>
You sure have an obtuse style. What the heck does 'busy body' have to do with
it? Busy bodies feel compelled to get into *other* people's matters. No
connection to the concept of intellectual property. If anything, it's the *busy
body* who is anxious to find out and exploit what their neighbors are coming up
with, and frustrated if he can't geddit or has to (::gasp::) pay for it.
Ownership of one's own ideas and creative efforts, be they sculptures (which
folks like you seem to recognize) or sound waves which need to be recreated for
presentation (which folks like you *don't* seem to recognize), not a new
concept, and it's one that is widely accepted, even inherent to instinctive
concepts of fairness. It does not need 'rhetoric'. Which is why I refer folks
to the gnu website with confidence that the overwhelming majority would be
astonished, rather than convinced.
Banty
Banty
>
>On 2008-02-15, Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <slrnfr9f3...@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH says...
>>>
>>>On 2008-02-14, Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <7aoe85-...@ridcully.ntlworld.com>, spi...@freenet.co.uk says...
>>>>>
>>>>>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>>>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>>>>> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>>>>>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>>>>>>> Ingoramus21499 wrote:
>>>[deletia]
>>>>>What physical property did he deprive some other entity (be it person or
>>>>>company) of?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Notice how these folks always specify "physical"...
>>>
>>> The abuse of terms by others makes this necessary.
>>>
>>> If it would make you happier we could use actual legal terms
>>>like "real property" and "personal property".
>>>
>>> Physical things are scarce. The notion of exclusion makes
>>>remarkably more sense with physical objects since harm and
>>>deprivation are much more obvious and much more real.
>>
>> Heh. I can just hear you saying that :) "The noe-shun of exclooosion...".
>>
>> So creative work is unlimited, you mean :-/
>
>More importantly, creative work is HIGHLY DERIVATIVE.
SO WHAT.
Banty
Banty
>> says...
>>>
>>>On 2008-02-14, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Ignoramus21499 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You can have several of my free software programs that I wrote and am
>>>>>releasing under the GNU Public License.
>>>>
>>>> Hell, why bother with things like the GNU Public License? It's not
>>>> like people like you give a rat's ass if they've got permission to
>>>> take what they want (as long as they don't get caught, of course).
>>>>
>>>
>>>I release things under the GNU Public License to make sure that people
>>>have no doubt that they can legally use and share my programs, and
>>>that they cannot possibly "get caught" as long as they do not infringe
>>>on software freedom of these programs.
>>
>>
>
>For example, by reselling it and not providing source code. Not very
>likely to happen, and I would not go around suing people for violating
>this condition, but GPL prohibits such actions.
So you have no confidence that people would rather get stuff for free than buy
it? That's what motivates *you*, isn't it.
Furthermore, if someone takes your code, adds value to it, then profits from
you, you STILL have the same code you started with (your copy still is yours
remember). If taking a copy, while leaving a copy, is not wrong - how it that
wrong??
You can add the same value, and *better* (if we're to believe that your love of
coding makes better code than another's desire to make a living from it), and
you'd still be ahead, right?
I mean, do you guys believe your own stuff, or don't you!?
It's a good observation others have made that this amounts to wanting control of
what *others* do with one's creations. While not wanting to allow others to
profit from their own.
Banty (talk about busybodies....)
Stephanie
The software company I used to work for would have LOVED if I had developed
software for them out of pure joy. Of course, I took no joy in it... But the
argument that art is tainted if the person got paid to do it makes no sense
to me.
Stephanie
> In article <w9Cdnb0eKZzVJSna...@giganews.com>,
> Ignoramus21499 says...
>>
>> On 2008-02-14, Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article <RaidnSUrjM4HLSna...@giganews.com>,
>>> Ignoramus21499 says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2008-02-14, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Ignoramus21499 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can have several of my free software programs that I wrote
>>>>>> and am releasing under the GNU Public License.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hell, why bother with things like the GNU Public License? It's
>>>>> not like people like you give a rat's ass if they've got
>>>>> permission to take what they want (as long as they don't get
>>>>> caught, of course).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I release things under the GNU Public License to make sure that
>>>> people have no doubt that they can legally use and share my
>>>> programs, and that they cannot possibly "get caught" as long as
>>>> they do not infringe on software freedom of these programs.
>>>
>>> How can they infringe on software freedom of the programs?
>>>
>>
>> For example, by reselling it and not providing source code. Not very
>> likely to happen, and I would not go around suing people for
>> violating this condition, but GPL prohibits such actions.
>
> So you have no confidence that people would rather get stuff for free
> than buy it? That's what motivates *you*, isn't it.
>
You certainly just made a case for who the "greedy bastard" is I think.
Can't be bothered to pay for it, but want it anyway.
Hadron
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:40:23 +0000, spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>> In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> Moshe Goldfarb <brick....@gmail.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
>>> You are a typical Linux user.
>>
>> Riiiiiiight...
>>
>>> Cheap.
>>> Hypocritical..
>>> And a thief.
>>
>> Where's the theft?
>
> See, what did I tell you.
> Here we have another Linux loony who thinks he is entitled to everything
> for free.
>
> This one is quite a specimen!
> He can't even conceive of the concept of theft because everything is free
> for him to take, illegally if necessary.
>
> Downloading commercial, copyrighted movies without paying for them is
> theft.
Andrew has a degree though don't forget. He *earned* the right to steal
things.
chrisv
> Ignoramus21499 says...
>> Banty wrote:
>>> Ignoramus21499 says...
>>>>
>>>>I release things under the GNU Public License to make sure that people
>>>>have no doubt that they can legally use and share my programs, and
>>>>that they cannot possibly "get caught" as long as they do not infringe
>>>>on software freedom of these programs.
>>>
>>> How can they infringe on software freedom of the programs?
>>
>>For example, by reselling it and not providing source code. Not very
>>likely to happen, and I would not go around suing people for violating
>>this condition, but GPL prohibits such actions.
>
>So you have no confidence that people would rather get stuff for free than buy
>it? That's what motivates *you*, isn't it.
>
>Furthermore, if someone takes your code, adds value to it, then profits from
>you, you STILL have the same code you started with (your copy still is yours
>remember). If taking a copy, while leaving a copy, is not wrong - how it that
>wrong??
You nailed him.
If someone creates a file that other people desire, they should be
compensated for it, if they want to be. If they want, they have the
right to release the file under a license, like the GPL, that puts
restrictions on what others may do with the file. Or they can put it
in the public domain. It should be the creator's choice, and if
others don't like the creator's choice, they should simply go without
or create their own.
The fact that it's "just a bunch of intangible bits that can be
distributed for essentially zero cost" has got nothing to do with it.
Banty
I take it your kids would have beeen less than thrilled. And less fed.
Banty
Banty
Right. There is nothing wrong with providing something for free in the public
domain, or releasing under license. These are but two out of several options as
to what one does with one's own creations. This anti-IP "free software"
movement is all about limiting *others'* options. It's about taking away
freedom from the productive and creative.
>
>The fact that it's "just a bunch of intangible bits that can be
>distributed for essentially zero cost" has got nothing to do with it.
>
Yep. Do these folks actually truly have such a lack of understanding of what is
valuable that is abstract, that other people overwhelmingly immediately
recognize? I really don't think so.
Actually what is being advocated is an alternate power structure for information
and creation. One that puts only the extremely technically astute at the
center. GPL is only about trying to keep it 'in the family', so to speak. If
they really believed their own stuff, there would be no GPL, only public domain.
Banty
chrisv
view?
Banty wrote:
>Right. There is nothing wrong with providing something for free in the public
>domain, or releasing under license. These are but two out of several options as
>to what one does with one's own creations. This anti-IP "free software"
>movement
You are lumping-together the "free software movement" and "anti-IP".
They are not the same thing, even if a subset of the "free software
movement" is "anti-IP".
>is all about limiting *others'* options.
There's nothing wrong with a creator limiting what others may do with
his creation, if that's what he wants to do.
>It's about taking away freedom from the productive and creative.
No, it is not.
>If they really believed their own stuff, there would be no GPL, only public domain.
No. The GPL is a fair and moral option for creators to have.
Ignoramus10962
> In article <w9Cdnb0eKZzVJSna...@giganews.com>, Ignoramus21499
> says...
>>
>>On 2008-02-14, Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> In article <RaidnSUrjM4HLSna...@giganews.com>, Ignoramus21499
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>>On 2008-02-14, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Ignoramus21499 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You can have several of my free software programs that I wrote and am
>>>>>>releasing under the GNU Public License.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hell, why bother with things like the GNU Public License? It's not
>>>>> like people like you give a rat's ass if they've got permission to
>>>>> take what they want (as long as they don't get caught, of course).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I release things under the GNU Public License to make sure that people
>>>>have no doubt that they can legally use and share my programs, and
>>>>that they cannot possibly "get caught" as long as they do not infringe
>>>>on software freedom of these programs.
>>>
>>> How can they infringe on software freedom of the programs?
>>>
>>
>>For example, by reselling it and not providing source code. Not very
>>likely to happen, and I would not go around suing people for violating
>>this condition, but GPL prohibits such actions.
>
> So you have no confidence that people would rather get stuff for
> free than buy it? That's what motivates *you*, isn't it.
Huh? I am providing this program for free, what is your problem
exactly?
> Furthermore, if someone takes your code, adds value to it, then
> profits from you, you STILL have the same code you started with
> (your copy still is yours remember). If taking a copy, while
> leaving a copy, is not wrong - how it that wrong??
I am providing this free program so that people can freely share it. I
do not want others to use my program and prevent people from sharing.
> You can add the same value, and *better* (if we're to believe that
> your love of coding makes better code than another's desire to make
> a living from it), and you'd still be ahead, right?
>
> I mean, do you guys believe your own stuff, or don't you!?
I surely do believe it, yes.
> It's a good observation others have made that this amounts to
> wanting control of what *others* do with one's creations. While not
> wanting to allow others to profit from their own.
They can have their own creations, but I would not want to limit
others' freedoms using *my* creations. Hence the GNU copyright.
i