Lets end the IGB argument
Flub...@gmail.com
nothing is being lifted out of Andy's guidebook directly, Pavel can
write whatever he wants about the mechanics of ADOM. ADOM is freeware
(well, postcardware actually), so making a fansite or walkthrough about
it, as long as it doesn't charge money (though banners would be ok),
would be perfectly legal. Some things (namely the character attributes
depending on starting race and the question attribute modifier chart)
would be in similar format, but would not violate copywrite. Imagine,
if you will, two independent and competing books on economy, each have
a graph displaying the change of Europe's sum GDP since the EU was
created. Even if they look similar, neither of the books' authors can
sue the other for copywrite violation. I envision the same thing
happening with the IGB. Andy, Malte, and the rest of you vets, you can
choose not to touch it. Pavel, you can distribute the link to the IGB
as much as you want. If you want to look at a similar occurance of
code-diving, go to www.gamefaqs.com and look at a popular game like
Pokemon Fire Red or GTA: San Andreas. If you look, they print gameshark
codes, in-game mechanics (for pokemon), a huge amount of easter eggs
(for GTA), and uncover every aspect of the game. I fail to see how
GameFAQs could do this legally, and yet according to you guys Pavel is
violating copywrite by making his IGB.
Przemyslaw Brojewski
> I read the first page of that topic, it seems to me that as long as
> nothing is being lifted out of Andy's guidebook directly, Pavel can
> write whatever he wants about the mechanics of ADOM.
However, there's lots lifted out of Andy's guidebook directly.
The whole guidebook, to be precise. Then it's altered a little.
Therefore
> Pavel is violating copywrite by making his IGB.
brojek.
Raymond Martineau
>If you look, they print gameshark
>codes, in-game mechanics (for pokemon), a huge amount of easter eggs
>(for GTA), and uncover every aspect of the game. I fail to see how
>GameFAQs could do this legally,
In most cases, these things are written in the contributer's own words.
While there can be some instances of plagerism, you can just simply file a
report hen it occurs.
>and yet according to you guys Pavel is violating copywrite by making his IGB.
In this case, it is unauthorised by the author of the original content.
CK
Give me a break... Who cares if it's authorized by the author? Do you
think the people on GameFAQs ask Rockstar games if they can publish game
mechanics, cheat codes, etc for Rockstar's games? I think not. Thomas is
just being egotistical by even thinking that he can tell anyone else
whether they can publish in-depth info on his game.
Obviously then, I fall somewhat on Pavel's side. However I think he
should be slapped for stealing Andy William's guidebook. So my take is
that reverse engineering the EXE and save scumming are perfectly fine.
People have been doing that to every game ever published since games
first came out. Publishing your findings is even perfectly fine.
Blatantly ripping off someone else's findings is just plain plagerism.
Przemyslaw Brojewski
> Raymond Martineau wrote:
> > On 22 Jul 2005 03:58:16 -0700, Flub...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If you look, they print gameshark
> >>codes, in-game mechanics (for pokemon), a huge amount of easter eggs
> >>(for GTA), and uncover every aspect of the game. I fail to see how
> >>GameFAQs could do this legally,
> >
> >
> > In most cases, these things are written in the contributer's own words.
> > While there can be some instances of plagerism, you can just simply file a
> > report hen it occurs.
> >
> >
> >>and yet according to you guys Pavel is violating copywrite by making his IGB.
> >
> >
> > In this case, it is unauthorised by the author of the original content.
> >
> Give me a break... Who cares if it's authorized by the author?
I do. And I hope many other also do.
> Do you think the people on GameFAQs (...)
GameFAQs are irrelevant here.
> Thomas is just being egotistical by even thinking that he can tell
> anyone else whether they can publish in-depth info on his game.
Thomas' rights aren't violated by IGB. It's about Andy's rights.
> Obviously then, I fall somewhat on Pavel's side. However I think he
> should be slapped for stealing Andy William's guidebook.
Aha. So we have a little common ground.
> So my take is that reverse engineering the EXE and save scumming
> are perfectly fine. People have been doing that to every game ever
> published since games first came out. Publishing your findings is even
> perfectly fine. Blatantly ripping off someone else's findings is just
> plain plagerism.
Agreed. That plagerism is why we despise Pavel. For me it also means
that using IGB is a no-no.
One point about reverse engineering. Thomas asked that people don't do
that. Let's put aside the legal aspect of it. People who did some code
diving decided to comply. Out of courtesy. And that's it.
brojek.
Josh Singh
...
Often, I wonder about the world and the people living in it. Sometimes, I'm
astounded that some people possess enough mental functioning to breathe when
they demonstrate the basest intelligence.
I'm going to try not to cuss here, but don't be surprised if I do.
First of all, code-diving is a non-issue. As Przemyslaw has already pointed
out, Thomas asked the divers to stop and they obliged freely. gamefaqs.com
is irrelevant. That nobody is calling them on their illegal conduct is no
justification for it. If I went around shooting everyone that pissed me off
and claimed that it was in the interest of reducing the number of fucking
degenerate dipshits on this morally barren spinning rock we call Earth,
would that claim justify my actions?
Second of all, jackass, Pavel is *flagrantly* violating copywrite (sic). He
didn't make a goddamned fucking thing himself; he copied the *whole* of Andy
Williams' Guidebook and altered it slightly, not even having the good sense
to change the name at the bottom of the page. Not only is he flagrantly
plagiarizing, but by not changing that name he is providing fraudulent
information, namely, that Andy Williams approves of the "Improved"
Guidebook. I mean, how wrong can you be, really? The IGB is illegal,
unaccepted, and unacceptable. If Pavel wants to be an asshole, then fine, he
can be an asshole, but don't defend his bullshit, because that makes you an
asshole by association.
This is not purely personal, subjective opinion, not by a long shot. I've
been around this group for a while, and I have a read on the way the
regulars can be expected to react at times like this, not to mention that
we've discussed this issue ad nauseum and I've seen their opinions with my
own eyes. Come at me all you want, but don't believe that they'll denounce
me for this. There are few issues around here that will get me more fired up
than this one, and I haven't been having a good day so you picked a bad time
to post. I hope, for your sake, that other people will be gentler on you
than I am, although I contend that you don't deserve it.
--
Curry Bucket's Controversial Web Presence:
The Pandora's Box of the Internet
http://chat.carleton.ca/~jsingh3/
or http://www.currybucket.cjb.net/
Flub...@gmail.com
subjective things. I want to see for myself exactly how bad his
plagarism (if any) is.
Flub...@gmail.com
Josh Singh
Are you kidding me? You shoot off that post without even understanding what
Pavel was doing?
If I had any respect remaining for you, it's sure as Hell gone now.
Do you think we're lying to you? Do you think all that discussion in Google
Groups is some sort of elaborate conspiracy intended to deceive you? The
plagiarism is plain. Mencik plagiarized Andy's *entire* Guidebook. There are
further offences, but this one in itself is damnable.
rdougher
Search old posts. "Improved Guidebook Updated" will get you something.
But, as you are satisfying your morbid curiosity, keep in mind that
nearly all of the content you see is AW's, or even better, compare the
two. It's like looking at the cosmetic plastic surgery results on the
clone that somebody made of you without your permission.
-Ryan
rdougher
> Flub...@gmail.com (Flub...@gmail.com) writes:
>
>>I read the first page of that topic, it seems to me that as long as
[snip Josh's ranting about it]
> I hope, for your sake, that other people will be gentler on you
> than I am, although I contend that you don't deserve it.
>
Josh,
For reasons different from yours, he does deserve a little chastisement.
Four minutes after you posted, Flubsicle asked for a link to the IGB
because he wanted to see how badly plagiarised it is -- he didn't
know... So, he made the classic mistake of forming an opinion before he
had enough information to form an opinion. You, Josh, in your hotheaded
and reactionary way (no offense meant) responded to him as if he were
acting responsibly and were well informed. Heh, you gave him too much
credit. If you were really sharp, you might have guessed from the first
line of his post that he wasn't well enough informed to hold a serious
opinion. But you said you were having a bad day, so lack of sharpness
forgiven.
Flubsicle,
Give us all a little credit. There are good reasons why this debate has
been going on for months, as Josh has most recently pointed out. And be
a little more responsible; know what the argument is about before you
jump in with your two cents. That's a good enough chastisement, eh?
-Ryan
Josh Singh
> Josh Singh wrote:
>> Flub...@gmail.com (Flub...@gmail.com) writes:
>>
>>> I read the first page of that topic, it seems to me that as long as
> [snip Flubsicle's making an ass of himself]
> [snip Josh's ranting about it]
>> I hope, for your sake, that other people will be gentler on you
>> than I am, although I contend that you don't deserve it.
>>
>
> Josh,
>
> For reasons different from yours, he does deserve a little
> chastisement. Four minutes after you posted, Flubsicle asked for a
> link to the IGB because he wanted to see how badly plagiarised it is
> -- he didn't know... So, he made the classic mistake of forming an
> opinion before he had enough information to form an opinion. You,
> Josh, in your hotheaded and reactionary way (no offense meant)
> responded to him as if he were acting responsibly and were well
> informed. Heh, you gave him too much credit. If you were really
> sharp, you might have guessed from the first line of his post that he
> wasn't well enough informed to hold a serious opinion. But you said
> you were having a bad day, so lack of sharpness forgiven.
That's gracious. Frankly, I'm surprised that I missed that, but I *am*
having a bad day. Actually, I usually have bad days, but this one has been
particularly bad; at least I can say that I didn't break my legs by slipping
in floor stripper and having the buffer run over them. I am so tired and
sore, and I came to the group to get away from stress... and then I read
"the post" and my father started throwing a fit about a lost countersink of
all things. It's not an excuse, of course; I should have caught that little
tidbit (although the post wasn't exactly written in a very readable format
in the first place (I get easily lost without text breaks)).
Of course, this revelation (if you care to call it that) doesn't completely
nullify my bitching; it still essentially stands. If anything, I would have
had an additional point to bitch about. But I did that in response to his
link-seeking already, so whatever.
Anyway, thanks for pointing this out; honestly, I probably wasn't going to
notice it on my own, ever. I feel somewhat like a dumbass (but not totally).
Raymond Martineau
>Raymond Martineau wrote:
>> On 22 Jul 2005 03:58:16 -0700, Flub...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you look, they print gameshark
>>>codes, in-game mechanics (for pokemon), a huge amount of easter eggs
>>>(for GTA), and uncover every aspect of the game. I fail to see how
>>>GameFAQs could do this legally,
>>
>>
>> In most cases, these things are written in the contributer's own words.
>> While there can be some instances of plagerism, you can just simply file a
>> report hen it occurs.
>>
>>
>>>and yet according to you guys Pavel is violating copywrite by making his IGB.
>>
>>
>> In this case, it is unauthorised by the author of the original content.
>>
>
>Give me a break... Who cares if it's authorized by the author?
As stated numerous times, the author of the guidebook did not authorize the
"imporvements". And as stated many times, this is a plagerism issue, not
a "quit showing off the cheat codes" issue.
>Do you
>think the people on GameFAQs ask Rockstar games if they can publish game
>mechanics, cheat codes, etc for Rockstar's games?
Asking Rockstar for permission to write stuff about their games is
irrelevant. The same applies to this plagerism issue.
Pavel Mencik
>didn't make a goddamned fucking thing himself; he copied the *whole* of
>Andy Williams' Guidebook and altered it slightly, not even having the good
>sense to change the name at the bottom of the page. Not only is he
>flagrantly plagiarizing, but by not changing that name he is providing
>fraudulent information, namely, that Andy Williams approves of the
>"Improved" Guidebook. I mean, how wrong can you be, really? The IGB is
>illegal, unaccepted, and unacceptable. If Pavel wants to be an asshole,
>then fine, he can be an asshole, but don't defend his bullshit, because
>that makes you an asshole by association.
True, IGB is an improved copy of Andy Williams' Guidebook. It cites the
orginal. That it is a cite, is clearly mentioned on every page. It does not
mean that Andy "approves" the contents, but it informs the reader where the
contents comes from. If you persist that it must be clearly stated on every
page, I do that. But would that change anything? Then there is a list of
improvements available. At least, I do not lie. Truth is a moral principle
that stands high above any "copywrite".
Adom is basically free game. Why not just forget about laws and "copywrite".
In some sense, these things relate exclusively to money. I'd like to see an
example of someone being put to jail (in any country) for violating a
"copywrite", if there were no money involed - neither for the copywrite
owner, nor for plagiator.
Moral issues are another thing. I can't see I'm doing anything wrong.
1. Rewriting the entire contents is waste of time, and there will always be
plagiarism issues. I'm not trying to call the Guidebook my own!
2. Providing just the improvements is *very* incovenient for the reader. And
what about HTML improvements.
From the player's point of view, I see no better solution. Why not focus on
the player, and put the whole copywrite issues on a side track.
-----
Improved ADOM Guidebook - http://sweb.cz/adomgb
Nick Strnad
this, but it's getting ridiculous. I've been lurking on and off here
for a year and a half, occasionally posting victory posts or gameplay
questions, but mostly staying out of this nonsense. However, I'm
currently reading a good book called "Law's Order" by David Friedman
(shameless plug, I suppose, but I'm enjoying the book), which has
several sections devoted to copyright (not freakin' copywrite) law...
anywho...
> True, IGB is an improved copy of Andy Williams' Guidebook. It cites the
> orginal. That it is a cite, is clearly mentioned on every page.
- A citation is where you use somebody else's words to bolster your own
statements, either because they are a definitive source of the
information, or you think that they put it in a way that will assist in
explaining your point further. In this case, you are simply using a
majority of Andy's material, and adding your own parts to it. This is
definitely not a "cite" of his material, it's flat out plagarism.
Imagine if you will, a definitive source on a subject... how about
Rolling Stone magazine as a definitive source for music (we may get some
debate about that, but for argument's sake, let's just say that it is
definitive). If you were writing a paper for college about music, you
could cite an article from Rolling Stone to back up some of your claims.
You could not, however, hand in the article, with little comments
scrawled in the margin where you thought some extra information should
go. That is blatant plagarism, not "citing a source," even if you
listed Rolling Stone in your bibliography.
At least, I do not lie. Truth is a moral principle
> that stands high above any "copywrite".
- This is simply confusing... it seems as if you are trying to wage a
crusade against law by making a broad claim of truth being above
copyright. Let's dissect that word... (copyright, not "copywrite") it
gives you the *right* not to have your works *copied*. Copyright law in
the United States (and elsewhere, I would believe) protects the
expression of an idea, but not the idea itself.
Think of West Side Story vs. Romeo & Juliet, if you will (if you are not
familiar with these examples, I believe the following explanation will
fill in the blanks). Both are based on a common idea: two individuals
from different factions fall in love, but are unable to openly express
their love. They decide to run away and live together, but
unfortunately are unable to do so, and one individual (both, in Romeo &
Juliet) end up dying. They sound pretty similar, don't they? However,
it is perfectly legal for these two stories to exist because they fall
under copyright law, which protects the expression of an idea. The idea
is of the lovers from different factions, etc., which is not protected
by copyright law. The expression (one set in New York[?], and one set
in Shakespear's day and age), however is protected. I couldn't make a
musical based on a pair of lovers from different factions that is set in
urban Chicago, because that would resemble West Side Story too much.
In regards to this (sorry for the lengthy digression), the idea of a
guidebook is not protected under copyright law; anyone is free to make a
guidebook if they wish. What is protected is the expression of the
guidebook - when Andy Williams made his book, he gained the legal right
to not have any guidebooks created that are similar in nature. Your
guidebook, however is very similar, since it is mostly his book.
>I'd like to see an
> example of someone being put to jail (in any country) for violating a
> "copywrite"
- You probably won't get thrown in jail for plagiarism, but, according
to many websites (Google for plagairism & jail) state fines between $100
and $50,000(US)... in addition to up to a year in jail. Depending on
what document you plagiarize, it can also be considered a felony offense.
> Moral issues are another thing. I can't see I'm doing anything wrong.
>
> 1. Rewriting the entire contents is waste of time, and there will always be
> plagiarism issues. I'm not trying to call the Guidebook my own!
> 2. Providing just the improvements is *very* incovenient for the reader. And
> what about HTML improvements.
>
- As of now, Andy holds the copyright to his work, so tough luck on that
front. In pseudo-legal terms (maybe I'm getting in a bit over my head
just from reading that book, but I think I'm on the right track), you
have to provide Andy with some sort of incentive to license you to be
able to modify the Guidebook for your own purposes. Even if you aren't
making any money off of it, Andy still has the right to control the
distribution, modification, and quality of his own creation.
> From the player's point of view, I see no better solution. Why not focus on
> the player, and put the whole copywrite issues on a side track.
- The copyright issues are the central freakin' point of the discussion.
Nobody is saying that your additions suck or are incorrect; they're
saying that you do not have the legal right to make those improvements
because they are infringing on the copyright protection that is on Andy
William's document (aka the Guidebook).
To others: I hope most of this made sense; I think I was heading in
basically the right direction with most of it, even if some of it has
come up before in the past.
Basic point: The Guidebook belongs to Andy Williams; hands off!
drakalor...@gmail.com
Pavel Mencik wrote:
> Adom is basically free game. Why not just forget about laws and "copywrite".
> In some sense, these things relate exclusively to money. I'd like to see an
> example of someone being put to jail (in any country) for violating a
> "copywrite", if there were no money involed - neither for the copywrite
> owner, nor for plagiator.
Jail isn't usually the punishment for copyright infringement. Hefty
fines are usually handed out instead. Need a good example of "free"
software copyright infringement cases? Go look up the GPL. Go read up
on the whole SCO linux thing. Go look at one of many examples of
"free" works getting caught up in copyright infringement cases.
Basically, your argument is BS. Money has nothing to do with copyright
law. Educate yourself before you speak.
Nick Strnad
> but I think I'm on the right track), you
> have to provide Andy with some sort of incentive to license you to be
> able to modify the Guidebook for your own purposes.
Clarification point: You must provide him with some sort of incentive
(not necessarily monetary), *and he must accept it* in order for you to
be able to modify his work. If he doesn't, then too bad, so sad.
I know that "and he must accept" logically follows, but... yeah... I
can't really assume that others understand.
AKA, you must get his permission. Without that, it is blatantly
copyright infringement.
Darren Grey
> Moral issues are another thing. I can't see I'm doing anything wrong.
Well, I'm not going to bother trying to argue you with - especially about
legal aspects. Your own morals are your own thing of course, but you have
to remember that a lot of people disagree completely, and consider what
you're doing to be very immoral. But arguing is rather pointless, because
you are quite obviously not going to change your mind. I think the best
that can be done is try to come to some logical agreement with you to change
things slightly so that it doesn't piss people off quite as much as you're
currently doing...
> Improved ADOM Guidebook - http://sweb.cz/adomgb
I'm glad to see that you have taken up the suggestion of writing on the
front page "Please note, this Improved Guidebook exists without the
permission from the original author - Andrew Williams." It helps clarify
things somewhat more for newcomers who may not realise they are breaking
what many people consider to be moral boundaries.
However, I still think you can go a little further than this, though it may
require some further effort. The front page of your guide says "Improved
ADOM Guidebook" but the rest just say "ADOM Guidebook" - just like Andy's.
What I'd like to see is every single page entitled:
"Improved ADOM Guidebook
Please note that this is an unnofficial and unauthorised copy of <link>Andy
William's ADOM Guidebook</link>. For further information on the legal and
moral challenges raised against this Improved ADOM Guidebook please see
rec.games.roguelike.adom"
You're quite welcome to make it small-print, as long as it's there. I think
a lot of people will be more satisfied if your Guidebook has the situation
spelled out quite clearly like that. People can flame you and rant on about
copyright all they like, but it's obviously not going to stop you, and it's
not going to stop others from reading your book. I'd personally be more
satisfied if the facts were laid out straight for all to see. You should
also change the image, unless you have J Falstrom's approval to use it.
Of course, I'd be more fully satisfied if you completely redesigned the
whole thing, with different HTML layout throughout, different sectioning
(especially the Section 0, which could be much better laid out into things
like "Creating a Character", "Basic Dungeon Tactics", "Advanced Tactics and
Scumming" etc). The information within the guidebook could easily be
brought together by finding the original USENET posts that Andy has gotten
his information from and quoting them directly (with suitable reference to
the contributors, of course). But alas, that would require a lot of effort,
and you're not willing to go to that effort, which is why many are angry at
you for abusing all the effort that Andy has gone to. Perhaps you can take
this as a long term goal - use Andy's guidebook as a reference point but
eventually break away bit by bit until there's nothing left that's purely
Andy's (or what is left is simply you quoting him just as you'd quote any
other contributor). Have a think about it...
Oh, and another thing I'd like to see is to have your work renamed something
like Pavel's Unofficial Guidebook instead of the Improved Guidebook, but
perhaps that wouldn't be as appropriate whilst the vast vast majority of the
guidebook is simply a carbon copy of Andy's.
--
Darren Grey
Markku Rikola
First of all, I'd like to say hi to Josh. I like your writing, both in
rgra and on the webpage. :) My 0.02EUR on the issue are as follows.
> Often, I wonder about the world and the people living in it. Sometimes, I'm
> astounded that some people possess enough mental functioning to breathe when
> they demonstrate the basest intelligence.
Amen to that.
> Second of all, jackass, Pavel is *flagrantly* violating copywrite (sic). He
> didn't make a goddamned fucking thing himself; he copied the *whole* of Andy
> Williams' Guidebook and altered it slightly, not even having the good sense
> to change the name at the bottom of the page.
Not to mention that there is no change in any of the filenames, anywhere,
ever. He even stole the "new.jpg" and "marble.jpg". Seriously, Pavel, if
you want to go on and on about "what's good for the player" as your
defense, you might want to put up some working hours to back yourself up.
Or invest some time into investigating copyright law.
> This is not purely personal, subjective opinion, not by a long shot. I've
> been around this group for a while, and I have a read on the way the
> regulars can be expected to react at times like this, not to mention that
> we've discussed this issue ad nauseum and I've seen their opinions with my
> own eyes. Come at me all you want, but don't believe that they'll denounce
> me for this. There are few issues around here that will get me more fired up
> than this one, and I haven't been having a good day so you picked a bad time
> to post. I hope, for your sake, that other people will be gentler on you
> than I am, although I contend that you don't deserve it.
Having had my fair share of whack jobs who believe they're out there for
some greater purpose (#adom folks might remember me calling one of these
cases the Psychobitch) I have concurred that there is nothing much short
of police interference that will stop this kind of people. No kidding.
You see, whenever this scum of the earth gets one slightest bit of
recognition, appreciation, whatever the hell it is that they seek with/for
their worthless acts, they will consider that person just about their
soulmate.
Now, why am _I_ irate about this? Put quite simply: back in the day,
writing the GB was a team effort more than anything. I remember writing
and receiving countless emails from Malte, Adam Biltcliffe (whatever
happened to him?), and of course, Andy. If Pavel wanted to give the
Guidebook a facelift - which he frankly hasn't done, more like gastric
bypass surgery - *there was no reason whatsoever not to email Andy or
post to rgra with "hey, I did this for the GB, feel free to use" like the
rest of us do*. And if the first draft wasn't good enough, try again. It's
not like most of Pavel's work involves any creative work or original
writing -- not enough to deserve its own project, anyway. I did check with
diff.
Going on a tangent, this is one of the reasons that TB doesn't want the
source to be released -- over time, it would lead to countless variations,
many of which would inevitably end up being tragically inferior
bastardizations of the original one. For a small community like rgra, I
think it's important that the information-gathering process be a unified
effort, and that the writers respect the wishes of Mr. Biskup.
-- Markku Rikola
Pavel Mencik
Thank you, all your suggestions are being considered. I'd be really glad if
we can come to some mostly accepted outcome, so to shut up those few who
would continue to object. I really appreciate this post, thanks a lot.
-----
Josh Singh
> Josh Singh <jGoOsh.A...@gmail.comikaze> wrote:
>
> First of all, I'd like to say hi to Josh.
Yello, Mr. Rikola.
> I like your writing, both in rgra and on the webpage.
It's about damn time I got some love around here.
>> Second of all, jackass, Pavel is *flagrantly* violating copywrite
>> (sic). He didn't make a goddamned fucking thing himself; he copied
>> the *whole* of Andy Williams' Guidebook and altered it slightly, not
>> even having the good sense to change the name at the bottom of the
>> page.
>
> Not to mention that there is no change in any of the filenames,
> anywhere, ever. He even stole the "new.jpg" and "marble.jpg".
> Seriously, Pavel, if you want to go on and on about "what's good for
> the player" as your defense, you might want to put up some working
> hours to back yourself up.
I suggested that when this debate first cropped up. Nothing doing so far.
Maybe I didn't ask politely enough.
> Or invest some time into investigating copyright law.
Asking Mencik to invest time in something worthwhile is like asking a rock
to write a sonnet. It's not worth *our* time investment.
>> This is not purely personal, subjective opinion, not by a long shot.
>> I've been around this group for a while, and I have a read on the
>> way the regulars can be expected to react at times like this, not to
>> mention that we've discussed this issue ad nauseum and I've seen
>> their opinions with my own eyes. Come at me all you want, but don't
>> believe that they'll denounce me for this. There are few issues
>> around here that will get me more fired up than this one, and I
>> haven't been having a good day so you picked a bad time to post. I
>> hope, for your sake, that other people will be gentler on you than I
>> am, although I contend that you don't deserve it.
>
> Having had my fair share of whack jobs who believe they're out there
> for some greater purpose (#adom folks might remember me calling one
> of these cases the Psychobitch) I have concurred that there is
> nothing much short of police interference that will stop this kind of
> people. No kidding.
>
> You see, whenever this scum of the earth gets one slightest bit of
> recognition, appreciation, whatever the hell it is that they seek
> with/for their worthless acts, they will consider that person just
> about their soulmate.
Yep, that seems to be the way it goes. Then again, police interference on
this side of the Atlantic doesn't mean much, whether it's raping protected
documents or raping children. All this garbage is part and parcel of the
degeneration of society, as I see it; there's just no respect for anything
anymore.
> Now, why am _I_ irate about this? Put quite simply: back in the day,
> writing the GB was a team effort more than anything. I remember
> writing and receiving countless emails from Malte, Adam Biltcliffe
> (whatever happened to him?), and of course, Andy. If Pavel wanted to
> give the Guidebook a facelift - which he frankly hasn't done, more
> like gastric bypass surgery - *there was no reason whatsoever not to
> email Andy or post to rgra with "hey, I did this for the GB, feel
> free to use" like the rest of us do*. And if the first draft wasn't
> good enough, try again. It's not like most of Pavel's work involves
> any creative work or original writing -- not enough to deserve its
> own project, anyway. I did check with diff.
This is, of course, the point, for those of you who are missing it. For
argument's sake, forget that copyright law exists. The Guidebook is mainly
authored and compiled by Andy Williams, and many others have contributed via
the accepted media. In a broad sense, the GB belongs to anybody willing to
employ it within its guidelines; in a much more salient sense, the GB
belongs to Andy Williams. Any decisions regarding its fate, whatever those
may be, made by Andy Williams should, on principle, be respected. The fact
that the majority of other "owners" supports the decision in this instance
serves only to bolster Andy's position, but, on principle, that support is
not needed. As the originator of the Guidebook, Andy has a right, legal or
otherwise, to do what he wants with it. If, one day, he decides that he's
sick of all this IGB bullshit and all the ingrates who feel the need to
recycle this issue nigh unto eternity and that he should annihilate the
Guidebook completely, there can be no objections; it is his to raise and his
to raze.
There are some dissidents, the rebels and the martyrs, who will raise
questions about morality, namely: "Who is to say what is right and what is
wrong?" On the whole, it's certainly safe to presume one thing: any action
that brings (a) person(s) to harm is wrong. It's easy to define harm:
physical or psychological injury. In practice, most, if not all, actions
cause at least some harm to somebody somewhere; this is of course why we
have, for example, the Least Harm Principle or the Golden Rule. Yeah, I
know, big talk coming from me, but if the price I have to pay for stirring
people up and getting them to discuss and debate social issues is harming
someone in my sensationalist rants, then I'll pay it, believe you me.
Now Mencik, by going against Andy's wishes, is inflicting psychological
harm, and to what end? There is no real benefit to people here, seeing as
more appear to support Andy than they do him. Mencik has ways to add to the
real Guidebook if he wants to use them; by not using them, he effectively
spits in Andy's face, not to mention all of Andy's supporters, the
governments of the United States, Czech Republic and elsewhere, the people
who are directly or indirectly involved with those governments (which, in
democracies at least, would include anyone who gives a shit about anything),
and so on. That's a lot of people to cheese off, if you ask me. Who
benefits? Mencik gets some perverse pleasure out of it (Petr Prokop once
pointed out that this may be a consequence of his childhood indoctrination),
and a few folks -- some without any real comprehension of the situation --
seem to be of the opinion that he is performing a valuable service, mainly
on the grounds that the real Guidebook is somehow neglected and forgotten.
I do not know Andy Williams personally; I doubt that many of his supporters
do. However, we have an appreciation for the fact that Andy has a life,
notwithstanding ADOM and the Guidebook. He has made this clear on numerous
occasions. He updates the GB *when he gets the chance*, and we understand
that. We don't expect him to drop what he's doing to add a YAGBU on a whim;
we shouldn't *want* him to. He's a grown man and he has more important
things to do. Any grown person does. There's an empathy for his situation
that has become virtually passive; we accept that he has engagements above
and beyond the GB and we move on with our lives. We are not children;
instant gratification is not -- should not -- be needed. Welcome to the real
world.
Well, I'm sleepy and I don't have the energy to ensure this post makes any
sense. I had no intention of getting back into this discussion; frankly, it
was giving me a headache, because people just don't get it. Damn you and
your greeting directed at me, Markku. I'll see you in Hell. Unless Hell
involves a lazy-suzan rehashing of the IGB issue, in which case we're
already there.
gozer
few points in this post that I feel compelled to respond to . . .
> he copied the *whole* of Andy Williams' Guidebook and altered it slightly, not
> even having the good sense to change the name at the bottom of the page.
Here I have to disagree: While it is indisputable that Pavel copied all
of Andy's material, IMHO his additions are not "slight". Quantitatively
they may only represent 5%-10% additional text, but qualitatively I
believe that they provide extremely valuable, interesting, and/or
up-to-date information that *is* missing from Andy's original. Let's be
clear on this point: Pavel has not just copied Andy's guidebook and
re-branded it as his own - he has made (again IMHO) substantial and
valuable (qualitative) additions.
I can't speak for Pavel, but my understanding is that he deliberately
left Andy's name at the bottom of each page to credit Andy - as he has
clearly and explicitly done at the top of the front page of the IGB.
> Asking Mencik to invest time in something worthwhile is like asking a rock
> to write a sonnet. It's not worth *our* time investment.
I may be wrong, but I don't recall Pavel responding with any personal
attacks of his own. I think it is only reasonable that if people wish
to contribute sensibly and constructively to this debate then the focus
ought to be on the IGB and not Pavel. I am fairly sure that English is
not Pavel's first language, and in previous posts it appeared to me
that he didn't always understand precisely what others were posting.
Dragging this post down into the realms of personal mud-slinging
exacerbates that.
> > Now, why am _I_ irate about this? Put quite simply: back in the day,
> > writing the GB was a team effort more than anything. I remember
> > writing and receiving countless emails from Malte, Adam Biltcliffe
> > (whatever happened to him?), and of course, Andy. If Pavel wanted to
> > give the Guidebook a facelift - which he frankly hasn't done, more
> > like gastric bypass surgery - *there was no reason whatsoever not to
> > email Andy or post to rgra with "hey, I did this for the GB, feel
> > free to use" like the rest of us do*.
I have great respect for Andy and the original contributors to his
guidebook. But the gist of the argument above is basically "we were
here first so hands off!" This is nonsense! When ice-cutters were put
out of business by ice factories, it would have been ludicrous for them
to spout off about how unfair it was and how their cut ice ought to be
supported because they were the originals. When the ice factories were
put out of business by the refrigerator manufacturers the ice factories
couldn't suddenly turn around and demand that the refrigerator
manufacturers cease production because the factories existed before
they did. None of these parties could lay a claim (legal or otherwise)
to the ice itself - only their methods of producing, marketing, and/or
distributing it.
The point of the ice narrative is that Pavel believes that his product
- the IGB - is superior. IMHO, having compared it to Andy's guidebook,
I believe that he is right. Yes - a lot of the IGB is made up of Andy's
original content. But consider this: a refrigerator is basically an ice
factory with some important added features (convenience and
affordability). In the same sense Pavel's IGB has new features as well
- fresh content that is missing and, which, IMHO represents a
significant improvement over Andy's original.
Why *should* Pavel simply submit his material to Andy for inclusion?!?!
He doesn't *want* to be a contributor! He wants to go head-to-head with
Andy! Excluding Andy's material from the IGB eliminates an important
feature of the IGB: the convenience of having Andy's material *and*
Pavel's additional information in a single "product".
> I do not know Andy Williams personally; I doubt that many of his supporters
> do. However, we have an appreciation for the fact that Andy has a life,
> notwithstanding ADOM and the Guidebook. He has made this clear on numerous
> occasions. He updates the GB *when he gets the chance*, and we understand
> that. We don't expect him to drop what he's doing to add a YAGBU on a whim;
> we shouldn't *want* him to. He's a grown man and he has more important
> things to do. Any grown person does. There's an empathy for his situation
> that has become virtually passive; we accept that he has engagements above
> and beyond the GB and we move on with our lives. We are not children;
> instant gratification is not -- should not -- be needed.
I totally respect that Andy has a life outside of ADOM as well. *BUT*
his failure to quickly and regularly update his guidebook with
important, interesting, fresh content is a major competitive weakness -
a weakness which Pavel has successfully exploited. Andy could have
included many of Pavel's additions before Pavel ever developed the IGB.
In the same sense, Andy's bonds with many in this group is a major
competitive advantage for him - one that Pavel has only strengthened by
antagonising many in this forum.
Would anyone here raise a fuss if Andy included Pavel's material in his
guidebook? I doubt it. In fact, I think most of this group would
support it. Personally, I don't understand why Andy hasn't done so
already in order to undercut Pavel's only significant competitive
advantage. The point is, if you would applaud Andy including Pavel's
content, why can't Pavel include Andy's? Bear in mind that Pavel *has*
credited Andy for his content *and* included a link to his guidebook.
Getting back to the quoted post above, however, why *should* I wait
patiently for Andy to update his guidebook if an alternative is
available? The comments about instant gratification are complete BS.
Anyone who wants something would rather get it sooner than later -
unless getting it later is part and parcel of what they really want.
That's basic human nature and debating whether it is a virtue or a vice
is pointless - it isn't good or bad, it just is. I use the guidebook as
a resource for improving my ADOM gameplay and enjoyment. So, yes, I
*do* want Andy to update it regularly with important information as it
becomes available. I *don't* have a deep bond with Andy beyond the
respect that I have for his work to date. I'm *not* going to access
Andy's work exclusively just because it was there first. Pavel knows
that there is a "market" made up of people like me and he has done a
better job than Andy of delivering to that market by putting together a
more comprehensive guidebook (*while* acknowledging Andy for his
original material). Therefore, picking between the two is a no-brainer
as far as what *I* want from a guidebook. If anyone here is seeking
something different then make your choices as appropriate. But *don't*
present your wants and needs as characteristic of everyone else.
> Any decisions regarding its [the guidebook's] fate, whatever those may be,
> made by Andy Williams should, on principle, be respected. The fact that the
> majority of other "owners" supports the decision in this instance serves only
> to bolster Andy's position, but, on principle, that support is not needed. As
> the originator of the Guidebook, Andy has a right, legal or otherwise, to do
> what he wants with it. If, one day, he decides that he's sick of all this IGB
> bullshit and all the ingrates who feel the need to recycle this issue nigh
> unto eternity and that he should annihilate the Guidebook completely, there
> can be no objections; it is his to raise and his to raze.
OK, firstly bear in mind that Andy's unilateral support to date is at
least partially connected to the fact that he has never faced any
competition before. Secondly, the comments about how Andy can do with
the guidebook as he pleases contradict previous comments re those who
originally contributed to the guidebook - surely Andy ought to respect
their contributions and, therefore, should not simply do with the
guidebook as he pleases? Thirdly, it is precisely because Andy can pull
the plug on the guidebook if he so wanted that viable competition ought
to be welcomed.
> On the whole, it's certainly safe to presume one thing: any action that
> brings (a) person(s) to harm is wrong.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! This is *way* too simplistic! How about the US forces
in Iraq? When they shoot down "terrorists" are they wrong? How about
the recent London bombings? When the police shot dead a suspected
terrorist were they wrong? How about apartheid in my home country,
South Africa? When the ANC protested and attacked government centres
were they wrong?
> Now Mencik, by going against Andy's wishes, is inflicting psychological
> harm, and to what end?
That's preposterous! If Andy (or anyone else) is upset about having the
original guidebook content copied, *even though Pavel has clearly cited
Andy as the original author*, then he needs to grow up and face
reality: the real world *is* competitive and Pavel's product is better.
> There is no real benefit to people here, seeing as more appear to support
> Andy than they do him.
Well, the IGB offers plenty of benefits (see earlier points). But if
people would rather support Andy than access a superior guidebook then
they are free to choose accordingly (again, see earlier points).
> Mencik has ways to add to the real Guidebook if he wants to use them; by not > using them, he effectively spits in Andy's face, not to mention all of Andy's > supporters, the governments of the United States, Czech Republic and
> elsewhere, the people who are directly or indirectly involved with those
> governments (which, in democracies at least, would include anyone who gives a
> shit about anything), and so on.
Utter bullshit. Pavel has the right to compete with Andy. He has
produced a superior product and has clearly credited Andy for his
original content. But if you want to rant and rave irrationally then go
right ahead.
Pavel Mencik
> He doesn't *want* to be a contributor! He wants to go head-to-head with
> Andy! Excluding Andy's material from the IGB eliminates an important
> feature of the IGB: the convenience of having Andy's material *and*
> Pavel's additional information in a single "product".
This is the only part I feel compelled to respond. As many might know from
the history, I do want to be a contributor. Andy's refusal to include
initial (html) improvements remains mysterious to me. I offered Andy to grab
my improvements and use it in the original guidebbok on his website. However
his answer was "If this is not removed within 48 hours you can be assured
that <provider email> will be receiving a complaint, at minimum. If you are
offering improvements to the existing guidebook, they are much appreciated,
but would be better received by posting them here rather than establishing
an independent website.You are publishing and modifying copyrighted
material, which is illegal." I don't see how I am posting complete html
tables here. If his answer was "I'll look at your improvements as soon as I
have time, but for now please take down the site" the events could have been
entirely different.
BTW titles and footings on every page has been changed (took a lot of
effort, but what the hell) Andy is still credited for original content, but
things are made more clear for uniformed reader.
The Beerslayer
> Thank you, all your suggestions are being considered. I'd be really glad if
> we can come to some mostly accepted outcome, so to shut up those few who
> would continue to object. I really appreciate this post, thanks a lot.
Pavel:
The only person whose objections truly matter is Andy Williams, who
created the original work that you are plagiarizing. So long as you
continue to deliberately and flagrantly ignore HIS expressed
objections, you have no moral ground to stand on, no matter how many
other people on the list might or might not agree with you.
-- Jeff
-- aka The Eternal Newbie :)
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as
well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the
streets, and to steal bread. - Anatole France
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Singh
Egads. This is just exhausting. How many times have the same arguments been
produced so far in the past months? Three, four?
Well, this is wearing me out. Hopefully someone else has the energy to pick
up the case from here... or better yet, I hope we all have the good sense to
let this subject die, since Andy and his camp obviously can't win. It's like
beating a brick with a feather.
I'll say one thing, here, but only because people just don't seem to be
clear on the point yet, for whatever infuriating reason.
> That's preposterous! If Andy (or anyone else) is upset about having
> the original guidebook content copied, *even though Pavel has clearly
> cited Andy as the original author*, then he needs to grow up and face
> reality: the real world *is* competitive and Pavel's product is
> better.
Pavel's product is *not* better, because Pavel's product *does not exist*,
at least not in the form you seem to believe it does. He added a few things
to Andy's already existing product; as Nick Strnad pointed out, it's like
scribbling a few notes into the margin of a magazine article and passing it
off as your own work. It's plagiarism pure and simple, blatant, brazen
plagiarism. If the whole thing were to be Pavel's product alone, he'd
actually have to put some effort into making it. As it stands, his "product"
is an unauthorized and illegal copy of Andy's product. Andy should not need
to compete with *his own product*, whether or not it has been illegally
modified.
Societies are built on effortful order, not on laziness and theft. The fact
that that state of affairs is degenerating is no excuse to contribute to the
degeneration. The principles remain, even if assholes decide that they would
rather not observe them. This is not about the status quo or one's right to
compete or whatever; this is about a basic modicum of common sense and human
decency. Where would humanity be if people could just do what they want,
when they want, how they want, and to whom they want? Nobody says that
competition for the Guidebook is bad, but this is not competition. This is
plagiarism. This is theft. I don't care what culture you live in; everywhere
you go, theft is wrong. It is wrong to take another's work against their
wishes and pass it off as your own. It's a violation of the Golden Rule, the
most basic tenet of human morality in any culture.
This is bullshit. I just keep paraphrasing the same arguments from the first
round back in September 2004. If you want more bullshit, go look up that
thread and leave this shit behind.
I could just about end my life right now. Yes, everyone's wish come true!
Teemu Kokki
> Egads. This is just exhausting. How many times have the same arguments been
> produced so far in the past months? Three, four?
>
> Well, this is wearing me out.
While I enjoy reading your rants, it's really nerve-saving just to
killfile all these idiots. There are plenty of real life things to get
irritated about that you can't killfile, better save the energy for
those. :)
Teemu
Andy Williams
> While I enjoy reading your rants, it's really nerve-saving just to
> killfile all these idiots. There are plenty of real life things to get
> irritated about that you can't killfile, better save the energy for
> those. :)
Amen.
--
Andy Williams
ADOM Guidebook - http://www.andywlms.com/adom/
ADOM Guidebook Mirror - http://users.rcn.com/andy.williams/adom/
Josh Singh
Point taken. Thanks.
gozer
> Pavel's product is *not* better, because Pavel's product *does not exist*,
> at least not in the form you seem to believe it does.
I downloaded the IGB and Andy's guidebook. I compared the two. The IGB
has more content - including very valuable information that Andy's does
not. Given that the express purpose of a guidebook, by definition, is
to help (i.e., guide) players it is indisputable that Pavel's guidebook
is superior in that respect.
> He added a few things to Andy's already existing product; as Nick Strnad
> pointed out, it's like scribbling a few notes into the margin of a magazine
> article and passing it off as your own work. It's plagiarism pure and simple,
> blatant, brazen plagiarism.
Have you even looked at the IGB?!?! Pavel did *not* add a "few things".
He has added substantial, valuable content. Again - indisputable fact
to anyone who glances at the IGB with even a remotely objective eye.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines plagiary as "one who steals the
thoughts or writings of others and gives them out as his own". Pavel
has clearly *not* does this because he *clearly* credits Andy for his
original content on *every* page of the IGB. Let me re-state that again
as clearly and plainly as possible: Pavel has *never* claimed Andy's
material as his own.
> As it stands, his "product" is an unauthorized and illegal copy of Andy's
> product.
Pavel does not try to pretend that the material that he has copied from
Andy is authorised - he states this clearly at the top of the front
page of the IGB. Again, have you even bothered to read the IGB?!?!
I am not a legal expert, so I can't comment on whether it is legal or
not to copy someone's work, credit the original author, and then add
valuable new content. I don't see how that could be illegal, but if it
is then I would appreciate a more compelling argument than your mere
opinion.
> Societies are built on effortful order, not on laziness and theft.
I think this is pretty naieve - there is plenty of corruption,
politics, inequality, etc. that holds many societies together. I know -
I live in one such society. In any event, Pavel is not trying to build
a society.
> It is wrong to take another's work against their wishes and pass it off as
> your own.
For once we agree. Therefore, by your own logic, you ought to be more
tolerant towards Pavel because *HE IS NOT TRYING TO PASS OFF ANDY'S
WORK AS HIS OWN* See numerous comments made earlier re Pavel's
creditation of Andy's original material *ON EVERY PAGE* of the IGB.
Better yet, actually bother to read the IGB! (I can only assume you
haven't)
Malte Helmert
>
> I am not a legal expert, so I can't comment on whether it is legal or
> not to copy someone's work, credit the original author, and then add
> valuable new content. I don't see how that could be illegal, but if it
> is then I would appreciate a more compelling argument than your mere
> opinion.
So, for example, if I took a Windows CD, installed some extra material
on it, made a thousand of copies of it and sold each of them, that would
not be illegal? Microsoft would not sue me?
If I typed my Harry Potter book into my PC, added some commentary to the
end of each chapter and put some illustrations into it, then uploaded it
to my website, I would not get e-mail from JK Rowling's publisher?
Hey, looks like I found a business model!
"I don't see how that could be illegal" -- I can't believe it! Please
keep your ramblings to yourself if you don't have the *faintest* clue
what copyright is. Sorry, I had to say that.
This webpage tells you the very basics: http://www.whatiscopyright.org/
You might want to start at the very short paragraph with the title "What
is a Copyright?"
Malte
Josh Singh
> gozer wrote:
>>
>> I am not a legal expert, so I can't comment on whether it is legal or
>> not to copy someone's work, credit the original author, and then add
>> valuable new content. I don't see how that could be illegal, but if
>> it is then I would appreciate a more compelling argument than your
>> mere opinion.
>
> So, for example, if I took a Windows CD, installed some extra material
> on it, made a thousand of copies of it and sold each of them, that
> would not be illegal? Microsoft would not sue me?
>
> If I typed my Harry Potter book into my PC, added some commentary to
> the end of each chapter and put some illustrations into it, then
> uploaded it to my website, I would not get e-mail from JK Rowling's
> publisher?
>
> Hey, looks like I found a business model!
... Holy shit. Malte's getting snippy. You IGB goofs have done it; you've
brought on the Cataclysm.
The hell with this... I'm gonna party like it's 1999. Later.
Darren Grey
> I downloaded the IGB and Andy's guidebook. I compared the two. The IGB
> has more content - including very valuable information that Andy's does
> not. Given that the express purpose of a guidebook, by definition, is
> to help (i.e., guide) players it is indisputable that Pavel's guidebook
> is superior in that respect.
I really do believe you are exaggerating this somewhat. Pavel himself has
given lists of what he has changed and added, and there isn't really much
difference - mostly to do with layout, putting stuff into tables etc. If
you compare filsizes you'll see that Pavel's is 60 Kb larger than Andy's
1.17 Mb guidebook (isn't it scary that the guidebook is almost as big as the
.exec of the game itself?) The IGB is barely different to Andy's guidebook,
and I'm sure Pavel would happily admit that himself.
Also, remember that the guidebook is not meant to be an always up-to-date,
definitive source of information about everything one could possibly know
about ADOM. Your comments about the IGB being logically superior are rather
superfluous I think, because the guidebook is only meant to be a guide, not
a be-all reference source, and minor changes don't make any significant
difference. The main reason Pavel made the IGB was because he found it's
layout easier to browse and peruse than the original Guidebook.
> Pavel does not try to pretend that the material that he has copied from
> Andy is authorised - he states this clearly at the top of the front
> page of the IGB. Again, have you even bothered to read the IGB?!?!
>
> I am not a legal expert, so I can't comment on whether it is legal or
> not to copy someone's work, credit the original author, and then add
> valuable new content. I don't see how that could be illegal, but if it
> is then I would appreciate a more compelling argument than your mere
> opinion.
Yes it is illegal to copy someone else's work without the express permission
and authorisation of the owner of the work - that's a very simple rule of
copyright. If someone were to somehow hack ADOM and produce a modified
version of it without TB's permission it would be illegal, even if they
fully credited TB for the original. Of course, legal action isn't being
pursued in this case, and it is rather pointless to talk about laws. For me
it's more of a moral thing - altering and publishing someone's work without
their permission is just wrong. That is my opinion on matters, and that is
the main reason I won't use the IGB. It's actually rather moot me saying
that though, since I've been trying my best lately to not look at any
reference source when playing ADOM - I find I've become too hooked to the
Guidebook, and need to wean myself off it and play by my own knowledge.
I've found it more enjoyable playing that way...
I must say though, I feel too many people are getting heated up and
overreacting about this on both sides. Both Pavel and Andy themselves have
remained very calm and logical about this - why can't everyone else?
There's no need for flames, accusations, and numerous exclamation marks. If
you wat to use the IGB, then no one can stop you, and trying to defend it
here will only get you grief (in the same way you'd get grief for not using
spoiler space). If you don't like the IGB then the best thing to do is
ignore it (easily done if no one talks about it) or you can try and do as I
have done and calmly and logically suggest ways to make it more acceptible.
Pavel seems like a decent enough fellow, even if his morals may seem
ambiguous, and does listen to and act upon reasonable suggestions given to
him. There really is no need for personal attacks and petty insults - it
doesn't help anybody.
--
Darren Grey
Darren Grey
> BTW titles and footings on every page has been changed (took a lot of
> effort, but what the hell) Andy is still credited for original content,
> but things are made more clear for uniformed reader.
Heh, you work fast. Thanks for taking up the suggestion - though I haven't
noticed any change in the title, just the footing. I feel the text in the
footing is better placed at the top of the page, so people looking at the
site for the site for the first page will have the picture clear for them
straight away.
--
Darren Grey
Jan Krch??k
Hey man, don't be afraid to tell what ya feel. If he can say what he
wants wihout knowing all the facts, you are free to do the same. He
should get informed before writing here. That's HIS fault that he was
flamed by you, not yours. Freedom of speech also brings the duty of
listening what other respond. Hey, i like that sentence. :-)
Yax the Cat-Killer
Adam Biltcliffe
> Now, why am _I_ irate about this? Put quite simply: back in the day,
> writing the GB was a team effort more than anything. I remember writing
> and receiving countless emails from Malte, Adam Biltcliffe (whatever
> happened to him?)
*opens one eye, lazily*
Actually, I just started reading RGRA again a week or two ago (having
finally graduated from Cambridge and started a fun new job as a computer
science researcher). I was waiting to see if the IGB debate died down in
favour of anything more interesting before I stuck my neck out again.
(And I'm *not* going to get involved in this debate, because I don't have
the *time*, but all you people who think it's fine to ignore TB's entirely
unambiguous request that people not share information gained from
source-diving: if the whole ADoM community takes that approach, do you
think TB is going to feel motivated to release anything new? If you won't
acquiesce to his requests out of common courtesy, at least acquiesce to
them out of selfishness. Please?)
adam
xhoch3
Maybe we should add a paragraph about legal issues to the rgra faq. ;-)
As often as we have discussed about these things.
Though I don't think it would help anything.
--
"To err is human, to forgive, beyond the scope of the Operating System"
rgra bug list http://adombugs.100free.com/
gozer
said everything that I want to. However, I would like to thank Darren
Grey for his constructive, level-headed contributions - in my
opinion, the most sensible comments to date. This whole thing got blown
way out of proportion because some people (including regulars who ought
to know better) simply vented how they felt instead of taking the time
to present their response fairly and rationally. The personal attacks
made against Pavel particularly infuriate me because I don't believe
English is Pavel's first language and it appeared to me that people
were flaming him after he either misunderstood their previous comments
or vice versa.
I would also like to thank Malte for guiding me to
www.whatiscopyright.org (seriously - this is not meant to be
sarcastic). As I posted previously, I didn't understand the legal
issues involved which is why I expressly avoided making any definitive
claims about the legality (or otherwise) of the IGB. I now understand
the situation a lot better having visited the website. I'm still not
100% sure whether the IGB represents a copyright violation or not -
it definitely *isn't* plagiarism. Pavel might (*might*) be able to
claim that copying Andy's material represents fair use of the
copyright for educational purposes (see www.copyright.org) Like I said
- I can't be sure. In any event, the legality of the IGB is only
part of the debate - probably a less significant part relative to the
IGB's ethical character (which is completely subjective and, IMHO,
will never be satisfactorily resolved).
To echo Darren: if you want to use the IGB then go ahead. If you
don't want to use it then continue to support Andy. Let's please
avoid any flaming when the topic of the IGB crops up again in the
future (as it almost certainly will - e.g., when Pavel posts update
notices).
Malte Helmert
> I'm not going to comment any further about the IGB because I have
> said everything that I want to. However, I would like to thank Darren
> Grey for his constructive, level-headed contributions - in my
> opinion, the most sensible comments to date. This whole thing got blown
> way out of proportion because some people (including regulars who ought
> to know better) simply vented how they felt instead of taking the time
> to present their response fairly and rationally. The personal attacks
> made against Pavel particularly infuriate me because I don't believe
> English is Pavel's first language and it appeared to me that people
> were flaming him after he either misunderstood their previous comments
> or vice versa.
Don't forget that this discussion has crept up many, many times in the
past. The earlier discussions were much more civilized, but as Josh
said, they do wear you out over time.
> I'm still not 100% sure whether the IGB represents a
> copyright violation or not - it definitely *isn't* plagiarism.
"Plagiarism" isn't a legal term in any case; it's what people in
educational institutions use.
It definitely is a derivative work, which is all that matters.
> Pavel might (*might*) be able to
> claim that copying Andy's material represents fair use of the
> copyright for educational purposes (see www.copyright.org)
"Educational use" would imply that Pavel use the Guidebook for a
university or school course. Satisfying someone's curiosity is not
educational use.
"Fair use", definitely not. You can either trust me on this, as I have
quite a bit of experience of copyright law both from private interests
and from job life. Or read up on examples of what is and isn't fair use.
Here is one excerpt from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use):
"[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his
design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of
fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that
if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view,
not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and
substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a
piracy... In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of
the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and
the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the
profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work."
Malte
rdougher
[snip a long argument in favour of the IGB]
> Pavel has the right to compete with Andy. He has
> produced a superior product and has clearly credited Andy for his
> original content.
You're right about a lot of stuff, but you too seem to be missing the
point. Nobody here objects to Pavel producing a competing guidebook.
Lots of people would love it if Pavel, or anybody, wrote a more
complete, more up-to-date, or just plain better GB. The thing people
object to is that Pavel *copied verbatim* Andy's book. Not cool.
Making a better GB is okay, so long as it is original from the ground
up. Citing sources is fine, but copying whole cloth is not.
-Ryan
rdougher
> I could just about end my life right now. Yes, everyone's wish come true!
>
I would hope that you have better reasons than an argument in a newsgroup.
Keep on truckin'
-Ryan
Pavel Mencik
No, I am not going to edit hundert of pages again. It now looks impossible
for someone to read IGB and not know the context, providing a notice is at
the top of download page AND in the footing of EVERY page.
I said I edited *titles*, not *headings*. I believe words "ADOM Guidebook"
cannot be protected.
-----
Improved ADOM Guidebook - http://sweb.cz/adomgb/
Pavel Mencik
"Malte Helmert" <hel...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
news:dc2s2u$k40$1...@news.BelWue.DE...
>
> Don't forget that this discussion has crept up many, many times in the
> past. The earlier discussions were much more civilized, but as Josh said,
> they do wear you out over time.
Definitely not. IMO the earlier discussions were much *less* civilized.
However the feelings of others could be different, as is presented.
What is presented is on www.whatiscopyright.org is not any law. It is not
signed by any official authority, not even the author himself. It is a
babbling of mad person who happens to own the domain.
I cannot express my feelings better than to borrow gozers words, I am not a
legal expert, but I don't see how it could be illegal, to copy someone's
work, credit the author, and add new content. Setting this illegal is a
clear step backward, against any development. How could something evolve
with restriction to knowledge? Andy's GB represents knowledge, which is
free. Now I can add something to that knowledge. Why do I have to "rephrase"
the knowledge? Why cannot the knowledge be presented as a whole, if it
logically *is* a whole? As a result, not only demanding these restrictions
means harder access to knowledge for broad publicum, but also makes it
harder to add to the knowledge for authors. Forbidding such basic "rights"
are the most stupid actions, which could be done. Yes, IMO people have
*right* to know.
>So, for example, if I took a Windows CD, installed some extra material
>on it, made a thousand of copies of it and sold each of them, that would
>not be illegal? Microsoft would not sue me?
>If I typed my Harry Potter book into my PC, added some commentary to the
>end of each chapter and put some illustrations into it, then uploaded it
>to my website, I would not get e-mail from JK Rowling's publisher?
In these cases, both Microsoft and JK Rowling are making money from their
products. So if I would be distributing Improved Windows or Improved Harry
Potter, I would be obliged to 1.buy the product 2.share the income. Still, I
can't see how it is illegal if I share the income in those cases, and inform
the customer of the improvements of course.
Josh Singh
> Josh Singh wrote:
>
>> I could just about end my life right now. Yes, everyone's wish come
>> true!
>
> I would hope that you have better reasons than an argument in a
> newsgroup.
Don't worry; I have a few other reasons in reserve if I need them.
Malte Helmert
> "Malte Helmert" <hel...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
> news:dc2s2u$k40$1...@news.BelWue.DE...
>
>>Don't forget that this discussion has crept up many, many times in the
>>past. The earlier discussions were much more civilized, but as Josh said,
>>they do wear you out over time.
>
> Definitely not. IMO the earlier discussions were much *less* civilized.
> However the feelings of others could be different, as is presented.
>
> What is presented is on www.whatiscopyright.org is not any law. It is not
> signed by any official authority, not even the author himself. It is a
> babbling of mad person who happens to own the domain.
"The source of the information provided at WhatisCopyright.org is the
Berne Convention in order that any individual or company who resides in
a country that has signed the Berne Convention may benefit from this
text. Copyright laws from country to country may vary but never
contravene or provide less copyright protection than the Berne Convention."
Here is what you get if you google for "Berne convention":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
The wikipedia page on the Berne convention contains a link to a list of
countries in which it applies; the information is somewhat hidden inside
that document, so let me reproduce the list here (as of January 2003):
Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia,
Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Cape
Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo
(Democratic Republic), Congo (Republic), Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire,
Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea,
Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana,
Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti,
Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland,
Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea (South),
Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau, Macedonia, Madagascar,
Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova,
Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua,
Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,
Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, St. Kitts
and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal,
Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa,
Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland,
Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago,
Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vatican City,
Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
But fear not, noble fighters for the Enlightenment (or should I say
Improvement?) of the masses of ADOM players out there that are kept
under the oppressive shadow of wanton ignorance by people like Andy
Williams and their misinformation-spreading ilk, enemies to progress and
the freedom of words. Here is a list of countries who have not yet
succumbed to the insidious insinuations of American capitalists and
their shameful doctrine that "one man must not be able to appropriate
the result of another's labour". In other words, here is a complete list
of countries that have not signed the Berne Convention; feel free to
pick your residence in any of them:
Afghanistan, Angola, Bhutan, Brunei, Burundi, Cambodia, Chinese Taipei,
Comores, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Korea (North), Kuwait, Laos,
Maldives, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Palau, Papua New Guinea,
San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Sierra
Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda,
United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen
Be warned though, that in most of these countries, even though they are
not Berne convention states, other copyright restrictions do apply.
Still, I've heard that San Marino is particularly nice at this time of
the year.
Malte
The Beerslayer
> The wikipedia page on the Berne convention contains a link to a list of
> countries in which it applies; the information is somewhat hidden inside
> that document, so let me reproduce the list here (as of January 2003):
>
> (long list snipped)
>
> ... here is a complete list of countries that have not signed the Berne
> Convention; feel free to pick your residence in any of them:
>
> (another list snipped)
I find it fascinating that the USA (by any name that I know of) does
not appear on EITHER list. Omission, Freudian slip, or warning
sign?
-- Jeff
-- aka The Eternal Newbie :)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do
is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. -- Hermann Goering
--------------------------------------------------------------
Malte Helmert
> Malte Helmert wrote:
>
>
>>The wikipedia page on the Berne convention contains a link to a list of
>>countries in which it applies; the information is somewhat hidden inside
>>that document, so let me reproduce the list here (as of January 2003):
>>
>>(long list snipped)
>>
>>... here is a complete list of countries that have not signed the Berne
>>Convention; feel free to pick your residence in any of them:
>>
>>(another list snipped)
>
> I find it fascinating that the USA (by any name that I know of) does
> not appear on EITHER list. Omission, Freudian slip, or warning
> sign?
Oh, sorry, forgot them. Here is the explanation why they did not show up
in my source: This was taken from a list of the US copyright office
about the status of copyright law abroad. Obviously, that list wouldn't
include the USA. :-)
Here is how you find the source, which has some more information than
what I quoted: Go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
and click on the link entitled "U.S. Copyright office list of countries
having copyright relations with the United States (including list of
Berne Union countries)" (near the bottom).
The USA have been a full member of the Berne convention since 1989.
Malte
Pavel Mencik
> Here is what you get if you google for "Berne convention":
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
>
"BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971) "
"The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every production
in the literary, scientific and artistic domain. "
"The protection of this Convention shall not apply to news of the day or to
miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press
information."
I think Andy's GB is not literary or artistic work. It is a game guide. It
mostly provides knowledge (facts), not literature or art. The use is
primarily to be informed about the game, not to enjoy a literary or artistic
experience.
On a side note, am I allowed to fight against stupid laws?
Malte Helmert
>>Here is what you get if you google for "Berne convention":
>>http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
>
> "BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
> LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971) "
>
> "The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every production
> in the literary, scientific and artistic domain. "
> "The protection of this Convention shall not apply to news of the day or to
> miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press
> information."
The Guidebook clearly neither is news of the day nor press information.
> I think Andy's GB is not literary or artistic work. It is a game guide. It
> mostly provides knowledge (facts), not literature or art. The use is
> primarily to be informed about the game, not to enjoy a literary or artistic
> experience.
Do you run a computer program like Microsoft Excel for the literary or
artistic experience? Are computer programs not subject to copyright
either? No more having to spend money on software?
I spend part of my working hours writing texts that "mostly [in fact,
only] provide knowledge (facts)". I'd be delighted if anybody enjoyed
them for the literary or artistic experience, but that's certainly not
what I get my paycheck for. Still, what I write is certainly covered by
copyright. That's why publishers ask me to sign away the copyright to
them (for a benefit) before they include it in books they publish,
rather than just adding a few sections to the end of my text, reworking
the layout of my tables and then publishing it as an "improved version"
of my original work without asking for my permission.
OK, so let's see if Google helps. First hit on "define:literary work":
"Literary work -- Work consisting of text, which includes novels, poems,
catalogues, reports tables and translations of such works. It also
includes computer programs."
Pavel, you are fighting a lost cause here. This is not the first post I
have written on this subject. In the past, I have dug out numerous
references supporting what I've said -- legal texts, scientific works on
those topics, laymen guides, encyclopedia entries. I have had
discussions on these topics with lawyers; both because of private
interest, and because they relate to my work. I know what I am talking
about.
On the other hand, you have shown, time and again, that you don't know
much about copyright law. Some of the things you have said in the last
few days make you look foolish. "whatiscopyright.org" written by a
lunatic? Non-fiction not covered by copyright? I would very much advise
you not to continue this discussion before you understand what you are
talking about.
What do you think my motivation is in explaining these things, providing
these references, trying to explain their meaning and applicability to
the issues at hand in layman terms? Do you think that I'm pulling all
that stuff out of my hat for entertainment value? That I'm all making it
up as I go along? That would sure be a great way to build credibility.
The only way you can "win" this argument is by tiring everyone else out.
I doubt this will get you more support. Let it rest.
> On a side note, am I allowed to fight against stupid laws?
Yes; the process is called "voting".
Malte
Timothy Pruett
> "Malte Helmert" <hel...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
> news:dc2s2u$k40$1...@news.BelWue.DE...
>
>>Don't forget that this discussion has crept up many, many times in the
>>past. The earlier discussions were much more civilized, but as Josh said,
>>they do wear you out over time.
>
>
> Definitely not. IMO the earlier discussions were much *less* civilized.
> However the feelings of others could be different, as is presented.
>
> What is presented is on www.whatiscopyright.org is not any law. It is not
> signed by any official authority, not even the author himself. It is a
> babbling of mad person who happens to own the domain.
"Babbling of mad person"? Sure thing.
> I cannot express my feelings better than to borrow gozers words, I am not a
> legal expert,
Obviously...
> but I don't see how it could be illegal, to copy someone's
> work, credit the author, and add new content.
Really? You don't see how that could be illegal? Because, I imagine
anyone capable of reading can figure out _real_ fast that that is
quite clearly illegal.
> Setting this illegal is a
> clear step backward, against any development. How could something evolve
> with restriction to knowledge?
What restriction to knowledge? I don't see anyone restricting access
to Andy's GB.
> Andy's GB represents knowledge, which is
> free.
Yes, the *knowledge* is free. You, however, aren't just copying down
"knowledge", but, rather, copying down the word-for-word
representation of that knowledge, which most definitely is within the
author's realm of control.
> Now I can add something to that knowledge. Why do I have to "rephrase"
> the knowledge?
Obviously, you are a man who has never created anything original. As
such, you apparently don't understand how it feels to have someone
steal your hard work for their own gain. Andy (and others) put
countless hours of hardwork gathering the data for the GB, and writing
it down in a readable form. You lack the dedication and willpower to
create an equally impressive piece of work, and would rather ripoff
their hard work. That's clearly illegal, and morally wrong. Anyone
who thinks otherwise is either a fool, or has a broken moral compass.
> Why cannot the knowledge be presented as a whole, if it
> logically *is* a whole? As a result, not only demanding these restrictions
> means harder access to knowledge for broad publicum,
You have full access to the knowledge, you deluded thief. You don't
have full access to take their *representation* of that knowledge,
however.
Knowledge of, say, physics, is free. That doesn't mean I can
distribute a copy of Leo Sartori's "Understanding Relativity", with a
few layout changes and crib notes scribbled in the side.
> but also makes it
> harder to add to the knowledge for authors. Forbidding such basic "rights"
> are the most stupid actions, which could be done. Yes, IMO people have
> *right* to know.
Who's trying to take away their *right* to know? Nobody here is
suggesting any such thing.
People also have a *right* to have their work remain their work, and
not get stolen by someone else, and redistributed as their own.
>>So, for example, if I took a Windows CD, installed some extra material
>>on it, made a thousand of copies of it and sold each of them, that would
>>not be illegal? Microsoft would not sue me?
>>If I typed my Harry Potter book into my PC, added some commentary to the
>>end of each chapter and put some illustrations into it, then uploaded it
>>to my website, I would not get e-mail from JK Rowling's publisher?
>
>
> In these cases, both Microsoft and JK Rowling are making money from their
> products. So if I would be distributing Improved Windows or Improved Harry
> Potter, I would be obliged to 1.buy the product 2.share the income. Still, I
> can't see how it is illegal if I share the income in those cases, and inform
> the customer of the improvements of course.
Are you fucking kidding me? You really can't see how that would be
illegal? Why don't you go ahead and give it a try, and see how long
it takes before you get dragged into court.
I'm willing to excuse some of the stupidity that you've spewed out,
since, as a few other's have mentioned, English isn't your first
language. However, not speaking English doesn't make you retarded, so
there's no excuse for saying such stupid and obviously false nonsense.
If you want to keep on thinking that everyone else here has entirely
misinterpreted copyright law, and you, despite the fact that you are
"not a legal expert", do understand, go right on ahead. Just don't
think anyone else is going to share your delusion.
--
My projects are currently on hold, but I do have
some junk at the site below.
http://www.freewebs.com/timsrl/index.htm
--
Frances Moffatt
> I could just about end my life right now. Yes, everyone's wish come true!
Man, if you did that...
...I could copy your website, and add one little quip I wrote, and
promote it as my very own "Improved Controversial Web Presence."
(See, I wouldn't do that unless you were dead, 'cause, you know, we live
in the same city and all. And you are not as kind and gentle a soul as I.)
Love and coffee,
Frances (recently switched computers. And used up a chunk of her
life sending out submissions. And sold a painting. But still playing
ADOM.)
Pavel Mencik
>> It
>> mostly provides knowledge (facts), not literature or art. The use is
>> primarily to be informed about the game, not to enjoy a literary or
>> artistic
>> experience.
>
> Do you run a computer program like Microsoft Excel for the literary or
> artistic experience? Are computer programs not subject to copyright
> either? No more having to spend money on software?
>
That's another thing. That is *using*, and using of GB is permitted AFAIK.
> I spend part of my working hours writing texts that "mostly [in fact,
> only] provide knowledge (facts)". I'd be delighted if anybody enjoyed
> them for the literary or artistic experience, but that's certainly not
> what I get my paycheck for. Still, what I write is certainly covered by
> copyright. That's why publishers ask me to sign away the copyright to
> them (for a benefit) before they include it in books they publish,
> rather than just adding a few sections to the end of my text, reworking
> the layout of my tables and then publishing it as an "improved version"
> of my original work without asking for my permission.
>
Malte, "facts" belongs to public domain by definition. Nobody could own a
fact. It is the expression of the facts which is being copyrighted. Since
often there are only limited expressions possible, such a copyright is very
debatable, IMO should not exist.
> Pavel, you are fighting a lost cause here. This is not the first post I
> have written on this subject. In the past, I have dug out numerous
> references supporting what I've said -- legal texts, scientific works on
> those topics, laymen guides, encyclopedia entries. I have had
> discussions on these topics with lawyers; both because of private
> interest, and because they relate to my work. I know what I am talking
> about.
This is not a lost cause. There exists such things as copyleft or GPL, which
have the future. Copyright laws were made before Internet existed, that's
their problem. The Bene convenion will have to be reviewed, sooner or later.
Internet is a publicly-available domain, not licensed or controlled by any
individual, company, or government; therefore, everything on the Internet is
public domain. There is no way of proving which set of bits is original.
Copyright does not exist merely to restrict third parties from publishing
ideas and information. Definining copyright purely as a negative right is
contrary to the public policy objective of encouraging authors to create new
works and enrich the public domain. This perfectly applies to IGB case. The
concept of copyright has never been of net benefit to society, and has
always served simply to enrich a few at the expense of creativity and
freedom.
I believe that ideas and knowledge should not be owned or controlled, they
are not capable of ownership. They are part of the common cultural and
intellectual heritage of humanity. Intellectual "property" does not behave
like material property. If I give you a physical object I may no longer have
use or control of that thing, and may ask for something in return -- some
payment or barter. But when I give you an idea, I lose nothing. I can still
use that idea as I wish. I need ask nothing in return. The concepts of the
intrinsic freedom of information are necessary precepts for creators to be
able to build on published expression.
xhoch3
>
>> I spend part of my working hours writing texts that "mostly [in fact,
>> only] provide knowledge (facts)". I'd be delighted if anybody enjoyed
>> them for the literary or artistic experience, but that's certainly
>> not what I get my paycheck for. Still, what I write is certainly
>> covered by copyright. That's why publishers ask me to sign away the
>> copyright to them (for a benefit) before they include it in books
>> they publish, rather than just adding a few sections to the end of my
>> text, reworking the layout of my tables and then publishing it as an
>> "improved version" of my original work without asking for my
>> permission.
>>
>
> Malte, "facts" belongs to public domain by definition. Nobody could
> own a
> fact. It is the expression of the facts which is being copyrighted.
Yeah, and you stole this copyrighted expression.
> Since often there are only limited expressions possible,
true there is a certain limit, but it is very improbable that any number
of persons would write a text with the same content with exactly the
same words (given the number of currently existing words). And besides
the number of words isn't really limited: New words are made up every
day and the meaning of words changes.
> such a
> copyright is very debatable, IMO should not exist.
But what we are debating about isn't a change of copyright laws, it is
the current situation.
--
Predestination was doomed from the start.
rdougher
[snip]
>If I give you a physical object I may no longer have
> use or control of that thing, and may ask for something in return -- some
> payment or barter. But when I give you an idea, I lose nothing. I can still
> use that idea as I wish. I need ask nothing in return. The concepts of the
> intrinsic freedom of information are necessary precepts for creators to be
> able to build on published expression.
>
See the article at the below location for the source of Pavel's smooth
English prose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-copyright
-Ryan
Timothy Pruett
Bwahahahahahaha! Oh my, oh my, I haven't laughed that hard in a
while. How lovely is it that Pavel stole his little speech, and from
an article against copyright, no less. That is too funny. I think
this little morsel of info basically sums up the whole argument.
Pavel not only can't write for himself, he also can't think for
himself, but he sure as hell can regurgitate someone else's words
without a problem.
Pavel, stealing the GB is one thing. But when you have to resort to
plagiarism to communicate in a newsgroup, you really need to get a
grip on things, and learn to write (and think) for yourself.
Josh Singh
> Josh Singh wrote:
>> I could just about end my life right now. Yes, everyone's wish come
>> true!
>
> Man, if you did that...
>
> ...I could copy your website, and add one little quip I wrote, and
> promote it as my very own "Improved Controversial Web Presence."
I'd like to see you try. I'd haunt your ass like the ghosts in the schools I
work in haunt the students and staff (other than me, of course, since I
wouldn't be bothered by a haunting and that in itself defeats the purpose of
a haunting).
> (See, I wouldn't do that unless you were dead, 'cause, you know, we
> live in the same city and all. And you are not as kind and gentle a
> soul as I.)
I am fucking gentle, you harpy! I'm as gentle as a freaking lake of red
freaking piranhas!
And for the record, I'm not in Ottawa at the moment, I'm at home in east
Toronto. I've transferred to the University of Toronto at Scarborough so
that I can stop spending so much money on an apartment and Chinese takeout
and suchlike. But I'll be back; I have belated coffee meetings to attend to.
I'll update my Personal Info page to reflect these changes whenever. I don't
really care, I need to find a new host anyway.
Frances Moffatt
>>>I could just about end my life right now. Yes, everyone's wish come
>>>true!
>>Man, if you did that...
>>...I could copy your website, and add one little quip I wrote, and
>>promote it as my very own "Improved Controversial Web Presence."
> I'd like to see you try. I'd haunt your ass like the ghosts in the schools I
> work in haunt the students and staff (other than me, of course, since I
> wouldn't be bothered by a haunting and that in itself defeats the purpose of
> a haunting).
Ooooo. Haunted schools. Any new insights into ghost librarians?
>>(See, I wouldn't do that unless you were dead, 'cause, you know, we
>>live in the same city and all. And you are not as kind and gentle a
>>soul as I.)
> I am fucking gentle, you harpy! I'm as gentle as a freaking lake of red
> freaking piranhas!
(I suppose it's a sad thing that I hear this and think "What, survivable
for a turn at a time?")
> And for the record, I'm not in Ottawa at the moment, I'm at home in east
> Toronto. I've transferred to the University of Toronto at Scarborough so
> that I can stop spending so much money on an apartment and Chinese takeout
> and suchlike. But I'll be back; I have belated coffee meetings to attend to.
Ah. Missed that. I have missed much.
> I'll update my Personal Info page to reflect these changes whenever. I don't
> really care, I need to find a new host anyway.
Luck on that...
Love and coffee,
Frances
matija
>> and receiving countless emails from Malte, Adam Biltcliffe (whatever
>> happened to him?)
>
> *opens one eye, lazily*
welcome back, i thought the MKODDD got you :)
--
there is a cheer. the gnomes have learned a new way to say hooray. [-shpongle]
address is scrambled - remove the superfluous "x" marks to reply
noah bedford
Malte Helmert <hel...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>Hey, looks like I found a business model!
Microsoft in 1987...
Hey, I'll just take this IBM-DOS, make a million copies of it, and sell it!
18 Years later...
"So, for example, if I took a Windows CD, installed some extra material
on it, made a thousand of copies of it and sold each of them, that would
not be illegal? Microsoft would not sue me?"
Microsoft sues EVERYBODY. get used to it.
noah bedford
Malte Helmert <hel...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>Afghanistan, Angola, Bhutan, Brunei, Burundi, Cambodia, Chinese Taipei,
>Comores, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Korea (North), Kuwait, Laos,
>Maldives, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Palau, Papua New Guinea,
>San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Sierra
>Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda,
>United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen
Ethiopia.
noah bedford
Timothy Pruett <drakalor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>How lovely is it that Pavel stole his little speech, and from
>an article against copyright, no less. That is too funny
Quite ironic, isn't it...
noah bedford
Frances Moffatt <tor...@rogers.com> wrote:
>...I could copy your website, and add one little quip I wrote, and
>promote it as my very own "Improved Controversial Web Presence."
But so you don't violate copyright...
Its the Vzcebirq Pbagebirefvny Jro Cerfrapr.
Frances Moffatt
> Frances Moffatt <tor...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>...I could copy your website, and add one little quip I wrote, and
>>promote it as my very own "Improved Controversial Web Presence."
> But so you don't violate copyright...
> Its the Vzcebirq Pbagebirefvny Jro Cerfrapr.
ROT13, my old nemesis!
*draws Netiquette, the shining silver keyboard*
I guess it's a moot point until Josh is dead, though.
L&c,
F
Josh Singh
Yeah, gee, thanks for considering my living state.
Frances Moffatt
> Frances Moffatt (tor...@rogers.com) writes:
>>noah bedford wrote:
>>>Frances Moffatt <tor...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>>...I could copy your website, and add one little quip I wrote, and
>>>>promote it as my very own "Improved Controversial Web Presence."
>>>But so you don't violate copyright...
>>>Its the Vzcebirq Pbagebirefvny Jro Cerfrapr.
>>ROT13, my old nemesis!
>>*draws Netiquette, the shining silver keyboard*
>>I guess it's a moot point until Josh is dead, though.
> Yeah, gee, thanks for considering my living state.
Well, I *could* disregard it and create the ICWP (VPJC?).
Ohhh, and while I was at it, I could kick around all the HTML tags so
that if you read the HTML and didn't know what it meant, there'd be
little explanations! Wouldn't that be so much cooler and user-friendly?
Aren't you glad you're not dead? :)
Love and coffee,
Frances
Josh Singh
> Josh Singh wrote:
>> Frances Moffatt (tor...@rogers.com) writes:
>>> noah bedford wrote:
>>>> Frances Moffatt <tor...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> ...I could copy your website, and add one little quip I wrote, and
>>>>> promote it as my very own "Improved Controversial Web Presence."
>>>> But so you don't violate copyright...
>>>> Its the Vzcebirq Pbagebirefvny Jro Cerfrapr.
>>> ROT13, my old nemesis!
>>> *draws Netiquette, the shining silver keyboard*
>>> I guess it's a moot point until Josh is dead, though.
>> Yeah, gee, thanks for considering my living state.
>
> Well, I *could* disregard it and create the ICWP (VPJC?).
Well if you did, I'm sure millions would be grovelling at your feet (as
opposed to perhaps one or two individuals at mine) and you would be
consummately happy. Certainly, the ICWP would crush the mundane, listless
CwP hands-down, and given that we reside under exactly the same laws, the
victory would be that much sweeter as I would surely be unable to do a damn
thing about it. It would be like screaming "Terrorist!" and pointing at my
goatee in the subway, forcing a system-wide stoppage as the task force comes
on board to drag me out.
You know, I've been on the subway a lot lately and that hasn't happened yet,
so perhaps there is hope that people won't subject me to that crap. My
father says if that stuff starts happening I'll have to shave my goatee.
Yeah, right. Having a goatee is no crime, and I'll be damned if I'll play
into their as-yet-non-threatening hands.
> Ohhh, and while I was at it, I could kick around all the HTML tags so
> that if you read the HTML and didn't know what it meant, there'd be
> little explanations! Wouldn't that be so much cooler and
> user-friendly?
Anything has to be much cooler and user-friendly than the dog-feces layout I
have now. And, surely, if things were to happen so, I would be shamed before
the world, my reputation and respect all but destroyed. Such code would
obliterate the competition (i.e. code written to be rendered in a browser
rather than Notepad).
> Aren't you glad you're not dead? :)
Well, the Blue Jays lost again today, so I'm not sure.
On the other hand, there were Texans at the game, cheering on their stupid
Rangers. That was intriguing. Texans are about as exotic as you get in
Toronto (given that Mauritians and Fijians are to be found everywhere in
this city already). They're like rambutans. Those are really hairy fruits.
(I mean rambutans, not Texans.) Anyway, if I keep running into Texans, life
might be interesting enough to continue for another sixty years or so.
rdougher
> (I mean rambutans, not Texans.) Anyway, if I keep running into Texans, life
> might be interesting enough to continue for another sixty years or so.
>
You might consider moving to Texas. But then again, that would entail
living in the US. Best wait at least three more years.
-Ryan
(Citizen of the good ol' US of A and Damned Proud of the fact that I was
born into it and didn't choose it and haven't really had a chance to
evaluate the alternatives and probably wouldn't have chosen it had I had
a choice in the matter especially in light of the current political
climate at home and abroad.)
Josh Singh
> Josh Singh wrote:
>> (I mean rambutans, not Texans.) Anyway, if I keep running into
>> Texans, life might be interesting enough to continue for another
>> sixty years or so.
>
> You might consider moving to Texas. But then again, that would entail
> living in the US. Best wait at least three more years.
All things considered, I think I'd prefer to stay right here in Scarborough
as opposed to moving to the Shrub's stomping grounds. There's something
about the crumbling buildings and stolen shopping carts littering my
neighbourhood that makes me feel at home.
No black gold for me. I'll just sit in my backyard, throwing worm-ridden
crabapples at chickadees (a.k.a. titmice, if you prefer).
For the longest time I though a titmouse was a rodent. But then so did
everyone I asked about it. Helluva thing.
> -Ryan
> (Citizen of the good ol' US of A and Damned Proud of the fact that I
> was born into it and didn't choose it and haven't really had a chance
> to evaluate the alternatives and probably wouldn't have chosen it had
> I had a choice in the matter especially in light of the current
> political climate at home and abroad.)
... Now that was unexpected. Kudos.
Arturus Magi
> Microsoft in 1987...
> Hey, I'll just take this IBM-DOS, make a million copies of it, and
> sell it!
IBM didn't make PC-DOS. Microsoft sold them the right to publish it.
Microsoft in turn bought the rights to QDOS from another company that
went bankrupt.
There's nothing on to low here, just buisness as usual.
Arturus Magi
>
> This is not a lost cause. There exists such things as copyleft or
> GPL, which have the future. Copyright laws were made before Internet
> existed, that's their problem. The Bene convenion will have to be
> reviewed, sooner or later. Internet is a publicly-available domain,
> not licensed or controlled by any individual, company, or government;
Newsflash: 'copyleft' (which is to say, the GPL) depends on copyright
to function. It is not an abrogation of copyright law, but rather the
fufillment of it. It is a licence to use a work within certain
boundaries. The fact that it explicitly give you permission to copy it
does not change the fact that it is the very thing you are complaining
about.
> therefore, everything on the Internet is public domain. There is no
> way of proving which set of bits is original.
Sure there is. Google has a functioning archive of Usenet dating back
a decade or so. Alexa helped put together an archive of the Internet as
a whole (http://www.archive.org ). And in a couple of places you can
still retrieve copies of every word and image that was transmitted over
that particular network, a few deleted messages not withstanding.
The changing of the transmission method does not change the legality,
only the means required to prove it.
Arturus Magi
>
> I cannot express my feelings better than to borrow gozers words, I am
> not a legal expert, but I don't see how it could be illegal, to copy
> someone's work, credit the author, and add new content. Setting this
> illegal is a clear step backward, against any development. How could
> something evolve with restriction to knowledge? Andy's GB represents
> knowledge, which is free. Now I can add something to that knowledge.
> Why do I have to "rephrase" the knowledge? Why cannot the knowledge
> be presented as a whole, if it logically is a whole? As a result, not
> only demanding these restrictions means harder access to knowledge
> for broad publicum, but also makes it harder to add to the knowledge
> for authors. Forbidding such basic "rights" are the most stupid
> actions, which could be done. Yes, IMO people have right to know.
>
> In these cases, both Microsoft and JK Rowling are making money from
> their products. So if I would be distributing Improved Windows or
> Improved Harry Potter, I would be obliged to 1.buy the product
> 2.share the income. Still, I can't see how it is illegal if I share
> the income in those cases, and inform the customer of the
> improvements of course.
Money has nothing to do with copyright. Not one iota of copyright law
deals with value of property.
Damage in terms of miss-attribution of work, destruction of author's
rights, and other ethical and moral principles remains damage within
the bounds of copyright law.
The IGB is plagurism, plain and simple. It is lifted directly from the
Guidebook and given a facelift.
You can quote it, but you cannot copy the entire text, regardless of
what you do with it afterwards, unless you have express permission from
the author.
This is not citation; this is not educational within the bounds of the
law. It is theft. The fact that no monetary damage is caused is
wholly irrelevant.
Pavel Mencik
>> way of proving which set of bits is original.
>
> Sure there is. Google has a functioning archive of Usenet dating back
> a decade or so. Alexa helped put together an archive of the Internet as
> a whole (http://www.archive.org ). And in a couple of places you can
> still retrieve copies of every word and image that was transmitted over
> that particular network, a few deleted messages not withstanding.
>
with robots.txt, one may claim sharing documents over LAN before publishing
on Internet, etc.
Pavel Mencik
> law. It is theft. The fact that no monetary damage is caused is
> wholly irrelevant.
Theft without monetary damage is *NOT* theft. To "thieve", also includes
secrecy and stealth. On the contrary, IGB is not hiding any fact.
Malte Helmert
What strikes me as very odd is that you seem to think that only because
the "Improved" Guidebook mentions its source, this somehow makes its
violation of copyright less blatant or serious.
Confessing something doesn't automatically grant you absolution.
You also have to *stop doing it*.
Malte
Pavel Mencik
> What strikes me as very odd is that you seem to think that only because
> the "Improved" Guidebook mentions its source, this somehow makes its
> violation of copyright less blatant or serious.
>
> Confessing something doesn't automatically grant you absolution.
> You also have to *stop doing it*.
>
No, you cannot persuade me that I doing something wrong. Stop it, you
cannot. The IGB is resource being made for ADOM community, and it is
appreciated by those sensible players who don't care about stupid plagiarism
issues. Of course I'd prefer if IGB was there with Andy's agreement, but
when he is not going to agree, then it's sad, but what the heck. Everyone
knows how was IGB created, someone may find it wrong, then they won't be
using it (I believe), but please let others choose. I find this similar to
fight against termination of pregnacy. Same stupididy, trying to impose some
distorted morals to everybody, even if it has support in law.
Batman?
blah blah blah I like to steal other peoples ideas for profit blah blah
blah
^^ I wonder if this isnt a revival of the mike3 charachter that trolled
this group a while back? he has similarly juvenile ideas and rationale
for doing as he pleases.
The Wanderer
No, Pavel is (at the very least) more sophisticated - and possibly less
lazy - than mike3. He's hardly any less worthless, but I strongly doubt
they're the same person.
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
Pavel Mencik
"Batman?" <ferm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125430125....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Pavel Mencik wrote:
>
> blah blah blah I like to steal other peoples ideas for profit blah blah
> blah
>
Sorry, you said profit?? IGB is free to download, I'm not making any profit
out of it.
Batman?
Sorry, you said profit?? IGB is free to download, I'm not making any
profit
out of it.
I guess those ads on the page werent paid for? helping someone else to
make a profit on plagarised material isnt any less an act of stealing
than doing it first hand.
Instead of wasting everyones time with this IGB garbage why dont you
put your energy into helping the ADOM community in a meanigful way,
like finding out what the *tchunk* message does or something.
Or making a patch that adds in pants so all the PC's dont wander around
Arcadia with their Junk hanging out all the time.
Pavel Mencik
>> Pavel Mencik wrote:
>
> Sorry, you said profit?? IGB is free to download, I'm not making any
> profit out of it.
>
> I guess those ads on the page werent paid for? helping someone else to
> make a profit on plagarised material isnt any less an act of stealing
> than doing it first hand.
>
There is currently no add on IGB website, except for links to www.adom.de
and Andy's GB. Though I don't see any profit coming from free banners
exchange.
mild spoiler follow
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
> Instead of wasting everyones time with this IGB garbage why dont you
> put your energy into helping the ADOM community in a meanigful way,
> like finding out what the *tchunk* message does or something.
*tchunk* message has No effect - reported from dissassembling binary
>
> Or making a patch that adds in pants so all the PC's dont wander around
> Arcadia with their Junk hanging out all the time.
What, a patch to binary? Isn't that blatant plagiarism going against the
authors' wishes? Please don't argue that patch to GB would be ok, we've been
at this already.
Malte Helmert
>
> No, you cannot persuade me that I doing something wrong. Stop it, you
> cannot. The IGB is resource being made for ADOM community, and it is
> appreciated by those sensible players who don't care about stupid plagiarism
> issues. Of course I'd prefer if IGB was there with Andy's agreement, but
> when he is not going to agree, then it's sad, but what the heck. Everyone
> knows how was IGB created, someone may find it wrong, then they won't be
> using it (I believe), but please let others choose. I find this similar to
> fight against termination of pregnacy. Same stupididy, trying to impose some
> distorted morals to everybody, even if it has support in law.
Hey, I have another example of a valiant fighter against "distorted
morals" "imposed on everybody" "supported by law". He lives in my city,
his name is Peter Niehenke, and he likes to run through the city naked
(which our oppressive government tries to prevent him from doing due to
their distorted moral standards).
He has a great website dedicated to his fight against government,
police, etc., and it's full of the sort of vocabulary you like to use
("stupidity", "distorted morals", "freedom of choice", etc.). I'm sure
you would get along well.
Malte
PS: And yes, the man isn't fake. He really does this; I've seen him on
one of his trips.
matija
> ^^ I wonder if this isnt a revival of the mike3 charachter that trolled
> this group a while back? he has similarly juvenile ideas and rationale
> for doing as he pleases.
hmmm... SSRT.
Batman?
creatin a game which thousands of us love to the point of obsession.
and in doing so he expressley said he doesent want people tearing the
game apar and t odiscover his secrets. Andy has for the most parts,
within the guidance of TB created a guide which surmises the collected
observations of the game to the betterment of people trying to play.
which is in a sense what TB wanted, people playing his game and
learning the game from playnig the game, not from reading the code and
backing into it. It worked wondefurly up until recently, we all played
the game, and yes we learned some things from togu and vladimir, but
when we got word from TB that he wasnt happy with the monster dex and
other spoilers that werent derived from gameplay, we were happy to rely
on Andy's collected work of players observation.
but then you came out of nowhere and said that the person who spent a
material portion of his life force creating something we all love was
wrong , and you were going to do what you want. and to add insult to
injury you blatently plagarised the substantil life work of a dedicated
player who made great strides to obey the wishes of TB.
You dont own ADOM, TB does. And if you dont want to respect tyhe
wishes of a person who has sacraficed so much to make a bunch of
strangers happy, for free i might add, then get lost
or better yet make your own game, but you wont, because the only thing
you are good at is stealing the ideas of others.
Loser
PS sorry for posting with out quoting.
xhoch3
>
> Hey, I have another example of a valiant fighter against "distorted
> morals" "imposed on everybody" "supported by law". He lives in my
> city, his name is Peter Niehenke, and he likes to run through the city
> naked (which our oppressive government tries to prevent him from doing
> due to their distorted moral standards).
>
> He has a great website dedicated to his fight against government,
> police, etc., and it's full of the sort of vocabulary you like to use
> ("stupidity", "distorted morals", "freedom of choice", etc.). I'm sure
> you would get along well.
>
> Malte
>
> PS: And yes, the man isn't fake. He really does this; I've seen him on
> one of his trips.
I hope you are aware that now Freiburg will be overrun by all these sick
people out there who want to see somebody naked for free. (The internet
was made by sick people wanting to see somebody naked for free, wasn't
it? At least that's how I see it when checking my mail.)
Just wait for the first one asking: Could you post the the link Malte?
--
Mother is far too clever to understand anything she does not like.
-- Arnold Bennett
rgra bug list http://adombugs.100free.com/
Malte Helmert
> Malte Helmert wrote:
>
>>PS: And yes, the man isn't fake. He really does this; I've seen him on
>>one of his trips.
>
> I hope you are aware that now Freiburg will be overrun by all these sick
> people out there who want to see somebody naked for free. (The internet
> was made by sick people wanting to see somebody naked for free, wasn't
> it? At least that's how I see it when checking my mail.)
I doubt anyone would be very eager to see pictures of Mr Niehenke. :-)
Malte
Pavel Mencik
>It boils down to this : TB spent the greater part of the last ten years
>creatin a game which thousands of us love to the point of obsession.
>and in doing so he expressley said he doesent want people tearing the
>game apar and t odiscover his secrets. Andy has for the most parts,
>within the guidance of TB created a guide which surmises the collected
>observations of the game to the betterment of people trying to play.
>which is in a sense what TB wanted, people playing his game and
>learning the game from playnig the game, not from reading the code and
>backing into it. It worked wondefurly up until recently, we all played
>the game, and yes we learned some things from togu and vladimir, but
>when we got word from TB that he wasnt happy with the monster dex and
>other spoilers that werent derived from gameplay, we were happy to rely
>on Andy's collected work of players observation.
>but then you came out of nowhere and said that the person who spent a
>material portion of his life force creating something we all love was
>wrong , and you were going to do what you want. and to add insult to
>injury you blatently plagarised the substantil life work of a dedicated
>player who made great strides to obey the wishes of TB.
>You dont own ADOM, TB does. And if you dont want to respect tyhe
>wishes of a person who has sacraficed so much to make a bunch of
>strangers happy, for free i might add, then get lost
Few points:
1. I appreciate the work of both Thomas and Andy
2. In Andy's GB there's quite a lot of info obtained by dissasembling
the executable
3. It is not possible to prevent everybody from dissassembling
executable and sharing the info
The Wanderer
If you appreciate their work, why don't you respect their wishes?
> 2. In Andy's GB there's quite a lot of info obtained by dissasembling
> the executable
True - AFAIK, most of it has been grandfathered in from before the
"please don't disassemble" statement was officially made.
> 3. It is not possible to prevent everybody from dissassembling
> executable and sharing the info
Also true, but utterly irrelevant to the question of whether your
so-called "I"GB is remotely appropriate.
Przemyslaw Brojewski
Yada-yada. Go away, bloody thief.
roy axenov
xhoch3 wrote:
> Malte Helmert wrote:
>>
>> Hey, I have another example of a valiant fighter
>> against "distorted morals" "imposed on everybody"
>> "supported by law". He lives in my city, his name is
>> Peter Niehenke, and he likes to run through the city
>> naked (which our oppressive government tries to prevent
>> him from doing due to their distorted moral standards).
>>
>> He has a great website dedicated to his fight against
>> government, police, etc., and it's full of the sort of
>> vocabulary you like to use ("stupidity", "distorted
>> morals", "freedom of choice", etc.). I'm sure you would
>> get along well.
>>
>> Malte
>>
>> PS: And yes, the man isn't fake. He really does this;
>> I've seen him on one of his trips.
>
> I hope you are aware that now Freiburg will be overrun
> by all these sick people out there who want to see
> somebody naked for free. (The internet was made by sick
> people wanting to see somebody naked for free, wasn't
> it? At least that's how I see it when checking my mail.)
> Just wait for the first one asking: Could you post the
> the link Malte?
Er... Malte... could you post the link? Puh-lease?
--
roy axenov, the first one asking
Malte Helmert
> xhoch3 wrote:
>
>>I hope you are aware that now Freiburg will be overrun
>>by all these sick people out there who want to see
>>somebody naked for free. (The internet was made by sick
>>people wanting to see somebody naked for free, wasn't
>>it? At least that's how I see it when checking my mail.)
>>Just wait for the first one asking: Could you post the
>>the link Malte?
>
> Er... Malte... could you post the link? Puh-lease?
It's pretty easy to find by googling for the name, but since it's all
German... [checks] hey, part of the stuff has been translated!
OK, go to http://www.nude-international.net/ and start with the link
"How officials in Germany terrorize the 'Naked Runner'".
Malte
roy axenov
Malte Helmert wrote:
> roy axenov wrote:
>> xhoch3 wrote:
["nude jogger of Freiburg"]
>> Er... Malte... could you post the link? Puh-lease?
>
> It's pretty easy to find by googling for the name...
I tried, but all I've found seemed to refer to some
astrologist. I just though that "nude astrologist jogger"
would be a little too much even for this crazy world.
> but since it's all German... [checks] hey, part of the
> stuff has been translated! OK, go to
> http://www.nude-international.net/ and start with the
> link "How officials in Germany terrorize the 'Naked
> Runner'".
Wow! Lots of adjectives. "Cowardly", "irrefutable",
"coercive", "brutal and unscrupulous" and even "incredibly
duplicitous" (the hell if I know what *that* could
possibly mean).
Hardly fits my definition of eloquence, though. Sounds
more like propaganda to me.
--
roy axenov
Malte Helmert
> Malte Helmert wrote:
>
>>roy axenov wrote:
>>
>>>xhoch3 wrote:
>
> ["nude jogger of Freiburg"]
>
>>>Er... Malte... could you post the link? Puh-lease?
>>
>>It's pretty easy to find by googling for the name...
>
> I tried, but all I've found seemed to refer to some
> astrologist. I just though that "nude astrologist jogger"
> would be a little too much even for this crazy world.
No, he's indeed the one who writes about astrology.
> Hardly fits my definition of eloquence, though. Sounds
> more like propaganda to me.
Well, he must have some mental capacity. He's also got a PhD in
psychology and produced some very renowned work in that area. He also is
(or used to be, I don't know) a referee for the German National Academic
Foundation, which is the country's largest sponsor of intellectually
outstanding students and has a *very* high profile.
But you are right, his pages are not exactly what I'd consider the
pinnacle of intellectual discourse -- of course this is what makes them fun.
Malte
Darren Grey
news:df3plk$hfj$1...@news.BelWue.DE...
Then why does the site have 40,000 hits?
--
Grey
Malte Helmert
> "Malte Helmert" <hel...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
> news:df3plk$hfj$1...@news.BelWue.DE...
>
>
> Then why does the site have 40,000 hits?
The original German site has more than a million. I think it's mostly
due to the textual content, which is really quite funny (although not
intentionally so).
Malte
Darren Grey
Nah, the internet started off as a brave and noble thing, but quickly
descended into a testament to human perversion (kinda like the infinite
dungeon, but more disturbed). People go on that site to see someone's
naughty bits.
--
Darren Grey