IRC being used for software piracy (Warez)

save_the_internet

unread,

Mar 3, 1995, 11:46:06 AM3/3/95

to

I have had for some time information about the use of the internet
for transfer of illegal pirated software. Recently, however, I have realized
the severity of the situation, to the tune of thousands of software pirates
using IRC to further their crime. In the past, lists of ftp sites abused to
this end have been posted, I have obtained a list of the people who frequent
the "warez" IRC channels (#warez, #warez1, #warez2, #warez3, #warez4,
#warez5, #warez6, and possibly others). Since these channels are usually
invite only, they are often hard to get into, and because those people will
not tolerate anyone who does not take part in their crime, I was not able to
stay in long to get detailed logs of their conversations. However, it is
quite obvious that they openly trade pirated software (even from spending
several minutes in the channel, this can be observed) and do not use these
channels for legitimate means. It would seem that the lower numbered
(#warez, #warez2) channels are the most exclusive, available to only those
thieves with the newest "zero day" pirated software.

From /who listings, I am appending a listing of people who have
frequently been in the #warez* channels. Complete who listings would be
posted, but they are quite large in volume and duplicates among different
channels and different IRCNAME's would have to be removed, bringing us back
to the exact same listing. Names are in standard IRC nick!user@host format,
a best attempt was made to sort them in reverse (domain, subdomain, host,
user, nick), to make it easier for administrators to search for their own
system.

It is *STRONGLY* recommended that administrators of systems in which
these users are on check their directories for pirated software or
extremely large disk usage.

Gross misuse of the Internet such as this, and the toleration of it,
brings us one step closer to the regulation of the internet that would
essentially destroy it. Help work with the anarchy to save it. And if you
don't care about the net and the millions of people it affects, at least
care about yourself and the risk you incur by allowing pirated software to
be traded through your system, even unknowingly.

It would be much better for the media to learn that a problem was
recognized and dealt with than for them to report "software piracy runs
rampant on the Internet, system adminstrators do nothing to stop it." This
is not a case of free speech or violations of an ancient law, but of a
serious problem that cannot be ignored.

3227 line list follows:

*EOF*

USA_Direct

unread,

Mar 4, 1995, 6:09:58 PM3/4/95

to

In article <oQso_k...@netcom.com>, <Save The Internet> wrote:
> I have had for some time information about the use of the internet
>for transfer of illegal pirated software. Recently, however, I have realized
>the severity of the situation, to the tune of thousands of software pirates
>using IRC to further their crime. In the past, lists of ftp sites abused to
>this end have been posted, I have obtained a list of the people who frequent
>the "warez" IRC channels (#warez, #warez1, #warez2, #warez3, #warez4,
>#warez5, #warez6, and possibly others). Since these channels are usually
>invite only, they are often hard to get into, and because those people will

If this person is found..... Well... I guess he'll know what it's like
not to have a mail box....

respond X 300,000

JAke
_____________ ________ ^ ______ 'Thank-you for abusing AT&T'
|***********| |******| /*\ /*****/ *****************************
|** |***| **| |******| /*^*\ /****/ * Ph3ar m3 cuz my ISP r00lz.*
-- |***| -- |**| /*/ \*\ |***/ * IRC = USAdirect *
|***| |**| /*/___\*\ |**< * Formerly IRC = Opp *
|***| |**| /*********\ |***\_ * 'Time 4 a change' *
|***| |******| /*/-------\*\ \****\_ * Email: u...@max.tiac.net *
|*******| |******| /*/ \*\ \*****\ *****************************

USA_Direct

unread,

Mar 4, 1995, 6:14:17 PM3/4/95

to

No to mention scanning through and seeing muh self on there..

Opp!u...@max.tiac.net

.... Oh well.. the life of a Netcom Loser continues on Usenet.. hehe

BTW !! Did you get those other WAREZ lists I sent to you ??
If they haven't gone down they all should have the Commander Keen series

>> Kan't have enuff Commander Keen <<

hahahahahaha

Jake - ph3ar m3 b0y

Message has been deleted

save_the_internet

unread,

Mar 5, 1995, 8:42:01 AM3/5/95

to

My previous post was maliciously cancelled by one of the pirates. This is a
repost:

I have had for some time information about the use of the internet
for transfer of illegal pirated software. Recently, however, I have realized
the severity of the situation, to the tune of thousands of software pirates
using IRC to further their crime. In the past, lists of ftp sites abused to
this end have been posted, I have obtained a list of the people who frequent
the "warez" IRC channels (#warez, #warez1, #warez2, #warez3, #warez4,
#warez5, #warez6, and possibly others). Since these channels are usually
invite only, they are often hard to get into, and because those people will

save_the_internet

unread,

Mar 5, 1995, 8:42:02 AM3/5/95

to

Vasilios Pilarinos

unread,

Mar 5, 1995, 10:13:40 AM3/5/95

to

SiLeNt (sil...@news.gate.net) wrote:
: >quite obvious that they openly trade pirated software (even from spending

: >several minutes in the channel, this can be observed) and do not use these
: >channels for legitimate means. It would seem that the lower numbered

: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- What would that be??
: Please clarify this gross misuse of an adjective.
: thanks

Cracks, for ease of use purposes. Say you have the game and don't
want to look at the manual every time you start up the game. You go into
#warezXXX and look around for it. Perfectly normal. Or people that went
there originally (when the first started ircing) looking for warez but
just hang out know cause they like the company. Quite legitimate, no?
--
<Vasilios Pilarinos> * <vqp...@is2.nyu.edu>
<Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens.>

Hamish Mogan

unread,

Mar 4, 1995, 11:32:27 PM3/4/95

to

[Bullshit Deleted]

Look pal, no one give a rats ass about your elite list of warez frequenters
because you are missing one vital ingredient to conviction..

E V I D E N C E....

Just because you are on a #warez channel DOESN'T mean that you are commiting
a crime and its whining little nerds like yourself who have ruined IRC.

So pal, get a life, oh and get some evidence too!

SiLeNt

unread,

Mar 5, 1995, 4:17:56 AM3/5/95

to

Save The Internet writes:

> I have had for some time information about the use of the internet
>for transfer of illegal pirated software. Recently, however, I have realized
>the severity of the situation, to the tune of thousands of software pirates
>using IRC to further their crime. In the past, lists of ftp sites abused to
>this end have been posted, I have obtained a list of the people who frequent
>the "warez" IRC channels (#warez, #warez1, #warez2, #warez3, #warez4,
>#warez5, #warez6, and possibly others). Since these channels are usually
>invite only, they are often hard to get into, and because those people will
>not tolerate anyone who does not take part in their crime, I was not able to
>stay in long to get detailed logs of their conversations. However, it is
>quite obvious that they openly trade pirated software (even from spending
>several minutes in the channel, this can be observed) and do not use these
>channels for legitimate means. It would seem that the lower numbered

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- What would that be??

Please clarify this gross misuse of an adjective.

thanks

SyLenT
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Finger for PGP Public-key* | "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I
sil...@gate.net | don't know...." -- L'etranger, Albert Camus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruder Than You

unread,

Mar 5, 1995, 6:17:59 PM3/5/95

to

will...@meena.cc.uregina.ca wrote:

: Well said Oldpink! What a buttock head posting all, or most of the names of
: people who happen to be on warez channels. I noticed my name in his lame list,
: so I must have been pirating software by his assumptions. Even though I have
: an 3733+ 286 Computer, and couldnt run any pirated software anyhow!!!
: This guy is truely an absoulute buttockhead, if he thinks he's going to save
: the internet from software piracy *snore*. Yes, kindly crawl back to mommies
: arms and cry about it. Post your shit elsewhere.

I agree: I was shocked to find my name on the list. I do
sometimes hang out in #phreak, and #hack, but I've been on #warez once in
past 6 months. All of a sudden, my name is being passed around the
internet as a known criminal. I have no warez on my account, and I
simply do not 'do' warez. Fortunately, I have an understanding sysadmin
who will not jump to conclusions, but I feel sorry for those who don't.

--
HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which
are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.
_The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
swa...@netaxs.com swa...@deeptht.armory.com

Tommy the Tourist

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 4:53:36 AM3/6/95

to

I am reposting this because someone cancelled the original and I think what
was said, especially about not tolerating gross misuse of the net so that
the government does not decide that it has to step in and do it, was very
important. And censoring this man's words is not acceptable, in any case.

subject&newsgroups same as this,
Date: 3 Mar 1995 16:46:06 GMT
From: Save The Internet
Message-ID: <oQso_k...@netcom.com>

I have had for some time information about the use of the internet
for transfer of illegal pirated software. Recently, however, I have realized
the severity of the situation, to the tune of thousands of software pirates
using IRC to further their crime. In the past, lists of ftp sites abused to
this end have been posted, I have obtained a list of the people who frequent
the "warez" IRC channels (#warez, #warez1, #warez2, #warez3, #warez4,
#warez5, #warez6, and possibly others). Since these channels are usually
invite only, they are often hard to get into, and because those people will
not tolerate anyone who does not take part in their crime, I was not able to
stay in long to get detailed logs of their conversations. However, it is
quite obvious that they openly trade pirated software (even from spending
several minutes in the channel, this can be observed) and do not use these
channels for legitimate means. It would seem that the lower numbered

3227 line list follows:

*EOF*

Larry Wall got us 20kg of TNT from the Jehova's Witnesses in Cairo. If
they let their gaurd down then we'll blow the whole place to match
sticks.

--------
For more information about this anonymous posting service,please send mail
to rema...@csua.berkeley.edu with Subject: remailer-info.
This message contains automatically generated keyword blocks
that have been designed to resemble a threat. These blocks
are not a statement of intent by the remailer operator or anyone else.
--------

Michael Shields

unread,

Mar 5, 1995, 11:28:45 PM3/5/95

to

In article <jLnjZf...@netcom.com>, <Save The Internet> wrote:
> My previous post was maliciously cancelled by one of the pirates. This is a
> repost:

This is the third time you've posted a 107K article. It'll likely just
get canceled again. Why don't you get an address on one of the anon
servers and offer to mail it to people instead?
--
Shields.

XENOPHOBE

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 12:40:48 AM3/6/95

to

In alt.2600, the magical SaveTheInternet wrote this:
~ My previous post was maliciously cancelled by one of the pirates. This is a
~ repost:

oooooohhhhh, *maliciously*!

~ for transfer of illegal pirated software. Recently, however, I have realized
~ the severity of the situation, to the tune of thousands of software pirates
~ using IRC to further their crime. In the past, lists of ftp sites abused to
^^^^^^^^^^^hmmmm, sounds like a wildlife documentary

~ invite only, they are often hard to get into, and because those people will
~ not tolerate anyone who does not take part in their crime, I was not able to
~ stay in long to get detailed logs of their conversations. However, it is
ohhh, that's why! I thought it was just that your an idiot without any
proof! silly me

~ channels for legitimate means. It would seem that the lower numbered
~ (#warez, #warez2) channels are the most exclusive, available to only those
~ thieves with the newest "zero day" pirated software.

eYe aM 33333l333+33!!!!1!!! Look, this guy sounds alot like someone
who's been warned by his sysadmin, and is now trying to coverup by
looking like some kind of crusader.

--
"The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental
power." - WTB: Colorado 250 Jumbo Tape Drive, _must_ be less than $100.

Chris Athans

unread,

Mar 5, 1995, 11:36:30 PM3/5/95

to

In article <nPrn^jPpJ...@netcom.com>, <Save The Internet> wrote:
>My previous post was maliciously cancelled by one of the pirates. This is a
>repost:
>
> I have had for some time information about the use of the internet
>for transfer of illegal pirated software. Recently, however, I have realized
>the severity of the situation, to the tune of thousands of software pirates
>using IRC to further their crime. In the past, lists of ftp sites abused to
>this end have been posted, I have obtained a list of the people who frequent
>the "warez" IRC channels (#warez, #warez1, #warez2, #warez3, #warez4,
>#warez5, #warez6, and possibly others). Since these channels are usually

Ooooooohh... A list of people on a channel that has a bad name, that's
hard evidence right there..

>invite only, they are often hard to get into, and because those people will
>not tolerate anyone who does not take part in their crime, I was not able to
>stay in long to get detailed logs of their conversations. However, it is

That's a bunch of BS, I know FEDS who hang out warez channels. Just
because you apprear to be an idiot to them and accuse them of doing stuff
you have no proof of, hell. I'd kick you out too..

>quite obvious that they openly trade pirated software (even from spending
>several minutes in the channel, this can be observed) and do not use these
>channels for legitimate means. It would seem that the lower numbered

Quite obvious eh ? If it's so Obvious, where's your proof ? People can say
what they want, it doesn't mean they're going to do it..How can it be
observed? Do you have some means of monitoring DCC connectes betwen people?
Legitimate means ? Where is there an IRC book that defines how to use a
channel.

<Snip>

>
> From /who listings, I am appending a listing of people who have
>frequently been in the #warez* channels. Complete who listings would be
>posted, but they are quite large in volume and duplicates among different
>channels and different IRCNAME's would have to be removed, bringing us back
>to the exact same listing. Names are in standard IRC nick!user@host format,
>a best attempt was made to sort them in reverse (domain, subdomain, host,
>user, nick), to make it easier for administrators to search for their own
>system.
>
> It is *STRONGLY* recommended that administrators of systems in which
>these users are on check their directories for pirated software or
>extremely large disk usage.
>

Yeah sure pal.. Excuse me Mr root and a huge university, I think some
people on your host which contains thousands and thousands of users may
be pirating software. So when you get some free time, between your life,
your work, and your hobbies, I'd appreciate it if you'd check out their
directories.. Yah, that's going to go over real big!

> Gross misuse of the Internet such as this, and the toleration of it,
>brings us one step closer to the regulation of the internet that would

Regulate the internet? Ever hear of encryption ? Are you going to
monitor every encrypted message and file and spend time *trying* to
decrypt it so you can see if there's pirated material enclosed ?

>essentially destroy it. Help work with the anarchy to save it. And if you
>don't care about the net and the millions of people it affects, at least

Don't care about the net and the millions of dollars it effects? I'm not
the one who posted a list of people that was over 3 thousand lines on who
join a channel with a socialy unacceptable name to you. That was
real considerate. I'm sure lots of net admins liked having their diskspace
tied up with that list of babbelings..

>care about yourself and the risk you incur by allowing pirated software to
>be traded through your system, even unknowingly.
>
> It would be much better for the media to learn that a problem was
>recognized and dealt with than for them to report "software piracy runs
>rampant on the Internet, system adminstrators do nothing to stop it." This
>is not a case of free speech or violations of an ancient law, but of a
>serious problem that cannot be ignored.
>

So what do you purpose we do? Spend all of our time monitoring our sites
for pirated material? Quit our jobs, leave or families so we can "crack"
down on software pirates ? The Media and Software companies know
pirating exists on the net and on local bbs's. It would cost too much time
and money to investigate these on a regular basis then to blow it off and
wait for someone get sloppy and get caught.

>3227 line list follows: <SNIP---SNIP---SNIP>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Uhh.. Wouldn't it have been easier just to say
*!*@* ? It sure as hell would have talken up less disk space.

--
Chris Athans cat...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= If You're not living life on the edge of the net,
you're taking up too much bandwidth =-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Judge Dredd

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 10:22:15 AM3/6/95

to

keh...@epix.net writes:

>In <3jbesr$2...@werple.mira.net.au>, h...@werple.mira.net.au (Hamish Mogan) writes:
>:>[Bullshit Deleted]

>:>
>:>Look pal, no one give a rats ass about your elite list of warez frequenters
>:>because you are missing one vital ingredient to conviction..
>:>
>:>E V I D E N C E....
>:>
>:>Just because you are on a #warez channel DOESN'T mean that you are commiting
>:>a crime and its whining little nerds like yourself who have ruined IRC.

>Forgive me for this question... But what do the laws of slander say about something
>like this being posted on the net?

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but accusing somebody of something wrong without any
>concrete proof, does that not constitute slander?

I believe it is called libel.

Libel: Defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form
other than by spoken words or gestures.

Correct me if *I'm* wrong, but you *can* be sued for committing libel
against another person without solid evidence. I've seen newspapers pay
the big bucks to persons, for libeling them. I wonder if libel can be
applied to the internet.

Yes, my name is on that list. But you (Mr. Save the Net), the self
proclaimed savior of the internet, cannot just call me a "criminal", or a
"pirate" without solid evidence. Just because I happened to join one of
the #warez channels at the wrong time, does not constitute me to be a
"criminal."

btw, mr. save the net, Get a friggin' life!

will...@meena.cc.uregina.ca

unread,

Mar 4, 1995, 8:10:04 PM3/4/95

to

In a previous article, sco...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Congratulations...you have just discovered the secret message.) wrote:
>I have some things to say:
>1) Mighty brave of you to post with a fake user@host. I wonder just how
> thrilled YOUR sysadmin would be to learn one of his users was such an
> 3733+ haqr.
>2) Get a life, and quit generalizing about EVERYONE who joins #warez* channels.
> I agree that a lot of lamers hang out on there, and see no need to join
> them except to exploit some bugs in their client's bugs, but posting all
> the user@hosts of people on those channels is calling them guilty before
> the fact. Kindly crawl under your rock and go away, you wannabee net.cop.

Well said Oldpink! What a buttock head posting all, or most of the names of
people who happen to be on warez channels. I noticed my name in his lame list,
so I must have been pirating software by his assumptions. Even though I have
an 3733+ 286 Computer, and couldnt run any pirated software anyhow!!!
This guy is truely an absoulute buttockhead, if he thinks he's going to save
the internet from software piracy *snore*. Yes, kindly crawl back to mommies
arms and cry about it. Post your shit elsewhere.

>3) Did it ever occur to you that we who frequent this newsgroup don't like
> getting flooded with your moronic massive list of "software pirates?"
> You are clearly an idiot with no life who probably has some kind of personal
> grudge on those channels because you got kicked/banned from them before you
> could pirate some yourself.
>4) FUCK OFF!
>5) See #4 above.

6) Answer the Cloofone! Software piracy will go on and on Mr Netsaver. Do
you really think all the sysadmins at the hosts of that long list of names
are going to check their accounts? What are you gonna do? Mail every sysadmin
and whine about how these people are destroying the software industry?
7) TURN OFF YER COMPUTER NOW BUTTOCKHEAD BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!

Kathryn Marie Kelly

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 11:37:33 AM3/6/95

to

Now I am insulted! I spend a whole lot more time on Warez then some of
the people you have put on your little list, yet my name isn't
there!!!!! You're bruising my ego!!!! why don't you add
Hellkitty!mukmk11@ecom*.ecn.bgu.edu to that there list and send it to
the system admin. and see what they do! Nothing! you know why! they
can't prove that we've done anything. If you would pull your head out of
your ass, you would see that the majority of sofware up for grabs on
#warez are IRC scripts and bots.....

Fuck off lamer!

Kathryn Marie Kelly

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 11:44:02 AM3/6/95

to

How many fucking times is he going to post that list?!?!? I've seen it
resurface under this sub 4 times, and I still have 4 more responses to
read. Jesus Christ!

Stephen Potter

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 1:56:34 PM3/6/95

to

In article <3jfej5$3...@kira.cc.uakron.edu> r3...@dax.cc.uakron.edu (Taltos) writes:

Somebody post Netcom's supervisor's address and let's all foward this
to whomever it is and maybe we can get it stopped.

Don't waste your time. Looks like he forged the path anyway.

Steve
--
Stephen P Potter s...@vx.com Varimetrix Corporation
2350 Commerce Park Drive, Suite 4 Palm Bay, FL 32905
(407) 676-3222 CAD/CAM/CAE/Software

Tom Marker

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 5:50:38 PM3/6/95

to

: IMHO, the "net" has been ruined... By morons like this..

hehehe think about all the poor saps who's accounts got hacked for IRC
usage that are on that list:)

Chuck Cochems

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 5:52:14 PM3/6/95

to

To the Netcop who posted this big waste of bandwidth at least TWICE...
(I saw it twice reading news today)

1) You have Zero proof. The ONLY proof would be someone sending YOU a
pirated program. THEN you could bust them. You have NO case unless you
have actually received a pirated program.

2) Possession of pirated software in a non-usable form is not proof of
piracy. You don't know for sure that it is truly a pirated program until
you have actually looked inside the zip, and if it was logged you simply
say "As soon as I knewe it was pirated material, I deleted it." You go
unpunished. They can't prove intent.

3) For reason 2 above, you will notice that people don't ever bust the
ones who DOWNLOAD from pirate FTP sites, they bust the ones who
uploaded. The people who send UP the pirate programs are knowingly or
unknowingly (usually the former) distributing software illegally. This
is a crime, and enforceable. The people who download pirate programs do
so either knowingly, or unknowingly, but it cannot be proven which one is
the case. So, they leave the downloaders alone, because if they have a
shred of intelligence, they will simply wipe their copies, and claim that
as soon as they found out it was pirated, they deleted it. They can even
turn netcop for a moment, and endear themselves to the very people that
were about to try and bust them.

Simply put, to be busted, you have to either be logged in the act of
ditribution, or be caught with a pirated copy in use and NO LEGAL COPY. The
only way you can prove distribution is get the pirated file yourself from
the IRC person. And even then, it may not really be that person, but a
hacked account. If it isn't, the guy can just lie through his teeth and
claim his account was hacked, stop for a while, and then start up again.

While you may catch the small time IRC pirates, and the careless ones,
you will never gain the trust of the ones you have to really watch out
for, and be unable to get proof.
--
zap...@camelot.bradley.edu | "I am not a crook!" -- any crook.
"You countermanded me on | "In times of crisis is is very important to
WHO'S authority?" -- Pope | remain calm and not to lose one's head."
John Paul V | -- M. Antoinette

keh...@epix.net

unread,

Mar 5, 1995, 8:25:57 PM3/5/95

to

In <3jbesr$2...@werple.mira.net.au>, h...@werple.mira.net.au (Hamish Mogan) writes:

:>[Bullshit Deleted]

:>
:>Look pal, no one give a rats ass about your elite list of warez frequenters
:>because you are missing one vital ingredient to conviction..
:>
:>E V I D E N C E....
:>
:>Just because you are on a #warez channel DOESN'T mean that you are commiting
:>a crime and its whining little nerds like yourself who have ruined IRC.

Forgive me for this question... But what do the laws of slander say about something

like this being posted on the net?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but accusing somebody of something wrong without any
concrete proof, does that not constitute slander?

But I guess the individual who posted that (looks to have come from netcom - go figure)
knows that, or they would have used a real name..

<sigh>, It's people like this individual who makes me shudder everytime I hear
the words "information superhighway" mentioned..

IMHO, the "net" has been ruined... By morons like this..

Keith - AKA "BeerBum" (yes, I made the list too!) :)

*/_________________________________________________\*

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech or the press; or the right
of the people, peaceably, to assemble and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
*/__________________________________________________\*

James Sneeringer

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 6:41:23 PM3/6/95

to

On 6 Mar 1995 11:55:46 -0500, shi...@tembel.org wrote:
: In article <3jfaeb$5...@cs.uwp.edu>, Jeremy Nelson <nel...@cs.uwp.edu> wrote:
: > Your post wasnt canceled by 'one of the pirates' -- it was probably canceled
: > by netcom who DIDNT LIKE YOUR FLAMBOYANT ABUSE OF NETWORK BANDWIDTH, and
: > who will be REAL HAPPY that you posted it TWICE MORE.

: It wasn't posted from netcom; it was injected at uunet.

Good observation; usenet.netcom.com doesn't exist.

James Sneeringer CrowMan @ irc
jsne...@slonet.org http://slonet.org/~jsneerin/USA.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[your ad here]

Matthew B Landry

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 6:55:46 PM3/6/95

to

SaveTheInternet wrote:
: My previous post was maliciously cancelled by one of the pirates. This is a
: repost:
[...]
: 3227 line list follows:
: Ctalkobt!du...@152.21.1.1
[and it certainly does]
I dunno, is it just me or does the inate paranoia combined with
the extended (and I do mean EXTENDED) list of all the people he has
grievances with seem a tad Detweileresque? Am I nuts here, or what?
--
Matthew B. Landry |
My Email Address | m...@mail.msen.com
My humble home on the WWW | http://www.msen.com/~mbl/index.html
These are MY opinions and my boss CAN'T HAVE THEM!

Damon Chetson

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 6:48:32 PM3/6/95

to

bty...@firmware.com writes:
> oh no...what do I do....i mean I have been on those WAREZ channels once
> or twice....just looking around...honestly....oh my gosh...i am sorry...I
> will never ever ever go to that bad place again...please BIG BROTHER
> please dont tell my parents.
>

No, but I will tell them about how you post an entire article
only to add 4 lines on the bottom!

rkn...@seattleu.edu

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 6:54:21 PM3/6/95

to

In <3jbesr$2...@werple.mira.net.au>, h...@werple.mira.net.au (Hamish Mogan) writes:

Uhh.. geez..last I check the government said that copying warez WASN'T illegal as long
as no moneys involved.

You provider may feel otherwise...

Jeremy Nelson

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 7:30:57 PM3/6/95

to

In article <3jg7bd$2...@dns1.seattleu.edu>, <rkn...@seattleu.edu> wrote:
> Uhh.. geez..last [time] I check[ed] the government said that
>copying warez WASN'T illegal as long as no money [i]s involved.

*WHAT????* I dont know what country you live in, but the US copyright
laws are very clear that it is absolutely positively withoutadoubt
ILLEGAL to even POSESS copyrighted material without some sort of binding
contract between you and the holder of that copyright. (IE, a license
-- i doubt a "gentleman's agreement" would stand up in court as a valid
contract if thats what it came to.)

Proving malice is more difficult, but the letter of the law is very
clear that possessing *any* copyrighted material without a license from
the author is always illegal.

-hop "If the letter of the law was always followed all of the time, we'd
all be in jail, anyhow ;-)" onpop
--
nel...@cs.uwp.edu
Four
Lines
Suffice.

Edward Sager

unread,

Mar 5, 1995, 10:55:35 PM3/5/95

to

My name is not on the list, and I don't even vist the channels he is
complianing about.

I AM TIRED OF HIM TAKING UP BANDWIDTH WITH IT THOUGH.

Get a life, get a job, or write some code people might want to buy. You sound
like someone that thinks they have a hot product, and found no one thinks it
is worth paying for.

Stop posting to the groups and send it to the people that wrote the code if
you are woried about it. MS and other companies have people that do nothing
but cruise the net and online services looking for this kine of piracy. Let
them do there job, help them if you want. Just quit posting to the
newsgroups and waisting the time and money of people who will not be able to
do anything about it!!!

Spawn

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 10:23:23 PM3/6/95

to

>> Uhh.. geez..last [time] I check[ed] the government said that
>>copying warez WASN'T illegal as long as no money [i]s involved.
>
>*WHAT????* I dont know what country you live in, but the US copyright
>laws are very clear that it is absolutely positively withoutadoubt
>ILLEGAL to even POSESS copyrighted material without some sort of binding

I believe what he was referring to was in regards to the ruling on the MIT guy
who was busted. He was not charged for TRADING and RUNNING a FTP site since
he made no profit and thus technically no laws were broken. I may be totally
off base on this, but I am pretty sure that's what happened. Anyone else care
to elaborate?

Mathew G Monroe

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 12:49:40 AM3/7/95

to

Excerpts from netnews.comp.security.unix: 6-Mar-95 Re: IRC being used
for soft.. by Jeremy Nel...@cs.uwp.edu

>
> *WHAT????* I dont know what country you live in, but the US copyright
> laws are very clear that it is absolutely positively withoutadoubt
> ILLEGAL to even POSESS copyrighted material without some sort of binding
> contract between you and the holder of that copyright. (IE, a license
> -- i doubt a "gentleman's agreement" would stand up in court as a valid
> contract if thats what it came to.)
>
> Proving malice is more difficult, but the letter of the law is very
> clear that possessing *any* copyrighted material without a license from
> the author is always illegal.
>
> -hop "If the letter of the law was always followed all of the time, we'd
> all be in jail, anyhow ;-)" onpop
> --
> nel...@cs.uwp.edu
> Four
> Lines
> Suffice.

Actually according to current laws is not crimal offense to posess
copyrighted material. It is a civil mater. From what I understand no
one have ever been convicted for some crime dealling with software
piracy. If you know of one please inform me. What I do know is that
quite a few people have been gone after by the companies who hold the
copyrightes. Quite a few cases dealing with piracy have been decided
resently that demonstrate the that priracy is not crimal (see MIT case
and a few others). It falls into the same class as libal. It is civil,
not crimal.
Piracy is only crimal in the case that goods are exchanged for the
material. That means that any of you that "trade" for pirated software
can be crimally charged. This of is just my understanding of the law,
if there was someone out there that could post the relivant crimal law
that would be really nice.
Personally I think piracy is stupid and should be cracked down on.
I think this whole irc stuff is a disgrace to both the internet
community and the pirates themself. It is a disgrace to the internet
community because we have allowed it to become this large. When you
have thoudsands of people doing something that is clearly wrong it
speaks badly of us in the internet community. Those of us from the old
school internet school should have stopped this long ago. It is a
disgrace to the privating community because now they are being caused
down and hunted now, or will be soon. When priacy was small time on the
internet it was not worth while to chase down pirates. The priates
themselves should not have allowed it to become this big, it is bad for
everyone.
The worse part about this is now IRC will more then likely be
removed by many admins and will not be avaible to many legitimate users.
Quite a few servers will go down now because of this. This is an
examply of when something that is basically wrong is being done commonly
on internet. The whole internet community needs to decide how it is
going to handle this.

Matt

PS Before many of you that have posted start to flame me let me say
this. I am not saying anyone on that list should be gone after,
basically for the same reasons people have presented. What I am saying
is that now that much of the internet knows about this it needs to be
dealt with. Consider this, you brought this apon yourself.

Lister

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 8:27:27 AM3/6/95

to

On 5 Mar 1995 Save@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote:

> Date: 5 MAR 1995 13:42:01 GMT
> From: Save@.MISSING-HOST-NAME.
> Newgroups: comp.security.unix, comp.security.misc, alt.irc, alt.2600,
> alt.security
> Subject: IRC being used for software piracy (Warez)
>
>
[snip snip]

yeah yeah.... sure dickhead. and why didnt u post with ur proper user@host??

and u expect to be taken seriously....

Lister is Stuart Bryant -- aka lis...@classic.iinet.com.au

Keith Wilson

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 4:33:02 AM3/7/95

to

SaveTheInternet wrote:
: Since these channels are usually
: invite only, they are often hard to get into, and because those people will

: not tolerate anyone who does not take part in their crime, I was not able to
: stay in long to get detailed logs of their conversations. However, it is

: quite obvious that they openly trade pirated software

I find this quite odd. You didn't get any 'proof' of what you claim: that
the #warez channels are a means of spreading software yet you are SURE that
they do. Whether or not illegal trading of items does takes place on these
channels, how can we be sure that this list is of that?! Especially since,
whoever you are, you have forged the posting! You expect US to believe such
dishonesty? I don't think so.

A very disappointed admin,

Keith

---------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Keith Wilson, Dept of Psychology | There is a silence where hath been no sound
University of Aberdeen | There is a silence where no sound may be
Aberdeen, Scotland, AB9 2UB | In the cold grave, under the deep deep sea.
Tel: +44 224 272239 |
Email: k.wi...@abdn.ac.uk | - Thomas Hood 1799-1845
---------------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Jon Mitchell

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 10:18:41 AM3/6/95

to

Save The Internet writes:

>My previous post was maliciously cancelled by one of the pirates. This is a
>repost:

More like because it was a huge waste of bandwith.

> I have had for some time information about the use of the internet
>for transfer of illegal pirated software. Recently, however, I have realized
>the severity of the situation, to the tune of thousands of software pirates
>using IRC to further their crime. In the past, lists of ftp sites abused to
>this end have been posted, I have obtained a list of the people who frequent
>the "warez" IRC channels (#warez, #warez1, #warez2, #warez3, #warez4,

>#warez5, #warez6, and possibly others). Since these channels are usually

>invite only, they are often hard to get into, and because those people will
>not tolerate anyone who does not take part in their crime, I was not able to
>stay in long to get detailed logs of their conversations. However, it is

>quite obvious that they openly trade pirated software (even from spending
>several minutes in the channel, this can be observed) and do not use these
>channels for legitimate means. It would seem that the lower numbered

>(#warez, #warez2) channels are the most exclusive, available to only those

>thieves with the newest "zero day" pirated software.

So... this is really about how you can't get on the # huh?

> From /who listings, I am appending a listing of people who have
>frequently been in the #warez* channels. Complete who listings would be

Being on a channel isn't proof of shit... who the fuck do you think you
are?

> It is *STRONGLY* recommended that administrators of systems in which
>these users are on check their directories for pirated software or
>extremely large disk usage.

What are you some kind of internet cop? This self righteous bull shit
makes me sick, mind your own business.

> It would be much better for the media to learn that a problem was
>recognized and dealt with than for them to report "software piracy runs
>rampant on the Internet, system adminstrators do nothing to stop it." This
>is not a case of free speech or violations of an ancient law, but of a

>serious problem that cannot be ignored.

The problem is at the ftp sites not with people who hang out on certain
channels in IRC. You are pathetic

>3227 line list follows:

[half the people who have ever IRC'ed deleted.]

Go away,

Mitch
*****************************************************************************
* [Fun-Boy] Sleep is for weaklings! * jrmitche *
* "There is a gulf fixed between those who can sleep * @uiuc.edu *
* and those who cannot. It is one of the great divisions * My views have *
* of the human race." - Iris Murdoch (stolen from the * _nothing_ to *
* pages of Stephen King's Insomnia) * do with ccso! *
*****************************************************************************

Jeremy Nelson

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 10:29:27 AM3/6/95

to

In article <silent.7...@gate.net>, SiLeNt <sil...@news.gate.net> wrote:

>Save The Internet writes:
>>channels for legitimate means. It would seem that the lower numbered
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ----- What would that be??
>
>Please clarify this gross misuse of an adjective.

Wouldnt that be ``flamboyant'' abuse of an adjective? (sorry, scott >;-)

-hop

Michael Shields

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 11:55:46 AM3/6/95

to

In article <3jfaeb$5...@cs.uwp.edu>, Jeremy Nelson <nel...@cs.uwp.edu> wrote:
> Your post wasnt canceled by 'one of the pirates' -- it was probably canceled
> by netcom who DIDNT LIKE YOUR FLAMBOYANT ABUSE OF NETWORK BANDWIDTH, and
> who will be REAL HAPPY that you posted it TWICE MORE.

It wasn't posted from netcom; it was injected at uunet.

--
Shields.

Taltos

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 11:51:49 AM3/6/95

to

Somebody post Netcom's supervisor's address and let's all foward this
to whomever it is and maybe we can get it stopped.

--
_ __/| ___________________
\`o.O' /ony Woloszynek r3...@Dax.cc.uakron.edu
=(_ _)= Taltos aj...@Cleveland.Freenet.edu
U "I too have a cunning plan!"--Baldrick

Calvin Lai

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 11:25:51 AM3/6/95

to

(WASTE OF FUCKING TIME QUOTING THE 107K USELESS FILE)

Another fucking idiot posting the 107K file...

Steve Work

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 12:12:40 PM3/6/95

to

Jeremy Nelson (nel...@cs.uwp.edu) wrote:
: In article <nPrn^jPpJ...@netcom.com>, <Save The Internet> wrote:

IMO, looking for pirated software on the net is like taking coals to
Newcastle. There are so many FREE programs you can try. Why not ftp to
oak.oakland.edu and take a look. If you could try all of them that
interest you in the next 5 years I'd be surprised.

And if you really are against the commercial software developers, there's
a whole organization dedicated to providing quality free software. You
can install their operating system, Linux, for free. Almost everything that
runs under Linux you can have without paying a cent for. And the quality
of a lot of this stuff is better then the commercial equivalents. Why
not take a look at http://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux . If Bill Gates and
his greed gets to you, just erase all his garbage off your disk and
reformat it for Linux.

Trading for warez is just plain stupid. You are stealing from software
developers. Aren't most people on the net computer-literate enough to
realize where the income of lots of folks like them is derived? And
besides, warez services are one of the main sources of trojans and
viruses. Using one may cost you more in trouble than just buying the
program in the first place.

Chris Athans

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 9:22:45 AM3/7/95

to

In article <3jgv8r$d...@library.erc.clarkson.edu>,
Bro Reese <ross...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> wrote:
>Jeremy Nelson (nel...@cs.uwp.edu) wrote:

>NOPE! Possessing copyrighted material is not always illegal.
>There are licensed "libraries which allow you to check out software
>for the sake of seeing if you want to purchase it. A few weeks ago
>an author was on one of the comp.* groups telling about one such place
>so they do exist. Of course, no-one on the warez groups has the
>copyright holders' permissions.
>
>ShitHED (not on the list)

Alright.. Here's the scoop.. Some Companies has clauses that their
software may be copied if the copied version is for educational purposes
and no software written from that code will be sold for profit. This is
actually in some companie's liscenses... It is and is not legal to
posess Copyrighted Software. If you are able to load the software up and
you don't have a liscence, yes, it *is* illegal. If the software is
encrypted or compress to the point where it can't be run, then it's *not*
illegal, but as soon as you uncompress it or decrypt, then you're
violating the law.

-Chris

Michael A. Chrisco

unread,

Mar 5, 1995, 8:21:08 PM3/5/95

to

Now everybody knows who to contact for pirate warezs

In article <edsager.1...@mindspring.com> eds...@mindspring.com (Edward
Sager) writes:>From: eds...@mindspring.com (Edward Sager)
>Subject: Re: IRC being used for software piracy (Warez)
>Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 23:55:35 -0400

Type at you later!
Michael A. Chrisco
We're not in Kansas anymore Toto. Well actually I am.

The Mad Lunatic

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 4:02:10 PM3/7/95

to

Hi,

I propose a complete list of guys who have joined at least one time, one of the
known warez channels:

1 line list follow:

*!*@*

*EOF*

it's not 130k, and i won't post it mult time ;)

Riad

Ben Tyner

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 1:51:25 PM3/6/95

to

In article <3je3ge$h...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
cat...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM says...

>
>In article <nPrn^jPpJ...@netcom.com>, <Save The Internet> wrote:

>>My previous post was maliciously cancelled by one of the pirates. This
is a
>>repost:
>>

>> I have had for some time information about the use of the
internet
>>for transfer of illegal pirated software. Recently, however, I have
realized
>>the severity of the situation, to the tune of thousands of software
pirates
>>using IRC to further their crime. In the past, lists of ftp sites
abused to
>>this end have been posted, I have obtained a list of the people who
frequent
>>the "warez" IRC channels (#warez, #warez1, #warez2, #warez3, #warez4,
>>#warez5, #warez6, and possibly others). Since these channels are
usually
>

>Ooooooohh... A list of people on a channel that has a bad name, that's
>hard evidence right there..

>
>>invite only, they are often hard to get into, and because those people
will
>>not tolerate anyone who does not take part in their crime, I was not
able to
>>stay in long to get detailed logs of their conversations. However, it
is
>

>That's a bunch of BS, I know FEDS who hang out warez channels. Just
>because you apprear to be an idiot to them and accuse them of doing
stuff
>you have no proof of, hell. I'd kick you out too..

>
>>quite obvious that they openly trade pirated software (even from
spending
>>several minutes in the channel, this can be observed) and do not use
these

>>channels for legitimate means. It would seem that the lower numbered
>

>Quite obvious eh ? If it's so Obvious, where's your proof ? People can
say
>what they want, it doesn't mean they're going to do it..How can it be
>observed? Do you have some means of monitoring DCC connectes betwen
people?
>Legitimate means ? Where is there an IRC book that defines how to use a
>channel.
>
><Snip>

>>
>> From /who listings, I am appending a listing of people who have
>>frequently been in the #warez* channels. Complete who listings would be

>>posted, but they are quite large in volume and duplicates among
different
>>channels and different IRCNAME's would have to be removed, bringing us
back
>>to the exact same listing. Names are in standard IRC nick!user@host
format,
>>a best attempt was made to sort them in reverse (domain, subdomain,
host,
>>user, nick), to make it easier for administrators to search for their
own
>>system.

>>
>> It is *STRONGLY* recommended that administrators of systems in
which
>>these users are on check their directories for pirated software or
>>extremely large disk usage.
>>
>

>Yeah sure pal.. Excuse me Mr root and a huge university, I think some
>people on your host which contains thousands and thousands of users may
>be pirating software. So when you get some free time, between your
life,
>your work, and your hobbies, I'd appreciate it if you'd check out their
>directories.. Yah, that's going to go over real big!
>
>> Gross misuse of the Internet such as this, and the toleration of
it,
>>brings us one step closer to the regulation of the internet that would
>
>Regulate the internet? Ever hear of encryption ? Are you going to
>monitor every encrypted message and file and spend time *trying* to
>decrypt it so you can see if there's pirated material enclosed ?
>
>
>>essentially destroy it. Help work with the anarchy to save it. And if
you
>>don't care about the net and the millions of people it affects, at
least
>
>Don't care about the net and the millions of dollars it effects? I'm
not
>the one who posted a list of people that was over 3 thousand lines on
who
>join a channel with a socialy unacceptable name to you. That was
>real considerate. I'm sure lots of net admins liked having their
diskspace
>tied up with that list of babbelings..
>
>>care about yourself and the risk you incur by allowing pirated software
to
>>be traded through your system, even unknowingly.

>>
>> It would be much better for the media to learn that a problem
was
>>recognized and dealt with than for them to report "software piracy runs
>>rampant on the Internet, system adminstrators do nothing to stop it."
This
>>is not a case of free speech or violations of an ancient law, but of a
>>serious problem that cannot be ignored.
>>

>So what do you purpose we do? Spend all of our time monitoring our
sites
>for pirated material? Quit our jobs, leave or families so we can "crack"
>down on software pirates ? The Media and Software companies know
>pirating exists on the net and on local bbs's. It would cost too much
time
>and money to investigate these on a regular basis then to blow it off
and
>wait for someone get sloppy and get caught.
>
>
>
>>3227 line list follows: <SNIP---SNIP---SNIP>
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Uhh.. Wouldn't it have been easier just to say
>*!*@* ? It sure as hell would have talken up less disk space.
>
>--
>Chris Athans cat...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-=-=-
>-= If You're not living life on the edge of the net,
> you're taking up too much bandwidth =-
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-
>

oh no...what do I do....i mean I have been on those WAREZ channels once
or twice....just looking around...honestly....oh my gosh...i am sorry...I
will never ever ever go to that bad place again...please BIG BROTHER
please dont tell my parents.

- dont forget WAREZ10, PIR8S, and WAREZ666...

Jeremy Nelson

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 10:40:59 AM3/6/95

to

In article <nPrn^jPpJ...@netcom.com>, <Save The Internet> wrote:
>My previous post was maliciously cancelled by one of the pirates. This is a
>repost:

Your post wasnt canceled by 'one of the pirates' -- it was probably canceled

by netcom who DIDNT LIKE YOUR FLAMBOYANT ABUSE OF NETWORK BANDWIDTH, and
who will be REAL HAPPY that you posted it TWICE MORE.

Go crawl back under your rock.
-hop

walt...@maroon.tc.umn.edu

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 9:57:31 AM3/6/95

to

In article <3jas06$o...@sundog.tiac.net>, USA_Direct <u...@max.tiac.net> wrote:

>In article <oQso_k...@netcom.com>, <Save The Internet> wrote:
>>the "warez" IRC channels (#warez, #warez1, #warez2, #warez3, #warez4,
>>#warez5, #warez6, and possibly others). Since these channels are usually

>>invite only, they are often hard to get into, and because those people will
>
>
>

>If this person is found..... Well... I guess he'll know what it's like
>not to have a mail box....
>
>

Heh. Why am I not surprised I saw that fucking NETCOM system mentioned in
that post? Jeez. Starting to ponder how much netcom is a threat to
Internet.

U58...@uicvm.uic.edu

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 10:37:53 AM3/7/95

to

Dear Clueless Idiot: (and that is an -especial- insult considering how
clueless -I- am).

I have seen MY OWN domain name/IP address listed, for SOMEONE ELSE on a
channel with me. I am SURE, that you, having FORGED mail via SMTP, also know
that irc can be FORGED.

To MALICIOUSLY (intending for the victim to suffer a witch-hunt from his
sysop) make an allegation which you KNOW is false, or likely to be false, is
legally "libel". You are as much a criminal as the software pirates --- more
so to those of us who feel that the government-awarded monopoly as "property"
is a mistake from go. (whoever you are, assuming the mail is in fact forged)

Note that "software piracy", despite much hype, is NOT a Criminal offense,
but a Civil one. You can be sued for it, but that is all. Not sweeping your
steps, and having a salesman slip while you're away from home, can also get you
sued, and for more money. I am disinclined to call the victim of either suit a
"criminal".

If you REALLY believe in Net anarchy, then do not play lap-dog for the
government masters. If you can convince them that the poor fools here will do
their work for them they WILL regulate. If you can convince them that the
people here will -never- go along with them, and will always communicate in a
FREE, UNCENSORED, UNMONITORED manner, whether it's by irc, anon-remailer,
encryption, steganography, pirate BBS, phone bridge, plain old telephone, or
even (what a thought!) the old-fashioned floppy disk (now 100 Meg worth...)
then MAYBE they will recognize hopelessness and go away; if not, we will at
least have and use other options.

"First they came for the hackers, and I was silent.
Then they came for the pedophiles, and I was silent.
Then they came for the nudists, and I was silent.
Then they came for the cryptographers, and I was silent.
Then they came for the software pirates, and I was silent.
Then they came for the political activists, and I was silent.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak..."

Robert B. Kennedy

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 11:35:20 AM3/7/95

to

Jeremy Nelson (nel...@cs.uwp.edu) wrote:

: In article <3jg7bd$2...@dns1.seattleu.edu>, <rkn...@seattleu.edu> wrote:
: > Uhh.. geez..last [time] I check[ed] the government said that
: >copying warez WASN'T illegal as long as no money [i]s involved.

: *WHAT????* I dont know what country you live in, but the US copyright
: laws are very clear that it is absolutely positively withoutadoubt
: ILLEGAL to even POSESS copyrighted material without some sort of binding
: contract between you and the holder of that copyright. (IE, a license
: -- i doubt a "gentleman's agreement" would stand up in court as a valid
: contract if thats what it came to.)

WRONG! They declared this to NOT be the case because so many
"upstanding" citizens copy just 1 or 2 tapes/albumns/cd's/games/etc.
Damn I wish I could remeber the name of the MIT student who's case
caused this ruckus. Any body wanna help me with a refernce. For god's
sake this was in NEWSWEEK. The feds busted this poor schmuck for sending
warez through the Net. They wanted to have hime crucified for the Millions
of $$$ worth of product he "stole". The judge said this was was BULLSHIT
under existing law because otherwise you'd have to arrest almost EVERYONE
IN THE U.S.!!! I mean you'd have to arresst the prosecutor for that copy
of "ABBA LIVE" he "stole" in 1979. The judge told them that they
couldn't pull this off unless A) The guy was proven to have recieved
MONEY for his efforts (he didn't) or B) they rewrote the law.

They opted for B and are lobbying congress as we speak.

: Proving malice is more difficult, but the letter of the law is very

: clear that possessing *any* copyrighted material without a license from
: the author is always illegal.

You made my point below..and the judges. Apparently it is
"illegal but unpunishable". Although according to the judge "reprhensible".

: -hop "If the letter of the law was always followed all of the time, we'd

: all be in jail, anyhow ;-)" onpop
: --
: nel...@cs.uwp.edu
: Four
: Lines
: Suffice.

--
Robert Kennedy:
Creator of the Much Improved Web Page
And UnOffical Bill Gates Photo Archive
http://www.seattleu.edu/~rknndy/robert.html

Jacob Zielinski

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 3:35:15 PM3/6/95

to

Nice list. <g>

What if all 3227 of those people where just there to be a wanabe internet cop
like you and just wanted to collect names to help them earn their browny
points.

--
Jacob Zielinski <jzi...@wimsey.com> Vancouver, BC
"This is UNIX, I know this" <g>

Giao H. Phan

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 3:47:55 PM3/6/95

to

Tommy the Tourist (Anon User) (nob...@csua.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: I am reposting this because someone cancelled the original and I think what
: was said, especially about not tolerating gross misuse of the net so that
: the government does not decide that it has to step in and do it, was very
: important. And censoring this man's words is not acceptable, in any case.

Umm... and posting this piece of shit 4x is not 'gross misuse of the net'?

Steve Work

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 9:04:44 PM3/6/95

to

Ben Tyner (bty...@firmware.com) wrote:
: In article <3je3ge$h...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,

: cat...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM says...
: >
: >In article <nPrn^jPpJ...@netcom.com>, <Save The Internet> wrote:
: >>My previous post was maliciously cancelled by one of the pirates. This
: is a
: >>repost:
: >>
: >> I have had for some time information about the use of the
: internet
: >>for transfer of illegal pirated software. Recently, however, I have
: realized
: >>the severity of the situation, to the tune of thousands of software
: pirates

I'M GETTING REAL TIRED OF THESE OVER-80-COLUMN POSTS. IF YOU CAN'T WRAP
YOUR LINES AT 80 COLUMNS STAY OUT OF THIS GROUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

firebug

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 6:53:55 PM3/7/95

to

Steve Work (slw...@netcom.com) wrote:
: And if you really are against the commercial software developers, there's

: a whole organization dedicated to providing quality free software. You
: can install their operating system, Linux, for free. Almost everything that
: runs under Linux you can have without paying a cent for. And the quality
: of a lot of this stuff is better then the commercial equivalents. Why
: not take a look at http://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux . If Bill Gates and
: his greed gets to you, just erase all his garbage off your disk and
: reformat it for Linux.

To pick a nit, Linux is not released or written by the FSF. Although, every
linux distribution that I have seen uses GNU utils wherever possible,
because there is simply nothing better. They share pretty much the same
ideals however, and accomplish the same goals. (free software far superior
to the commercial equivilant.)

Adrian Demarais

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 7:41:56 PM3/7/95

to

Michael Shields (shi...@tembel.org) wrote:

Gee, this feels just a bit like the spam attack of alt.2600 by
someone who called himself "Cracker Buster" who also posted from
Netcom. I wonder if it's the same person??

Tom Coradeschi

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 4:52:37 PM3/7/95

to

So tell us, Steve. What group _is_ appropriate for posts with lines in excess of 80 columns? I mean, you're telling us to stay out of "THIS GROUP" (whatever group that is, since I see comp.security.unix, comp.security.misc, alt.irc, alt.2600hz and alt.security in the headers). I just wanna know where to go so you won't "flame" me.
--

tom coradeschi <+> tc...@pica.army.mil
http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/tom/tom.html

Thomas Connell

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 11:08:35 PM3/6/95

to

Kathryn Marie Kelly (muk...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu) wrote:

: Now I am insulted! I spend a whole lot more time on Warez then some of
: the people you have put on your little list, yet my name isn't
: there!!!!! You're bruising my ego!!!! why don't you add
: Hellkitty!mukmk11@ecom*.ecn.bgu.edu to that there list and send it to
: the system admin. and see what they do! Nothing! you know why! they
: can't prove that we've done anything. If you would pull your head out of
: your ass, you would see that the majority of sofware up for grabs on
: #warez are IRC scripts and bots.....

: Fuck off lamer!

I don't hang on the #warez* channels alot (leech IRC scripts...thats it)
and I'm on the list 3 times!!! that shows how much of a lamer and a
no-life freak that dood is...=)

-Vortex
--
t...@crl.com

nat...@community.net

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 9:03:46 PM3/6/95

to

In article <3jdgr7$i...@netaxs.com>, Ruder Than You <swa...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>will...@meena.cc.uregina.ca wrote:
> I agree: I was shocked to find my name on the list. I do
>sometimes hang out in #phreak, and #hack, but I've been on #warez once in
>past 6 months. All of a sudden, my name is being passed around the
>internet as a known criminal. I have no warez on my account, and I
>simply do not 'do' warez. Fortunately, I have an understanding sysadmin
>who will not jump to conclusions, but I feel sorry for those who don't.

Could someone post (repost) the list of people in those channels?
Either that or send me the list in Email?
Heck, if someone could just let me know if I was on it...

Michael Shields

unread,

Mar 6, 1995, 10:39:47 PM3/6/95

to

In article <3jg6j3$8...@clue.callamer.com>,
James Sneeringer <jsne...@pinot.callamer.com> wrote:
> On 6 Mar 1995 11:55:46 -0500, shi...@tembel.org wrote:
[...]
> : It wasn't posted from netcom; it was injected at uunet.
>
> Good observation; usenet.netcom.com doesn't exist.

I knew it wasn't posted from netcom because (a) a netcom Path: doesn't
look like that, (b) a netcom Message-Id: doesn't look like that, and
(c) it didn't have the new unforgeable Sender:.

I knew it was injected at uunet because (a) it was the only other entry
in the path, as tembel is fed directly from uunet, and (b) UUNET runs
an open NNTP server (I wish they wouldn't!).

If this was some attempt to frame Netcom, it was poor.
--
Shields.

Adrian Powell

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 1:13:09 AM3/7/95

to

nat...@community.net writes:

>Could someone post (repost) the list of people in those channels?
>Either that or send me the list in Email?

This is a joke, right? It has been posted-canceled-reposted
three times already. *Don't encourage him*!
:)

The file is 130Kb - you don't want it emailed to you, either.

Adrian.
--
Adrian Powell adr...@amisk.cs.ualberta.ca
Home Page http://ugweb.cs.ualberta.ca/~adrian
Humor Collection http://gpu.srv.ualberta.ca/~apowell/humor.html

Bro Reese

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 1:42:35 AM3/7/95

to

Jeremy Nelson (nel...@cs.uwp.edu) wrote:
: In article <3jg7bd$2...@dns1.seattleu.edu>, <rkn...@seattleu.edu> wrote:
: > Uhh.. geez..last [time] I check[ed] the government said that
: >copying warez WASN'T illegal as long as no money [i]s involved.

: *WHAT????* I dont know what country you live in, but the US copyright
: laws are very clear that it is absolutely positively withoutadoubt
: ILLEGAL to even POSESS copyrighted material without some sort of binding
: contract between you and the holder of that copyright. (IE, a license
: -- i doubt a "gentleman's agreement" would stand up in court as a valid
: contract if thats what it came to.)

: Proving malice is more difficult, but the letter of the law is very

: clear that possessing *any* copyrighted material without a license from
: the author is always illegal.

: -hop "If the letter of the law was always followed all of the time, we'd

: all be in jail, anyhow ;-)" onpop
: --
: nel...@cs.uwp.edu
: Four
: Lines
: Suffice.

NOPE! Possessing copyrighted material is not always illegal.

James Sneeringer

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 1:42:22 AM3/7/95

to

On 6 Mar 1995 23:54:21 GMT, rkn...@seattleu.edu wrote:

: Uhh.. geez..last I check the government said that copying warez
: WASN'T illegal as long as no moneys involved.

Evidently you aren't referring to the United States government then. The
US Copyright Law explicitly states that such copying and distribution of
copyrighted works is illegal. Mere possession is illegal, whether or not
you knew it was pirated. Yes money *is* involved. It's the money
software publishers lost because some dickhead got a pirated copy of a
program rather than paying for a legit copy.

James Sneeringer CrowMan @ irc
jsne...@slonet.org http://slonet.org/~jsneerin/USA.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[your ad here]

Tim Gerchmez

unread,

Mar 8, 1995, 1:33:08 AM3/8/95

to

In article <3jem30$c...@agate.berkeley.edu>, nob...@csua.berkeley.edu
says...

>
>I am reposting this because someone cancelled the original and I think
what
>was said, especially about not tolerating gross misuse of the net so
that
>the government does not decide that it has to step in and do it, was
very
>important. And censoring this man's words is not acceptable, in any
case.
>

>subject&newsgroups same as this,
>Date: 3 Mar 1995 16:46:06 GMT
>From: Save The Internet
>Message-ID: <oQso_k...@netcom.com>

>
>
> I have had for some time information about the use of the
internet
>for transfer of illegal pirated software. Recently, however, I have
realized
>the severity of the situation, to the tune of thousands of software
pirates

>using IRC to further their crime. In the past, lists of ftp sites abused
to

This is just unbelieva(bly stupid)ble.

James Sneeringer

unread,

Mar 8, 1995, 1:52:19 AM3/8/95

to

On 6 Mar 1995 22:39:47 -0500, shi...@tembel.org wrote:

: If this was some attempt to frame Netcom, it was poor.

Considering the apparent high percentage of 'problem users' from
Netcom, the forger most likely figured no one would question such a
bonehead post originating from Netcom.

John Leth-nissen

unread,

Mar 8, 1995, 3:25:07 AM3/8/95

to

I'm reposting this because someone has Maliciously deleted it.

oh yeah

nevermind

thank you much... drive thru.

-DeadelviS

Kathryn Marie Kelly

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 8:23:51 AM3/7/95

to

This is list is a couple of days old, and it is quite funny, that mo
admins took it seriously! I am willing to bet that Save the Internet is
just an asshole put on an autoban shitlist, and he's trying to get
back....

I mean it! I'm still p[issed I wasn't on that list, when there were
people I know personally may have only went into warez once in their
entire life! Good thing sys admins aren't buckling down on these people,
because of Mr Save the Net Lacking a Penis!

Dave Hayes

unread,

Mar 8, 1995, 3:33:23 AM3/8/95

to

h...@werple.mira.net.au (Hamish Mogan) writes:
>Look pal, no one give a rats ass about your elite list of warez frequenters
>because you are missing one vital ingredient to conviction..
>E V I D E N C E....

It would be wise to take this misguided posting and use it for positive
purposes. Any system administrator who "convicts" someone in any way due
to this posting, is one not to be trusted. Use this as your indicator
of who the reasonable administrators are.

8-)
--
Dave Hayes -- Institutional NETworks - Section 394 -- JPL/NASA - Pasadena CA
da...@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov da...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh

If you regret your gift - take it back.

Chuck Cochems

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 2:06:06 PM3/7/95

to

In <3jgv8r$d...@library.erc.clarkson.edu> ross...@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bro Reese) writes:

>NOPE! Possessing copyrighted material is not always illegal.
>There are licensed "libraries which allow you to check out software
>for the sake of seeing if you want to purchase it. A few weeks ago
>an author was on one of the comp.* groups telling about one such place
>so they do exist. Of course, no-one on the warez groups has the
>copyright holders' permissions.

>ShitHED (not on the list)

Actually, MANY pirate boards have a statement to the effect that they are
a library and not working for profit and are perfectly legal. Go look in
those .nfo files... The pirate BBSs call themselves check-out BBSs.

But I do think that possesion is not a crime. Use of the copy for other
than evaluation purposes without buying a copy is a crime. Selling this
pirated copy is a BIG crime. Sending up the pirated game to the FTP site
may or may not be a crime. But you sure can get in trouble for it.

Possesion is not enough. Intent also has to be proven, and that's REALLY
hard to do. Small time people just don't get busted...

--
zap...@camelot.bradley.edu
"We all need to get right, and forget the black and the white, and be
keeping love in sight, like each and every day and night."
-- Captain Hollywood --

Teerakiat Kerdcharoen

unread,

Mar 8, 1995, 10:44:30 AM3/8/95

to

Hamish Mogan (h...@werple.mira.net.au) wrote:
: [Bullshit Deleted]

: Look pal, no one give a rats ass about your elite list of warez frequenters

: because you are missing one vital ingredient to conviction..

: E V I D E N C E....

: Just because you are on a #warez channel DOESN'T mean that you are commiting
: a crime and its whining little nerds like yourself who have ruined IRC.

: So pal, get a life, oh and get some evidence too!

Yes, no one can prove that #warez is used for software
piracy. If one can prove, so what ?
take care,
Noy

James Sneeringer

unread,

Mar 8, 1995, 1:45:23 AM3/8/95

to

On 6 Mar 1995 18:03:46 -0800, nat...@community.net wrote:

: Could someone post (repost) the list of people in those channels?

: Either that or send me the list in Email?
: Heck, if someone could just let me know if I was on it...

I'm sure as hell not going to repost it, though I did keep a copy for my
humor archives. Assuming you irc from the same account you posted from:

22:42:59 ~/News> grep -n -i -e community.net total.fuckwit.post
2741:BRAiNZ!denn...@odin.community.net
2742:iCY!i...@odin.community.net
2743:NiteBreed!ma...@odin.community.net
2744:MAELStROM!sca...@odin.community.net
2745:vYrus!vy...@odin.community.net

Mark Stamos

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 4:14:07 PM3/7/95

to

Steve Work (slw...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Ben Tyner (bty...@firmware.com) wrote:
: : realized

: : >>the severity of the situation, to the tune of thousands of software
: : pirates

: I'M GETTING REAL TIRED OF THESE OVER-80-COLUMN POSTS. IF YOU CAN'T WRAP
: YOUR LINES AT 80 COLUMNS STAY OUT OF THIS GROUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, poor Steevie. Maybe you should stay out, then you won't have to read
lines that go beyound your little screen. Twit!

walt...@maroon.tc.umn.edu

unread,

Mar 8, 1995, 10:20:23 AM3/8/95

to

>I find this quite odd. You didn't get any 'proof' of what you claim: that
>the #warez channels are a means of spreading software yet you are SURE that
>they do. Whether or not illegal trading of items does takes place on these
>channels, how can we be sure that this list is of that?! Especially since,
>whoever you are, you have forged the posting! You expect US to believe such
>dishonesty? I don't think so.
>

I would say only 2% of the time warez gets traded on those channels. Why?
1. there are people who just keep hitting ^P on posting "ne1 offering?"
2. "" "" "I got warez
lists to TRADE"
3. or variations
4. 10000 mode changes a minute
5. cant get into the damn channels
6. Most of the warez publicly offered are fucking SCRIPTS!

firebug

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 7:44:02 PM3/7/95

to

U58...@uicvm.uic.edu wrote:
[blather about SMTP and forging IRC deleted - I dont want to touch that.]

: Note that "software piracy", despite much hype, is NOT a Criminal offense,

: but a Civil one. You can be sued for it, but that is all. Not sweeping your
: steps, and having a salesman slip while you're away from home, can also get you
: sued, and for more money. I am disinclined to call the victim of either suit a
: "criminal".

I doubt he much cares what any of us think. Making a post that noone has any
ability to respond personally to is pretty much the most cowardly thing you
can do on the net.

: If you REALLY believe in Net anarchy, then do not play lap-dog for the

: government masters. If you can convince them that the poor fools here will do
: their work for them they WILL regulate. If you can convince them that the
: people here will -never- go along with them, and will always communicate in a
: FREE, UNCENSORED, UNMONITORED manner, whether it's by irc, anon-remailer,
: encryption, steganography, pirate BBS, phone bridge, plain old telephone, or
: even (what a thought!) the old-fashioned floppy disk (now 100 Meg worth...)
: then MAYBE they will recognize hopelessness and go away; if not, we will at
: least have and use other options.

I take it you have never been to the US? Our government does not give up.
Our government does not recognize hopelessness. It does not admit it is
wrong or correct its mistakes. When it decides it wants something done, even
after determining that it cannot be done, it keeps trying. If there is not
enough public opinion in favor of what they want to do, they will - uh -
"educate" the people. If their effort fails year after year they pour more
and more money into it. Meanwhile, people are starving. But those people are
irrelevant, because starving people have no power.

Getting the point across BEFOREHAND that it is not regulatable, that people
don't want them to try to regulate it is would would have to be done. It's a
pretty hard thing to figure out though, and there's no real life analogy
that can be drawn. It's pretty clear though that this save the internet guy
has found one method that will not work. Maybe he's C&S's evil child or
something.

By the way, really believing in net anarchy would include a desire to not
have everyone's resources wasted by warez trading. (As well as a desire to
not label people anything because they're in a certain IRC channel and
certainly to not spam under the guise of "I have a list of bad people here")

Ron Ritzman

unread,

Mar 8, 1995, 1:33:21 PM3/8/95

to

Adrian Demarais (ad...@netaxs.com) wrote:

: Gee, this feels just a bit like the spam attack of alt.2600 by

: someone who called himself "Cracker Buster" who also posted from
: Netcom. I wonder if it's the same person??

I also remember that a few months back some idiot accused the unndenet
irc network of being a "warez" net because a lot of #warez channels were
recently set up there. Could this be the same guy?
--
============================================================================
Ron Ritzman | soc...@gsusgi2.gsu.edu | Thoughtfulness, not
The Crimedog | rrit...@nyx.cs.du.edu | thought police
============================================================================

vha...@cc.helsinki.fi

unread,

Mar 7, 1995, 5:47:59 PM3/7/95

to

In article <3jh98e$a...@nof.abdn.ac.uk>,
Keith Wilson <psy...@nof.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>SaveTheInternet wrote:

>I find this quite odd. You didn't get any 'proof' of what you claim: that
>the #warez channels are a means of spreading software yet you are SURE that
>they do. Whether or not illegal trading of items does takes place on these
>channels, how can we be sure that this list is of that?! Especially since,
>whoever you are, you have forged the posting! You expect US to believe such
>dishonesty? I don't think so.

Hmm.. IRC is being used, but nothing really interesting happens at
'public' #warez channels... an organised IRC warez transfer system might
have a BOT on a cracked account, and the files could be
uploaded to the BOT with ftp or whatever is the fastest method.

The club members then take what they need from their private warez server.

The most important parameters are not broadcast through IRC, because
IRC tapping is too trivial, they are crypted and sent from a cracked
account to another cracked account, told face-to-face.. or using phone..

IRC is mostly a way the warez people find each other... not a
commercial software broadcast system.

VesA

N. Decker

unread,

Mar 8, 1995, 3:36:59 PM3/8/95

to

Mark Stamos wrote:
: Steve Work (slw...@netcom.com) wrote:

: : I'M GETTING REAL TIRED OF THESE OVER-80-COLUMN POSTS. IF YOU CAN'T WRAP

: : YOUR LINES AT 80 COLUMNS STAY OUT OF THIS GROUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

: Oh, poor Steevie. Maybe you should stay out, then you won't have to read
: lines that go beyound your little screen. Twit!

Er..twit yourself, that's a very common Usenet rule. Most readers don't
read wordwrap, and all your garbage just goes off the page until you try
to edit it. It's even listed in some FAQ's for new users to limit to
around 75 columns or so - in order that when it is quoted a few times,
you can still understand what who the hell said what.

What's wrong, too lazy to hit the return key once in a while?

--
N. Decker Mississippi State University
na...@Ra.MsState.Edu Bite @ Irc
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

bmhe...@eos.ncsu.edu

unread,

Mar 9, 1995, 6:03:02 PM3/9/95

to

test

Tom Swiss

unread,

Mar 9, 1995, 11:51:00 AM3/9/95

to

nel...@cs.uwp.edu (Jeremy Nelson) writes:

>*WHAT????* I dont know what country you live in, but the US copyright
>laws are very clear that it is absolutely positively withoutadoubt
>ILLEGAL to even POSESS copyrighted material without some sort of binding
>contract between you and the holder of that copyright. (IE, a license
>-- i doubt a "gentleman's agreement" would stand up in court as a valid
>contract if thats what it came to.)

Um, I'm pretty sure that's not correct. I possess several hundred
pieces of copyrighted material that I've never received any licence for. I
don't think I can be busted for my book collection.

=Tom Swiss/t...@tis.com======"Born to die."=======Keep your laws off my brain!==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or
whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man." -- Chang-tzu

Steve Hayter

unread,

Mar 9, 1995, 2:27:30 PM3/9/95

to

> >*WHAT????* I dont know what country you live in, but the US copyright
> >laws are very clear that it is absolutely positively withoutadoubt
> >ILLEGAL to even POSESS copyrighted material without some sort of binding
> >contract between you and the holder of that copyright. (IE, a license
> >-- i doubt a "gentleman's agreement" would stand up in court as a valid
> >contract if thats what it came to.)
>
> Um, I'm pretty sure that's not correct. I possess several hundred
> pieces of copyrighted material that I've never received any licence for. I
> don't think I can be busted for my book collection.

If you contact the SPA, you'll find that the original disks count as
proof that you have a license. The license agreement is the contract
between you and the publisher/manufacturer explaining the terms under
which you can use their software. If you loose your disks, but have
proof that you purchased the S/W, legally you are ok.

I went through a huge audit a place I used to work several months ago.
They had 800 employees at the office where I worked and had no disks,
manuals, or anything else other than tons and tons of POs and paid
bills. We involved the SPA and went through everything. When it was
all over, they paid less than $5000 to license things they couldn't
prove they had already paid for. (A far cry from the first estimate
of $2.5M)

As long as you possess the original items and have not violated your
contract (ie: installing MS-Windoze on all 15 systems in your office,
but only paying to install it on one) you're within the law.

Books included. If you have a photocopy of the entire Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy, but you don't have the book, you're in possesion
of 'stolen' information.

Steve

hra...@cloud9.net

unread,

Mar 9, 1995, 9:02:13 PM3/9/95

to

I really don't see why people are making such a big deal over this
post. I think it is only right that warez rodents _are_ narced out. I
see nothing wrong with a list of those who frequent the #Warez* channels
being posted. If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to
worry about. If one warez kiddie gets caught because of 'the list' I
think it was worth it. Face it, warez people are about the lowest form
of life you will come across on the internet - one notch above kiddie
porn traders, IMHO. Join #Warez* sometime and take a look at what goes
on, _blatant_ trading of pirated software. As a software
developer I find it appalling that software is pirated in such volume.
Maybe if these kids get kicked off their sites they will be forced to
get real lives, so perhaps the poster of 'the list' is doing them all
a favor? Warez people _are_ damaging the internet, there is _no_ doubt
about it. How much bandwidth is wasted by online trading of warez on IRC?
How many FTP sites have been victimized by these rodents for hiding
their little warez? Don't you think that eventually the government is
going really push regulation of the internet because (among many other
things) these warez rodents? What productive purpose do these warez
people serve? I have pondered this question over the past six years.
The answer is - ZERO. Does being a warez dude teach one _any_
skills whatsoever? NO. I have not been an angel in my lifetime, but at
least I have the self respect not to lower myself by being a warez dude.
Bottom line, if you were on 'the list' and did nothing wrong, nothing will
happen to you. If you were on 'the list' and you were doing something
wrong - I hope you get caught.

psqr on IRC

Ron Ritzman

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 12:03:18 AM3/10/95

to

hra...@cloud9.net wrote:
: I really don't see why people are making such a big deal over this

: post. I think it is only right that warez rodents _are_ narced out. I
: see nothing wrong with a list of those who frequent the #Warez* channels
: being posted. If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to
: worry about.

The same argument was made back in the red baiting McCarthy days. If you
are on their blacklist and you are called before HUAC, then you have
nothing to worry about if you are not really a communist. If some right
wing (or leftwing) organization published a list of individuals suspected
of being subversives or terrorists (or whatever) and you were on it, should
you worry if you are not one?

Right now nobody takes these these self proclaimed net cops seriously but
that may not always be the case.

: Bottom line, if you were on 'the list' and did nothing wrong, nothing will

: happen to you. If you were on 'the list' and you were doing something
: wrong - I hope you get caught.

From an earlier post in this thread

"First they came for the hackers, and I was silent.
Then they came for the pedophiles, and I was silent.
Then they came for the nudists, and I was silent.
Then they came for the cryptographers, and I was silent.
Then they came for the software pirates, and I was silent.
Then they came for the political activists, and I was silent.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak..."

Robert Levandowski

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 12:19:29 AM3/10/95

to

In <3jnblk$s...@shemesh.tis.com> t...@tis.com (Tom Swiss) writes:

>nel...@cs.uwp.edu (Jeremy Nelson) writes:

>>*WHAT????* I dont know what country you live in, but the US copyright
>>laws are very clear that it is absolutely positively withoutadoubt
>>ILLEGAL to even POSESS copyrighted material without some sort of binding
>>contract between you and the holder of that copyright. (IE, a license
>>-- i doubt a "gentleman's agreement" would stand up in court as a valid
>>contract if thats what it came to.)

> Um, I'm pretty sure that's not correct. I possess several hundred
>pieces of copyrighted material that I've never received any licence for. I
>don't think I can be busted for my book collection.

Sure there are license there!

*whips a book at random off his shelf*

Let's see, it's usually just before the title page:

All rights reserved.
Copyright (C) 1995 by Jack Ryan Limited Partnership and S&R Literary, Inc.
This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part,
by mimeograph or any other means, without permission.
For information address: [...etc.]

[The quotation above reproduced from "Tom Clancy's Op Center," under the
Fair Use Rule, which permits the quotation and reproduction of brief
passages of a copyrighted work for the purposes of commentary or review.]

This is, in effect, a license. By possessing the book, you are bound by it,
under Copyright law. The "All rights reserved." part is a legal shorthand;
it means that you can't get away with tricks like adding material in an
attempt to 'make it your own' and resell it. The third sentence defines your
rights as a licensed user: namely, that you can't copy it. Under copyright
law, you're usually permitted to give away or sell the original, intact
copy, provided you don't copy it in the process. However, one could add a
restriction to the text above making it illegal to give it away, much as is
done with a software license agreement in some cases.

In the case of books, US Copyright Law and the Berne Convention (of which
the US is a signatory) set up basic ground rules to protect authors and
publishers, which do not need to be explicitly set forth in every book.
By coming into possession of a copyrighted work, you're legally obligated
to abide by the copyright law and statements that protect it.

Furthermore, every work that is now created in the United States is by law
considered Copyright, All Rights Reserved by the author UNLESS IT IS EXPLICITLY
DECLARED OTHERWISE IN THE WORK. If any record of an idea, including a book,
a tape, a CD, a program, or something else, does not contain a statement
proclaiming it to be in the public domain and not copyright protected, under
law it is considered to be protected. The owner may have difficulty
proving a claim without a filed copyright notice, but it's not impossible
to prove such claims.

Now, it's not EXACTLY the same thing as the original poster was talking about,
but it amounts to the same thing, pragmatically.
--
--Rob Levandowski
Computer Interest Floor associate / University of Rochester
mac...@cif.rochester.edu [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.]

Bob Clabaugh

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 8:58:01 AM3/10/95

to

In article <3jobv5$h...@news.cloud9.net>, hra...@cloud9.net says...

Of course the government will attempt to force regulations down our
throats - they can't stand anything that they cannot control completely!
As far as the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you haven't got
anyhing to worry about"; just who the hell died and appointed you God?
A person's reputation isn't something that can be defended in a court of
law... it is an impression. Many honest persons have been ruined by
viewpoints such as yours. I sincerely hope that you find your name on a
list of people who participate in whatever you do wrong - everybody
has a skeleton in their closet!!!

But for now ---- back off@!!

E-mail to Abe...@peak.org

Tofu H. Puppicus

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 11:14:29 AM3/10/95

to

Judge Dredd (jdr...@netcom.com) wrote:

: I believe it is called libel.

: Libel: Defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form
: other than by spoken words or gestures.

: Correct me if *I'm* wrong, but you *can* be sued for committing libel
: against another person without solid evidence. I've seen newspapers pay
: the big bucks to persons, for libeling them. I wonder if libel can be
: applied to the internet.

There's a very good read on this question in the book "Cyberspace and The
Law", put out by MIT press. It was written by Gavino Morin and Edward
Cavazos (ISBN 0-262-53123-2, see pages 78-84).

Basically it says that yes, libel can be applied in public message bases,
however, there are several caveats. Basically, USENET would be a special
case, because you would be considered a private citizen in a public
concern. The reason for the "public concern" part is that on USENET, you
have the capability to publicly respond to the accusations (assuming that
you're both USENETters). Therefore, you'd have to show at least
negligence on the part of the poster to win. However, "No punitive damages
are allowed unless there is a showing of actual malice."

Anyways, I glossed over a lot of the stuff that's covered in the book on
this subject, and I really do recommend it highly.

--
tofupup - pgp public key available on request or through finger

Douglas Hall

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 1:14:16 PM3/10/95

to

Michael Shields (shi...@tembel.org) wrote:
: In article <jLnjZf...@netcom.com>, <Save The Internet> wrote:
: > My previous post was maliciously cancelled by one of the pirates. This is a
: > repost:

: This is the third time you've posted a 107K article. It'll likely just
: get canceled again. Why don't you get an address on one of the anon
: servers and offer to mail it to people instead?

Several things come to mind here, one is a quote I came across in the eff
news group:

"Trying to control information in the network age is about as successful
as pissing into the wind."
- Keith Henson, in an article on the AABBS prosecution,
_Computer_underground_Digest_, Jan. 21, 1995.

Secondly, isn't the cancellation of news articles a possible federal
offence?

If you get annoyed with 107K articles, I presume you don't frequent
the binaries newsgroups.

Also, if my service provider cancelled my access on the basis of
my name being on that list, they'd be hearing from my lawyers.

doug
--
Purgamentum Init ~ Exit Purgamentum

Ed Sakabu

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 2:19:24 PM3/10/95

to

In article <3jomim$4...@sphinx.Gsu.EDU>, soc...@gsusgi2.Gsu.EDU (Ron
Ritzman) wrote:

> Stuff deleted...

> Right now nobody takes these these self proclaimed net cops seriously but
> that may not always be the case.
>
> : Bottom line, if you were on 'the list' and did nothing wrong, nothing will
> : happen to you. If you were on 'the list' and you were doing something
> : wrong - I hope you get caught.
>

>Stuff deleted..

"If you did nothing wrong, nothing will happen to you.."

The FBI told my Grandfater this in 1941, in Los Angeles, California, USA when
they took him away "just to ask him a few questions". He was an American
Citizen and spent the next two year in a Federal Prison with no charges
filed against him. After that he was reunited with his wife in an
inturnment camp (pronounced concentration camp in Europe) till 1946. My
Grandfather was thankful he sent my Dad, Uncle, and Aunt for schooling in
Japan at the time so they didn't have to go thru the indignaty ... they
were in Hiroshima.

Believe me, when someone tells you "It's just a list, whats the problem?"
remember -- It always STARTS with a list.

--Ed

--
Ed Sakabu
EdSa...@ucla.edu

Alistair Bell

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 9:59:25 AM3/10/95

to

In article <3jnblk$s...@shemesh.tis.com> t...@tis.com "Tom Swiss" writes:

> Um, I'm pretty sure that's not correct. I possess several hundred
> pieces of copyrighted material that I've never received any licence for. I
> don't think I can be busted for my book collection.

Er... have another look. Most books (at least over here) _do_ include what is
effectively a licence agreement along the lines of 'you won't sell/lend/give
away/whatever this book in any form of binding or cover other than that in which
it was published' i.e. you can't copy it and give away the copy. It _is_ a
contract that you have assented to by buying the book (it's a condition of
sale).

However, US copyright laws may be different.

--
Alistair Bell, Brown's Operating System Services, London. Disclaimers as usual.
alis...@browns.co.uk (home: alis...@ichthya.demon.co.uk)

#include <random.quote>

Damon Chetson

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 3:44:05 PM3/10/95

to

alis...@browns.co.uk writes:
> In article <3jnblk$s...@shemesh.tis.com> t...@tis.com "Tom Swiss" writes:
>
> > Um, I'm pretty sure that's not correct. I possess several hundred
> > pieces of copyrighted material that I've never received any licence for. I
> > don't think I can be busted for my book collection.
>
> Er... have another look. Most books (at least over here) _do_ include what is
> effectively a licence agreement along the lines of 'you won't sell/lend/give
> away/whatever this book in any form of binding or cover other than that in which
> it was published' i.e. you can't copy it and give away the copy. It _is_ a
> contract that you have assented to by buying the book (it's a condition of
> sale).
>
> However, US copyright laws may be different.

There is implied agreement when you purchase a book that you
will not photocopy and distribute copies of the entire book. There are
allowances made for educational purposes. Anyone who has ever
bought a bulkpack of copies for a class at an American university can
read the legal warning on the cover page that cites an
educational act permitting the "fair use" of copyrighted
material for educational purposes. Even in these cases
"fair use" does not include the copying of an _entire_ book to
avoid the cost of purchasing the book.

Simply because you don't actually sign a license when
purchasing a book doesn't mean one doesn't exist. You have
entered into an agreement with the publisher or the author when
purchasing the book that you will not violate copyright laws.

The same applies to copyrighted software. Purchase of the
software implies a contract.

Someone in this thread cited a recent court decision involving
an MIT student who had set up a bulletin board system on the
net to distribute software. Another principle was at work in
that case. That principle is akin to the concept of having
photocopiers at a library. The attorney argued in that case
that even though the kid *knew* what the bulletin board was set
up for, he had no legal obligation to stop the activity on the
board and, since he himself did not distribute copyrighted
material, he was not guilty.
The lawyer argued that if we are to hold the owner of the
board responsible for copyright infringements, are we to then
hold public libraries responsible for copyright infringements
that take place through the use of photocopiers they provide.
I disagree with the lawyer's argument, but that's for another
post...

--
I'm no lawyer, but I play one on the net.

Rahul Dhesi

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 3:18:34 AM3/10/95

to

In <1995Mar10.0...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
rlvd...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Robert Levandowski) writes:

No obvious errors so far. :-)

>[The quotation above reproduced from "Tom Clancy's Op Center," under the
>Fair Use Rule, which permits the quotation and reproduction of brief
>passages of a copyrighted work for the purposes of commentary or review.]

Still no obvious errors, but you are lucky.

>Under copyright
>law, you're usually permitted to give away or sell the original, intact
>copy, provided you don't copy it in the process. However, one could add a
>restriction to the text above making it illegal to give it away, much as is
>done with a software license agreement in some cases.

Uh-oh. Focusing on US copyright law: You are not so lucky any more.
One could add a restriction making it illegal to give away the book,
but this has no effect. Copyright law standardizes the rights of the
copyright owner as well as the rights of the owner of a copy of the
copyrighted work. The copyright owner is not (I repeat NOT) permitted
to impose limitations on the owner of a copy of the copyrighted work
beyond those already imposed by copyright law.

>By coming into possession of a copyrighted work, you're legally obligated
>to abide by the copyright law and statements that protect it.

Kind of. You are legally obligated to abide by copyright law
*and by any statements consistent with coypright law*.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@rahul.net>

Rahul Dhesi

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 6:12:35 PM3/10/95

to

This was originally in:

comp.security.unix,comp.security.misc,alt.irc,alt.2600

In <D58s9...@Virginia.EDU> dc...@Virginia.EDU (Damon Chetson) writes:

>There is implied agreement when you purchase a book that you
>will not photocopy and distribute copies of the entire book.

There is some confusion here between contract law and copyright law.

Buying a copyright work does not create any implied agreement related
to copyright. Copyright law applies regardless of any purchase.

For example, maybe you found the copyrighted book on the
street and picked it up?

Does that mean you are not subject to copyright law? Not at all.

>Simply because you don't actually sign a license when
>purchasing a book doesn't mean one doesn't exist. You have
>entered into an agreement with the publisher or the author when
>purchasing the book that you will not violate copyright laws.

A license exists as granted to you by copyright law. You do not
actually enter into any agreement with the publisher or author.
You do have an agreement with the seller, but this agreement
has nothing to do with copyright law.

>The same applies to copyrighted software. Purchase of the
>software implies a contract.

In the context of copyright law, this is false.

Let me repeat:

Your rights and duties under copyright law are not affected by
whether you buy a book, or find it on the street, or are given it
as a gift. The act of buying in no way affects your rights. The
copyright is inherent in in the copyrighted book and is not
created because of the transaction through which you obtain the
copyrighted book.

>The attorney argued in that case
>that even though the kid *knew* what the bulletin board was set
>up for, he had no legal obligation to stop the activity on the
>board and, since he himself did not distribute copyrighted
>material, he was not guilty.

Not really. The lawyer argued that any violation was a
civil one, and that 'wire fraud' did not apply.

>The lawyer argued that if we are to hold the owner of the
>board responsible for copyright infringements, are we to then
>hold public libraries responsible for copyright infringements
>that take place through the use of photocopiers they provide.

>post...

Are you sure about this? I thought the focus was on arguing
that the 'wire fraud' statute was being incorrectly applied,
and that no such faud had occurred.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@rahul.net>

Steve Work

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 2:21:48 PM3/10/95

to

Steve Hayter (sha...@montreal.cbc.ca) wrote:

: I went through a huge audit a place I used to work several months ago.

: They had 800 employees at the office where I worked and had no disks,
: manuals, or anything else other than tons and tons of POs and paid
: bills. We involved the SPA and went through everything. When it was
: all over, they paid less than $5000 to license things they couldn't
: prove they had already paid for. (A far cry from the first estimate
: of $2.5M)

My company fires people on the spot for using illegal software on the
company's machines. Obviously, the software developers have instilled a
fear of huge lawsuits on companies. I remember several years ago that
Lotus sued for over $1 million for a company having just a few illegal
copies of 1-2-3.

hac...@austin.ibm.com

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 3:59:37 PM3/10/95

to

In <3jnblk$s...@shemesh.tis.com>, t...@tis.com (Tom Swiss) writes:
>nel...@cs.uwp.edu (Jeremy Nelson) writes:
>
>

> Um, I'm pretty sure that's not correct. I possess several hundred
>pieces of copyrighted material that I've never received any licence for. I
>don't think I can be busted for my book collection.
>

Ahh...the difference is when you buy a book you own it !
Thus you can get books given to you etc. and you have not
violated the copyright...but with software, you don't
own it...the company that holds the copyright does...
(read a typical licenice agreement sometimes) and you
need the licenece to possise a copy legally.....

Mark Stamos

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 10:04:19 AM3/10/95

to

N. Decker (na...@Ra.MsState.Edu) wrote:

: Mark Stamos wrote:
: : Steve Work (slw...@netcom.com) wrote:

: : : I'M GETTING REAL TIRED OF THESE OVER-80-COLUMN POSTS. IF YOU CAN'T WRAP
: : : YOUR LINES AT 80 COLUMNS STAY OUT OF THIS GROUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

: : Oh, poor Steevie. Maybe you should stay out, then you won't have to read
: : lines that go beyound your little screen. Twit!

: Er..twit yourself, that's a very common Usenet rule. Most readers don't
: read wordwrap, and all your garbage just goes off the page until you try
: to edit it. It's even listed in some FAQ's for new users to limit to
: around 75 columns or so - in order that when it is quoted a few times,
: you can still understand what who the hell said what.

: What's wrong, too lazy to hit the return key once in a while?

Look again bozo. None of MY lines went off the page. While 80 column
wrap may be a good idea, it does not make Stevie the defender of the line
length. The fact that he can't deal with it, without throwing a temper
tantrum, is what makes him a twit. It is your "What's wrong, too lazy"
line that makes you a bozo. Besides, the better readers *can* deal with
over 80 column line lengths if you are smart enough to configure them.

Mark

Pete Hartman

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 12:18:50 AM3/10/95

to

hra...@cloud9.net () writes:
> I really don't see why people are making such a big deal over this
>post. I think it is only right that warez rodents _are_ narced out. I
>see nothing wrong with a list of those who frequent the #Warez* channels
>being posted. If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to
>worry about.

Uh huh.

I run a few systems myself, and have busted traders in warez, but the
whole idea that if you are on the channel you must be software pirate is
ridiculous; it takes a lot more evidence than that. You encourage people
to check it out; what if someone wants to do a long term study of what's
going on there to really bust someone? If they "frequent the channel"
suddenly they become a suspect even if they are actually trying to curb
its activities.

"If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from" big
brother or little brother ripping your life to shreds trying to find
evidence of something they *know* you must be doing because of the
people you hang out with.

Right.

> If one warez kiddie gets caught because of 'the list' I
>think it was worth it.

If one legitimate user got branded "cracker" or had their account taken
away wrongly, I'd say it was definitely not worth it.

So who is right? You or me?

Personally, I think I am; the rights to associate with whom you will should
extend into "cyberspace".
--
Pete Hartman Bradley University p...@bradley.bradley.edu
I didn't know you could get sound out of a stone

Sean Donelan

unread,

Mar 11, 1995, 2:53:15 AM3/11/95

to

In article <D58s9...@Virginia.EDU>, dc...@Virginia.EDU (Damon Chetson) writes:
> Simply because you don't actually sign a license when
> purchasing a book doesn't mean one doesn't exist. You have
> entered into an agreement with the publisher or the author when
> purchasing the book that you will not violate copyright laws.

This is false. The First-Sale Doctrine negates this. You have
entered into no agreement by purchasing a book. The "FBI Warning"
is a reminder, not a license agreement.

--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Affiliation given for identification not representation

Sean Donelan

unread,

Mar 11, 1995, 3:06:07 AM3/11/95

to

In article <D58sz...@austin.ibm.com>, hac...@austin.ibm.com writes:
> Ahh...the difference is when you buy a book you own it !
> Thus you can get books given to you etc. and you have not
> violated the copyright...but with software, you don't
> own it...the company that holds the copyright does...
> (read a typical licenice agreement sometimes) and you
> need the licenece to possise a copy legally.....

That's a matter the courts haven't definitively decided. Sure,
lots of software publishers claim you don't become the "owner"
when you purchase commercial-off-the-shelf software with a
shrink-wrap license. But I have never heard of the terms of
such a shrink-wrap license being enforced by any US court.

Most successful legal actions against COTS software pirates
have used plain old copyright law, not the terms of the license
agreement. Software publishers can get the FBI and US Customs
to enforce copyright laws, not license agreements. A violation
of a "license agreement" would be a plain old civil contract dispute,
not a criminal matter.

A good "license agreement" is more like a warning label. It just
outlines the rights already stated in the Copyright statutues.

James Sneeringer

unread,

Mar 10, 1995, 8:55:53 PM3/10/95

to

On 10 Mar 1995 18:14:16 GMT, do...@wolfe.net wrote:

: Michael Shields (shi...@tembel.org) wrote:
: : In article <jLnjZf...@netcom.com>, <Save The Internet> wrote:
: : > My previous post was maliciously cancelled by one of the pirates. This is a
: : > repost:

: : This is the third time you've posted a 107K article. It'll likely just
: : get canceled again. Why don't you get an address on one of the anon
: : servers and offer to mail it to people instead?

: Several things come to mind here, one is a quote I came across in the eff
: news group:

: "Trying to control information in the network age is about as successful
: as pissing into the wind."
: - Keith Henson, in an article on the AABBS prosecution,
: _Computer_underground_Digest_, Jan. 21, 1995.

True, but the context of 'control' seems to imply 'limit' or 'censor',
neither of which are relevant here. In this case, some bonehead just
dumped a lot of worthless data onto some newsgroups needlessly, which
served no useful purpose and which no one cared to see. It's only a
shame the guy forged the headers, as he can't effectively be killfiled.

: Secondly, isn't the cancellation of news articles a possible federal
: offence?

I very seriously doubt it. The government seems more intent on limiting
information than in handing it out freely. And if you're not from the US
it doesn't even apply to you.

: If you get annoyed with 107K articles, I presume you don't frequent
: the binaries newsgroups.

If you weren't annoyed with these posts, I presume you frequent
alt.lists.useless or some similar worthless newsgroup.

: Also, if my service provider cancelled my access on the basis of

: my name being on that list, they'd be hearing from my lawyers.

If your provider actually considers taking action against you for
appearing on such a list, cancel your account. I know I wouldn't want to
be associated with such morons if I could help it.

James Sneeringer CrowMan @ irc
jsne...@slonet.org http://slonet.org/~jsneerin/USA.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[your ad here]

Sean Donelan

unread,

Mar 11, 1995, 3:19:12 AM3/11/95

to

In article <794847...@browns.co.uk>, alis...@browns.co.uk (Alistair Bell) writes:
> In article <3jnblk$s...@shemesh.tis.com> t...@tis.com "Tom Swiss" writes:
>
>> Um, I'm pretty sure that's not correct. I possess several hundred
>> pieces of copyrighted material that I've never received any licence for. I
>> don't think I can be busted for my book collection.
>
> Er... have another look. Most books (at least over here) _do_ include what is
> effectively a licence agreement along the lines of 'you won't sell/lend/give
> away/whatever this book in any form of binding or cover other than that in which
> it was published' i.e. you can't copy it and give away the copy. It _is_ a
> contract that you have assented to by buying the book (it's a condition of
> sale).
>
> However, US copyright laws may be different.

Perhaps they are. Libraries (and anyone else) are free to lend any book
they purchase in any binding, irregardless of any printing ("license")
inside the book. The binding life of the average "Where's Waldo" is
pretty short. Libraries often rebind it, and lend it in the new binding.

You are "bound" by what the copyright statutues say, not by the printing in
the book. Consider the notice in the book a reminder, or a warning label.
It is not a license.

Tim Smith

unread,

Mar 11, 1995, 8:35:31 AM3/11/95

to

In article <D58sz...@austin.ibm.com>, <hac...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
> Ahh...the difference is when you buy a book you own it !
> Thus you can get books given to you etc. and you have not
> violated the copyright...but with software, you don't
> own it...the company that holds the copyright does...
> (read a typical licenice agreement sometimes) and you
> need the licenece to possise a copy legally.....

All courts in the United States that have considered this, and the
whelming majority of commentators, think that there is no difference
between buying a book and buying software, as far as licensing goes.
In both copies you have *bought* a copy of the copyrighted work, rather
than *licensed* a copy, and you can do anything you want with it that
is authorized by copyright law for people who own a copy of a work
but do not own the copyright.

Some companies do manage to license their software rather than sell
it, but to do so, they forego mass market sales through places like
Egghead or CompUSA, and instead handle their own sales, and only sell
to people who agree to the license terms *before* the software is
delivered.

--Tim Smith

Steve Work

unread,

Mar 11, 1995, 6:36:44 AM3/11/95

to

Mark Stamos (mst...@crl.com) wrote:

: Look again bozo. None of MY lines went off the page. While 80 column

: wrap may be a good idea, it does not make Stevie the defender of the line
: length. The fact that he can't deal with it, without throwing a temper
: tantrum, is what makes him a twit. It is your "What's wrong, too lazy"
: line that makes you a bozo. Besides, the better readers *can* deal with
: over 80 column line lengths if you are smart enough to configure them.

No, its just the fact that if you don't wrap your lines, others have difficulty reading the
material. You come across as and ignorant
newbie if
all your posts look like this. Don't you get the point?

IRP Young

unread,

Mar 11, 1995, 9:24:22 AM3/11/95

to

netiquette <sp?> has always said that we limit lines to 80 chars. There are
good reasons for this, ie some people can't read anything after that.
Why do people have problems in undertanding this. Although I am sat on a
SunSparc, i do realise that all some people have is a dumb terminal.

Surely all us people with expensive/better equipment/software can take an
extra keypress after every 80 characters or so.

nobody is expecting EVERY line to be under 80 chars - we all have lapses
of concentration, but surely we can all try to make usenet that little
bit more accessable to everybody ?

Iain.

swl...@hertz.njit.edu

unread,

Mar 11, 1995, 9:43:26 AM3/11/95

to

> I really don't see why people are making such a big deal over this
>post. I think it is only right that warez rodents _are_ narced out. I
>see nothing wrong with a list of those who frequent the #Warez* channels
>being posted. If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to
>worry about. If one warez kiddie gets caught because of 'the list' I
>think it was worth it. Face it, warez people are about the lowest form
>of life you will come across on the internet - one notch above kiddie
>porn traders, IMHO. Join #Warez* sometime and take a look at what goes
>on, _blatant_ trading of pirated software. As a software
>developer I find it appalling that software is pirated in such volume.

I have also written software, and I have found that the best way to get
free advertising is through warez distribution. The peopel who are mainly
trading warez would not buy the software anyway, and at least other
people can hear more about it. Unless your software sucks, people will
pass the name along saying it's good, other people hear this and then
want to buy it because they can't get warez or want the support. So
unless the stuff you put out is useless or poorly written, you should not
have too many complaints. I sure don't.

________
/ MentaL \
/==========================================================================\
| I wanna grow up.. + [==========================] + Reality is the only word|
| I wanna be... + [ swl...@hertz.njit.edu ] + in the language that |
| So no one phucks + [ All I can say is, Moo ] + should always be used in|
| with me. -MM + [==========================] + quotes. -MLwtTKK |
\==========================================================================/

Mark Stamos

unread,

Mar 11, 1995, 11:05:08 AM3/11/95

to

Steve Work (slw...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Mark Stamos (mst...@crl.com) wrote:

Then why don't you explain yourself in a calm and reasonable manner
instead of your rant which resembles a two year old who did not get his
way? Your original post was:

I'M GETTING REAL TIRED OF THESE OVER-80-COLUMN POSTS. IF YOU CAN'T WRAP
YOUR LINES AT 80 COLUMNS STAY OUT OF THIS GROUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shouting and stomping your feet makes you look like a twit, don't *YOU*
get the point?

Further, it is *YOUR* responsibility to skip past posts you can't read.
The penalty for line lengths that are too long is that the post will be
ignored by many readers. A 'clueless newbie' will soon figure it out
with out the condescending comments from the likes of you. Self appointed
"NET-COPS" suck.

Mark

James Moody

unread,

Mar 11, 1995, 11:56:42 AM3/11/95

to

I felt it necessary to respond to this silly post, even though I'm not on the
list...
First of all, I'm sure the feds or whoever the hell you sent this stupid list
to really care - after all, being on the warez channel is NOT ILLEGAL. Giving
someone the site name where they can get llegal software is NOT ILLEGAL. Unless
you can prove that the people on these channels actually transmitted illegal
software to each other (which you probably can't), take a hike.
Let me put it this way: telling someone where they can get the parts to
put together a nuclear bomb is fine. Giving them the blueprints is fine. What
they do with this information is entirely up to them, but this information in
itself is NOT illegal. You sound to me like a person who would find the
mailing list for Phrack magazine and forward that to the secret service -
just because the information therein COULD be used to perform a crime.
Self-appointed policemen such as yourselves make me sick; next time you
feel it necessary to post such garbage, try getting a list of those who
actually commited a crime, not those who sat around on a chat server talking
about it.

James