go android apps (torrents)

[sobriquet]

Hey.

Has anyone seen a torrent somewhere that includes android apps for go/
weiqi/baduk?
I'm looking in particular for the KGS client and the versions of crazy
stone or aya that include games on a 19x19 goban.

I know I can buy them in the app store.. but I thought I'd wait for
someone to share a free version online somewhere.

greetings & thanks in advance for any suggestions, Niek

[Edward Feustel]

I have an Android wifi tablet. One of the uncertified brands.
Without a certified Android phone or tablet, it is unlikely that
you will be able to get the KGS client. The author will not
sell it except on Android Marketplace and Android Marketplace
will not sell you an application if you have not registered your
phone or your tablet.

Ed Feustel

[sobriquet]

On 6 jan, 12:14, Edward Feustel <efeus...@hughes.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 07:48:29 -0800 (PST), sobriquet
>

But it only takes one person who has actually bought it, to share his/
her
copy on a torrent site. I've downloaded other android apps on demonoid
and most of them seemed to work ok. Also apps that you normally need
to buy in the android marketplace (like the Sygic gps application with
additional maps).

[ptw]

On Jan 6, 5:01 pm, sobriquet <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> But it only takes one person who has actually bought it, to share his/
> her
> copy on a torrent site. I've downloaded other android apps on demonoid
> and most of them seemed to work ok. Also apps that you normally need
> to buy in the android marketplace (like the Sygic gps application with
> additional maps).

Why not just buy the app? wms put a lot of work into the client as
well as the server.

If you want to play online for free via android, download the panda-
tetsuki client and play on igs. It is a beta version, but it works
and can be gotten here:
http://www.gentgo.be/tetsuki/

--ptw--

[ptw]

I found this list on sensei's library:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?Android

Not bittorrent, but many are available for free. Some are even Free
Software.

--ptw--

[sobriquet]

On 10 jan, 04:28, ptw <pthomaswri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 5:01 pm, sobriquet <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > But it only takes one person who has actually bought it, to share his/
> > her
> > copy on a torrent site. I've downloaded other android apps on demonoid
> > and most of them seemed to work ok. Also apps that you normally need
> > to buy in the android marketplace (like the Sygic gps application with
> > additional maps).
>
> Why not just buy the app? wms put a lot of work into the client as
> well as the server.

Because information should be free. WMS also put a lot of work in the
regular
kgs client (for windows) and that one is free as well.

Wms should make the app free and make a paid version with additional
features.

>
> If you want to play online for free via android, download the panda-
> tetsuki client and play on igs.  It is a beta version, but it works
> and can be gotten here:http://www.gentgo.be/tetsuki/
>
> --ptw--

I've tried the tetsuki app, but as far as I could see, it didn't even
allow for observing
games in progress.

[Robert Jasiek]

sobriquet wrote:
>But it only takes one person who has actually bought it, to share his/
>her copy on a torrent site.

What you are propagating is intellectual property theft. Shame on you!

[sobriquet]

What you are propagating is the kind of fascism that impairs our
ability to exploit
the full potential of information technology!
Shame on you!

[Robert Jasiek]

sobriquet wrote:
>What you are propagating is the kind of fascism that impairs our
>ability to exploit the full potential of information technology!

Can you please refrain from using insulting words like fascism?

***

The matter of intellectual property has surpassed the level of
different opinions; it is ruled by law. I understand that you would
like different international law but everybody has to live with the
currently valid law. The valid law concepts follow the idea of
honouring labour. Like peasants are rewarded by our payment for the
food with which they supply us due to their work, programmers of
commercial software are rewarded by our payment for the software they
supply us due to their work. If you like free food, you can go into
nature and try to survive from what you find. If you like free
software, you can use freeware. If you like food from the supermarket,
you have to pay for it. If you like the greater quality of commercial
software, you have to pay for it. This is the basic idea underlying
the current copyright law.

[sobriquet]

On 11 jan, 20:43, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
> >What you are propagating is the kind of fascism that impairs our
> >ability to exploit the full potential of information technology!
>
> Can you please refrain from using insulting words like fascism?

Can you please refrain from using equally insulting words like
'theft'?

People who share information online don't take things away from
anyone. They merely
share things that belong to the public domain in the first place. The
real criminals are the
scum who think they can appropriate things that belong to the public
domain.

Intellectual property is a scam that has been going on for far too
long now and has deprived countless people
from free access to the information they are entitled to access.
Sharing information is a basic human right and it's the intellectual
property mafia that has been violating this
basic human right ever since people have been sharing information in
digital form.

>
> ***
>
> The matter of intellectual property has surpassed the level of
> different opinions; it is ruled by law.

So what? In various countries there is a law that criminalizes
homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that
one can't maintain the opinion that there is nothing wrong with
homosexuality.

> I understand that you would
> like different international law but everybody has to live with the
> currently valid law. The valid law concepts follow the idea of
> honouring labour.

This is the sort of drivel the intellectual property mafia has been
peddling and it's
pure insanity. The idea that people can create information and claim
it as their intellectual property
is even more insane than the idea that the government has the right to
criminalize and exterminate minorities
as they see fit.

> Like peasants are rewarded by our payment for the
> food with which they supply us due to their work, programmers of
> commercial software are rewarded by our payment for the software they
> supply us due to their work.

There is nothing wrong with monetary compensation for people who
create new things, but
copyright is about the most absurd, counterproductive and ineffective
way to achieve that.
It would be more sensible if people who create things would be
entitled to a portion of taxes
collected on information (based on statistically monitoring what
people exchange online and
rewarding people who contribute new content based on how popular their
creations are).

> If you like free food, you can go into
> nature and try to survive from what you find. If you like free
> software, you can use freeware. If you like food from the supermarket,
> you have to pay for it. If you like the greater quality of commercial
> software, you have to pay for it. This is the basic idea underlying
> the current copyright law.

Information belongs to the public domain and people who claim
otherwise lack
a basic understanding of contemporary information technology or they
are sycophants
of the intellectual property mafia.

Information is free simply because there are no associated costs with
the reproduction and distribution of information. The price of things
is determined by laws of supply and demand and in case of digital
information
there is an infinite supply and hence the price must be zero.
People who freely exchange information online simply demonstrate their
understanding of the basic purpose of information technology, viz. to
enable people to exchange information freely.

The idea of copyright is only feasible if you accept a control-freak
government that monitors its citizens by means of secret agents, where
one half of the population works for the government to spy on the
other half.
Alternatively, you can also ban computers and internet completely if
you insist on enforcing copyright, because that is about the only
practical way to enforce this utterly insane idea.

Information technology and intellectual property simply don't mix.

[Robert Jasiek]

sobriquet wrote:
>Can you please refrain from using equally insulting words like
>'theft'?

It is a usual expression in the context of intellectual property
theft.

>They merely
>share things that belong to the public domain in the first place.

Whether some privately created media or software belongs to the public
domain is decided by a declaration act of only the previous property
holder.

>The
>real criminals are the
>scum who think they can appropriate things that belong to the public
>domain.

Like attempting to make the bible private property of a single person?

>Intellectual property is a scam that has been going on for far too
>long now and has deprived countless people
>from free access to the information they are entitled to access.

They are not entitled to access regardless of whether they have a
desire of access.

>Sharing information is a basic human right

Sharing non-commercial information is a form of using freedom of
speech. Sharing commercially protected information is not a human
right.

>and it's the intellectual property mafia

The film industry? This is not that much a go topic.

>> The valid law concepts follow the idea of
>> honouring labour.
>
>This is the sort of drivel the intellectual property mafia has been
>peddling and it's pure insanity.

It is not insanity but a necessity to guarantee most intellectual
being done at all. Without honorarium for the labour, most information
would never be written or stored because the would be creators had to
spend too much time on non-informational work.

>There is nothing wrong with monetary compensation for people who
>create new things, but
>copyright is about the most absurd, counterproductive and ineffective
>way to achieve that.
>It would be more sensible if people who create things would be
>entitled to a portion of taxes
>collected on information (based on statistically monitoring what
>people exchange online and
>rewarding people who contribute new content based on how popular their
>creations are).

This would be a reasonable alternative if only it were used commonly.
Currently only perversions of that idea are used in very restricted
forms.

>Information belongs to the public domain and people who claim
>otherwise lack
>a basic understanding of contemporary information technology or they
>are sycophants
>of the intellectual property mafia.

I am neither but do not - under the current law situation - consider
information in general to be part of public domain.

>Information is free simply because there are no associated costs with
>the reproduction and distribution of information. The price of things
>is determined by laws of supply and demand and in case of digital
>information
>there is an infinite supply and hence the price must be zero.

Your theory; I disagree.

>People who freely exchange information online simply demonstrate their
>understanding of the basic purpose of information technology, viz. to
>enable people to exchange information freely.

No. There can be different aims. There are also side conditions like
having time or income for something else so that they can afford to
share information.

>The idea of copyright is only feasible if you accept a control-freak
>government that monitors its citizens by means of secret agents,

Nonsense. The current jurisdiction system in most countries suffices.

>Information technology and intellectual property simply don't mix.

Says somebody not sentenced yet.

[ptw]

On Jan 10, 1:13 am, sobriquet <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Because information should be free. WMS also put a lot of work in the
> regular
> kgs client (for windows) and that one is free as well.

1) the actual quote is "Information wants to be free." and is
attributed to Steven Brand.

2)There is a difference between "information" and "created works". The
first refers to data, news, facts, and description while the latter
refers to the product of creative effort. I agree that "information
wants to be free" and, to a more narrow extent, that "information
should be free" because of the transformative effect that open access
to information can have on an individual or a society. I do not
believe that this justifies the belief that one should have open
access to possession of or the use of created works without the
explicit permission of the creator of those works. Copyright exists
for a valid and important reason, even if that reason has been
corrupted by governments implementing law granting unreasonably long
periods of copyright protection that obstruct the realization of
copyright's original goals.

3) There is an important difference between "free" and "Free". I do
not believe that this is the proper forum to have that discussion. If
you see no difference, then perhaps you should read some Stuart Brand,
Richard Stallman, and Eben Moglen. I may not agree with everything
they have to say, but they are important reads if you wish to
understand the difference, as well as of the idea expressed by your
Stuart Brand mis-quote.

4) The KGS client is not "for windows", but is a Java client that
works on multiple platforms including Linux and BSD. The Java client
for KGS is "free", but not "Free". wms has valid reasons for this. He
needs not explain, both client programs are his creation, and he can
permit their use under the terms he has chosen (within the bounds of
Copyright). Ethically, I find it difficult to impugn his decisions
because he has created useful and valued software that was released as
"Free", helped others in the go community to create "Free Software"
tools for playing online, editing sgfs, and connecting to servers (as
well as a gpl licensed go server).

> Wms should make the app free and make a paid version with additional
> features.

I see no reason for any software developer to release crippled
versions of their work.

> I've tried the tetsuki app, but as far as I could see, it didn't even
> allow for observing
> games in progress.

http://www.gentgo.be/tetsuki/help.html

--ptw--

[Nick Wedd]

On 11/01/2012 21:07, sobriquet wrote:
> On 11 jan, 20:43, Robert Jasiek<jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
>> sobriquet wrote:
>>> What you are propagating is the kind of fascism that impairs our
>>> ability to exploit the full potential of information technology!
>>
>> Can you please refrain from using insulting words like fascism?
>
> Can you please refrain from using equally insulting words like
> 'theft'?

You have accused Robert of fascism, with no justification. He is not a
fascist.

You feel insulted when accused of advocating theft. Yet you continue to
advocate theft. You are a hypocrite.

Nick

[sobriquet]

You talk about theft. There is no theft. Yet you continue to talk
about theft.
That means you are a fascist, because you obviously disrespect human
rights.

[sobriquet]

On 12 jan, 03:17, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
> >Can you please refrain from using equally insulting words like
> >'theft'?
>
> It is a usual expression in the context of intellectual property
> theft.

Oh really? Well, the usual expression for people who propagate
the retarded propaganda of the intellectual property mafia is
'fascist', at least
in the context of people who see through their lies.

>
> >They merely
> >share things that belong to the public domain in the first place.
>
> Whether some privately created media or software belongs to the public
> domain is decided by a declaration act of only the previous property
> holder.

See, that's the kind of bullshit they want you to believe. Here is
some privately created media:
0101111010101000000101110101011111. Now I can go scan the internet if
anyone has my intellectual
property on their computer and I can harass them with legalistic
bullshit, right?

No, I better leave my computer on overnight to generate bitstrings and
they will all be my intellectual property and I can sue and harass
people all over the place... really!

>
> >The
> >real criminals are the
> >scum who think they can appropriate things that belong to the public
> >domain.
>
> Like attempting to make the bible private property of a single person?

There are no bitstrings that are private property and people who
believe this are seriously confused
and brainwashed by the propaganda of the intellectual property mafia.
These are probably the same people who would argue that a corporation
can own DNA as intellectual property
and consider lifeforms as their property simply because those
lifeforms employ sections of DNA that happens to be their intellectual
property.

>
> >Intellectual property is a scam that has been going on for far too
> >long now and has deprived countless people
> >from free access to the information they are entitled to access.
>
> They are not entitled to access regardless of whether they have a
> desire of access.

Ah.. and corporations get to decide which information people can or
can't access?
I think you really are insane if you seriously believe that.

>
> >Sharing information is a basic human right
>
> Sharing non-commercial information is a form of using freedom of
> speech. Sharing commercially protected information is not a human
> right.

There is no commercially protected information. You really need to
watch some documentaries
that demonstrate the sheer insanity of this preposterous scam:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4873370/RIP__A_Remix_Manifesto_-_Xvid

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6064518/Patent_Absurdity_HD_3540kbit_s_[OGG_Vorbis_Theora]

>
> >and it's the intellectual property mafia
>
> The film industry? This is not that much a go topic.

The intellectual property mafia includes everyone who advocates the
crazy idea that people or
corporations can own digital information as private property, giving
them the right to dictate others
what they can or can't do with a copy of this digital information
(like preventing them from sharing it
online with others).

>
> >> The valid law concepts follow the idea of
> >> honouring labour.
>
> >This is the sort of drivel the intellectual property mafia has been
> >peddling and it's pure insanity.
>
> It is not insanity but a necessity to guarantee most intellectual
> being done at all. Without honorarium for the labour, most information
> would never be written or stored because the would be creators had to
> spend too much time on non-informational work.

Nonsense. Quite the contrary, if we didn't have these insane and
retarded intellectual
property laws, humanity as a whole probably wouldn't be in the sorry
state we're in now
with rich people getting richer and poor people getting poorer.

Sharing the wealth of human culture, information and knowledge is the
key towards a more
sensible distribution of material wealth.

With 3d scanning and printing technology improving, soon physical
commodities like a loaf of bread
or a bicycle won't even be scarce anymore either when they can be
duplicated as easily as a bitstring.

>
> >There is nothing wrong with monetary compensation for people who
> >create new things, but
> >copyright is about the most absurd, counterproductive and ineffective
> >way to achieve that.
> >It would be more sensible if people who create things would be
> >entitled to a portion of taxes
> >collected on information (based on statistically monitoring what
> >people exchange online and
> >rewarding people who contribute new content based on how popular their
> >creations are).
>
> This would be a reasonable alternative if only it were used commonly.
> Currently only perversions of that idea are used in very restricted
> forms.

All the more reason to get rid of these crazy intellectual property
laws and improve
upon the idea of taxing information to ensure there is an adequate
financial stimulus
for people to create new content on the one hand, while allowing
people to share
information freely so they can exploit the full potential of
information technology on the other hand.

>
> >Information belongs to the public domain and people who claim
> >otherwise lack
> >a basic understanding of contemporary information technology or they
> >are sycophants
> >of the intellectual property mafia.
>
> I am neither but do not - under the current law situation - consider
> information in general to be part of public domain.

Fine, but don't insult others who do use information technology the
way it was intended
to be used, by claiming them to be thieves, because there is no theft
involved whatsoever
among people who share information online.

>
> >Information is free simply because there are no associated costs with
> >the reproduction and distribution of information. The price of things
> >is determined by laws of supply and demand and in case of digital
> >information
> >there is an infinite supply and hence the price must be zero.
>
> Your theory; I disagree.

So you disagree that information can be duplicated indefinitely free
from additional costs?
Or you disagree that the price of things is determined by laws of
supply and demand as a measure
of scarcity?

>
> >People who freely exchange information online simply demonstrate their
> >understanding of the basic purpose of information technology, viz. to
> >enable people to exchange information freely.
>
> No. There can be different aims. There are also side conditions like
> having time or income for something else so that they can afford to
> share information.

Sure, there are idiots who buy crippled versions of technology where
the manufacturer
has decided to impair the functionality of their product in the
interest of making more profit.
Apple comes to mind.

>
> >The idea of copyright is only feasible if you accept a control-freak
> >government that monitors its citizens by means of secret agents,
>
> Nonsense. The current jurisdiction system in most countries suffices.

Except that piracy is rampant in all but the most fascist countries
where the government is
merely an extension of these fascist corporations, who have no respect
whatsoever for human
rights and only care about maximizing their profit.

>
> >Information technology and intellectual property simply don't mix.
>
> Says somebody not sentenced yet.

You can sentence everybody who rejects the intellectual property
bullshit, but then there will be more people in jail than out on the
streets.
But then again, you don't seem to have any problems living in a
fascist police state, so that might be right up your alley.

[Robert Jasiek]

sobriquet wrote:
>That means you are a fascist

Continued insults sooner or later let you run into someone with time
for bringing you to court.

[Robert Jasiek]

sobriquet wrote:
>'fascist'
>bullshit
>bullshit
>insane
>insanity
>insane
>idiots
>crippled
>fascist
>fascist
>bullshit

>fascist

Continued insults sooner or later let you run into someone with time
for bringing you to court.

>humanity

Learn to discuss without insults and humanity becomes a word, i.e.
then people might actually consider resumed discussion with you.

[sobriquet]

So you better heed your own advice and stop falsely accusing people of
theft or propagating theft.

[sobriquet]

On 12 jan, 14:29, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
>[..]

> Learn to discuss without insults and humanity becomes a word, i.e.
> then people might actually consider resumed discussion with you.

You're the one who started insulting people. Perhaps you should avoid
insults in case you intend to have a proper discussion.

[sobriquet]

On 12 jan, 05:09, ptw <pthomaswri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 1:13 am, sobriquet <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Because information should be free. WMS also put a lot of work in the
> > regular
> > kgs client (for windows) and that one is free as well.
>
> 1) the actual quote is "Information wants to be free." and is
> attributed to Steven Brand.

Just because he said information wants to be free that doesn't mean
that someone else can't
say information is free without considering that statement to be a
crippled quote.

>
> 2)There is a difference between "information" and "created works". The
> first refers to data, news, facts, and description while the latter
> refers to the product of creative effort. I agree that "information
> wants to be free" and, to a more narrow extent, that "information
> should be free" because of the transformative effect that open access
> to information can have on an individual or a society. I do not
> believe that this justifies the belief that one should have open
> access to possession of or the use of created works without the
> explicit permission of the creator of those works. Copyright exists
> for a valid and important reason, even if that reason has been
> corrupted by governments implementing law granting unreasonably long
> periods of copyright protection that obstruct the realization of
> copyright's original goals.

Copyright used to exist for a valid reason, but it has devolved and
mutated into
an absurd monstrosity that is really proof of the profound level of
stupidity humans
can reach when they don't use their brain.
We'd be the laughing stock of the universe if aliens ever find out how
we've been
trying to maintain and impose copyright in the context of contemporary
information technology.

>
> 3) There is an important difference between "free" and "Free". I do
> not believe that this is the proper forum to have that discussion. If
> you see no difference, then perhaps you should read some Stuart Brand,
> Richard Stallman, and Eben Moglen. I may not agree with everything
> they have to say, but they are important reads if you wish to
> understand the difference, as well as of the idea expressed by your
> Stuart Brand mis-quote.

I suppose the difference you mean is between things that are given
away
freely and things that are open source where people are allowed to do
with it
as they see fit, provided they adhere to some limitations (like the
modified version
being distributed as open source likewise).

>
> 4) The KGS client is not "for windows", but is a Java client that
> works on multiple platforms including Linux and BSD.

True, I meant the KGS client for java (as opposed to the KGS client
for android).

> The Java client
> for KGS is "free", but not "Free". wms has valid reasons for this. He
> needs not explain, both client programs are his creation, and he can
> permit their use under the terms he has chosen (within the bounds of
> Copyright). Ethically, I find it difficult to impugn his decisions
> because he has created useful and valued software that was released as
> "Free", helped others in the go community to create "Free Software"
> tools for playing online, editing sgfs, and connecting to servers (as
> well as a gpl licensed go server).

I think the bounds of copyright can't be taken seriously. WMS can do
whatever he likes, but
whether others take him seriously regarding the limitations he seeks
to impose on his creations
as they end up on other people's computer is something else.

>
> > Wms should make the app free and make a paid version with additional
> > features.
>
> I see no reason for any software developer to release crippled
> versions of their work.

That doesn't necessarily mean a crippled version. Like the KGS+
subscription
where you have access to lessons on KGS (which can be considered a
kind of
feature of the KGS+ subscription).

>
> > I've tried the tetsuki app, but as far as I could see, it didn't even
> > allow for observing
> > games in progress.
>
> http://www.gentgo.be/tetsuki/help.html

Strange that it seems tetsuki can't display a list of games in
progress so you can easily find a game with good players that has just
commenced.

>
> --ptw--

[ptw]

I'm sorry, I made an incorrect attribution. The correct person is
Stewart Brand.

--ptw--

[rt]

sobriquet wrote:
>
> On 11 jan, 20:43, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> > sobriquet wrote:
> > >What you are propagating is the kind of fascism that impairs our
> > >ability to exploit the full potential of information technology!
> >
> > Can you please refrain from using insulting words like fascism?
>
> Can you please refrain from using equally insulting words like
> 'theft'?
>
> People who share information online don't take things away from
> anyone. They merely
> share things that belong to the public domain in the first place. The
> real criminals are the
> scum who think they can appropriate things that belong to the public
> domain.

So you think it's ok to put Microsoft Office up for free?

[sobriquet]

Sure...

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6947477/Microsoft_Office_Professional_2010_-_No_Serial_Needed

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 01/12/2012 06:07 AM, sobriquet wrote:
>
> Intellectual property is a scam that has been going on for far too
> long now and has deprived countless people
> from free access to the information they are entitled to access.
> Sharing information is a basic human right and it's the intellectual
> property mafia that has been violating this
> basic human right ever since people have been sharing information in
> digital form.
>

This is an oft-touted party line, but consider the college student who
has a choice: Engineering or Typography.

If you're an engineer, people have to pay you for your work because it
exists in the real world. If you're a Typographer, people have to pay
you precisely once (or in practice, a dozen times) because your font
will eventually fall in line with the collection of 65,000 other fonts
available for free on torrent sharing services.

How can you make a living as a Typographer if you can only make $5000 or
$6000 on a font that takes 5 years to create? You can't. Jacking up the
price will do nothing because no one will pay $250,000 to buy your font.
What ends up happening is, you still get "good" fonts but they are not
"professional" quality. And there's much, much fewer of them.

The world you are describing can (and perhaps should) exist, but you
will lose a lot of the things you hold dear. Look around at something
simple, like fonts. Gill Sans. Helvetica. London Underground. ITC
Franklin Gothic. Miller. A few others. Did you realize they all cost
money? If you got them for free and you didn't pay for them -- you did
pay for them because you bought some software that included the fonts
and paid a royalty to the font creator.

Do you get that intellectual property is not a scam, and that if people
stopped pirating things prices would fall on a $70 game to maybe $10?

Do you know what the pirate code of honor is? IF YOU DONT USE IT, DELETE
IT AND DOWNLOAD SOMETHING ELSE! And rule two, IF YOU USE IT, FUCKING PAY
FOR IT.

[Tsukino Usagi]

A long time ago people used to grow apples on trees. A certain farmer
had twenty trees in his orchard and each tree grew twenty apples. Over
time, as he increased his proficiency and made sales, he doubled his
land and made twenty apples on forty trees. Around this time the local
thieves started noticing his wealth. Now, there were two types of
thieves; One type would set up shop next to his orchard and move his
fence at night, centimeter by centimeter, post by post. The farmer only
learned after several years that his fence wasn't where it was supposed
to be, but by then some trees had been planted on the thieves' orchard
and the farmer could do nothing but cut down one of his trees so that
all trees could get enough nutrients from the local river.

But another more insiduous thief would sneak into the orchard at night
and steal one apple from every tree that had more than twenty apples.
"The farmer doesn't need so many apples. He can make money selling just
a few." And indeed he could. For years, the farmer struggled to make a
living. He found it difficult to support a forty (thirty nine) tree
orchard given the costs of upkeep. He wasn't making as much money as
before. He could continue production and make a decent living, but he
couldn't expand. He couldn't afford advertising. He didn't know it, but
some of his livelyhood was being taken away. It was no longer
capitalism, but socialism. The farmer decided to raise the price of his
apples but nothing worked to bring in more money.

The next year, there was an apple shortage because no farmer in the area
had been able to expand their orchards to meet population growth, and
the apples in general were too expensive. Kind of like how a game will
be released, the next year a sequel will be released, then part 3 will
be released ten years later. Look around at the major game titles.
Freaky huh? And people began to starve. The farmer began keeping a
closer watch on his apples and one night he shot the thief who was
stealing his apples.

Years later, everyone was happy and full and could play the best games
and eat apple pie for a low cost. All because someone shot an apple thief.

[sobriquet]

You are obviously missing the entire point of my argument, which is that apples are scarce, while information is not.

If you have one apple, and you have 10000000 hungry mouths to feed, you have a problem (unless you are Jesus and you can multiply apples as easily as a bitstring).

If you have one copy of photoshop, and you have 10000000 graphical designers with a computer, there is no problem whatsoever.

[sobriquet]

Nonsense.

The price of things is something that is determined by laws of supply and demand and in case of information there is an infinite supply and hence, regardless of the demand, the price must be zero.

If you don't understand this, you must go back to school and take some basic math lessons.

Once we have established the fact that information isn't scarce and hence it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to buy, sell or 'own' information, we can move to the next topic, which is how to ensure that people who come up with new content can receive a fair monetary compensation for their effort. But that can never detract from the fact that information is by its very nature free and information technology is by its very nature intended to encourage people to share information freely.

Copyright was invented to protect commercial printers from unfair competition from other printers after the printing press was invented. In that context (centralized distributors) it makes sense, but in the context of contemporary information technology (decentralized distribution) it has lost all relevance and it's actually stifling and impeding innovation and creativity, rather than stimulating and encouraging it.

The intellectual property mafia is scamming people on a scale beyond your wildest imagination by perpetuating the intellectual property myth. This is what prevents humanity from exploiting the full potential of information technology and the consequences are very serious because we could have radically elevated the level of education among the general population if it wasn't for these scammers who thrive on stupidity and artificial scarcity.

Imagine a world where people are free to share knowledge, culture and information for the benefit of humanity in general. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that this detracts in any way from our ability to ensure
there is a fair financial compensation for people who create new content, but copyright is the most idiotic and moronic way to achieve that.

[Hans-Georg Michna]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:19:10 +0900, Tsukino Usagi wrote:

>How can you make a living as a Typographer if you can only make $5000 or
>$6000 on a font that takes 5 years to create? You can't. Jacking up the
>price will do nothing because no one will pay $250,000 to buy your font.
>What ends up happening is, you still get "good" fonts but they are not
>"professional" quality. And there's much, much fewer of them.

So what? Many now famous artists have created wonderful works of
art, while being dirt-poor. If you don't like that today, you
can donate, to give just one example for possible rewards.

Some musicians give out their music for free and make their
money on stage. There are many other survival and wealth models.

Copyright is no longer enforceable, so you'd better get used to
this.

Hans-Georg

[Robert Jasiek]

Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
>Copyright is no longer enforceable

It is as much enforceable as it has before: by means of jurisdiction.
What has changed is the rate of unpunished copyright violation because
copying has become much easier while jurisdiction is as slow as ever.

[Tsukino Usagi]

No I see what your saying, but how are you going to support a devteam
putting together something like photoshop and how it's integrated with
the rest of creative suite for free? Gimp, a free alternative, is a
tenth of what photoshop and creative suite can do. Do you see? You'll
never have the copy of photoshop in the first place. Thats what makes
this argument so funny. You want to suddenly change the rules and you
don't even understand what it will mean.

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 01/13/2012 04:00 PM, sobriquet wrote:
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The price of things is something that is determined by laws of supply and demand and in case of information there is an infinite supply and hence, regardless of the demand, the price must be zero.
>
> If you don't understand this, you must go back to school and take some basic math lessons.

I understand.

And when the price is zero, there will be no supply. Do you understand?

> The intellectual property mafia

No such thing. There are big international corporations, yes, but
everyone sells hamburgers.

[Tsukino Usagi]

Copyright is enforceable, it's just not profitable to do so when the
crime is being committed in very small places. They will continue to go
after any central hubs though. Like the recent pirate bay judgement.

Because of that, it will eventually be lawyered out of existance.

And in the end they can and will filter internet traffic.

Just look at the current crop of video games coming out. They all
require an internet connection, even for single player mode.

Somehow or another, people WILL get paid for their software, or other
IP, or they will find another job. The poor artist excuse is a big
laugh. How much money do you make in a year bro? Really. You wanna be a
poor artist too?

[sobriquet]

Op vrijdag 13 januari 2012 17:21:34 UTC+1 schreef Tsukino Usagi het volgende:

> On 01/13/2012 04:00 PM, sobriquet wrote:
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > The price of things is something that is determined by laws of supply and demand and in case of information there is an infinite supply and hence, regardless of the demand, the price must be zero.
> >
> > If you don't understand this, you must go back to school and take some basic math lessons.
>
> I understand.
>
> And when the price is zero, there will be no supply. Do you understand?

That's unlikely to happen. People will always create things and if it's not for money, it will be for status or for the sheer joy of contributing something to the shared wealth of culture/knowledge/information.

But there is no reason whatsoever to assume that people can't earn money anymore when the intellectual property myth would be exposed for the scam it is.
A corporation can always have their creations running on their own servers and offer services via the internet so people can use their software without actually having a copy on their own computer. There is also cloud computing.

For other branches of the information industries, like music, people can always make money by giving a concert based on the popularity they attained from their creations being shared freely online.

So the idea that people would stop creating things if they can no longer rely on the intellectual property myth for an income is a joke.

>
> > The intellectual property mafia
>
> No such thing. There are big international corporations, yes, but
> everyone sells hamburgers.

There is an intellectual property mafia and they are demolishing the internet as we speak (with draconian and disproportional measures like SOPA and ACTA).

If they get their way, people won't even be allowed to have a computer at home anymore for personal use.

[sobriquet]

Gimp offers at least 90% of what photoshop offers. It just has some limitations
that makes it unsuitable for professional use, but for private use for individual people it works just fine as an alternative for photoshop.

If there was no photoshop, it would be likely there would be more people contributing to gimp and then gimp would probably be far more powerful than photoshop is now. So your argument doesn't really work, because it's very likely
open source software would make up for any gaps that commercial software would leave if it was to disappear completely (which is unlikely even in the scenario that copyright would be completely abolished).

[ptw]

On Jan 13, 1:26 am, Tsukino Usagi <us...@tsukino.ca> wrote:

> A long time ago people used to grow apples on trees. A certain farmer
> had twenty trees in his orchard and each tree grew twenty apples. Over
> time, as he increased his proficiency and made sales, he doubled his
> land and made twenty apples on forty trees. Around this time the local
> thieves started noticing his wealth. Now, there were two types of
> thieves; One type would set up shop next to his orchard and move his
> fence at night, centimeter by centimeter, post by post. The farmer only
> learned after several years that his fence wasn't where it was supposed
> to be, but by then some trees had been planted on the thieves' orchard
> and the farmer could do nothing but cut down one of his trees so that
> all trees could get enough nutrients from the local river.

I makes no sense that the farmer would need to cut down one of his
trees because he had erroneously planted some trees on the neighbors
land. Discovering that the fence had been moved does not change the
amount of water or nutrients available.

> But another more insiduous thief would sneak into the orchard at night
> and steal one apple from every tree that had more than twenty apples.
> "The farmer doesn't need so many apples. He can make money selling just
> a few." And indeed he could. For years, the farmer struggled to make a
> living. He found it difficult to support a forty (thirty nine) tree
> orchard given the costs of upkeep. He wasn't making as much money as
> before. He could continue production and make a decent living, but he
> couldn't expand. He couldn't afford advertising. He didn't know it, but
> some of his livelyhood was being taken away. It was no longer
> capitalism, but socialism. The farmer decided to raise the price of his
> apples but nothing worked to bring in more money.

Why would you use the term "socialism" here? This isn't socialism, it
doesn't resemble socialism, it has nothing to do whatsoever with
socialism. It is simple theft. The farmer need to get a big dog. But
theft is not socialism and socialism is not theft. Those terms are
sometimes intentionally conflated by people who are pushing a
political agenda.

> The next year, there was an apple shortage because no farmer in the area
> had been able to expand their orchards to meet population growth, and
> the apples in general were too expensive. Kind of like how a game will
> be released, the next year a sequel will be released, then part 3 will
> be released ten years later. Look around at the major game titles.
> Freaky huh? And people began to starve. The farmer began keeping a
> closer watch on his apples and one night he shot the thief who was
> stealing his apples.

I don't see how the thief stealing from that one farmer caused a
shortage if there were more farms in the area. If the apples were
expensive, then the farmers would be happier. They would make more
profit.

> Years later, everyone was happy and full and could play the best games
> and eat apple pie for a low cost. All because someone shot an apple thief.

If the price of apples dropped, then the farmers would be hurting, as
the markup on apples is very low, and the cost of maintaining an
orchard of very small trees is high. If the apple thief was stealing
enough apples to affect the price, the farmer would have noticed the
missing apples earlier, especially if there are only twenty or so
apples on a tree.

The only thing that your parable illustrates is that that particular
farmer should probably sell his farm and find another line of work. He
is not very good at farming apples.

--ptw--

[Hans-Georg Michna]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:27:50 +0900, Tsukino Usagi wrote:

>Copyright is enforceable, it's just not profitable to do so when the
>crime is being committed in very small places. They will continue to go
>after any central hubs though. Like the recent pirate bay judgement.

Copyright can be made unenforcable, particularly with the help
of strong encryption. Witness Tor and Freenet for some early
examples existing and functioning today.

The acid test of a securely anonymous network is the presence of
child pornography. Not that I like child pornography, but it is
indeed a sure sign of total anonymity.

Hans-Georg

[Hans-Georg Michna]

The problem is that today the copying of digital data can be
made undetectable.

Unenforcable rules cause big problems, not least a general loss
of respect of the law, observable in young people today. They
argue, quite rightfully, that you are the stupid loser, if you
obey laws that are commonly disregarded.

Hans-Georg

[sobriquet]

It's not just that the laws can't be enforced. It's that the intellectual property laws are totally insane and moronic.

I mean just think about it. How can someone seriously claim to own something like a bitstring? You might just as well claim that you own the entire universe. It's equally absurd.

If you think about it, if someone says they own an apple or they own a bicycle, it is an intelligible statement. But what does it mean when someone says they own "010111100100000001110101" as intellectual property?

It's like an illegal prime number, incontrovertible proof that the lawmakers responsible for this nonsense have their head stuck up their ass so deep they have lost all contact with reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime

Apart from that, the pathetic and futile attempts to demonize and criminalize filesharing will indeed just ensure that people are going to exchange information anonymously and in encrypted form.

[Robert Jasiek]

Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
>Copyright can be made unenforcable, particularly with the help
>of strong encryption.

Encryption also disables reading;)

[Robert Jasiek]

Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
>The problem is that today the copying of digital data can be
>made undetectable.

Not during the process of copying from an original and not during
consumption (of the interesting view rather than the encypted bits).

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 01/14/2012 02:15 AM, sobriquet wrote:
>
> Gimp offers at least 90% of what photoshop offers. It just has some limitations
> that makes it unsuitable for professional use, but for private use for individual people it works just fine as an alternative for photoshop.

Unsuitable for professional use.

Exactly. That's the POINT. People who code for projects like GIMP, and
might as well say it, LibreOffice/OpenOffice, MySQL, etc -- they code
whenever they bloody well feel like it. As a result, you still have
messed up crap like broken ruby/furigana support -- for a decade. Stuff
that packages like microsoft office get right on day one seven and eight
years ago because THEY ARE IN IT FOR REAL. If they dont fix whats broken
NO ONE USES THEIR SHIT.

you take away that financial incentive and guess what happens?

No one in japan can do typesetting because libreoffice screws up ruby.
No one in China, Taiwan, etc. can do childrens books (or newspapers)
because they cant do vertical ruby (for bopomofo, for example). So you
know what happens? Some desperate company drops $30k on a private
software house. Uh huh. About what they would spend to buy licenses for
microsoft office.

What you dont get is that free software, while great, moves at the speed
of shit. If you want to run a business, if there is money involved at
all, you NEED for-pay. It's called TCO, look it up. Linux is not free,
never was. So it has a lower TCO. People seem to forget the central word
here is CO$T.

> If there was no photoshop, it would be likely there would be more people contributing to gimp and then gimp would probably be far more powerful than photoshop is now.

You have no clue. GIMP is barely alive on life support. And it isn't
about "ONE" software package anymore. Thats how Linux lost the desktop
war. They have the most robust of everything but nothing talks to each
other. You have GIMP and BlueFish for example. Then you have Photoshop
and Dreamweaver. And Fireworks and blah blah blah, and theyre all
integrated.

I am now in the position of having to make a choice; I must either spend
2-3 months fixing something which is broken in LibreOffice or I must buy
Microsoft Office. I HAVE ONE WEEK TO DECIDE. I don't have time to dev
but I NEED the features now. If something like photoshop didn't exist my
business wouldn't exist.

People will pay for that.

And free software will NEVER catch up. They will always be a close third
behind the cutting edge.

> So your argument doesn't really work, because it's very likely
> open source software would make up for any gaps that commercial software would leave if it was to disappear completely (which is unlikely even in the scenario that copyright would be completely abolished).

Sure, sure...... given another 15 or 20 years and a worldwide depression
because no one has any software which is "suitable for professional
use". your words.

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 01/14/2012 03:20 AM, ptw wrote:
>
> The only thing that your parable illustrates is that that particular
> farmer should probably sell his farm and find another line of work. He
> is not very good at farming apples.

Lesson learned; Don't pirate software unless you want the company to go
out of business. If you use it, pay for it. Especially if your making
money on it.

--> No one needs a copy of Adobe Creative Suite Master Collection who
isn't planning on making money with it. <--

if your only purpose in life is to make a better youtube video than
johnson down the street and you pirate a cutting edge $2,000 software
package just to do that you're a mental retard. And if you're trying to
make money with it you're a hypocritical asshole.

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 01/14/2012 02:10 AM, sobriquet wrote:
> Op vrijdag 13 januari 2012 17:21:34 UTC+1 schreef Tsukino Usagi het volgende:
>> On 01/13/2012 04:00 PM, sobriquet wrote:
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> The price of things is something that is determined by laws of supply and demand and in case of information there is an infinite supply and hence, regardless of the demand, the price must be zero.
>>>
>>> If you don't understand this, you must go back to school and take some basic math lessons.
>>
>> I understand.
>>
>> And when the price is zero, there will be no supply. Do you understand?
>
> That's unlikely to happen. People will always create things and if it's not for money, it will be for status or for the sheer joy of contributing something to the shared wealth of culture/knowledge/information.

Let's play a game.

Ruby support in LibreOffice is broken. It has been broken for the
lifetime of the project. I just filed a bug report. The first one ever,
in around 10 years, ever, which describes the problem.

The game is how long it takes to get fixed.

Keep in mind I needed this feature five years ago because I have written
go books and I am currently typesetting books which require bopomofo and
furigana. But lets say I waited 5 years all this time. Now that I have
made the devteam aware that their software is broken, how long do you
think it will take them to fix it?

Do you think I would make more money if I paid $129 for Microsoft Office
and was able to release more books sooner?

> But there is no reason whatsoever to assume that people can't earn money anymore when the intellectual property myth would be exposed for the scam it is.

There are ways. Like RedHat did with support contracts. But if you're a
lone wolf developer or if your software is in any way, shall we say,
"user friendly, perhaps with a decent manual or a help file".. your up
shits creek, you will lose money on the project.

> A corporation can always have their creations running on their own servers and offer services via the internet so people can use their software without actually having a copy on their own computer. There is also cloud computing.
>
> For other branches of the information industries, like music, people can always make money by giving a concert based on the popularity they attained from their creations being shared freely online.
>
> So the idea that people would stop creating things if they can no longer rely on the intellectual property myth for an income is a joke.

Then please explain why there is still no answer to Dreamweaver after
over 10 years? No answer to Outlook or OneNote? Microsoft, Adobe, etc.
have better software. With better support. Free software has come a long
way but it's becoming evident that it will never match what you can pay
for. Really, take a look at the openoffice/libreoffice project. Looks
great right? Try to do anything professional in it, and you will see
that you just can't. it's not mature software and the developers code in
their free time.

Thats what you get for free, bro. It's good for your college paper, it's
useless for anything professional.

LaTeX is just about the only thing worthwhile you can use which is free.
And after having written and typeset three books including a highschool
textbook with LaTeX and then over again in libre office and then over
again in microsoft office I can tell you, I would rather shoot myself
than use LaTeX over Microsoft office "BECAUSE ITS FREE". You have no
idea bro, how the real world works. Free software is free. For pay
software is worth the money.

>>> The intellectual property mafia
>>
>> No such thing. There are big international corporations, yes, but
>> everyone sells hamburgers.
>
> There is an intellectual property mafia and they are demolishing the internet as we speak (with draconian and disproportional measures like SOPA and ACTA).

granted, but that has nothing to do with pirating photoshop, microsoft
office, or the kgs android client. You seem awfully confused...

> If they get their way, people won't even be allowed to have a computer at home anymore for personal use.

First of all, they're not that big, and the real "big" companies would
never let that happen. They make too much money selling PCs nowadays.

It's all about money bro.

You drop a few grand on a comp, you can drop a bit more and try to use
free software, but if you need to do it for real the extra $1000 or
$2000 you spend on quality software is nothing.

It's nothing.

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 01/15/2012 06:25 AM, Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:27:50 +0900, Tsukino Usagi wrote:
>
>> Copyright is enforceable, it's just not profitable to do so when the
>> crime is being committed in very small places. They will continue to go
>> after any central hubs though. Like the recent pirate bay judgement.
>
> Copyright can be made unenforcable, particularly with the help
> of strong encryption. Witness Tor and Freenet for some early
> examples existing and functioning today.

Like I said, it's unenforcable because it's decentralzed. That has its
benefits. But if you are going to centralize anything or make policy, it
will be lawyered out of existance.

> The acid test of a securely anonymous network is the presence of
> child pornography. Not that I like child pornography, but it is
> indeed a sure sign of total anonymity.

Thats a great example. Child pornographers have been caught in the past
because of watermarks and file info in the files (pictures) which were
put their by their digital camera. You can make the sharing and use
undetectable if it's done on a small scale.

Like look at me, if I wanted to, I could download 90 or 100 go books
from the internet. In the past I did so as well. But after reading some
of them, and noticing the 4 or 5 hard copy books I still haven't read on
my shelf, I deleted the torrent. Why bother? I suspect it is the same
for many people like our little pirate friend over here. He will pirate
the client, he will pirate photoshop, because he's a kid who wants to
experiment with it and learn. I guess that's okay, I do the same thing
myself.

But when I want to write a highschool textbook I dont use a hacked copy
of office. I pay for it. And why? Because the free alternatives are
complete and utter crap (for that particular purpose).

For pay is worth it. It took me a very long time to learn that. Free
software is great but in the end if you want to do stuff you need to
pay. It's all about TCO. In linux, the TCO is lower, but you still need
to pay. People need to realize that. It's about paying $3000 or $3500.
Thats really what it's about. $3,500 or $4,200. About that. And the for
pay stuff, it's just better looking, better integrated, more mature, the
list goes on....

[sobriquet]

Op zondag 15 januari 2012 10:31:36 UTC+1 schreef Tsukino Usagi het volgende:

> On 01/14/2012 02:15 AM, sobriquet wrote:
> >
> > Gimp offers at least 90% of what photoshop offers. It just has some limitations
> > that makes it unsuitable for professional use, but for private use for individual people it works just fine as an alternative for photoshop.
>
> Unsuitable for professional use.
>
> Exactly. That's the POINT. People who code for projects like GIMP, and
> might as well say it, LibreOffice/OpenOffice, MySQL, etc -- they code
> whenever they bloody well feel like it. As a result, you still have
> messed up crap like broken ruby/furigana support -- for a decade. Stuff
> that packages like microsoft office get right on day one seven and eight
> years ago because THEY ARE IN IT FOR REAL. If they dont fix whats broken
> NO ONE USES THEIR SHIT.
>
> you take away that financial incentive and guess what happens?
>
> No one in japan can do typesetting because libreoffice screws up ruby.
> No one in China, Taiwan, etc. can do childrens books (or newspapers)
> because they cant do vertical ruby (for bopomofo, for example). So you
> know what happens? Some desperate company drops $30k on a private
> software house. Uh huh. About what they would spend to buy licenses for
> microsoft office.
>
> What you dont get is that free software, while great, moves at the speed
> of shit. If you want to run a business, if there is money involved at
> all, you NEED for-pay. It's called TCO, look it up. Linux is not free,
> never was. So it has a lower TCO. People seem to forget the central word
> here is CO$T.

Well, I agree that if you're only in it for the money, it seems to make sense
to make voluntary donations to people who create software to encourage them
for developing it. Corporations might be inspected by the government to check if they have pirated software on their systems, so that is different from private individuals who pirate software for fun or to learn rather than to make money.

So I'm not denying there are costs involved in the development of quality software. All I'm saying is that there should be a fair and sensible way to
ensure there is an adequate financial incentive for these activities that takes
the fact into account that information is fundamentally different from physical commodities because it isn't scarce.

>
> > If there was no photoshop, it would be likely there would be more people contributing to gimp and then gimp would probably be far more powerful than photoshop is now.
>
> You have no clue. GIMP is barely alive on life support. And it isn't
> about "ONE" software package anymore. Thats how Linux lost the desktop
> war. They have the most robust of everything but nothing talks to each
> other. You have GIMP and BlueFish for example. Then you have Photoshop
> and Dreamweaver. And Fireworks and blah blah blah, and theyre all
> integrated.
>
> I am now in the position of having to make a choice; I must either spend
> 2-3 months fixing something which is broken in LibreOffice or I must buy
> Microsoft Office. I HAVE ONE WEEK TO DECIDE. I don't have time to dev
> but I NEED the features now. If something like photoshop didn't exist my
> business wouldn't exist.
>
> People will pay for that.
>
> And free software will NEVER catch up. They will always be a close third
> behind the cutting edge.

It's hard to say, because we have the current situation where these commercial software packages can easily be pirated and that might take away some of the incentive to spend time/effort on developing open source alternatives.
Also, there is a lot of garbage being produced. Do we really need all these silly computer games that are mere clones of each other with hardly any innovation and creativity involved? It wouldn't make much difference if their makers decide to stop wasting time and energy on creating them.
So a lot of commercially motivated content is really just fluff and garbage that wouldn't really be missed if it wasn't there.

>
> > So your argument doesn't really work, because it's very likely
> > open source software would make up for any gaps that commercial software would leave if it was to disappear completely (which is unlikely even in the scenario that copyright would be completely abolished).
>
> Sure, sure...... given another 15 or 20 years and a worldwide depression
> because no one has any software which is "suitable for professional
> use". your words.

If people make money, there is no reason to assume they would not be willing to lend financial support to the creators of new content, but my point is that people might not even be interested in money in the first place (except for a marginal amount so they have a roof over their head, an internet connection and food and clothing. But if you're primarily interested in information rather than money, you can simply download everything for free and there is no reason to spend money on anything and neither is there a reason to create things with the intention of making money.
So it very much depends on your lifestyle and whether you're more concerned with a career, status and owning more material wealth than others or you're more concerned with free time and personal development.

[sobriquet]

Op zondag 15 januari 2012 10:45:00 UTC+1 schreef Tsukino Usagi het volgende:

> On 01/14/2012 02:10 AM, sobriquet wrote:
> > Op vrijdag 13 januari 2012 17:21:34 UTC+1 schreef Tsukino Usagi het volgende:
> >> On 01/13/2012 04:00 PM, sobriquet wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense.
> >>>
> >>> The price of things is something that is determined by laws of supply and demand and in case of information there is an infinite supply and hence, regardless of the demand, the price must be zero.
> >>>
> >>> If you don't understand this, you must go back to school and take some basic math lessons.
> >>
> >> I understand.
> >>
> >> And when the price is zero, there will be no supply. Do you understand?
> >
> > That's unlikely to happen. People will always create things and if it's not for money, it will be for status or for the sheer joy of contributing something to the shared wealth of culture/knowledge/information.
>
> Let's play a game.
>
> Ruby support in LibreOffice is broken. It has been broken for the
> lifetime of the project. I just filed a bug report. The first one ever,
> in around 10 years, ever, which describes the problem.
>
> The game is how long it takes to get fixed.
>
> Keep in mind I needed this feature five years ago because I have written
> go books and I am currently typesetting books which require bopomofo and
> furigana. But lets say I waited 5 years all this time. Now that I have
> made the devteam aware that their software is broken, how long do you
> think it will take them to fix it?
>
> Do you think I would make more money if I paid $129 for Microsoft Office
> and was able to release more books sooner?

You might as well pirate office and make a voluntary donation to microsoft
after you have made money from your project.

>
> > But there is no reason whatsoever to assume that people can't earn money anymore when the intellectual property myth would be exposed for the scam it is.
>
> There are ways. Like RedHat did with support contracts. But if you're a
> lone wolf developer or if your software is in any way, shall we say,
> "user friendly, perhaps with a decent manual or a help file".. your up
> shits creek, you will lose money on the project.
>

There are other reasons to do things besides making money. Life is not about making money but about personal development in my opinion and to some degree that is independent of financial status.
Why do we have public libraries where people can freely access information regardless of their income? I think for that same reason we should treasure the internet as the ultimate virtual library where you can find just about everything and you never need to return anything.

>
> > A corporation can always have their creations running on their own servers and offer services via the internet so people can use their software without actually having a copy on their own computer. There is also cloud computing.
> >
> > For other branches of the information industries, like music, people can always make money by giving a concert based on the popularity they attained from their creations being shared freely online.
> >
> > So the idea that people would stop creating things if they can no longer rely on the intellectual property myth for an income is a joke.
>
> Then please explain why there is still no answer to Dreamweaver after
> over 10 years? No answer to Outlook or OneNote? Microsoft, Adobe, etc.
> have better software. With better support. Free software has come a long
> way but it's becoming evident that it will never match what you can pay
> for. Really, take a look at the openoffice/libreoffice project. Looks
> great right? Try to do anything professional in it, and you will see
> that you just can't. it's not mature software and the developers code in
> their free time.
>
> Thats what you get for free, bro. It's good for your college paper, it's
> useless for anything professional.

Well, if it wasn't for these commercial packages being available freely online
in pirated form, people might very well be more motivated to spend more serious time and effort developing free software.

>
> LaTeX is just about the only thing worthwhile you can use which is free.
> And after having written and typeset three books including a highschool
> textbook with LaTeX and then over again in libre office and then over
> again in microsoft office I can tell you, I would rather shoot myself
> than use LaTeX over Microsoft office "BECAUSE ITS FREE". You have no
> idea bro, how the real world works. Free software is free. For pay
> software is worth the money.

Whether it's worth the money is subjective. I don't see what's unfair about employing pirated software professionally and making a voluntary donation afterwards in case you made serious money employing pirated software.
But suppose you employ pirated software and you create content that you share freely because you really believe that information can't be bought or sold? I don't think that's immoral or unfair in any way.

The only unfair scenario I can imagine is if you employ pirated software to generate serious cash and you refuse to lend any financial support to the corporations who's software you've been pirating. If everybody would do that (a very unlikely scenario, but ok), software companies would indeed stop producing commercial software.

>
> >>> The intellectual property mafia
> >>
> >> No such thing. There are big international corporations, yes, but
> >> everyone sells hamburgers.
> >
> > There is an intellectual property mafia and they are demolishing the internet as we speak (with draconian and disproportional measures like SOPA and ACTA).
>
> granted, but that has nothing to do with pirating photoshop, microsoft
> office, or the kgs android client. You seem awfully confused...

It has everything to do with filesharing undermining the power of the intellectual property mafia.

>
> > If they get their way, people won't even be allowed to have a computer at home anymore for personal use.
>
> First of all, they're not that big, and the real "big" companies would
> never let that happen. They make too much money selling PCs nowadays.

Technology can be used and abused, so they can also employ technology to impose limitations on freedom instead of empowering people.

>
> It's all about money bro.
>
> You drop a few grand on a comp, you can drop a bit more and try to use
> free software, but if you need to do it for real the extra $1000 or
> $2000 you spend on quality software is nothing.
>
> It's nothing.

It's about using your brain and the computer is an extension of your brain.
Sharing information is a human right and if you really think about why that is, you should acknowledge it's not up to corporations to decide which information people can or can't share.
Creative people have been prostituting themselves to corporate criminals for so long that they have grown completely dependent on it and they would even argue in favor of this unfortunate situation. But that is similar to slaves who were arguing against the abolition of slavery because they felt their masters didn't treat them so bad.

[superpollo]

Robert Jasiek ha scritto:
> sobriquet wrote:
>> But it only takes one person who has actually bought it, to share his/
>> her copy on a torrent site.
>
> What you are propagating is intellectual property theft.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html

bye

[superpollo]

Robert Jasiek ha scritto:
> sobriquet wrote:

>> What you are propagating is the kind of fascism that impairs our
>> ability to exploit the full potential of information technology!
>
> Can you please refrain from using insulting words like fascism?

well, since YOU called HIM a thief...

[Robert Jasiek]

superpollo wrote:
>YOU called HIM a thief...

I wrote:

>>What you are propagating is intellectual property theft.

This is not the same as calling somebody a thief [of physical
objects].

[superpollo]

Robert Jasiek ha scritto:

and he wrote:

"What you are propagating is the kind of fascism that impairs our
ability to exploit the full potential of information technology!"

This is not the same as calling somebody a [physical] fascist:
http://goo.gl/ZxoaW

bye

[Robert Jasiek]

superpollo wrote:
>and he wrote:
>
>"What you are propagating is the kind of fascism that impairs our
>ability to exploit the full potential of information technology!"
>
>This is not the same as calling somebody a [physical] fascist:

And what do achieve by side-tracking to a meta-discussion? To prove
your ability to use an alias? To distract from the initial propagation
of what is informally called intellectual property theft? To equate
intellectual property theft with fascism? There is no need to answer;
I do not participate in such an endless meta-discussion.

[superpollo]

Robert Jasiek ha scritto:

> superpollo wrote:
>> and he wrote:
>>
>> "What you are propagating is the kind of fascism that impairs our
>> ability to exploit the full potential of information technology!"
>>
>> This is not the same as calling somebody a [physical] fascist:
>
> And what do achieve by side-tracking to a meta-discussion? To prove

... that you two gentlemen are both wrong (or both right).

> here is no need to answer

sorry, too late.

regards

[sobriquet]

Demonizing people who advocate filesharing by claiming it to propagate theft of intellectual property is on par with demonizing the people who resort to such unfounded accusations in turn by accusing them of propagating fascism.

You might as well keep the discussion civilized by talking about copyright violations or intellectual property violations or illegal activity or something more neutral than employing the term theft, when theft is usually understood as taking something away, which makes it questionable to apply it to copyright violations as there is nothing being taken away usually in case of a copyright violation. It would be equally questionable to equate copyright violations with rape or murder.

[Hans-Georg Michna]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:45:00 +0900, Tsukino Usagi wrote:

>LaTeX is just about the only thing worthwhile you can use which is free.
>And after having written and typeset three books including a highschool
>textbook with LaTeX and then over again in libre office and then over
>again in microsoft office I can tell you, I would rather shoot myself
>than use LaTeX over Microsoft office "BECAUSE ITS FREE". You have no
>idea bro, how the real world works. Free software is free. For pay
>software is worth the money.

If you are trying to say that Microsoft Word works well, you
must be joking.

I'm not saying that Libre Office is better than Microsoft
Office, but if you put anything bigger than an office letter in
Microsoft Word, like a couple of formulas and any significant
number of images, Word simply craps out sooner, rather than
later.

I fear that none of these Office products is up to any
professional demands. In fact, when you have to typeset a
non-trivial paper, you have a problem, because none of the
packages really works well, and that includes TeX/LaTeX. The
latter is the least unreliable, but it still has lots of
functional gaps and its own share of weirdness.

But to put MS Word above LaTeX in terms of reliability is a
joke.

Hans-Georg

[Hans-Georg Michna]

As long as a person consumes the data alone in front of his own
computer, this is undetectable for anybody else.

Hans-Georg

[Robert Jasiek]

Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
>I fear that none of these Office products is up to any
>professional demands.

Indeed, none. Not the commercial ones, not the free ones, not Latex.
Bugs everywhere; advanced users with specialised needs have to fight
against the programs they use. There is commercial software that is
better than freeware but I am not convinced that office software
(exception: databases) is a good example. Photoshop neither; it has
some advantages (such as features not (easily) found elsewhere) but
also disadvantages (such as being more buggy than my favourite
freewares).

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 01/16/2012 04:47 PM, Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:45:00 +0900, Tsukino Usagi wrote:
>
>> LaTeX is just about the only thing worthwhile you can use which is free.
>> And after having written and typeset three books including a highschool
>> textbook with LaTeX and then over again in libre office and then over
>> again in microsoft office I can tell you, I would rather shoot myself
>> than use LaTeX over Microsoft office "BECAUSE ITS FREE". You have no
>> idea bro, how the real world works. Free software is free. For pay
>> software is worth the money.
>
> If you are trying to say that Microsoft Word works well, you
> must be joking.

I've used it to professionally typeset books before. if you know what
you're doing it's pretty much as good as LaTeX, and much, much faster.

Oh, I agree, Word has had problems in the past. until about 2000 or so.
They're at least 10 or 15 years ahead of libreoffice.

> I'm not saying that Libre Office is better than Microsoft
> Office, but if you put anything bigger than an office letter in
> Microsoft Word, like a couple of formulas and any significant
> number of images, Word simply craps out sooner, rather than
> later.

Dunno what you're talking about, but it's clear you don't have
experience with what you are talking about. Microsoft word is very
useable. The problem is, in a nutshell, noobs. If you're a noob, you're
a noob. You dont need to put in 100 hours of config and manual reading
time to typeset something in word. You do with LaTeX. And then some. But
you wont get a good result unless you do the time, no matter what
software you use. Microsoft just makes it easier for beginners.

If LaTeX style stuff ever follows suit to any degree they will be looked
upon disfavorably. Why? because hordes of beginners will crap all over
it. Thats why BASIC has such a bad rep, besides the fact that it's a
better language than, say, PASCAL, or LISP.

Just listen to those LISP evangelists pumping their 50 year old
language. You know what I mean? Because its hard to learn it's good.
Holy shit, like no one ever figured selection bias out before.

> I fear that none of these Office products is up to any
> professional demands. In fact, when you have to typeset a
> non-trivial paper, you have a problem, because none of the
> packages really works well, and that includes TeX/LaTeX. The
> latter is the least unreliable, but it still has lots of
> functional gaps and its own share of weirdness.
>
> But to put MS Word above LaTeX in terms of reliability is a
> joke.

How many books have you typeset in Microsoft Office and how many in LaTeX?

[Tsukino Usagi]

If I wanted to I could use tables to lay out furigana in libreoffice and
it would likely take me less time than getting some good japanese fonts
into LaTeX and doing things that way.

I just want to do things easily. I dont have a lot of time to worry
about that. And I don't need to -- I really, really, don't. After having
done two or three books in LaTeX I can comfortably say that it's full of
shit. Whats the benefit? I don't get it. Seriously, it's time came and
went about 10 years ago. LibreOffice > LaTeX.

And Microsoft Office > LibreOffice. Most of LibreOffice is a rip off of
Microsoft Office. That being said I would use libreoffice but it just
doesn't support "normal" things like japanese ruby very well. And if I
wanted it fixed within 2 months I would have to pay 10x the money I
would have to pay for a copy of microsoft office. Seriously, I'm through
with shitty open source. I just want something that works "now".

[Robert Jasiek]

Tsukino Usagi wrote:
>Word has had problems in the past. until about 2000 or so.

Ah, maybe. I stopped using it around that time.

[rt]

sobriquet wrote:
>
> On 10 jan, 04:28, ptw <pthomaswri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Jan 6, 5:01 pm, sobriquet <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > But it only takes one person who has actually bought it, to share his/
> > > her

> > > copy on a torrent site. I've downloaded other android apps on demonoid
> > > and most of them seemed to work ok. Also apps that you normally need
> > > to buy in the android marketplace (like the Sygic gps application with
> > > additional maps).
> >
> > Why not just buy the app? wms put a lot of work into the client as
> > well as the server.
>
> Because information should be free. WMS also put a lot of work in the

Could you please post your SSN and birthdate and name? That info wants
to be free.

Thanks.

[rt]

sobriquet wrote:
>
> On 11 jan, 16:23, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:

> > sobriquet wrote:
> > >But it only takes one person who has actually bought it, to share his/
> > >her copy on a torrent site.
> >

> > What you are propagating is intellectual property theft. Shame on you!

>
> What you are propagating is the kind of fascism that impairs our
> ability to exploit
> the full potential of information technology!

> Shame on you!

This is kletskoek. Information technology is not free. Writing an app
is a job and whether or not an individual or a company does it unless
explicitly offered for free then taking it is indeed theft. A chain
saw is an app, a tool, do you expect that to be free?

[rt]

sobriquet wrote:
>
> Sure...
>
> http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6947477/Microsoft_Office_Professional_2010_-_No_Serial_Needed

Thanks, I'm reporting it and you to google and to microsoft.

[rt]

Tsukino Usagi wrote:
>
> On 01/12/2012 09:27 PM, sobriquet wrote:
> > On 12 jan, 13:01, Nick Wedd<n...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 11/01/2012 21:07, sobriquet wrote:

> >>
> >>> On 11 jan, 20:43, Robert Jasiek<jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> >>>> sobriquet wrote:
> >>>>> What you are propagating is the kind of fascism that impairs our
> >>>>> ability to exploit the full potential of information technology!
> >>

> >>>> Can you please refrain from using insulting words like fascism?
> >>

> >>> Can you please refrain from using equally insulting words like
> >>> 'theft'?
> >>
> >> You have accused Robert of fascism, with no justification. He is not a
> >> fascist.
> >>
> >> You feel insulted when accused of advocating theft. Yet you continue to
> >> advocate theft. You are a hypocrite.
> >>
> >> Nick
> >
> > You talk about theft. There is no theft. Yet you continue to talk
> > about theft.
> > That means you are a fascist, because you obviously disrespect human
> > rights.
>
> A long time ago people used to grow apples on trees. A certain farmer
> had twenty trees in his orchard and each tree grew twenty apples. Over
> time, as he increased his proficiency and made sales, he doubled his
> land and made twenty apples on forty trees. Around this time the local
> thieves started noticing his wealth. Now, there were two types of
> thieves; One type would set up shop next to his orchard and move his
> fence at night, centimeter by centimeter, post by post. The farmer only
> learned after several years that his fence wasn't where it was supposed
> to be, but by then some trees had been planted on the thieves' orchard
> and the farmer could do nothing but cut down one of his trees so that
> all trees could get enough nutrients from the local river.
>
> But another more insiduous thief would sneak into the orchard at night
> and steal one apple from every tree that had more than twenty apples.
> "The farmer doesn't need so many apples. He can make money selling just
> a few." And indeed he could. For years, the farmer struggled to make a
> living. He found it difficult to support a forty (thirty nine) tree
> orchard given the costs of upkeep. He wasn't making as much money as
> before. He could continue production and make a decent living, but he
> couldn't expand. He couldn't afford advertising. He didn't know it, but
> some of his livelyhood was being taken away. It was no longer
> capitalism, but socialism. The farmer decided to raise the price of his
> apples but nothing worked to bring in more money.
>
> The next year, there was an apple shortage because no farmer in the area
> had been able to expand their orchards to meet population growth, and
> the apples in general were too expensive. Kind of like how a game will
> be released, the next year a sequel will be released, then part 3 will
> be released ten years later. Look around at the major game titles.
> Freaky huh? And people began to starve. The farmer began keeping a
> closer watch on his apples and one night he shot the thief who was
> stealing his apples.
>
> Years later, everyone was happy and full and could play the best games
> and eat apple pie for a low cost. All because someone shot an apple thief.

This is ridiculous. How does one move a fence without someone knowing?

[rt]

sobriquet wrote:
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The price of things is something that is determined by laws of supply and demand and in case of information there is an infinite supply and hence, regardless of the demand, the price must be zero.

kletskoek.

> If you don't understand this, you must go back to school and take some basic math lessons.

You must start all over with school, at the kindergarten level. Is the sun shining?
That
information is free since one can look outside. You want Windows? That's not free
since
technically it isn't information; it's a tool, like a toaster.

[rt]

sobriquet wrote:
>
> You are obviously missing the entire point of my argument, which is that apples are scarce, while information is not.

You are obviously without a point, other than to justify theft.

> If you have one apple, and you have 10000000 hungry mouths to feed, you have a problem (unless you are Jesus and you can multiply apples as easily as a bitstring).
>
> If you have one copy of photoshop, and you have 10000000 graphical designers with a computer, there is no problem whatsoever.

Other than breaking the law by not having valid licenses.

[rt]

sobriquet wrote:
>
> It's not just that the laws can't be enforced. It's that the intellectual property laws are totally insane and moronic.
>
> I mean just think about it. How can someone seriously claim to own something like a bitstring? You might just as well claim that you own the entire universe. It's equally absurd.
>
> If you think about it, if someone says they own an apple or they own a bicycle, it is an intelligible statement. But what does it mean when someone says they own "010111100100000001110101" as intellectual property?

Duh, that's the compiled code, the result of work done.

[sobriquet]

Op dinsdag 17 januari 2012 01:54:36 UTC+1 schreef rt het volgende:

I'm talking about digital information. Digital information can be duplicated
indefinitely free of additional costs, unlike physical commodities such as a chain saw.

[sobriquet]

Op dinsdag 17 januari 2012 01:47:16 UTC+1 schreef rt het volgende:

> sobriquet wrote:
> >
> > Because information should be free. WMS also put a lot of work in the
>
> Could you please post your SSN and birthdate and name? That info wants
> to be free.
>
> Thanks.

Nobody is claiming everyone is forced to disclose all information.
If creators keep information to themselves, it's unlikely to end up on torrent sites. However, if creators decide to spread their creations (regardless of whether they sell it or give it away), it's beyond their control in practice to impose any preferred limitations (like not being allowed to share it on torrent sites).

[sobriquet]

Op dinsdag 17 januari 2012 01:55:18 UTC+1 schreef rt het volgende:

Go ahead. Perhaps you can also report all the things I've uploaded to piratebay?

http://thepiratebay.org/user/dohduhdah

[sobriquet]

Op dinsdag 17 januari 2012 01:58:53 UTC+1 schreef rt het volgende:

Windows is a bitstring (at least as far as filesharing is concerned).
Bitstrings all belong to the public domain, regardless of the number of bits involved. A toaster is a physical commodity and not a bitstring, hence you won't find any toasters on piratebay.

[sobriquet]

Op dinsdag 17 januari 2012 02:01:31 UTC+1 schreef rt het volgende:

> sobriquet wrote:
> >
> > You are obviously missing the entire point of my argument, which is that apples are scarce, while information is not.
>
> You are obviously without a point, other than to justify theft.

You are obviously pushing fascistic propaganda for the intellectuel property mafia.

>
> > If you have one apple, and you have 10000000 hungry mouths to feed, you have a problem (unless you are Jesus and you can multiply apples as easily as a bitstring).
> >
> > If you have one copy of photoshop, and you have 10000000 graphical designers with a computer, there is no problem whatsoever.
>
> Other than breaking the law by not having valid licenses.

Ah, so that's why they nailed Jesus to the cross? He was violating licenses by duplicating food and drinks at a party.

[sobriquet]

Op dinsdag 17 januari 2012 02:02:29 UTC+1 schreef rt het volgende:

You really don't have a clue regarding what information is, do you?

[Richard Mullens]

On Jan 13, 1:46 pm, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
> >Copyright is no longer enforceable
>
> It is as much enforceable as it has before: by means of jurisdiction.
> What has changed is the rate of unpunished copyright violation because
> copying has become much easier while jurisdiction is as slow as ever.

I went on to aMule and searched for [go weiqi baduk] as most shared go
material utilises these prefix terms. I found 211 items, though there
was much duplication. A search for Joseki Fundamentals returned no
hits, satisfying for you maybe but not perhaps an endorsement.

Now I have Joseki 1 Fundamentals, purchased at some expense in
Groningen, but my attitude is one of pragmatism. Let us say that one
day I look and see volume 2. I'd probably download it. If I found it
helpful I might even buy a copy as perhaps a physical copy is still
preferable, but if I thought that the physical copy was too expensive
you would not get a sale. Also, if I just glanced at it but didn't
use it, well it would be as if I had just viewed it in a shop - but it
would remain on my hard drive and be available for others when I
connected to the edonkey or kad networks - so you have some free
advertising.

Personally I'm more on Sobriquet's side than any other. Some people
create things out of altruism or climb everest "because it is there" -
just as you have published strange positions relating to rules.
People will still create even if there is no financial reward.

I don't like MS Word. I think it is a vile bug ridden deeply
unsatisfying work, but unfortunately it has become an industry
standard. I don't use it. I'll use Open/Libre Office instead. I
don't use it out of principle - the less that people use its
proprietary format the better we will all be able to communicate.

[Richard Mullens]

On Jan 15, 9:31 am, Tsukino Usagi <us...@tsukino.ca> wrote:
> On 01/14/2012 02:15 AM, sobriquet wrote:
>
>
>
> > Gimp offers at least 90% of what photoshop offers. It just has some limitations
> > that makes it unsuitable for professional use, but for private use for individual people it works just fine as an alternative for photoshop.
>
> Unsuitable for professional use.
>
> Exactly. That's the POINT. People who code for projects like GIMP, and
> might as well say it, LibreOffice/OpenOffice, MySQL, etc -- they code
> whenever they bloody well feel like it. As a result, you still have
> messed up crap like broken ruby/furigana support -- for a decade. Stuff
> that packages like microsoft office get right on day one seven and eight
> years ago because THEY ARE IN IT FOR REAL. If they dont fix whats broken
> NO ONE USES THEIR SHIT.
>
> you take away that financial incentive and guess what happens?
>
> No one in japan can do typesetting because libreoffice screws up ruby.
> No one in China, Taiwan, etc. can do childrens books (or newspapers)
> because they cant do vertical ruby (for bopomofo, for example). So you
> know what happens? Some desperate company drops $30k on a private
> software house. Uh huh. About what they would spend to buy licenses for
> microsoft office.
>
> What you dont get is that free software, while great, moves at the speed
> of shit. If you want to run a business, if there is money involved at
> all, you NEED for-pay. It's called TCO, look it up. Linux is not free,
> never was. So it has a lower TCO. People seem to forget the central word
> here is CO$T.
>
> > If there was no photoshop, it would be likely there would be more people contributing to gimp and then gimp would probably be far more powerful than photoshop is now.
>
> You have no clue. GIMP is barely alive on life support. And it isn't
> about "ONE" software package anymore. Thats how Linux lost the desktop
> war. They have the most robust of everything but nothing talks to each
> other. You have GIMP and BlueFish for example. Then you have Photoshop
> and Dreamweaver. And Fireworks and blah blah blah, and theyre all
> integrated.
>
> I am now in the position of having to make a choice; I must either spend
> 2-3 months fixing something which is broken in LibreOffice or I must buy
> Microsoft Office. I HAVE ONE WEEK TO DECIDE. I don't have time to dev
> but I NEED the features now. If something like photoshop didn't exist my
> business wouldn't exist.
>
> People will pay for that.
>
> And free software will NEVER catch up. They will always be a close third
> behind the cutting edge.
>
> > So your argument doesn't really work, because it's very likely
> > open source software would make up for any gaps that commercial software would leave if it was to disappear completely (which is unlikely even in the scenario that copyright would be completely abolished).
>
> Sure, sure...... given another 15 or 20 years and a worldwide depression
> because no one has any software which is "suitable for professional
> use". your words.

And Latex ?

[Robert Jasiek]

Richard Mullens wrote:
>Now I have Joseki 1 Fundamentals, purchased at some expense in
>Groningen, but my attitude is one of pragmatism. Let us say that one
>day I look and see volume 2. I'd probably download it. If I found it
>helpful I might even buy a copy as perhaps a physical copy is still
>preferable, but if I thought that the physical copy was too expensive
>you would not get a sale. Also, if I just glanced at it but didn't
>use it, well it would be as if I had just viewed it in a shop - but it
>would remain on my hard drive and be available for others when I
>connected to the edonkey or kad networks - so you have some free
>advertising.

Calling it free advertisement is not my view. - My books have samples,
detailed self-reviews, 10 times as detailed TOCs as usual, can be
viewed at tournaments (except British because so far Pentangle does
not do its job or because it cannot because of too little demand for
go books in general by British players), and (so far with the
exception of Joseki 1+2) are available for half the price as PDF with
upgrade option for the physical book. Seriously, if all that does not
motivate you to buy a book, then you are not that interested in the
books or in improving.

>don't use it out of principle - the less that people use its
>proprietary format the better we will all be able to communicate.

In that case you should be using a text editor that uses human
readable source code such as XML by default.

[Robert Jasiek]

Richard Mullens wrote:
>And Latex ?

Twice I tried to install it under Windows and failed due to bugs and a
too complicated installation process. (BTW, Photoshop started to show
bugs as soon as I had installed it.)

[ptw]

On Jan 16, 1:14 pm, Tsukino Usagi <us...@tsukino.ca> wrote:

> How many books have you typeset in Microsoft Office and how many in LaTeX?

Office is not and does not include a typesetting program.

Industry standard publishing houses do not typeset using office
suites, they use TeX. They often use LaTeX as a document preparation
language.

Please cease arguing from a position of ignorance. Stick to arguments
that you know. Microsoft Word is not, has never been, and never will
be a typesetting system.

--ptw--

[ptw]

On Jan 15, 4:34 am, Tsukino Usagi <us...@tsukino.ca> wrote:

> Lesson learned; Don't pirate software unless you want the company to go
> out of business. If you use it, pay for it. Especially if your making
> money on it.

One, "piracy" is a ridiculous term.

Two, while individual copyright infringement is a nuisance, it is not
as damaging as is portrayed by the media. The people downloading from
file sharing networks are unlikely to purchase a copy in any
situation. A bigger and more damaging problem is the "counterfeiting
industry" that produces unauthorized copies for sale. The two issues
are separate problems.

> --> No one needs a copy of Adobe Creative Suite Master Collection who
> isn't planning on making money with it. <--
>
> if your only purpose in life is to make a better youtube video than
> johnson down the street and you pirate a cutting edge $2,000 software
> package just to do that you're a mental retard. And if you're trying to
> make money with it you're a hypocritical asshole.

I did not make that statement. I do not know why you included it in a
reply to my post, or why you assume I advocate copyright infringement.
Just for the record, I do not.

--ptw--

[ptw]

On Jan 16, 7:54 pm, rt <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

> This is kletskoek. Information technology is not free. Writing an app
> is a job and whether or not an individual or a company does it unless
> explicitly offered for free then taking it is indeed theft. A chain
> saw is an app, a tool, do you expect that to be free?

The point is not that it should be free, but that the terms should be
reasonable enough as to not motivate people to avoid compliance.
Enforcement is difficult and expensive and the damage done by an
individual downloading a copy small. Law governing copyright of
digitally published goods are unreasonably difficult to enforce and
expensive to prosecute.The punishments are unreasonably severe in
comparison to the damages incurred by a single incident. These issues
are what encourage the attitudes that are common among those who
advocate copyright infringement.

On a side note, I wish both sides of this argument would stop using
the terms "piracy" and "theft". Neither are appropriate.

--ptw--

[Tsukino Usagi]

How many books have you typeset?

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 01/17/2012 02:07 PM, sobriquet wrote:
> Op dinsdag 17 januari 2012 01:58:53 UTC+1 schreef rt het volgende:
>> sobriquet wrote:
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> The price of things is something that is determined by laws of supply and demand and in case of information there is an infinite supply and hence, regardless of the demand, the price must be zero.
>>
>> kletskoek.
>>
>>> If you don't understand this, you must go back to school and take some basic math lessons.
>>
>> You must start all over with school, at the kindergarten level. Is the sun shining?
>> That
>> information is free since one can look outside. You want Windows? That's not free
>> since
>> technically it isn't information; it's a tool, like a toaster.
>
> Windows is a bitstring (at least as far as filesharing is concerned).
> Bitstrings all belong to the public domain, regardless of the number of bits involved.

That is your opinion, and the majority of people on earth disagree with
you, much to your chagrin.

> A toaster is a physical commodity and not a bitstring, hence you won't find any toasters on piratebay.

Ever buy a CD?

[Tsukino Usagi]

Are you saying if I found out your SSN, birthdate and name, and oh say
credit card numbers -- that it would be OK to post that information here?

Who gives YOU the right to hold that information and not someone else?

[Tsukino Usagi]

Everything you want to do with LaTeX has a set up time associated with
it. And once you set it up it's as fast as using MSO or LibreOffice. Now
that most office programs have got styles right there's really no reason
to use latex. I'd really like to know if there is, because then I would
use it again.

[ptw]

It's not actually free of cost, but it is close enough to free. If
creators and publishers were to make compliance with their copyrights
inexpensive enough and easy enough, much of the motivation for
avoidance (such as downloading from file sharing networks,
unauthorized torrents, etc) would disappear.

--ptw--

[Tsukino Usagi]

There's a reason why arguments like that don't hold up in court and why
software license THEFT is against the law today. If you want to change
the world, you're going to have to try harder than mentioning jesus and
his miracles as your argument against copyright.

[Tsukino Usagi]

On 01/17/2012 11:03 PM, ptw wrote:
> On Jan 15, 4:34 am, Tsukino Usagi<us...@tsukino.ca> wrote:
>
>> Lesson learned; Don't pirate software unless you want the company to go
>> out of business. If you use it, pay for it. Especially if your making
>> money on it.
>
> One, "piracy" is a ridiculous term.

I understand and accept that you feel that way, but it's the common term
and I'm not going to allow you to redefine english to suit your
argument. If you have a better word for using unlicensed software
against the law, be my guest and start using it. if it catches on then
it's probably a better term.

> Two, while individual copyright infringement is a nuisance, it is not
> as damaging as is portrayed by the media.

I agree with both points.

> The people downloading from
> file sharing networks are unlikely to purchase a copy in any
> situation.

There's arguments for and against that. If I couldn't download movies
from the internet, I can GUARANTEE you I would buy more DVDs and go to
the movies more often. Guaranteed. Maybe some of them would end up being
a waste of money, true. But turn it around; when was the last time you
downloaded a REALLY GOOD movie, then went out and bought it?

The problem is not that record companies are losing 30% of their income.
They can survive. The problem is that it destroys the flowering of the
industry. Part of the reason why mass media music SUCKS today. Look at
mass media music 50 years ago. Hell, even 20 years ago. There is NO
comparison to today.

> A bigger and more damaging problem is the "counterfeiting
> industry" that produces unauthorized copies for sale. The two issues
> are separate problems.

They are.

>> --> No one needs a copy of Adobe Creative Suite Master Collection who
>> isn't planning on making money with it.<--
>>
>> if your only purpose in life is to make a better youtube video than
>> johnson down the street and you pirate a cutting edge $2,000 software
>> package just to do that you're a mental retard. And if you're trying to
>> make money with it you're a hypocritical asshole.
>
> I did not make that statement. I do not know why you included it in a
> reply to my post, or why you assume I advocate copyright infringement.
> Just for the record, I do not.

No one needs a copy of android KGS client who isnt planning on using it
all the time. And fuck, if you paid $300-$600 for a decent phone... and
you dont want to drop $20 on something you love and use (KGS) you're an
asshole, really. I spent $300 on a Kaya board I never use.

I would rather commit honorable suicide than promote the piracy of the
KGS android client. Wake the fuck up dude.

[Tsukino Usagi]

Ever own a farm?

[Robert Jasiek]

ptw wrote:
>If
>creators and publishers were to make compliance with their copyrights
>inexpensive enough and easy enough, much of the motivation for
>avoidance (such as downloading from file sharing networks,
>unauthorized torrents, etc) would disappear.

Maybe this is so films and music. Go is a different kind of market.
Whichever price one sets, people are crying for "Make it half!". Also
Go does not have excessive DRM policies.

[sobriquet]

I agree with you I have no right to impose any restrictions on others,
should such sensitive personal information end up in the hands of others.
So in that case if they would post it here, that is fine with me and it
would simply force me to get my credit card numbers changed and try harder to prevent this information from ending up in the hands of others.

Nobody in this thread is arguing that people are not allowed to keep information to themselves. All I'm arguing is that as soon as information ends up in the hands of others, the people who created that information are not in a position to impose any limitations on its use by others who obtained a copy of this information.

[sobriquet]

Well, I'm just questioning the assumption that it ought to be considered immoral
to duplicate things. If you insist that people who duplicate things by means of filesharing are immoral, that implies you also consider Jesus to be immoral, because he duplicated things in a similar fashion.

When rape wasn't against the law, that doesn't mean that rape wasn't immoral back then and started to become immoral when laws came into existence making rape illegal.

But I'm also questioning the idea that people can own abstract things like a number or a bitstring as intellectual property. You can argue that it's simply against the law to share bitstrings freely, but that is not a very strong argument, as there have been numerous things against the law in the past despite the fact that in retrospect it seems rather arbitrary and unjust that they used to be against the law in most places (like homosexuality for instance, as most reasonable people would probably agree that it's not up to the government to criminalize people for behavior that primarily concerns consenting adults).

[sobriquet]

Op dinsdag 17 januari 2012 15:21:23 UTC+1 schreef Tsukino Usagi het volgende:

> On 01/17/2012 02:07 PM, sobriquet wrote:
> > Op dinsdag 17 januari 2012 01:58:53 UTC+1 schreef rt het volgende:
> >> sobriquet wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense.
> >>>
> >>> The price of things is something that is determined by laws of supply and demand and in case of information there is an infinite supply and hence, regardless of the demand, the price must be zero.
> >>
> >> kletskoek.
> >>
> >>> If you don't understand this, you must go back to school and take some basic math lessons.
> >>
> >> You must start all over with school, at the kindergarten level. Is the sun shining?
> >> That
> >> information is free since one can look outside. You want Windows? That's not free
> >> since
> >> technically it isn't information; it's a tool, like a toaster.
> >
> > Windows is a bitstring (at least as far as filesharing is concerned).
> > Bitstrings all belong to the public domain, regardless of the number of bits involved.
>
> That is your opinion, and the majority of people on earth disagree with
> you, much to your chagrin.

The majority of people on earth are incapable of independent critical thought and they have been brainwashed by the intellectual property mafia which has a lot of power as they more or less own the traditional media (newspapers, television, ..). So they don't like this new information technology that undermines their power. Yet, people who grow up these days having this new technology at their disposal don't think twice about sharing things with others (either online or offline), no matter how much the intellectual property mafia tries to demonize and criminalize this filesharing habit. Sharing is simply a tendency deeply ingrained in human nature.
So the people who are opposed to the whole idea of intellectual property have technological developments on their side that make it increasingly difficult to maintain the idea that intellectual property benefits the development and proliferation of human culture and knowledge.

>
> > A toaster is a physical commodity and not a bitstring, hence you won't find any toasters on piratebay.
>
> Ever buy a CD?

I used to collect CDs until I thought about it and figured out how silly this was. So I sold all my CDs (only around 100 of them) and downloaded music instead.
The only way I'm willing to support a musician is by visiting a live concert in case I get a chance to see them.

[sobriquet]

Op dinsdag 17 januari 2012 15:25:47 UTC+1 schreef ptw het volgende:

I'm really in favor of completely abolishing the notion of intellectual property and considering bitstrings to be part of the public domain.
I think this is simply the most sensible way to exploit the full potential of information technology and in the long run this approach is more likely to benefit humanity than the approach where corporations increasingly appropriate information as their intellectual property.
Look at the way corporations fight silly patent wars now, it seems that is really more of an impediment to technological innovation than an encouragement
to innovation and creativity.

In the near future technological developments might be so radical that it completely transforms society in a way that might even make corporations in the traditional sense completely redundant.
Suppose we have technology that can duplicate physical commodities by means of 3D scanning/printing up to molecular details (using nano-technology)? I think at that point we can abolish money (or perhaps only retain it for services rather than products) as money is a means and not an end. We use money as a measure of scarcity and when things can be duplicated indefinitely (virtually) free from any costs, that would be the end of scarcity as far as products are concerned and at that point it would no longer make any sense to buy and sell products. It would be silly to prohibit people from duplicating things in such a scenario simply because we insist on using money for buying and selling things.

[Hans-Georg Michna]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:48:24 -0800 (PST), sobriquet wrote:

>In the near future technological developments might be so radical that it completely transforms society in a way that might even make corporations in the traditional sense completely redundant.
>Suppose we have technology that can duplicate physical commodities by means of 3D scanning/printing up to molecular details (using nano-technology)? I think at that point we can abolish money (or perhaps only retain it for services rather than products) as money is a means and not an end. We use money as a measure of scarcity and when things can be duplicated indefinitely (virtually) free from any costs, that would be the end of scarcity as far as products are concerned and at that point it would no longer make any sense to buy and sell products. It would be silly to prohibit people from duplicating things in such a scenario simply because we insist on using money for buying and selling things.

You could still use bitcoin as the money of the future. (:-)

Hans-Georg

[ptw]

On Jan 17, 9:31 am, Tsukino Usagi <us...@tsukino.ca> wrote:

> I would rather commit honorable suicide than promote the piracy of the
> KGS android client. Wake the fuck up dude.

You wake up, and don't call me "dude". Please keep track of who you
are replying to.

I'm the person who started the OP into his rant by suggesting he just
purchase the reasonably priced app. If you are going to persist in
making your inappropriate, ill-conceived, and poorly worded arguments,
at least address them to the correct parties. My problem with your
posts is not the side of the argument you are on, but that you are
making people who support the rights of the creative class look bad by
association.

--ptw--

[ptw]

On Jan 17, 9:59 am, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:

> Maybe this is so films and music. Go is a different kind of market.
> Whichever price one sets, people are crying for "Make it half!". Also
> Go does not have excessive DRM policies.

This happens in all business. Ignore them. No matter how low the
price, there will always be some who ask for it to be less. It says
more about them than it does about the product. It becomes an issue of
numbers and percentages. At a certain price point, the number of
purchasers will sufficient and the amount of personal consumption
infringement will be insignificant. The difficulty is determining what
that price point is.

I do purchase Go books, and I assume that other players do also. I
would be hesitant to purchase a 14 Euro pdf file of any book. I am
unlikely to purchase a 28 Euro bound copy of a go book that was not
highly recommended by one of my mentors. How much you wish to charge
for your work is your business.

That said, I am now curious enough to look at your sample pages.

--ptw--

[superpollo]

rt ha scritto:
> sobriquet wrote:
>> Sure...
>>
>> http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6947477/Microsoft_Office_Professional_2010_-_No_Serial_Needed
>
> Thanks, I'm reporting it and you to google and to microsoft.

too late... 2^N mirrors have been created.

;-)

bye

[superpollo]

rt ha scritto:
> sobriquet wrote:

>> It's not just that the laws can't be enforced. It's that the intellectual property laws are totally insane and moronic.
>>
>> I mean just think about it. How can someone seriously claim to own something like a bitstring? You might just as well claim that you own the entire universe. It's equally absurd.
>>
>> If you think about it, if someone says they own an apple or they own a bicycle, it is an intelligible statement. But what does it mean when someone says they own "010111100100000001110101" as intellectual property?
>
> Duh, that's the compiled code, the result of work done.

so you are saying that someone *owns* a particular integer number and
nobody else can use that number unless authorized? ROTFL

[Richard Mullens]

On Jan 17, 8:22 am, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> Richard Mullens wrote:
> >Now I have Joseki 1 Fundamentals, purchased at some expense in
> >Groningen, but my attitude is one of pragmatism.  Let us say that one
> >day I look and see volume 2.  I'd probably download it.  If I found it
> >helpful I might even buy a copy as perhaps a physical copy is still
> >preferable, but if I thought that the physical copy was too expensive
> >you would not get a sale.  Also, if I just glanced at it but didn't
> >use it, well it would be as if I had just viewed it in a shop - but it
> >would remain on my hard drive and be available for others when I
> >connected to the edonkey or kad networks - so you have some free
> >advertising.
>
> Calling it free advertisement is not my view. - My books have samples,
> detailed self-reviews, 10 times as detailed TOCs as usual, can be
> viewed at tournaments (except British because so far Pentangle does
> not do its job or because it cannot because of too little demand for
> go books in general by British players), and (so far with the
> exception of Joseki 1+2) are available for half the price as PDF with
> upgrade option for the physical book. Seriously, if all that does not
> motivate you to buy a book, then you are not that interested in the
> books or in improving.
>

I have many books, but it is not clear to me that reading yours should
be a priority over, for example:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?WeiqiLifeAndDeath1000Problems (widely
respected but not available from any European go retailer last time I
searched)
http://senseis.xmp.net/?FundamentalPrinciplesOfGo
http://senseis.xmp.net/?GoProverbsIllustrated
http://senseis.xmp.net/?VitalPointsOfGo
http://senseis.xmp.net/?BasicTechniquesOfGo

[Robert Jasiek]

Richard Mullens wrote:
>I have many books, but it is not clear to me that reading yours should
>be a priority over, for example:
>
>http://senseis.xmp.net/?WeiqiLifeAndDeath1000Problems

In general, life and death problem books should be read by everybody
independently of what else he does for his improvement. Presumably the
particular book belongs to the suitable problem books. There is a rank
range though for which life and death problem books are especially
useful: 3 kyu or stronger. Weaker players might need to read dozens of
problems if they are weak at problems or reading; certainly not a
thousand though. Given your EGF database 5 kyu (correct me if that is
not the best source for your rank), it is too early for you to solve
many life and death problems. There are lots of more important aspects
of go theory for you.

I doubt though that a Chinese paperback with 1000 problems is a good
idea: usually the paper and printing of such books is so bad that
solving problems becomes a torture. Ensure to buy books with good
paper, printing and binding!

>http://senseis.xmp.net/?FundamentalPrinciplesOfGo

Joseki 1+2 can be compared with this, Capturing Races 1 cannot.

Fundamental Principles Of Go tells the reader a bit about the four
topics opening, relations, joseki, invasion / reduction. Since the
book teaches principles, the contents is useful. The same remark
applies to my books. Opening and invasion / reduction are in
Fundamental Principles Of Go but hardly in my books, relations are in
my books discussed in various chapters but not under the common
heading "relations". Joseki are in my books and there discussed with
roughly 20 times as many principles etc. Since you have Joseki 1, you
do not need the relatively sparse joseki chapter of Fundamental
Principles Of Go. As you can easily see from the TOCs of my books,
they have many topics not found in Fundamental Principles Of Go (nor
in Strategic Concept of Go aka Basics of Go Strategy).

As a 5 kyu reader, I would not ask which to read or whether to read
yet more similar books (such as some specialising on opening or on
invasion / reduction and Attack and Defense). I would simply read all
of them as quickly as I could get them. This is what you should do!
Start with Joseki 2; whatever you might not fully understand there
because of the dense treatment you can then study more extensively in
other more example-heavy sources; you won't find most of the theory
elsewhere though and need to apply it also elsewhere (and in your
games, of course).

>http://senseis.xmp.net/?GoProverbsIllustrated

Throw away books on useless topics! (Well, ok, this is an
exaggeration, but you get the idea: Forget proverbs fast! They are
wrong more often than not.)

>http://senseis.xmp.net/?VitalPointsOfGo

It was a book worth reading in those times when it belonged to the
very few English go books at all. Joseki 1+2 teach many times as much
theory. The best of Vital Points Of Go is its tewari chapter but in
Joseki 2 you learn about twice as much on tewari alone.

>http://senseis.xmp.net/?BasicTechniquesOfGo

I do not recall the contents; I guess I have looked only a few seconds
into it to notice that it is not for dans. So unfortunately I cannot
compare it.

***

You have not mentioned Positional Judgement and Direction of Play: You
do not need them if reading my joseki books.

[Richard Mullens]

Thank you for your suggestions. I just went onto Isohunt and found a
4.7 GB compendium of go materials (in various languages). Not
everything was there - for instance volume 7 of the Elementary go
series was missing, and the only works by you were pdfs from snafu.de
that you have made freely available for non commercial use.

Now that the BGA no longer has a bookseller, the easy availability of
go books at tournaments has dried up. I will check out your book if I
go to the EGC in Bonn. I would like to go there, but it seems rather
expensive and the accommodation options not so convenient.