Linux-Advocacy Digest #481, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:21 GMT
Said Roy Culley in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 12 May 2001 15:07:03
[...]
>I don't know why the Americans regard Greenspan so highly. As with
>most ecenomics 'experts' he hasn't a clue what is going to happen in
>the nearterm far less the longterm. It is just panic measures after
>the event as usual. Economic forecasting is more chaotic than weather
>forecasting because humans are involved. :-)
Well, I think you've answered your question; every American who is not
in poverty would therefore probably have at least some positive regard
for Greenspan. NOT because he is in any way responsible; he may well
have no other power but to cause it to occur. Everybody knows that
nobody can predict the market, and the society as a whole still clearly
remembers the Great Depression.
We have a 'high regard' for Greenspan, in comparison to other
Republicans which might agree with him in rhetorical matters, not
because he has any clue what's going to happen, but because he does
indeed, in a way that nobody else has, have the power to actually CHANGE
what's going to happen. And so far, he shows sufficient restraint in
his method. We don't need to consider him a 'guru' with 'special
knowledge', nor a 'hero' with 'special powers'. He's a circuit-breaker,
basically, on an entirely and clearly metaphoric level. Only INCREDIBLY
rich people could ever possibly have their fortunes reversed by the
minor corrections he claims are sufficient for ensuring our fortunes
aren't reversed. Even if he's totally ineffective analytically doesn't
make is actions any less analytically necessary.
>Remember, over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
>record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't looking
>any better.
Monopoly crapware is simply a force in the market that Mr. Greenspan is
ENTIRELY blind to, and apparently ignorant of, as well. It seems
obvious to any outside observer, though, that it has much more impact on
people's fortunes than he does.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:23 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 12 May 2001 07:33:38
>"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Economic forecasting is more chaotic than weather
>> forecasting because humans are involved. :-)
>
>Actually, that isn't true.
You're pretty much absolutely incorrect, Ayende.
>Climate is quite easily predictable (climate being the long term stuff),
>weather (short term) is quite hard because there are so many variables, and
>you can't just include them all.
>With humans, it's much easiers, because it's *much* harder to forsee one
>people's movement than a whole bunch of them.
I can't even figure out why you think these relatively incomprehensible
statements are supposed to relate to your contrary position. It might
just be a rhetorical thing, caused by your grammatical confusion. Maybe
you should try to explain what you're trying to say over again.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:27 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 13 May 2001
>> > Thats coming from a reserver bank governor whose country is achieving
>> > mediocre growth. NZ is running at a growth rate of 3.4%, Official Cash
>> > rate at around 6%, inflation well below the required 0-3% target set my
>> > the Reserve Bank Act. Don Brash, New Zealand Reserve Bank Governor
>> > remarked that Telecom New Zealand was stiffling competition by not
>> > opening their local loop, and as a result, consumers were paying over
>> > inflated prices which has a detrimental effect on the information
>> > technology sector. Apply that logic to Microsoft.
>>
>> I don't know why the Americans regard Greenspan so highly. As with
>> most economics 'experts' he hasn't a clue what is going to happen in
>> the nearterm far less the longterm. It is just panic measures after
>> the event as usual. Economic forecasting is more chaotic than weather
>> forecasting because humans are involved. :-)
>>
>> Remember, over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
>> record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't looking
>> any better.
>True. Also, it is rather stupid for JS PL to use Greenspan as the all
>knowing economist. His comments are one of thousands other comments made
>by politicians and reserve bank governors around the world.
>
>Microsoft now is too bloated, it has its fingers in so many different
>areas, things are going to start looking messy if nothings done about
>it. Microsoft needs to voluntarily split itself up to achieve maximum
>efficiency by getting each "mini-Microsoft" to focus on its core
>function, float parts of the business that need a great input of
>capital, for example, one that could sustain itself is the weborientated
>area, Office software would be another mini-Microsoft that would benefit
>by being listed separately from the company.
>
>Matthew Gardiner
Is it even possible to imagine Microsoft doing something like AT&T has
been doing, off and on, for years? You're right, of course. If they
had any intention of becoming an honest profit making organization,
they'd just divest everything but the OS. It's a corporation; what does
it care? The hampering of the Microsoft brand in the marketplace
certainly doesn't seem like something that those incredibly
transparently stupid "enterprise software" ads are going to fix.
But, hey, advertising works, right, so who's to say its just illegal
activity that causes people to pay money to Microsoft.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:36 GMT
Said Chronos Tachyon in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001
>On Fri 11 May 2001 08:01, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 May 2001 20:31:53
>>>>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> >> This is incorrect. A true one-time-pad would be generated by
>>> >> reading a naturally random source of noise that an attacker
>>> >> would have great difficulty introducing patterns into. A good
>>> >> example would be the timing between decays in a sample of a
>>> >> radioactive isotope.
>>>
>>> Erik> Which is something an average person can get access to, how?
>>>
>>>Linux has a /dev/random as a source of true random bits. It's been
>>>there for a few years. To generate random bits is simply reading from
>>>this char device. I often do that in shell scripts with 'dd' piped to
>>>'od'. How hard is that?
>>
>> Easy, as long as you ignore the "true" part of "true random bits". Such
>> things are pragmatically useful, but they are not true randomness; using
>> such a mechanism in cryptography is not theoretically secure.
>>
>
>Actually, /dev/random really *does* provide true randomness. Computer
>hardware isn't perfectly deterministic, especially with regard to timing,
>so drivers can extract small amounts of noise from the environment and feed
>it to the /dev/random bitpool. It can't provide the quantity that a
>dedicated source of randomness (like the i810 chipset's RNG) can churn out,
>but it is cryptographically secure.
Did I say that true randomness was necessary to be 'cryptographically
secure"? If I did, I should have said "perfectly cryptolographically
secure". In the real world, security is a matter of increasing levels
of obfuscation; to be mathematically indecipherable is to be simply
indecipherable, so codes cannot be perfect and have value.
True random numbers are a concept of mathematical theory. In software,
the difference between the qausi-random (which is what you've got) and
the previous generation of 'pseudo-random' numbers is the important
point. Still, it is worth pointing out the difference, because the
concept of true randomness does still come up in practical ways, even
though we can't practically achieve them very easily. So far as is
known, the only true random number 'generator' in the world is, in fact,
atomic decay and other quantum effects. Some post-modernists have even
claimed that true randomness therefore doesn't 'exist', for the same
reasons; they would claim that quantum randomness is just a more complex
form of quasi-randomness. They are, however, mistaken.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:40 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 05:09:38
>"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dhrvm$bcs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >
>> > > I've not encounter a DLL Hell problem in about three years, maybe
>more.
>> >
>> > Once you learn what causes them and stop doing it, you won't have
>> > them any more. That doesn't mean the underlying problem is fixed.
>>
>>
>> Considerring that every once in a while I install couple of dozens
>> applications, I don't think that this is the reason for that.
>
>Don't underestimate the value of your experience. Other people still
>have plenty of trouble with DLLs. In fact, last week one (out of
>8) of my problematic win2k IIS servers decided for no obvious
>reason that the asp.dll file wasn't registered anymore. Nothing new
>had been loaded or changed.
Ahh, monopoly crapware at its finest. They say that XP is even
*better*!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:44 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dgl7a$mp5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> > >BTW, copying MSConfig to NT will work just find, you just need to
>ignore
>> all
>> > >the error messages is spew when it start.
>> >
>> > Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. Small surprise. Monopoly crapware at its finest.
>>
>> It tries to check for files that doesn't exist on NT, T. Max.
>> Of *course* it would spew error mesages.
>
>BTW, MSConfig is included with XP, and can handle services as well.
Ooh-wee! Microsoft finally realizes that 'services' are just programs,
that people might actually want to control.
Who knows; another few decades of crapware, maybe they'll figure out
that there's a different between an OS and a GUI to begin with!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:47 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 04:27:51
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:TxKK6.14085$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > >Media Player 7 is unusable on a P133 with 32M Ram for either CD
>> > >or mp3 playing while winamp works just fine. It works on a
>> > >P300 laptop with 128M, but I don't have anything in between to
>> > >try.
>> >
>> > Thanks for the backup Les. I'd have to wonder whether winamp really
>> > "works just fine" on such a limited system, though. It seems hard to
>> > imagine that the OS itself would "work just fine", let alone a program
>> > on top of it. ;-)
>>
>> Is your memory that poor? People really did use computers for useful
>> things earlier than last year. I was running a unix system driving about
>> 40 serial lines in the mid 80's with an 80 gig hard drive, 2 gigs of RAM
>> and a CPU with about the power of a '286. It didn't draw any pretty
>> pictures on the screen but it got a lot of work done and ran for years
>with
>> next to no attention.
>
>Hell, I ran nine Wyse terminals off a first generation 386-16 with only two
>megs of RAM and a full-height 80 Meg MFM drive (SCO-Xenix V) at about that
>time period. Glad to know someone out there had the good fortune to use real
>iron <g>
>
>Oddly enough, that system (Zenith Z-386) and setup ran without a hitch for
>years and the box still runs to this day even the hard drive (Seagate
>ST-4096 which was known for unreliability and HDA failures). That machine
>was truly blessed!
You guys seem to be ignoring the point of my comment, which was not to
denigrate the hardware system, but the OS implied by running Media
Player 7.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:51 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 08:10:05
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 09:08:22
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >> Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 21:50:31
>> ><snip>
>> >> >Max, you really have to stretch to maintain your "Microsoft and all of
>> >> >its works are evil and the worst products anyone has ever produced"
>> >> >attitude.
>> >>
>> >> I have no such attitude, despite my rhetoric. If I did, would I be
>> >> using Microsoft products? ;-D
>> >
>> >Um, you've stated many times that you're forced to use Microsoft
>> >products and that's why you haven't switched to the OS that you spend so
>> >much of your life promoting.
>>
>> Not precisely, but close enough.
>>
>> >The only conclusion I can draw is that you
>> >don't really believe your own rhetoric that you post here. If that's
>> >the case then I've completely misjudged you. You're just here for the
>> >entertainment. My apologies...
>>
>> I honestly haven't the foggiest idea where you would draw that
>> conclusion from. Perhaps you're confabulating this ridiculously
>> metaphysical "evil and all their works" horse-shit with the actual
>> unlawful activities MS has performed, or discombobulated the idea of
>> 'consumers being forced' with 'me being forced'.
>
>No, your statement "I have no such attitude, despite my rhetoric. If I
>did, would I be using Microsoft products?" indicates to me that your
>real thoughts and feelings don't necessarily coincide with what you have
>written in these newsgroups.
I can't honestly understand why.
>The only purpose I can see for doing this
>is to entertain yourself (probably by seeing what kind of reaction you
>can get from your postings).
Your confusion, I guess, comes from my use of the phrase 'despite my
rhetoric'. Perhaps you should spend less time dwelling in hyperbole,
and examining the specific attitude which you claimed I had. Perhaps it
is not my action, but your interpretation of the words, which do not
match my rhetoric.
>> Try this one on for size, if you're in the mood for entertainment:
>>
>> Consumers are forced by circumstances, not by Microsoft, to use Windows.
>> Yet Microsoft is legally responsible for those circumstances, and thus
>> is guilty of monopolizing even though they never forced anyone to buy
>> their product, ever. Substitute "even if" for "even though", and you
>> don't change the truth or the meaning of the statement. Nor the legal
>> ramifications; it isn't a question of evil, it is a question of criminal
>> conduct.
>
>I would agree with you if Microsoft deliberately created "those
>circumstances" and did it with the intent to monopolize. I find the
>whole Sherman Act bothersome because it's vague to the point where a
>company can't point to a specific time where its product became a
>monopoly.
It is quite precise, actually; it is the application which only appears
'vague', because it is complex. It is actually very simple, even in
practice. Or would be, if people didn't keep trying to get around it.
After all, "crime doesn't pay" is just an aphorism, and doesn't have any
more power in the real world than the Sherman Act itself.
There is no need to find a specific time "where its product became a
monopoly", the law doesn't mention "monopoly products". Companies, and
individuals, are restricted both from monopolizing or from attempting to
monopolize, because the two are really the same thing; one special case
of 'restraining trade'.
To say that the law is vague is understandable, but not correct. Ed
Allen once suggested an analogy of "reckless driving". You don't really
have to define it precisely, because it is usually only a charge that is
leveled when a wreck occurs. But if a cop sees you weaving down the
street, he's going to give you a ticket, and you can explain to the
judge how you were scared by a bee or something, and he'll make the
judgement. Whether it is "fair" or "just" are two different things, in
the end, so you have to pick one and stick with it.
To claim that the law isn't just is a different thing then the law isn't
fair. The only people it is unfair to is people who do, in fact,
believe that they can improve their sales by preventing others from
taking place, in any way, even indirectly.
>Without that, it doesn't know positively that the rules of
>behaviour it has to follow have changed because it now holds a monopoly
>until it is actually hauled into court and convicted of monopolizing.
Before "monopoly" was illegal, the laws were against more specific (but
no less easily defined, in fact they are very difficult to objectively
determine, which is why they were replaced with 'monopolize' and
'contracts in restraint of trade') activities such as forestalling,
engrossing, and regrating. Today it can be recognized that trying to
tell them apart is like distinguishing between a train robbery and a
bank robbery.
>Even then, it may disagree with the conviction simply because it
>disagrees with the court on the definition of the relevent market.
If I might be forgiven the vernacular, nobody gives a flying fuck what
the producer feels is "the relevant market". That is a matter for "the
market" itself, as an imprecise and relative result of every
individual's personal choices. The judge acts as a proxy, by observing
what value people get from the product, not by what value they must give
up to choose an alternative.
>In
>Microsoft's case the market Windows participates in could have been
[...]
In Microsoft's case, the 'relevant market' is defines clearly and
exclusively by what value consumers had to forgo in order to avoid
"choosing" Windows. Thus, Microsoft broke the law. I will admit that
it is a complex and abstract relationship, but it is clear,
comprehensible, reasonable, deterministic, fair, and just.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:52 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 06:54:33
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>T Max needs a good spanking.
>>
>> Now if only if one of you were capable of giving it to me... ;-)
>
>We did, in another thread. "DirectX sucks". Boy did I lead you to water!
>You fell for it, too!
Take your bruised ego somewhere else, Pete. Neither your delusions nor
your feigned ridicule are of interest.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:53 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 06:53:48
>Terry Porter wrote:
>
>>> But if Windows is _so_ bad, why use it at all? If you think it's
>>> "monopoly crapware" surely you cannot even touch it?
>
>> Perhaps Max has logical reasons to use Windowsat the moment?
>
>Then it can hardly be "monopolistic crapware" now can it!
The term is "monopoly crapware", and whether I use it certainly has
nothing more than a trivial impact on that.
>>> Either that, or you're a hypocrit.
>> Nonsense.
>
>My assertion stands. I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise.
You claim you're blind, when anyone looking at you can clearly see that
you just refusing to open your eyes.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:53 GMT
said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 06:52:45
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> With the current crop of high end audio cards (Midiman for example)
>> the WDM's work great under Win2k but have proven less than stellar
>> under Win98SE/ME.
>
>What does "less than steller" mean? Details! Details!
Details, details. Why don't you take it to a windows group, lusers?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:54 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001
>On Sat, 12 May 2001 07:04:35 GMT, "Tom Wilson"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>I asked the question before, and I will again...
>>Seriously, what applications do you need and what are their requirements?
>
>Sonar. Cakewalk, Cubase, SoundForge, CD Architect, Acid, Vegas, and
>all of the plugins that go with them.
Because flatfishiehead can't even *imagine* the difference between an
application and a branded software program.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:55 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 06:50:14
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> Nonsense; Pete is expressing his frustration at being unable to avoid a
>> spanking, nothing more.
>
>What spanking? You were led by the nose down into the water and soaked in
>another thread T Max.
Yea, you keep saying that.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:56 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 05:24:08
>"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>Yes, obtaining 'your' copy must be done with the permission of
>the copyright holder. [...]
Pedant point that isn't so pedant: no you don't. The guy who
distributed it to you does, but only if he made more than 10 copies or
it is worth more than $1000.
If someone pirates software and sells it to you, you still own it and
can use it to your heart's content. The only reason the police could
take if from you is as "evidence", and they'd need a damn good reason to
need YOUR copy. The pirate is the one who broke the law, not you,
unless you should reasonably have known it was a copy.
Thus, the "guilt-drive" by MS & cronies to try to make pirating software
some horrible crime like stealing money from someone's bank account.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:58 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 12:26:07 GMT;
>On Sat, 12 May 2001 05:24:08 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Doesn't that have to be a part of a case where access to the original
>>by someone is still involved?
>
>The copyright holder doesn't have to sue the direct infringer if he
>choses not to.
A very telling point, illustrative of just what is 'stretching the law',
and what is 'protecting intellectual property', a la MS's ability to
claim ownership of your development as a condition in the license
(literally, a condition of sale for that copy of software - the only
difference is whether it is a condition of all such sales.)
>He can sue the contributory infringer alone. Still
>there has to be at least a potential direct infringement involved
>before there can be contributory infringement, so in the case of
>RIPEM, if the end users are not an infringing, it would seem that
>no case for contributory infringement could be made.
In that language, RIPEM is actually the one who would be liable for
contributory infringement; the end-user would be the 'unprosecuted
direct infringer'. It doesn't matter how you apply the teleology; the
fact is that copyright has nothing to do with metaphysics (OR physics,
for that matter) but only the bottom line. Intellectual property is
only different from real property in one way; it is truly and absolutely
worthless until someone pays for it. The value is *never* inherent in
the thing. Even if you sell copies of the IP, IP isn't a farm of real
property. If you stop selling copies, there is no farm, there is no
property.
The value of intellectual property is whatever someone pays for it.
Therefore Napster contributors, having paid nothing for the songs they
trade, cannot ever be guilty of direct infringement, nor can Napster be
guilty of contributory infringement.
If you cannot comprehensibly use the same logic for both RIPEM and
Napster, you obviously can't understand copyright law.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
