php-general Digest 30 Jul 2007 18:30:14 -0000 Issue 4933
Topics (messages 259796 through 259822):
Re: Bizarre array create error
259796 by: Ken Tozier
Re: import spreadsheet
259797 by: Angelo Zanetti
Wordpress Theme Switcher plugin redirect modification
259798 by: Erik Gyepes
Re: Rules of Engagement
259799 by: David Robley
259802 by: Lester Caine
Re: The Official OT "Name Tedd's Grandson" Thread
259800 by: Michelle Konzack
Unit testing
259801 by: Emil Edeholt
259803 by: Thijs Lensselink
Changing URLs from Relative to Absolute
259804 by: Tom Chubb
259807 by: Al
259808 by: Richard Heyes
$HTTP_POST_FILES always produces empty value.
259805 by: Patrik Hasibuan
259806 by: David Robley
259809 by: Patrik Hasibuan
259812 by: Patrik Hasibuan
Re: Pirate PHP books online?
259810 by: David Powers
259811 by: Stut
259813 by: tedd
259814 by: David Powers
259815 by: Stut
259816 by: Stut
259817 by: tedd
259818 by: Crayon Shin Chan
259819 by: tedd
259821 by: carlton.whitehead.cebesius.com
259822 by: Robert Cummings
Reading registry values
259820 by: \"Crash\" Dummy
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
On Jul 30, 2007, at 2:23 AM, Paul Novitski wrote:
At 7/29/2007 09:59 PM, Ken Tozier wrote:
/*------------------------------------------------------*/
/* Next two lines are where the problem
starts */
/* If I comment either of them out the script
runs */
/* but with both uncommented, it dies
/*------------------------------------------------------*/
// create the rect and usable rect records
$result->rect = array(0, 0, $result-
>page_width, $result- >page_height);
Does this typo exist in your script? "$result- >page_height" with
a space between - and >?
No. Must be an email thing.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Richard Lynch wrote:
On Fri, July 27, 2007 4:01 am, Angelo Zanetti wrote:
Does anyone have any resources or links as to how to import a
spreadsheet but it might have different number of columns and many
sheets (those tab things at the bottom).
What I thought of doing was creating a table that has 10 fields and if
the file thats being imported only has 4 fields then the remaining six
fields are blank.
So basically my script must dynamically take the format (which
changes)
and try save it in the database in a semi standard format.
If anyone thinks its possible or not please advise. Any help or advice
would be greatly appreciated.
I didn't actually import multiple sheets, but the tool I used returned
an array "sheets" and the 0-th element was the only sheet in there, so
I suspect a second sheet would have been the next element...
It's a PECL package up on sourceforge:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpexcelreader/
As far as columns and rows goes, it just built an array the right size
to hold everything in the spreadsheet.
Though if you've got a stray "space" in column ZZZ row 65535, then I
suppose you could be in trouble...
It's got a bug as of a couple weeks ago where it tries to 'include' a
file that doesn't exist...
Change that to include the similarly-named file that's actually there
and bob's your uncle.
YMMV
PS
Watch out for those serial killer dates... :-)
I blogged a little bit about this here:
http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/2007/07/php-microsoft-excel-reader-and-serial.html
hi guys.
Thanks to those that responded, I will check out all the responses!
Much appreciated!
regards
Angelo
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,
I would like to modify the Theme Switcher Plugin for Wordpress
(http://dev.wp-plugins.org/wiki/ThemeSwitcher). When I currently request
the page to switch the theme (for example:
mydomain.com/?wptheme=My+Theme) I'm redirected to the index.php, but
instead I would like to redirect back to the page where I was before
(for example: mydomain.com/?p=15)
Here is the code which is redirecting the page:
function ts_set_theme_cookie() { $expire = time
<http://www.php.net/time>() + 30000000; if (!empty
<http://www.php.net/empty>($_GET["wptheme"])) { setcookie
<http://www.php.net/setcookie>("wptheme" . COOKIEHASH,
stripslashes
<http://www.php.net/stripslashes>($_GET["wptheme"]),
$expire, COOKIEPATH
); $redirect = get_settings('home').'/'; if
(function_exists <http://www.php.net/function_exists>('wp_redirect'))
wp_redirect($redirect); else header
<http://www.php.net/header>("Location: ". $redirect); exit
<http://www.php.net/exit>; } }
I've tried to change the $redirect variable to $_SERVER['REQUEST_URI']
but it doesn't worked. Then I realized that I should save the current
page URL in the cookies, so I've set a cookie and then I tried redirect
the page to the URL in that cookie. It worked, but not as intended,
there are some situations when it is redirecting in a loop.
Any recommendations how to do it properly?
Thanks,
Erik
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Colin Guthrie wrote:
> Daniel Brown wrote:
>> As a relatively-new contributor to this list (read: under 2
>> years), I realize that I have no business requesting a change, but
>> I'll breech etiquette and hope for the best.
>>
>> Can we update the filters on the list to have the reply-to address
>> header marked to the php-general address? The reason I ask this is
>> because, when people are on vacation (such as Juan is now), we receive
>> responses to our personal addresses. Secondly, we have to continually
>> "Reply All" the messages, which - though it's not a problem - can
>> cause issues when attempting to respond to those "[URGENT]" replies.
>> Third, our addresses are included in gmane, et al, which is an
>> inherent risk --- I understand.
>>
>> Maybe it's just the ramblings of someone attempting to read and
>> type on a limited-bandwidth mobile device while bored due to delays in
>> mass-transit facilities (here, read: I'm fucking exhausted, and yes, I
>> dropped the "F" bomb). In either case, it's not conducive to a new
>> contributor to have to weed through "vacation response" messages each
>> time he/she replies to the list.
>
> I agree here.
>
> I am on many lists and if I'm interested in something then I expect
> people to expect me to read the list for replies. But for noobs, the
> personal reply is quite good.
>
> I guess the rule should be "public list -> reply to poster",
> "subscription list -> reply to list".
>
> AFAIK Gmane etc. can be configured to obfuscate email addresses -
> certainly other lists I read through Gmane are...
>
> Col
I'd bet we did this a number of times over the last few years; all I can
offer other than suggesting a search of the archives is
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html which puts a view for not
mucking around with the headers on mailing list messages. FWIW as a
sometime mailing list admin I fully support the products or services
therein :-)
Cheers
--
David Robley
"I like camping," said Tom intently.
Today is Sweetmorn, the 65th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3173.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Nathan Nobbe wrote:
gmail seems to consume these 'double replies' transparently w/ its
'conversations'.
i never notice them :)
sorry to everyone who gets hit w/ the extra mail when i hit reply-to-all.
youll have to forgive my laziness, its just easier that way.
Interestingly your reply is duplicated here. The one bounced via the list is a
different format and hence not filtered at this end since they are in essence
different :(
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
MEDW - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello *,
Am 2007-07-26 11:33:52, schrieb Robert Cummings:
> On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 16:24 +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> > M. Sokolewicz wrote:
> > > It's not the only, about 50% of threads have it, and another 50% don't.
> > > For instance, the DOM thread does not have it, this thread has it in
> > > between Re:'s, Hide the real URL has it, Pirate PHP books doesn't, etc.
> >
> > I don't get them on any of my messages but then I read them all via nntp
> > and Gmane.org....
>
> I get it in every message... must be a mail client thingy.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
------------------------- END OF REPLIED MESSAGE -------------------------
Maybe I am one of them, WHO HATE this Subject-Addy. I use procmail and
"sed" to kill it...
----[ '~/.procmail/FLT_subject' ]---------------------------------------
####################################################################
#
# FLT_subject
#
####################################################################
:0fh
* ^Subject:.*\[PHP\-ANNOUNCE\]
|sed -e "s/\[PHP\-ANNOUNCE\]//;s/\ \ / /"
:0fh
* ^Subject:.*\[PHP\-DB\]
|sed -e "s/\[PHP\-DB\]//;s/\ \ / /"
:0fh
* ^Subject:.*\[PHP\-EVANGELISM\]
|sed -e "s/\[PHP\-EVANGELISM\]//;s/\ \ / /"
:0fh
* ^Subject:.*\[PHP\-GTK\-DEV\]
|sed -e "s/\[PHP\-GTK\-DEV\]//;s/\ \ / /"
:0fh
* ^Subject:.*\[PHP\-GTK\]
|sed -e "s/\[PHP\-GTK\]//;s/\ \ / /"
:0fh
* ^Subject:.*\[PHP\-WIN\]
|sed -e "s/\[PHP\-WIN\]//;s/\ \ / /"
:0fh
* ^Subject:.*\[PHP\ Classes\]
|sed -e "s/\[PHP\ Classes\]//;s/\ \ / /"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi
What (preferably open source) tools are the best for unit testing php?
JUnit is not available for PHP from what I can see?
Thanks for your time!
--
Best Regards Emil Edeholt
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:57:08 +0200, Emil Edeholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> What (preferably open source) tools are the best for unit testing php?
> JUnit is not available for PHP from what I can see?
>
> Thanks for your time!
>
> --
>
> Best Regards Emil Edeholt
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Take a look at : http://www.phpunit.de/
And maybe : http://simpletest.org/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dear list,
I was recently trying to write a script where a user copy and pastes their
HTML code to display something on a listings site and tried to find a way to
change the URL of an image from relative to absolute.
For example <img src="images/1.jpg"> becomes <img = src="
http://domain.com/images/1.jpg";>.
That is easy enough and I created a regexp, but I found that some people
call the img tag differently such as:
<img a="A photo" src="images/1.jpg">
Does anyone have experience of this? How can I create a regexp that will
find it in every case?
Thanks in advance.
Tom
--
Tom Chubb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In general, you must have patterns and code that deal with most common errors.
As to your example, your regex pattern must not be good.
Is your complete string simply: <img a="A photo" src="images/1.jpg"> ?
If so, then "%src\x20*=\x20*\"*([\w/]+\x2Ejpg)%i" should do it for you.
\x20*, may have 0 or more spaces; \x2E = period; "()" will capture the file name; "i" can handle
upper or lower case.
Incidentally, be careful that you have good security checking on the "pasted"
in html stuff.
Tom Chubb wrote:
Dear list,
I was recently trying to write a script where a user copy and pastes their
HTML code to display something on a listings site and tried to find a way to
change the URL of an image from relative to absolute.
For example <img src="images/1.jpg"> becomes <img = src="
http://domain.com/images/1.jpg";>.
That is easy enough and I created a regexp, but I found that some people
call the img tag differently such as:
<img a="A photo" src="images/1.jpg">
Does anyone have experience of this? How can I create a regexp that will
find it in every case?
Thanks in advance.
Tom
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I was recently trying to write a script where a user copy and pastes their
HTML code to display something on a listings site and tried to find a way to
change the URL of an image from relative to absolute.
For example <img src="images/1.jpg"> becomes <img = src="
http://domain.com/images/1.jpg";>.
That is easy enough and I created a regexp, but I found that some people
call the img tag differently such as:
<img a="A photo" src="images/1.jpg">
Does anyone have experience of this? How can I create a regexp that will
find it in every case?
You could try this (from my rather poor memory):
/<img.*src="(.*)"/Uis
--
Richard Heyes
+44 (0)844 801 1072
http://www.websupportsolutions.co.uk
Knowledge Base and HelpDesk software
that can cut the cost of online support
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dear my friends....
I don't understand why $HTTP_POST_FILES always produces empty value.
This is my code
===
//cgi/cgiprodukcatalogadmin.php
<?php
$berkasgambarproduk=$HTTP_POST_FILES['gambarproduk']['name'];
echo "gambarproduk: $gambarproduk<br>";
echo "berkasgambarproduk: $berkasgambarproduk<br>";
?>
===
This is the output in my Opera internet browser:
===
gambarproduk: /tmp/phppd6DZy
berkasgambarproduk:
===
this is my php.ini:
===
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
; File Uploads ;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
; Whether to allow HTTP file uploads.
file_uploads = On
; Temporary directory for HTTP uploaded files (will use system default if not
; specified).
;upload_tmp_dir =
upload_tmp_dir = /srv/www/htdocs/tmpphp
; Maximum allowed size for uploaded files.
upload_max_filesize = 100M
===
Please tell me, "where is my mistake?".
Thank you very much in advance.
--
Patrik Hasibuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Junior Programmer
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Patrik Hasibuan wrote:
> Dear my friends....
>
> I don't understand why $HTTP_POST_FILES always produces empty value.
>
> This is my code
> ===
> //cgi/cgiprodukcatalogadmin.php
> <?php
> $berkasgambarproduk=$HTTP_POST_FILES['gambarproduk']['name'];
> echo "gambarproduk: $gambarproduk<br>";
> echo "berkasgambarproduk: $berkasgambarproduk<br>";
> ?>
> ===
> This is the output in my Opera internet browser:
> ===
> gambarproduk: /tmp/phppd6DZy
> berkasgambarproduk:
> ===
> this is my php.ini:
> ===
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> ; File Uploads ;
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
> ; Whether to allow HTTP file uploads.
> file_uploads = On
>
> ; Temporary directory for HTTP uploaded files (will use system default if
> not ; specified).
> ;upload_tmp_dir =
> upload_tmp_dir = /srv/www/htdocs/tmpphp
>
> ; Maximum allowed size for uploaded files.
> upload_max_filesize = 100M
> ===
>
> Please tell me, "where is my mistake?".
>
> Thank you very much in advance.
Unless you are using an old version of php <4.1.0 you probably should use
the $_FILES array instead of $_HTTP_POST_FILES
Try that and see what happens. More info at http://php.net/file-upload if
you need it.
Cheers
--
David Robley
Oxymoron: Working Vacation.
Today is Sweetmorn, the 65th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3173.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi David,
it's solved.
Your advise solved my problem.
Thank you very much.
===
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:03:06 +0930
David Robley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patrik Hasibuan wrote:
>
> > Dear my friends....
> >
> > I don't understand why $HTTP_POST_FILES always produces empty value.
> >
> > This is my code
> > ===
> > //cgi/cgiprodukcatalogadmin.php
> > <?php
> > $berkasgambarproduk=$HTTP_POST_FILES['gambarproduk']['name'];
> > echo "gambarproduk: $gambarproduk<br>";
> > echo "berkasgambarproduk: $berkasgambarproduk<br>";
> > ?>
> > ===
> > This is the output in my Opera internet browser:
> > ===
> > gambarproduk: /tmp/phppd6DZy
> > berkasgambarproduk:
> > ===
> > this is my php.ini:
> > ===
> > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> > ; File Uploads ;
> > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> >
> > ; Whether to allow HTTP file uploads.
> > file_uploads = On
> >
> > ; Temporary directory for HTTP uploaded files (will use system default if
> > not ; specified).
> > ;upload_tmp_dir =
> > upload_tmp_dir = /srv/www/htdocs/tmpphp
> >
> > ; Maximum allowed size for uploaded files.
> > upload_max_filesize = 100M
> > ===
> >
> > Please tell me, "where is my mistake?".
> >
> > Thank you very much in advance.
>
> Unless you are using an old version of php <4.1.0 you probably should use
> the $_FILES array instead of $_HTTP_POST_FILES
>
> Try that and see what happens. More info at http://php.net/file-upload if
> you need it.
>
>
> Cheers
> --
> David Robley
>
> Oxymoron: Working Vacation.
> Today is Sweetmorn, the 65th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3173.
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
>
--
Patrik Hasibuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Junior Programmer
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi David,
it's solved.
Your advise solved my problem.
Thank you very much.
===
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:03:06 +0930
David Robley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patrik Hasibuan wrote:
>
> > Dear my friends....
> >
> > I don't understand why $HTTP_POST_FILES always produces empty value.
> >
> > This is my code
> > ===
> > //cgi/cgiprodukcatalogadmin.php
> > <?php
> > $berkasgambarproduk=$HTTP_POST_FILES['gambarproduk']['name'];
> > echo "gambarproduk: $gambarproduk<br>";
> > echo "berkasgambarproduk: $berkasgambarproduk<br>";
> > ?>
> > ===
> > This is the output in my Opera internet browser:
> > ===
> > gambarproduk: /tmp/phppd6DZy
> > berkasgambarproduk:
> > ===
> > this is my php.ini:
> > ===
> > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> > ; File Uploads ;
> > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> >
> > ; Whether to allow HTTP file uploads.
> > file_uploads = On
> >
> > ; Temporary directory for HTTP uploaded files (will use system default if
> > not ; specified).
> > ;upload_tmp_dir =
> > upload_tmp_dir = /srv/www/htdocs/tmpphp
> >
> > ; Maximum allowed size for uploaded files.
> > upload_max_filesize = 100M
> > ===
> >
> > Please tell me, "where is my mistake?".
> >
> > Thank you very much in advance.
>
> Unless you are using an old version of php <4.1.0 you probably should use
> the $_FILES array instead of $_HTTP_POST_FILES
>
> Try that and see what happens. More info at http://php.net/file-upload if
> you need it.
>
>
> Cheers
> --
> David Robley
>
> Oxymoron: Working Vacation.
> Today is Sweetmorn, the 65th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3173.
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
>
--
Patrik Hasibuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Junior Programmer
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Larry Garfield wrote:
copyright infringement is NOT "taking something
without paying for it". Copyright infringement is duplicating "an expression
of an idea that is fixed in a medium" without the permission of the copyright
holder. Money doesn't enter into it.
If the licence under which the work was released stipulates payment,
money does become an integral aspect of any infringement.
If copyright infringement were "taking something without paying for it", then
anyone who's ever installed PHP is guilty of copyright infringement unless
they sent Rasmus a check. That is, of course, nonsense.
This is a nonsensical comparison, because installing PHP is not an
infringement of copyright. The PHP licence specifically grants the right
to use and distribute PHP, as long as certain conditions are met:
http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt
A great many people -- myself included but also the Creative Commons folks,
the FSF, many open source developers, and many others -- believe the current
system of copyright law to be fundamentally flawed. Not that we shouldn't
have copyright, but that the current form of copyright is broken. A work
restricted for an entire generation after the original author is
dead? "Digital Restriction Management" software that makes even Fair Use a
felony? Retroactively extending copyright terms? Making experimentation
with either art or technology either prohibited or prohibitively expensive?
Yes, broken.
These are excellent points, with which I basically agree.
And the rank-and-file artists and authors of the world do not benefit from
perpetuating that lie. The current direction the law is moving, toward more
restrictions on the exchange of information, is bad for anyone who isn't
Robert Iger or Britney Spears. That's why it is important to confront and
correct that lie. It must be corrected before copyright can be sanely
reformed to benefit the public (its supposed goal) and original
artists/authors, not a select few mega-corps.
Unfortunately, the tactics used by pirates are disproportionately
harmful to rank-and-file artists and authors. I don't see the pirates
simply going away if and when copyright law is amended.
At no point have I said that copyright infringement is not illegal.
At no point have I said that copyright infringement is a good thing.
At no point have I encouraged people to engage in copyright infringement.
Thank you for clarifying that.
I highly recommend Larry Lessig's book "Free Culture":
http://free-culture.cc/
You can even download it free, not for money, legally, without it being
copyright infringement. How about that.
That's because he has released it under a Creative Commons licence.
However, if you copy it and sell it or use in some other way for
commercial gain, you break the terms of the licence.
When somebody distributes copies of my eBooks to others, they break the
terms of the licence. They also deprive me of income, as do bit torrent
sites that assist in that distribution. It might not be stealing in a
strict legal sense, but it results in financial harm to me. So money
does frequently come into it where copyright infringement is concerned.
David Powers
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
David Powers wrote:
When somebody distributes copies of my eBooks to others, they break the
terms of the licence. They also deprive me of income, as do bit torrent
sites that assist in that distribution. It might not be stealing in a
strict legal sense, but it results in financial harm to me. So money
does frequently come into it where copyright infringement is concerned.
This conversation is getting pointless guys. The argument being had is
about whether copyright infringement should be called stealing or theft.
Personally I don't believe it should, but going back and forth on a
public mailing list is not going to do anyone .
To summarise...
* Nobody thinks copyright infringement is a good thing and nobody is
denying that it causes harm to every layer of the commercial chain that
exists to create and publish copyrighted work
* A lot of people believe copyright infringement should not be called
theft, and those who do not seem unwilling to see the difference
* Comparisons in this arena are always full of holes so stop trying to
use them
I believe both sides have adequately explained their position and
justification, and it's now turning into a game of tennis. Can we please
leave it alone now and get back to making something worthy of being copied?
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 8:50 PM -0500 7/29/07, Larry Garfield wrote:
You can call whatever you want anything you want, but that doesn't make it
true. For instance, no, copyright infringement is NOT "taking something
without paying for it". Copyright infringement is duplicating "an expression
of an idea that is fixed in a medium" without the permission of the copyright
holder. Money doesn't enter into it.
PERMISSION !!! And that's the point of this entire thread.
You BUY a car, then society says you have permission to use it.
You STEAL a car, then society says that you don't have permission to use it.
Terms terms of "BUY" are expressly stated in no matter what you use,
including all of what's been discussed in this thread. The opposite
of BUYING is STEALING (excluding of course that you choose to do
neither).
Our entire legal system is built on allowing (granting permission)
certain actions and not allowing (not granting permission) other
actions.
You do not have permission to steal. And if someone has not granted
you the permission to use their whatever and you do use their
whatever, then that's stealing.
If copyright infringement were "taking something without paying for it", then
anyone who's ever installed PHP is guilty of copyright infringement unless
they sent Rasmus a check. That is, of course, nonsense.
No, it's not nonsense -- if the terms that Rasmus required were that
we had to send him a check, then that's what his terms would have
been -- why must I state the obvious?
Fortunately, for all of us, his terms did not require that we had to
send him a check so that's the reason why we don't have to send him a
check -- again, why must I state the obvious?
A great many people -- myself included but also the Creative Commons folks,
the FSF, many open source developers, and many others -- believe the current
system of copyright law to be fundamentally flawed.
You have a right to your belief, but that doesn't make your belief right.
Your position that copyright infringement is not stealing is
fundamentally flawed.
And, I doubt that the organizations you site actually agree with you.
Not that we shouldn't have copyright, but that the current form of copyright
is broken. A work restricted for an entire generation after the
original author is
dead?
What about descendants of the author? When anyone dies, their
descendants have a rightful claim on their parent's assets -- it been
that way since the dawn of mankind. Do you think you know better than
the practice of thousands of generations?
"Digital Restriction Management" software that makes even Fair Use a
felony? Retroactively extending copyright terms? Making experimentation
with either art or technology either prohibited or prohibitively expensive?
Yes, broken.
It's only broken for those who want to infringe on other's work
product without paying for it, which includes getting permission.
As many people in this thread have already stated, most artists/authors don't
actually benefit from this system.
Bullshit -- nobody has said that.
Additionally, artists/authors would certainly not benefit from your
point of view. Everything is open source with no responsibility to
the author -- it all up for grabs -- if you can get it, then woo ho
it's yours. Yeah, like that will work. Is that what you're
advocating? Because if you don't recognize copyright infringement as
stealing, then you are advocating stealing by calling it something
else.
The public certainly doesn't.
The public most certainly does -- they get the "best" product that
they can afford AND there is incentive for people to produce such
works for hire. The entertain industry is a prime example -- do you
think you would get the caliber of movies we do without incentive?
And that incentive includes copyright infringement laws which helps
stop people from STEALING their work.
Under your view, they do it for grins so that others raid freely and
without prejudice all other's works because it's not stealing. Is
that what you're supporting? Because if you don't recognize copyright
infringement as stealing, then you are supporting that practice.
I dare say that copyright infringement is not a mortal sin.
Stealing is! And calling it by any other name doesn't get around that fact.
At every point, I have pointed out what the law actually says, and why it says
it.
Again, bullshit. The spirit of the law is to prevent the stealing of
copyrighted material. Even the definition of "stealing" is defined as
taking another person property without permission and violating his
legal rights of ownership.
Now, you want to confuse the issue by saying "copyright infringement"
is duplicating something authored without the permission of the
copyright holder, but it's not stealing -- instead, it's violating
his rights of ownership, which has the same definition as does the
act of stealing.
Stealing: taking another person property without permission and
violating his legal rights of ownership.
Copyright infringement: taking another person property without
permission and violating his legal rights of ownership.
I don't see much difference.
And for that, I am accused of having no morality and values.
I don't think anyone has accused you of that, but saying what you
have, leaves us with the obvious conclusion that you don't recognize
copyright infringement as stealing -- and that does cast a long
shadow as to morality and values.
tedd
PS: I said I wouldn't get back into this argument, but your claims
are just absurd.
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Stut wrote:
This conversation is getting pointless guys.
I agree that it's going round in circles, and is best left alone.
* Nobody thinks copyright infringement is a good thing and nobody is
denying that it causes harm to every layer of the commercial chain that
exists to create and publish copyrighted work
If that were the case, I don't think this would have dragged out so
long. The book that Larry Garfield pointed to ("Free Culture" by Larry
Lessig) argues that *some* copyright infringement is harmless, and in
certain circumstances, it can be beneficial (for example, when a work is
out of print). Larry Lessig's arguments are quite persuasive and worthy
of consideration. And for the record, Larry Lessig is in favour of
seeing creators of original material receive fair payment for their efforts.
It's irrelevant whether copyright infringement is "stealing", or whether
big companies are making too much money out of rights management.
Copyright infringement is against the law in most countries, and it does
disproportionate damage to the vast majority of artists and authors. End
of story.
David Powers
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tedd wrote:
At 8:50 PM -0500 7/29/07, Larry Garfield wrote:
If copyright infringement were "taking something without paying for
it", then
anyone who's ever installed PHP is guilty of copyright infringement
unless
they sent Rasmus a check. That is, of course, nonsense.
No, it's not nonsense -- if the terms that Rasmus required were that we
had to send him a check, then that's what his terms would have been --
why must I state the obvious?
Fortunately, for all of us, his terms did not require that we had to
send him a check so that's the reason why we don't have to send him a
check -- again, why must I state the obvious?
Copyright exists to prevent unauthorised *usage* of material. It does
not exist to prevent the unauthorised taking of instances of that
material - that's what the laws regarding theft are for.
This is the fundamental difference between copyright infringement and
theft. Usage is not ownership, and you cannot steal usage.
According to Thames Valley Police here in the UK... "The basic legal
definition of theft is 'the dishonest appropriation of property
belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that
person of it'."[1] How can that possibly apply to copyrighted material?
By infringing copyright you are not permanently depriving the
author/publisher/anyone of it.
You have a right to your belief, but that doesn't make your belief right.
This works both ways.
Your position that copyright infringement is not stealing is
fundamentally flawed.
How? Nobody is not being permanently deprived of the content you are
using in an unauthorised fashion.
"Digital Restriction Management" software that makes even Fair Use a
felony? Retroactively extending copyright terms? Making experimentation
with either art or technology either prohibited or prohibitively
expensive?
Yes, broken.
Larry: Fair use exists in the US, it does not exist in a lot of other
countries and whether it should exist at all is not relevant to this
discussion.
Also, the duration of copyright protection could not have less to do
with whether it can accurately be called theft or not. And I think
you'll find that patents prevent experimentation with either art or
technology.
It's only broken for those who want to infringe on other's work product
without paying for it, which includes getting permission.
That's a rediculous statement. Larry is not saying that there should not
be any protection for creative work, he's just saying that the current
system does not operate as well as it could. The main reason for this is
that the world changes faster than the law. But again, this is not
really relevant to the discussion.
As many people in this thread have already stated, most
artists/authors don't
actually benefit from this system.
Bullshit -- nobody has said that.
Additionally, artists/authors would certainly not benefit from your
point of view. Everything is open source with no responsibility to the
author -- it all up for grabs -- if you can get it, then woo ho it's
yours. Yeah, like that will work. Is that what you're advocating?
Because if you don't recognize copyright infringement as stealing, then
you are advocating stealing by calling it something else.
I don't believe Larry suggested everything should be "open source with
no responsibility to the author". All he's saying, and I agree, is that
the current copyright system is not perfect and need to be reviewed.
I dare say that copyright infringement is not a mortal sin.
Stealing is! And calling it by any other name doesn't get around that fact.
But it's not stealing. We talk about "stealing an idea" but in reality
that's not possible. Please tell me you can see that.
At every point, I have pointed out what the law actually says, and why
it says
it.
Again, bullshit. The spirit of the law is to prevent the stealing of
copyrighted material. Even the definition of "stealing" is defined as
taking another person property without permission and violating his
legal rights of ownership.
You're trying to prove that copyright infringement is stealing by using
the phrase "stealing of copyrighted material". The legal definition of
stealing does not allow it to be used like this.
Now, you want to confuse the issue by saying "copyright infringement" is
duplicating something authored without the permission of the copyright
holder, but it's not stealing -- instead, it's violating his rights of
ownership, which has the same definition as does the act of stealing.
You cannot "own" copyrighted material. You have control over it, not
ownership.
Stealing: taking another person property without permission and
violating his legal rights of ownership.
Copyright infringement: taking another person property without
permission and violating his legal rights of ownership.
I don't see much difference.
That's because you wrote the definitions. More accurately...
Stealing: the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another
with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it
Copyright infringement: using material created by another person that is
under copyright protection without that persons permission
Copyright is not property, it's a legal protection.
And for that, I am accused of having no morality and values.
I don't think anyone has accused you of that, but saying what you have,
leaves us with the obvious conclusion that you don't recognize copyright
infringement as stealing -- and that does cast a long shadow as to
morality and values.
This is not an issue of morality. Whether you believe creative works
should be protected or not doesn't change the fact that legally speaking
copyright infringement is not the same as stealing. Likewise it does not
matter if you believe copyright infringement is a moral sin (whatever
your definition of a moral sin is).
Legally speaking, and I'd love to see a legal reference that disputes
this, copyright infringement is not stealing.
PS: I said I wouldn't get back into this argument, but your claims are
just absurd.
In my opinion so are yours. This is not an issue of morality, it's a
simple issue of language. Think about this... if I were to be accused of
copyright theft, surely I've stolen the right to control the material
because it's the control that copyright provides, not the material
itself. That simple 2-word phrase makes no sense at all. Here's hoping
that made my point of view a bit clearer.
-Stut
[1]
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/reduction/saferhomes/safehome/safe1.htm
--
http://stut.net/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tedd wrote:
But, the importance here is one of euphemism.
Calling the act of stealing something more palatable, such as copyright
infringement, simply makes it easier to do.
Conversely, calling the act of copyright infringement something less
palatable, such as stealing, simply makes it harder to do.
That's a very curious comment. Do you really think people who are
actively infringing copyright really care what you call it?
In my mind copyright infringement is no better or worse a crime than
stealing.
And, legally speaking, what you call it makes a world of difference. The
punishments for stealing are very different to those for copyright
infringement. If they were the same thing then surely the potential
punishments would be the same?
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 3:14 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote:
This conversation is getting pointless guys. The argument being had
is about whether copyright infringement should be called stealing or
theft. Personally I don't believe it should, but going back and
forth on a public mailing list is not going to do anyone .
To summarise...
* Nobody thinks copyright infringement is a good thing and nobody is
denying that it causes harm to every layer of the commercial chain
that exists to create and publish copyrighted work
* A lot of people believe copyright infringement should not be
called theft, and those who do not seem unwilling to see the
difference
* Comparisons in this arena are always full of holes so stop trying
to use them
I believe both sides have adequately explained their position and
justification, and it's now turning into a game of tennis. Can we
please leave it alone now and get back to making something worthy of
being copied?
-Stut
I agree with your summation, both sides are rooted in their position
and such discussion is pointless.
But, the importance here is one of euphemism.
Calling the act of stealing something more palatable, such as
copyright infringement, simply makes it easier to do.
Conversely, calling the act of copyright infringement something less
palatable, such as stealing, simply makes it harder to do.
So, pick a side and live with it.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote:
> The opposite of BUYING is STEALING
I think you meant SELLING.
--
Crayon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 12:50 AM +0800 7/31/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote:
The opposite of BUYING is STEALING
I think you meant SELLING.
--
Crayon
Crayon:
No, if you want something that you don't have -- you have three
choices: a) go without; b) BUY it; c) STEAL it.
Cheers,
tedd
PS: In this, BUY means to preform to the expectations of the owner
for purchase.
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So, when a person travels to some unfamiliar place, and said person wants to
have a car for private transportation purposes and does not have one nearby,
said person must:
a) go without; b) BUY it; c) STEAL it.
What I'm trying to say here is: "Kindly stop polluting my mailbox with this
ridiculous, unhelpful, off-topic nonsense."
Regards,
Carlton Whitehead
----- Original Message -----
From: "tedd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Crayon Shin Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:08:51 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 12:50 AM +0800 7/31/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
>On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote:
>
>> The opposite of BUYING is STEALING
>
>I think you meant SELLING.
>
>--
>Crayon
Crayon:
No, if you want something that you don't have -- you have three
choices: a) go without; b) BUY it; c) STEAL it.
Cheers,
tedd
PS: In this, BUY means to preform to the expectations of the owner
for purchase.
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 14:08 -0400, tedd wrote:
> At 12:50 AM +0800 7/31/07, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
> >On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote:
> >
> >> The opposite of BUYING is STEALING
> >
> >I think you meant SELLING.
> >
> >--
> >Crayon
>
> Crayon:
>
> No, if you want something that you don't have -- you have three
> choices: a) go without; b) BUY it; c) STEAL it.
You forgot Rent, Lease, Win and a whole slew of other transferral
systems. At any rate, wasn't the entire North American continent stolen?
If I were a religious man I'd quote the phrase:
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and
unto God the things that are God’s"
But I'm not (even though I did just quote it ;). More appropriate to the
world of today is the following quote:
"All your base are belong to us".
Ownership is an illusion... What you have may be taken away at anytime
by the state (be it your own state or a victorious state that just
subjugated your previous state).
Moving along to the philosophical... anything that exists is merely a
permutation of what might exist. Don't expect that only one living
entity can envision such a permutation.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I want to convert some ASP pages to PHP to go along with a transition from IIS
to Apache. One of the ASP script functions involves reading data from the
Windows registry. How does one read from the registry with PHP?
Also, is it possible to use ActiveX objects with PHP? The above mentioned script
uses a third party control to facilitate the registry operations. The VBScript
code looks like this:
Set objRegistry = CreateObject("RegObj.Registry")
Is there a PHP equivalent?
This newbie thanks you.
--
Crash
--- End Message ---
![http://domain.com/images/1.jpg"](http://domain.com/images/1.jpg"){kind=link}