Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Some light humour: http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm Cheers, Rob. Hey, I usually find your humour postings pretty funny but didnt find that in the least bit funny... :( Cheers! R -- - The faulty interface lies between the chair and the keyboard. - Creativity is great, but plagiarism is faster! - Smile, everyone loves a moron. :-) Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Some light humour: http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm I usually find your humour postings pretty funny but didnt find that in the least bit funny... :( Can't please everyone all of the time. Maybe you didn't get the joke :B Certainly it had be ROFLMFAO. Holy crap, that was funny! It reminded me a lot of The Euthyphro. :) thnx, Chris -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 04:29 -0700, Ryan A wrote: Some light humour: http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm Cheers, Rob. Hey, I usually find your humour postings pretty funny but didnt find that in the least bit funny... :( Can't please everyone all of the time. Maybe you didn't get the joke :B Certainly it had be ROFLMFAO. Cheers, Rob. -- ... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Can't please everyone all of the time. Maybe you didn't get the joke :B Certainly it had be ROFLMFAO. Well..., to each his own :) Have a nice day! R -- - The faulty interface lies between the chair and the keyboard. - Creativity is great, but plagiarism is faster! - Smile, everyone loves a moron. :-) Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 3:44 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote: On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 15:33 -0400, tedd wrote: At 8:23 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote: tedd wrote: At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote: 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). But illusion all we have. There is no truth in perception. Then there is no truth in anything for all things are based on perception. -Stut You are now one with the universe. We are all one with the universe and at the same time not one with the universe. Cheers, Rob. Yes Yoda. :-) tedd -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 8:53 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote: tedd wrote: Don't expect that only one living entity can envision such a permutation. Don't expect anyone with our limitations to be capable to determine the truth of that statement. The phone was independently envisioned by two distinct humans at the same time. The same is true of calculus. So you are wrong, we are capable of determine the validity of the statement by the existence of such events in history. -snip- No, I was addressing a concept deeper than that. The only one who can envision such a permutation is God, not man. Your previous paragraph mentioned permutation of what might exist -- which would be infinite. The only living entity that fills that bill is God. Now, you may argue that, but it's not a topic for this list. Indeed not, but I must point out your assumption that God exists which is in no way a certainty regardless of your beliefs. -Stut Yes, but that's why it's called faith. tedd -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
tedd wrote: At 8:53 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote: tedd wrote: Don't expect that only one living entity can envision such a permutation. Don't expect anyone with our limitations to be capable to determine the truth of that statement. The phone was independently envisioned by two distinct humans at the same time. The same is true of calculus. So you are wrong, we are capable of determine the validity of the statement by the existence of such events in history. -snip- No, I was addressing a concept deeper than that. The only one who can envision such a permutation is God, not man. Your previous paragraph mentioned permutation of what might exist -- which would be infinite. The only living entity that fills that bill is God. Now, you may argue that, but it's not a topic for this list. Indeed not, but I must point out your assumption that God exists which is in no way a certainty regardless of your beliefs. -Stut Yes, but that's why it's called faith. My point was that it makes no sense to try and prove or demonstrate anything using God because the existance of God itself cannot be proven or demonstrated. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 7:28 PM -0500 7/30/07, Larry Garfield wrote: On Monday 30 July 2007, tedd wrote: 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? Actually no, property law didn't really come in until civilization, some 5000 years ago, which is rather small on the scale of dawn of mankind. Mankind has been on this Earth for more than a million years. Mankind's first known works of art were published in the caves of Altamira and Lascaux 15,000 to 10,000 B.C. Physical sculpted items such as the Venus of Willendorf were things that certainly could be passed down to descendants. Are you telling me that the son of that artist did not claim ownership of that item after his father died? That doesn't seem reasonable. If you're father died, wouldn't you want to inherit his work? That seems more reasonable to me. copyright didn't exist until perhaps 5 centuries ago in England, and covered just publication, and was for less than 20 years. Copyright being long enough term for inheritance to matter is less than a century. Over the scale of human history, unrestricted information flow has been the rule, not the exception. Over the scale of history, it was usually the strongest who took what they wanted. But what you're suggesting is that legalized extortion should be inheritable. Copyright is, fundamentally, legalized extortion as a means of promoting the progress of Science and the Useful Arts. Extortion? Are you saying that anyone who owes a copyright is obtaining money through force or threats? That sounds strange. Do you keep paying the guy who built your TV every time you watch something on it? Do you keep paying the company that built your house every time you move? Do you pay your teachers from college every time you use something you learned there? Do you pay your dentist every time you eat? No, I pay them for their service. The same way I pay for a book or software. Your points are getting stranger. This from the man who just claimed that perpetual copyright for all decedents of an artist was a fundamental part of human existence for as long as they've been humans. Can we stick to facts when making logical arguments rather than completely made up nonsense? I didn't say perpetual, but the rest is basically common sense. In Geology there is an axiom that says The present is the key to the past -- while it's not perfect, it does seem to work surprisingly well. I don't think that mankind 15,000 years ago was that much different than today and if today's descendants are fighting over their parent's processions now, then I don't think that it's unreasonable to project that conduct back 15,000 years and make a statement to that effect. So, it's not made up nonsense. Besides, that's the way I remember it. Cheers, tedd -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 08:42 -0400, tedd wrote: At 3:44 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote: On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 15:33 -0400, tedd wrote: At 8:23 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote: tedd wrote: At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote: 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). But illusion all we have. There is no truth in perception. Then there is no truth in anything for all things are based on perception. -Stut You are now one with the universe. We are all one with the universe and at the same time not one with the universe. Cheers, Rob. Yes Yoda. :-) I always did figure Yoda to be a buddhist :) Cheers, Rob. -- ... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 1:50 PM +0100 7/31/07, Stut wrote: tedd wrote: Yes, but that's why it's called faith. My point was that it makes no sense to try and prove or demonstrate anything using God because the existance of God itself cannot be proven or demonstrated. -Stut I wasn't trying to prove anything using God. His mention came about when a feat was described that I believed to be beyond human capabilities, and thus brought to mind God. I agree that the existence of God itself cannot be proven or demonstrated -- to some. But, at least to one, the proof obvious. :-) Cheers, tedd -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Tuesday 31 July 2007, tedd wrote: At 7:28 PM -0500 7/30/07, Larry Garfield wrote: On Monday 30 July 2007, tedd wrote: 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? Actually no, property law didn't really come in until civilization, some 5000 years ago, which is rather small on the scale of dawn of mankind. Mankind has been on this Earth for more than a million years. Mankind's first known works of art were published in the caves of Altamira and Lascaux 15,000 to 10,000 B.C. Physical sculpted items such as the Venus of Willendorf were things that certainly could be passed down to descendants. Are you telling me that the son of that artist did not claim ownership of that item after his father died? That doesn't seem reasonable. If you're father died, wouldn't you want to inherit his work? That seems more reasonable to me. ... Yes, I am telling you exactly that. Historically there was no concept of property until the development of civilization. The only restrictions on information from then until ~500 years ago where inter-national (don't tell the insert other guys here how our catapults work) and by the Church (don't let the lay people understand how it works, because then the priesthood isn't as cool). The concept of publication didn't exist for cave paintings. Nor did it exist for early songs sung around a camp fire, nor for the traveling minstrels of Europe. They shared songs regularly, because it improved their repertoire and because their songs also doubled as a news service. Commercial publication didn't exist as a concept until after the invention of the printing press, which is when copyright was invented in order to protect the business of the publishers. Seriously dude, read up on your history. But what you're suggesting is that legalized extortion should be inheritable. Copyright is, fundamentally, legalized extortion as a means of promoting the progress of Science and the Useful Arts. Extortion? Are you saying that anyone who owes a copyright is obtaining money through force or threats? That sounds strange. Yes, the force of the government and courts. That's why it's a government-granted monopoly. It's a government-granted monopoly that serves a legitimate purpose, but absent that force information flows freely and replicates itself as it passes from person to person. Restricting that flow of information to create a profit motive is an artificial creation of very recent legal systems. That's the point that we've been making all along. It allows authors (well, copyright holders) to extort money for their work for a limited time in return for making it public after that time has passed. Do you keep paying the guy who built your TV every time you watch something on it? Do you keep paying the company that built your house every time you move? Do you pay your teachers from college every time you use something you learned there? Do you pay your dentist every time you eat? No, I pay them for their service. The same way I pay for a book or software. Your points are getting stranger. If a plumber fixes your toilet, he gets paid once. If a writer writes a book, he gets paid n times, where n is a (hopefully for him) ever-increasing number. His children then can continue to get paid n times, long after he's dead, having done absolutely nothing. The plumber's kids, however, have to go out and get their own jobs. You're saying that's fair and equitable? In Geology there is an axiom that says The present is the key to the past -- while it's not perfect, it does seem to work surprisingly well. Well golly gee, good thing we're talking about geology. I don't think that mankind 15,000 years ago was that much different than today and if today's descendants are fighting over their parent's processions now, then I don't think that it's unreasonable to project that conduct back 15,000 years and make a statement to that effect. So, it's not made up nonsense. Besides, that's the way I remember it. You remember 15,000 years ago? That explains it, you must be getting senile! :-) And actually it is unreasonable to project modern social attitudes back thousands of years. It's a mistake that sham historians make on a regular basis. They're still wrong. In history, studying the past is the key to understanding the present, because you see where things developed from. No, people even 100 years ago did not think the same way we did. People today in other parts of the world do not think the same way we do in Euro-America. Taking the past out of its historical context is a guaranteed way to have no idea what you're talking about and to make claims that are completely and totally wrong. As
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 21:37, tedd wrote: Extortion? Are you saying that anyone who owes a copyright is obtaining money through force or threats? That sounds strange. Wow, it seems you haven't heard of the RIAA and their racketeering. -- Crayon -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 22:21, Larry Garfield wrote: Commercial publication didn't exist as a concept until after the invention of the printing press, which is when copyright was invented in order to protect the business of the publishers. Presumably you're talking about Europe, because in China where the printing press was invented I don't think they enacted any copyright laws until much much much later. -- Crayon -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
--- Crayon Shin Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote: The opposite of BUYING is STEALING I think you meant SELLING. Actually to make things easier just lets add a NOT eg: The opposite of BUYING is NOT BUYING Ok, I admit it, am bored and came back to the list after 3 days and see this thread still going strong... had to atleast give it a bump ;) Cheers! R -- - The faulty interface lies between the chair and the keyboard. - Creativity is great, but plagiarism is faster! - Smile, everyone loves a moron. :-) Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Yes, but that's why it's called faith. My point was that it makes no sense to try and prove or demonstrate anything using God because the existance of God itself cannot be proven or demonstrated. Stut, There will be a demonstration of god's existance in a little while, please look up when you are burning and I am sipping nector. Sorry, couldnt resist, no offense meant ;) Cheers! R -- - The faulty interface lies between the chair and the keyboard. - Creativity is great, but plagiarism is faster! - Smile, everyone loves a moron. :-) Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
You have a right to your belief, but that doesn't make your belief right. This works both ways. Oh yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad. Well, get both your dads together coz my dad can beat both of them up. Reasoning, I'm pretty young compared to most of you guys so my dad is younger than your dads plus i'll secretly give him a baseball bat... ;) Cheers! R P.S no guns allowed in this discussion -- - The faulty interface lies between the chair and the keyboard. - Creativity is great, but plagiarism is faster! - Smile, everyone loves a moron. :-) Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Ryan A wrote: Yes, but that's why it's called faith. My point was that it makes no sense to try and prove or demonstrate anything using God because the existance of God itself cannot be proven or demonstrated. Stut, There will be a demonstration of god's existance in a little while, please look up when you are burning and I am sipping nector. That would also be the day the devil drives to work in a snow plough right? Sorry, couldnt resist, no offense meant ;) None taken. My beliefs are my beliefs and yours are yours, and you are entitled to say anything you want, as am I. If you prefer to lead a blinkered life go ahead, but I prefer to use my head to find my way through life rather than live by the teachings of a bunch of fiction written by men. If this God really thinks that makes me unworthy that's its business. I really don't want anything to do with any entity that thinks like that. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Hey! Sorry, couldnt resist, no offense meant ;) None taken. My beliefs are my beliefs and yours are yours Yep, and what I said was in jest, and you took it in jest.End of discussion between us :) Am just replying to anyone else who's reading this, please lets not fork this into a god discussion too ;) Cheers! Ryan -- - The faulty interface lies between the chair and the keyboard. - Creativity is great, but plagiarism is faster! - Smile, everyone loves a moron. :-) Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Larry Garfield wrote: If a plumber fixes your toilet, he gets paid once. A plumber came recently to fix our hot water system. It took him less than one hour. He got paid about $100. If a writer writes a book, he gets paid n times, where n is a (hopefully for him) ever-increasing number. I write a book (actually, I've written several). It takes me on average seven or eight months' full-time work. You buy a copy of my book, I get $1.50-$2.25. For me to get the same rate of pay as a plumber, I would need to sell 70,000 copies of each book. I should be so lucky. David Powers -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On 8/1/07, David Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Larry Garfield wrote: If a plumber fixes your toilet, he gets paid once. A plumber came recently to fix our hot water system. It took him less than one hour. He got paid about $100. If a writer writes a book, he gets paid n times, where n is a (hopefully for him) ever-increasing number. I write a book (actually, I've written several). It takes me on average seven or eight months' full-time work. You buy a copy of my book, I get $1.50-$2.25. For me to get the same rate of pay as a plumber, I would need to sell 70,000 copies of each book. I should be so lucky. David Powers Yes, and the president gets a lot more Tijnema -- Vote for PHP Color Coding in Gmail! - http://gpcc.tijnema.info -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 9:21 AM -0500 7/31/07, Larry Garfield wrote: Disclaimer: Yes, I was raised by a pair of college history professors. :-) Ahhh, that explains it. Cheers, tedd PS: I'm done. -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 14:29 -0700, Ryan A wrote: Hey! Sorry, couldnt resist, no offense meant ;) None taken. My beliefs are my beliefs and yours are yours Yep, and what I said was in jest, and you took it in jest.End of discussion between us :) Am just replying to anyone else who's reading this, please lets not fork this into a god discussion too ;) Some light humour: http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm Cheers, Rob. -- ... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
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 -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
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/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
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 -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
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/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
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 -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote: The opposite of BUYING is STEALING I think you meant SELLING. -- Crayon -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
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], php-general@lists.php.net 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 -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
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! ... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Crayon Shin Chan wrote: On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote: The opposite of BUYING is STEALING I think you meant SELLING. I think he meant alternative not opposite. I'd laugh for years if someone tried to defend the position that stealing is the opposite of buying. Then I'd send them back to school to start again. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
tedd wrote: At 5:46 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote: 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? I don't know what they think, and neither do you. But I do believe that if I raised my son with the idea of stealing software was not really stealing, but rather copyright infringement I think he would have a different view in acquiring it -- is that not common sense? Stealing software - that would be walking into a shop and taking a box of software. Not the same as downloading it from a pirate website. My personal view is that it's important that we don't dumb things down for children, and in my opinion calling copyright infringement stealing is dumbing it down so you don't have to explain the difference. In my mind copyright infringement is no better or worse a crime than stealing. Ok, we agree that copyright infringement is as bad as stealing. If it looks like a duck Corporate manslaughter and murder? I would get very worried if we started treating those the same! 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? The punishments for any crime vary regardless of what you call it -- that's in the guts of the legal system. I'm not using the failings of our legal system to make any point, I'm just stating the obvious. And the obvious here is that if you deny rights to another, then you are stealing something. No, you're not. If I imprison you am I stealing from you? No. Again I'm forced to repeat the basic point... stealing involves a thing, copyright involves a legal protection mechanism. I cannot steal a legal protection mechanism, but I can infringe it. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 5:46 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote: 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? I don't know what they think, and neither do you. But I do believe that if I raised my son with the idea of stealing software was not really stealing, but rather copyright infringement I think he would have a different view in acquiring it -- is that not common sense? In my mind copyright infringement is no better or worse a crime than stealing. Ok, we agree that copyright infringement is as bad as stealing. If it looks like a duck 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? The punishments for any crime vary regardless of what you call it -- that's in the guts of the legal system. I'm not using the failings of our legal system to make any point, I'm just stating the obvious. And the obvious here is that if you deny rights to another, then you are stealing something. Cheers, tedd -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 5:43 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote: 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. Well, when I *use* my neighbor's car without his authorization it's called stealing This is the fundamental difference between copyright infringement and theft. Usage is not ownership, and you cannot steal usage. Usage is ALL you can steal regardless of what it is you're stealing. Ownership is only a concept that is provided, or prohibited, by society. You cannot steal ownership of anything. You can deny the lawful owner the use of the item stolen, OR diminish it's use, OR do something that devalues the object, but you cannot steal ownership of the object. The object, unless returned to the owner, will always be stolen and the act of stealing it makes you a thief. 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. [1] Of course it is. The unlawful appropriation of copyrighted material permanently denies the author payment or whatever terms the author considers required for it's distribution. Furthermore, it permanently degrades the marketability potential of the copyrighted material. Both of those real and tangible damages that the author can pursue in court -- do you deny that? So, if you are stealing code, you are permanently depriving the author of full use of his work product. You do not have to steal everything to steal something. You have a right to your belief, but that doesn't make your belief right. This works both ways. Oh yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad. 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. Of course you're being permanently deprived -- I described how above. 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 will agree that the copyright system is not perfect when considering how people can view stealing as something other than what it is. 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. Certainly, stealing an idea is possible -- that's the reason behind patent laws and laws protecting intellectual properties. Ideas are the foundation of advancement for our society and of course they can be stolen. It so common it's a clique. Again, I don't understand why we have to debate the obvious? You cannot own copyrighted material. You have control over it, not ownership. So, you are saying that an author does not own his work product? Microsoft does not own Word? They only have control of it? So Microsoft dumps tons of money into programmers to produce control -- and the IRS accepts this expenditure as a deductible expense? I don't think so, I think Microsoft is producing and selling a product -- a product that can be (and is) stolen. Legally speaking, and I'd love to see a legal reference that disputes this, copyright infringement is not stealing. I seldom look to the law to determine what's right and wrong -- the law is certainly not my moral compass. Besides, the law has enough problems determining what's right and wrong itself. Instead, I look to common sense and upbringing -- from childhood I've been taught that if I take something that's not mine, it's stealing. A very basic childhood concept that some have apparently lost or misplaced in the technical complexities of today. 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. OK, then you think about this -- you are stealing the right of control OVER the item you took. Clearly, after you steal the item, then you can do anything you want with it; you can give it away; use it for your own use; publish it on a web site free for everyone to download -- is that not true? As such, you DO have control over the item you stole and thus have stolen control. Control does not have to be complete, total, and absolute to constitute stealing. If someone steals my car and I have control over a tracking device attached to it, does it make their act any less of a theft? Of course not. I don't
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote: 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: And you forgot my PS, which read; PS: In this, BUY means to preform to the expectations of the owner for purchase. Expectations of the owner could mean Rent, Lease, Win and a whole slew of other transferral systems. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's Yes, but that was Christ answer to a question of paying taxes, was it not? 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). But illusion all we have. There is no truth in perception. Moving along to the philosophical... anything that exists is merely a permutation of what might exist. More accurately, what doesn't exist is merely a permutation in variations in the theme of what does. Don't expect that only one living entity can envision such a permutation. Don't expect anyone with our limitations to be capable to determine the truth of that statement. Cheers, tedd -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
tedd wrote: At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote: 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). But illusion all we have. There is no truth in perception. Then there is no truth in anything for all things are based on perception. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 7:37 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote: Crayon Shin Chan wrote: On Monday 30 July 2007 23:49, tedd wrote: The opposite of BUYING is STEALING I think you meant SELLING. I think he meant alternative not opposite. I'd laugh for years if someone tried to defend the position that stealing is the opposite of buying. Then I'd send them back to school to start again. -Stut Give me a break Stut -- address what I said, not what's taken out of context. Have we resorted to a rush to judgement regardless of what was actually said or intended to support a point of view and discredit/demean the opposite view? You're better than that. Cheers, tedd -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 15:06 -0400, tedd wrote: At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote: On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 14:08 -0400, tedd wrote: At 12:50 AM +0800 7/31/07, Crayon Shin Chan Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's Yes, but that was Christ answer to a question of paying taxes, was it not? That doesn't change it's applicability beyond the realm of taxes. 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). But illusion all we have. There is no truth in perception. No, we don't all have the illusion. I am in no way under the illusion, but I do find myself disinclined to pursue change :) Moving along to the philosophical... anything that exists is merely a permutation of what might exist. More accurately, what doesn't exist is merely a permutation in variations in the theme of what does. There is no more accuracy in the above statement. It is the complement of the former statement... although you worded it quite strangely. Don't expect that only one living entity can envision such a permutation. Don't expect anyone with our limitations to be capable to determine the truth of that statement. The phone was independently envisioned by two distinct humans at the same time. The same is true of calculus. So you are wrong, we are capable of determine the validity of the statement by the existence of such events in history. Let's just say that all that is owned is owned because one or more creatures died so that ownership could be enforced. Yes, you may go to Walmart and buy your CD, but the resources that built Walmart, that built your CD, that built the stereos that play the CD, or the computer, or what have you, were created from resources that at one time in existence were freely available to all creatures upon this planet. The entire principle of ownership is based on misery. Cheers, Rob. -- ... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 8:23 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote: tedd wrote: At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote: 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). But illusion all we have. There is no truth in perception. Then there is no truth in anything for all things are based on perception. -Stut You are now one with the universe. Cheers, tedd -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 20:23 +0100, Stut wrote: tedd wrote: At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote: 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). But illusion all we have. There is no truth in perception. Then there is no truth in anything for all things are based on perception. The concepts of ownership and copyright both rely on perception... :) Cheers, Rob. -- ... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Robert Cummings wrote: On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 20:23 +0100, Stut wrote: tedd wrote: At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote: 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). But illusion all we have. There is no truth in perception. Then there is no truth in anything for all things are based on perception. The concepts of ownership and copyright both rely on perception... As does gravity. I'm done now, there really is no point continuing and I dunno about anyone else but I have better things to do. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 20:35 +0100, Stut wrote: Robert Cummings wrote: On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 20:23 +0100, Stut wrote: tedd wrote: At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote: 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). But illusion all we have. There is no truth in perception. Then there is no truth in anything for all things are based on perception. The concepts of ownership and copyright both rely on perception... As does gravity. I'm done now, there really is no point continuing and I dunno about anyone else but I have better things to do. Like fly right? :B Cheers, Rob. -- ... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 15:33 -0400, tedd wrote: At 8:23 PM +0100 7/30/07, Stut wrote: tedd wrote: At 2:30 PM -0400 7/30/07, Robert Cummings wrote: 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). But illusion all we have. There is no truth in perception. Then there is no truth in anything for all things are based on perception. -Stut You are now one with the universe. We are all one with the universe and at the same time not one with the universe. Cheers, Rob. -- ... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Don't expect that only one living entity can envision such a permutation. Don't expect anyone with our limitations to be capable to determine the truth of that statement. The phone was independently envisioned by two distinct humans at the same time. The same is true of calculus. So you are wrong, we are capable of determine the validity of the statement by the existence of such events in history. -snip- No, I was addressing a concept deeper than that. The only one who can envision such a permutation is God, not man. Your previous paragraph mentioned permutation of what might exist -- which would be infinite. The only living entity that fills that bill is God. Now, you may argue that, but it's not a topic for this list. Cheers, tedd -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
tedd wrote: Don't expect that only one living entity can envision such a permutation. Don't expect anyone with our limitations to be capable to determine the truth of that statement. The phone was independently envisioned by two distinct humans at the same time. The same is true of calculus. So you are wrong, we are capable of determine the validity of the statement by the existence of such events in history. -snip- No, I was addressing a concept deeper than that. The only one who can envision such a permutation is God, not man. Your previous paragraph mentioned permutation of what might exist -- which would be infinite. The only living entity that fills that bill is God. Now, you may argue that, but it's not a topic for this list. Indeed not, but I must point out your assumption that God exists which is in no way a certainty regardless of your beliefs. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 15:44 -0400, tedd wrote: Don't expect that only one living entity can envision such a permutation. Don't expect anyone with our limitations to be capable to determine the truth of that statement. The phone was independently envisioned by two distinct humans at the same time. The same is true of calculus. So you are wrong, we are capable of determine the validity of the statement by the existence of such events in history. -snip- No, I was addressing a concept deeper than that. The only one who can envision such a permutation is God, not man. Your previous paragraph mentioned permutation of what might exist -- which would be infinite. The only living entity that fills that bill is God. We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world. Now, you may argue that, but it's not a topic for this list. Copyright is not a topic for this list either. Now bow your head in shame and allow for this ridiculous thread to die :) Cheers, Rob. -- ... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Monday 30 July 2007, David Powers wrote: 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 It's supposed to be a nonsensical comparison. :-) I was pointing out that the copyright infringement == taking without giving money statement was false because of examples like PHP itself. 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. Nor do I. Some degree of copyright infringement will always exist, and changes in technology increase the ease with which copying (legal or illegal) can occur. The solution, in my opinion, is to revise copyright law such that more typical behavior has a better chance of benefiting the original author/artist without creating a hostile environment for the the end user. That is, make casual pirates into customers. As long as we hold onto the OMG he copied a CD it's stealing send him to prison for a decade! mentality, though, that cannot happen. And no, that won't do anything about professional pirates, the groups who duplicate illicitly for profit. I am perfectly happy with them behind bars. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On 7/31/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 30 July 2007, David Powers wrote: 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 It's supposed to be a nonsensical comparison. :-) I was pointing out that the copyright infringement == taking without giving money statement was false because of examples like PHP itself. 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. Nor do I. Some degree of copyright infringement will always exist, and changes in technology increase the ease with which copying (legal or illegal) can occur. The solution, in my opinion, is to revise copyright law such that more typical behavior has a better chance of benefiting the original author/artist without creating a hostile environment for the the end user. That is, make casual pirates into customers. As long as we hold onto the OMG he copied a CD it's stealing send him to prison for a decade! mentality, though, that cannot happen. And no, that won't do anything about professional pirates, the groups who duplicate illicitly for profit. I am perfectly happy with them behind bars. Yeah, put all those CD Copiers in jail... LOL, all those CD Copiers would fit in one big jail as big as the whole USA Tijnema -- Vote for PHP Color Coding in Gmail! - http://gpcc.tijnema.info -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Monday 30 July 2007, tedd wrote: 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. So jay-walking (illegal, you do not have permission to do it) is now stealing, because it's something you're not granted permission to do? 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. And, I doubt that the organizations you site actually agree with you. I have personally spoken to both Larry Lessig (Creative Commons) and Richard Stallman (FSF) on the subject, and feel confident in saying that both agree with the distinction. Lessig doesn't feel it's an issue worth pursuing when there are bigger fish to fry. I respectfully disagree. 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? Actually no, property law didn't really come in until civilization, some 5000 years ago, which is rather small on the scale of dawn of mankind. And copyright didn't exist until perhaps 5 centuries ago in England, and covered just publication, and was for less than 20 years. Copyright being long enough term for inheritance to matter is less than a century. Over the scale of human history, unrestricted information flow has been the rule, not the exception. But what you're suggesting is that legalized extortion should be inheritable. Copyright is, fundamentally, legalized extortion as a means of promoting the progress of Science and the Useful Arts. Do you keep paying the guy who built your TV every time you watch something on it? Do you keep paying the company that built your house every time you move? Do you pay your teachers from college every time you use something you learned there? Do you pay your dentist every time you eat? 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. I will simply leave the above snippet in place, as I think it speaks for itself. tedd PS: I said I wouldn't get back into this argument, but your claims are just absurd. This from the man who just claimed that perpetual copyright for all decedents of an artist was a fundamental part of human existence for as long as they've been humans. Can we stick to facts when making logical arguments rather than completely made up nonsense? -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online? - ENOUGH ALREADY
On 7/31/07, Chris Aitken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on folks is this a thread that really needs to be duked out here? It's a bit ridiculous having legal issues regarding copyright (and whatever else has been brought up) by a collection of (mostly) legally untrained computer nerds (I include myself in the nerd category so get off the flame button). Let it die already. There's more important things to waste bandwidth on... like discussing ... I dunno who's hotter... Oprah Winfrey or Roseanne? Regards Chris Aitken The Web Hub Designer and Programmer Phone : 02 4648 0808 Mobile : 0411 132 075 I agree with 5000% with you, this is a PHP list, and of course threads get OT sometimes, but this is really too much OT, and there's no solution for the problem ;) Tijnema - Making The Web Work The Web Hub http://www.thewebhub.com.au/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Confidentiality Statement: This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEDGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately. -Original Message- From: Larry Garfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2007 10:28 AM To: php-general@lists.php.net Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online? On Monday 30 July 2007, tedd wrote: 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. So jay-walking (illegal, you do not have permission to do it) is now stealing, because it's something you're not granted permission to do? 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. And, I doubt that the organizations you site actually agree with you. I have personally spoken to both Larry Lessig (Creative Commons) and Richard Stallman (FSF) on the subject, and feel confident in saying that both agree with the distinction. Lessig doesn't feel it's an issue worth pursuing when there are bigger fish to fry. I respectfully disagree. 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? Actually no, property law didn't really come in until civilization, some 5000 years ago, which is rather small on the scale of dawn of mankind. And copyright didn't exist until perhaps 5 centuries ago in England, and covered just publication, and was for less than 20 years. Copyright being long enough term for inheritance to matter is less than a century. Over the scale of human history, unrestricted information flow has been the rule, not the exception. But what you're suggesting is that legalized extortion should be inheritable. Copyright is, fundamentally, legalized extortion as a means of promoting the progress of Science and the Useful Arts. Do you keep paying the guy who built your TV every time you watch something on it? Do you keep paying the company that built your house every time you move? Do you pay your teachers from college every time you use something you learned there? Do you pay your dentist every time you eat? 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. I will simply leave the above snippet in place, as I think it speaks for itself. tedd PS: I said I wouldn't get back into this argument, but your claims are just absurd. This from the man who just claimed that perpetual copyright for all decedents of an artist was a fundamental part of human existence for as long as they've been humans. Can we stick to facts when making logical arguments rather than completely made up nonsense? -- Larry GarfieldAIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 02:08, tedd wrote: No, if you want something that you don't have -- you have three choices: a) go without; b) BUY it; c) STEAL it. Rubbish. You can borrow, lease, hire purchase, rent, and there are probably other options as well. -- Crayon -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Tuesday 31 July 2007 02:45, tedd wrote: Well, when I *use* my neighbor's car without his authorization it's called stealing If your intention was not to keep the car on a permenant basis then you would probably be prosecuted for joyriding rather than stealing. How? Nobody is not being permanently deprived of the content you are using in an unauthorised fashion. Of course you're being permanently deprived -- I described how above. The whole phrase as quoted above is being permanently deprived of the _content_. What you described does NOT deprive the author/originator of his/her content. Certainly, stealing an idea is possible -- that's the reason behind patent laws and laws protecting intellectual properties. Ideas are the foundation of advancement for our society and of course they can be stolen. It so common it's a clique. Unfortunately the present patent and copyright laws are much abused and instead of promoting advancement in society they hinder it. I seldom look to the law to determine what's right and wrong -- the law is certainly not my moral compass. Besides, the law has enough problems determining what's right and wrong itself. But you've been forever quoting points of law to backup your arguments as to what is right or wrong. OK, then you think about this -- you are stealing the right of control OVER the item you took. Clearly, after you steal the item, then you can do anything you want with it; you can give it away; use it for your own use; publish it on a web site free for everyone to download -- is that not true? As such, you DO have control over the item you stole and thus have stolen control. How about if you BUY the item in question, does it mean you have BOUGHT control, and hence you're allowed to give it away, sell it etc. -- Crayon -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Really, I had expected more mature commentary from the adults on this list. So did I. I expect adults to display morality and values. Really? Have you hung out with many computer geeks? Oh..wait..morality..I thought you said maturity. Pardon me. :) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Sunday 29 July 2007, Dotan Cohen wrote: On 29/07/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Something can be illegal without it being theft. The idea that if it's not theft then it must be OK is the bullshit argument that I am pointing out as bullshit. That's a valid point, but you are playing lawyer's games. It's not theft, it's QQQ, which is different from theft in X Y and Z. Nobody likes lawyers or their games. Call it what you will, copyright infringement is taking something without paying for it. 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. 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. 3) At no point in this conversation have I ever said that I engage in or support copyright infringement, and I am insulted that you would accuse me of such without any evidence or justification to back it up. You are insinuating it. And you are making things up. I was also accused of supporting copyright infringement earlier in the thread, yet I was not insulted. Don't be so sensitive. There are bigger jerks than me on the Internet. And I was not targeting you specifically. I was targeting your comments. I am pointing out that you are saying things that are *factually inaccurate by the laws of the United States*. And for that you accuse me of copyright infringement and being immoral? That is without a doubt the most offensive comment I've seen on this list so far. I would say I expect an apology, but given that you fall back on insulting someone's ethics just because they don't buy into the same lie that the media cartels have been spreading that you do I won't hold my breath. I never said anything about the laws of the United States. I don't even live there, what do I care about their laws? I am, however, a moral human being, and that is my motivation. I am not as familiar with the laws of Canada, the EU, or Australia (I'm assuming you're probably in one of those), but my understanding is that the law is similar in those countries, except less restrictive on duplication than US laws are; at least for now. Really, I had expected more mature commentary from the adults on this list. So did I. I expect adults to display morality and values. It's not just a simple lawyer game. The distinction does make a difference. Here's why: 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. As many people in this thread have already stated, most artists/authors don't actually benefit from this system. The public certainly doesn't. The only people who actually benefit from it are the Robert Igers (Disney President, CEO, and COO) and Britney Spears of the world. Those people, however, have spent the last 40 years trying to convince people that copyright is really property, and therefore is a moral right as inviolate as Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Witness your own reply, where you quite openly accuse me of not having morality and values because I dare say that copyright infringement is not a mortal sin. You have bought into a lie. 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. 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. At every point, I have pointed out what the law actually says, and why it says it. And for that, I am accused of having no morality and values. Yes, I do take this issue very seriously, as should anyone who
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Saturday 28 July 2007, Dotan Cohen wrote: On 28/07/07, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28/07/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If indirectly affecting the market so that prices change counts as stealing, then Coke and Pepsi build their business models around stealing from each other. Apache/PHP/MySQL are then stealing actual money from Microsoft, because they reduces sales of Windows, IIS, Visual Studio, and MS SQL Server. Great, so that means we should shut down Pepsi to stop them from stealing from Coke, and shut down PHP to stop them from stealing from Microsoft! I would say that shows just what pathetically laughable bullshit that argument is, except that Microsoft has made it publicly before, albeit phrased as defending capitalism. You see why I find it so offensive? Ah, so you are saying that by pirating software/books/music you are creating market competition, which drives the producers to produce higher quality content at affordable prices. I feel so stupid that I didn't see it that way from the beginning. Dotan Cohen It' a lost cause trying to get him to admit that it's stealing. But, I did just hear that same argument from a movie called The Fifth Element where the bad guy was claiming his bad deeds did just that. Cheers, tedd He's probably just trolling. In any case I think that I remember the scene. Wasn't that just before he double-timed his accomplices and gave them a booby-trapped weapon? Lesson to be learned here, don't trust the immoral Dotan Cohen 1) Something can be illegal without it being theft. The idea that if it's not theft then it must be OK is the bullshit argument that I am pointing out as bullshit. 2) No, I am not saying that copyright infringement is a good thing. Perhaps you've heard of a concept called hyperbole. Or one called sarcasm. I was pointing out that if copyright infringement counted as theft from someone else who was paying for a licensed copy of X, then Pepsi having a marketing campaign counted as theft from Coke because of lost sales. Both are equally asinine statements. That's the point. 3) At no point in this conversation have I ever said that I engage in or support copyright infringement, and I am insulted that you would accuse me of such without any evidence or justification to back it up. I am pointing out that you are saying things that are *factually inaccurate by the laws of the United States*. And for that you accuse me of copyright infringement and being immoral? That is without a doubt the most offensive comment I've seen on this list so far. I would say I expect an apology, but given that you fall back on insulting someone's ethics just because they don't buy into the same lie that the media cartels have been spreading that you do I won't hold my breath. Really, I had expected more mature commentary from the adults on this list. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On 29/07/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Something can be illegal without it being theft. The idea that if it's not theft then it must be OK is the bullshit argument that I am pointing out as bullshit. That's a valid point, but you are playing lawyer's games. It's not theft, it's QQQ, which is different from theft in X Y and Z. Nobody likes lawyers or their games. Call it what you will, copyright infringement is taking something without paying for it. 2) No, I am not saying that copyright infringement is a good thing. Perhaps you've heard of a concept called hyperbole. Or one called sarcasm. I was pointing out that if copyright infringement counted as theft from someone else who was paying for a licensed copy of X, then Pepsi having a marketing campaign counted as theft from Coke because of lost sales. Both are equally asinine statements. That's the point. Not a valid analogy. Pepsi is not redistributing Coke's product. They have their own product. If you do take a php book, learn from it, and write your own then I won't call that copyright infringement, theft, or even plagerism if your book is sufficiently different. You could distribute it for free via whatever medium that you like. I'd even support your efforts. 3) At no point in this conversation have I ever said that I engage in or support copyright infringement, and I am insulted that you would accuse me of such without any evidence or justification to back it up. You are insinuating it. I was also accused of supporting copyright infringement earlier in the thread, yet I was not insulted. Don't be so sensitive. There are bigger jerks than me on the Internet. And I was not targeting you specifically. I was targeting your comments. I am pointing out that you are saying things that are *factually inaccurate by the laws of the United States*. And for that you accuse me of copyright infringement and being immoral? That is without a doubt the most offensive comment I've seen on this list so far. I would say I expect an apology, but given that you fall back on insulting someone's ethics just because they don't buy into the same lie that the media cartels have been spreading that you do I won't hold my breath. I never said anything about the laws of the United States. I don't even live there, what do I care about their laws? I am, however, a moral human being, and that is my motivation. Really, I had expected more mature commentary from the adults on this list. So did I. I expect adults to display morality and values. Dotan Cohen http://lyricslist.com/ http://what-is-what.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On 7/26/07, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Man-wai Chang wrote: You could open a sample book in bookstores, scan the chapters to decide whether you are gonna buy it. Not even slightly relevant, but it made me think of this (seemingly neverending) thread. http://xkcd.com/294/ -Stut Haha, good one stut! Tijnema -- Vote for PHP Color Coding in Gmail! - http://gpcc.tijnema.info -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On 7/26/07, Daniel Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/26/07, Tijnema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/26/07, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Man-wai Chang wrote: You could open a sample book in bookstores, scan the chapters to decide whether you are gonna buy it. Not even slightly relevant, but it made me think of this (seemingly neverending) thread. http://xkcd.com/294/ -Stut Haha, good one stut! Tijnema -- Vote for PHP Color Coding in Gmail! - http://gpcc.tijnema.info -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php Christ, I'm the 100th post in this thread and this is even after it forked a couple of times. Hmm, I think you've missed some, mine was #201 according to Gmail :P This one is #202.. Tijnema -- Vote for PHP Color Coding in Gmail! - http://gpcc.tijnema.info -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Man-wai Chang wrote: You could open a sample book in bookstores, scan the chapters to decide whether you are gonna buy it. Not even slightly relevant, but it made me think of this (seemingly neverending) thread. http://xkcd.com/294/ -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On 7/26/07, Tijnema [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/26/07, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Man-wai Chang wrote: You could open a sample book in bookstores, scan the chapters to decide whether you are gonna buy it. Not even slightly relevant, but it made me think of this (seemingly neverending) thread. http://xkcd.com/294/ -Stut Haha, good one stut! Tijnema -- Vote for PHP Color Coding in Gmail! - http://gpcc.tijnema.info -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php Christ, I'm the 100th post in this thread and this is even after it forked a couple of times. -- Daniel P. Brown [office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272 [mobile] (570-) 766-8107 -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On 7/24/07, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am 2007-07-19 19:41:32, schrieb Tijnema: One word: Useless! The watermark can be easily removed, and the guy who puts in on the net will simply remove it, and can't be traced :) Not realy except you know the WHOLE original text. I would put some weird (unknown) phrases into the text.. Greetings Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant See this example: http://rapidshare.com/files/44831440/watermark_text.pdf This is a simple watermark inside a PDF, I tried it with my OCR reader, and it parsed the text about warez (from wikipedia) fine, without reading the watermark. Tijnema -- Vote for PHP Color Coding in Gmail! - http://gpcc.tijnema.info -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Sat, July 21, 2007 3:40 am, Crayon Shin Chan wrote: On Saturday 21 July 2007 08:58, Richard Lynch wrote: In the olden days, it often turned into slash the cover and donate it and collect tax break, I do believe, but I think that practice was decried and has decreased. Just curious, which part was decried: slash the cover or donate it and collect tax break or collect tax break? The combination of: A) getting back the total money paid, and B) declaring a text break for the cost of the book It's kinda not kosher under IRS rules, I don't think... But, heh, I don't know for sure. I've sort of put together disparate comments from several people into a theory on this... -- Some people have a gift link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Saturday 21 July 2007 08:58, Richard Lynch wrote: In the olden days, it often turned into slash the cover and donate it and collect tax break, I do believe, but I think that practice was decried and has decreased. Just curious, which part was decried: slash the cover or donate it and collect tax break or collect tax break? -- Crayon -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Friday 20 July 2007, Richard Lynch wrote: Perhaps your day job should stop paying you, because after you've spent that time, you'll never get it back? Is this make up things that Larry said day? It must be, because I know you're not that stupid, Richard. If my boss doesn't pay me, it's breach of contract. There's nothing in dispute there. My point was only that when the book was written is irrelevant. It's just as irrelevant as the lag time between your work and your paycheck. No, it is quite relevant. The time spent on the book/program/creative work cannot be gotten back whether you are paid for it or not, therefore that time cannot be stolen from you. There may, however, be a breach of contract involved in either case. It is an important distinction. See below. It's not a semantic game. Copyright infringement is not theft, under the laws of the USA or the laws of physics. To call it such is wrong, inaccurate, misleading, disingenuous, ignorant, and otherwise inappropriate. and a violation of the author's reasonable expectations, Artificially created by the law, yes. And is not the ability to enforce a contract between two people not artificially created by the law as well? One could just as easily argue that all civil law suits, artificial creations by law and not having actual criminal behaviour, should also be thrown out. I never said that artificial laws should all be thrown out. They should, however, be understood in their proper context. A physical object can only be in the possession of one person at a time, per the laws of physics. Property law enhances and structures that natural situation. Information, which includes both ideas and their creative expression, by nature becomes known to anyone it touches without depriving the originator of it. It can be possessed by more than one person simultaneously. Copyright law artificially creates such a restriction on movement in an attempt to make its creation more economically attractive. It is not, however, directly based on physical laws. Note that I am not making a statement about right or wrong about either of the above sorts of laws. I am simply explaining them in proper context, because one cannot make a viable statement about whether they are right or wrong without understanding them in proper context. Speeding while driving is also an artificial law in that regard, as there is no physical law that says a car can only go 30 mph. That doesn't make speeding OK or less illegal, it just means that it is not a natural law. Really people. I find it hard to believe that the otherwise-intelligent people on this list have such a hard time with the concept that something should not be done for reasons that don't involve physical property, just as I find it hard to believe that making up things that someone supposedly said has suddenly become the in thing to do. Your post made it seem that you were in favor of those who choose to infringe on copyright. In every online copyright debate I've gotten into, people always seem to assume that either you're with us or you're with the evil terr'ist pirates. Nothing could be further from the truth, nor further from actual sense. That's why I keep getting into these debates; to point out that it's not a simple copyright is moral and eternal vs. rampant theft and economic downfall question. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Friday 20 July 2007, Richard Lynch wrote: On Wed, July 18, 2007 6:35 am, Jay Blanchard wrote: [snip] Artificially created by the law, yes. [/snip] Just curious, if this artificiality did not exist what could an author's reasonable expectation be? Starvation. I eat quite well giving away code, thank you. It's under the GPL, but most of our clients would really not hurt us if they spread it around without the GPL. It's just some business models that would lead to starvation. Musicians would still have performances, as they have for hundreds of years and as they do now. :-) -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On 21/07/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I never said that artificial laws should all be thrown out. They should, however, be understood in their proper context. A physical object can only be in the possession of one person at a time, per the laws of physics. Property law enhances and structures that natural situation. Uh, what was all that about quantum mechanics and superposition? Could you please run that by me again? Information, which includes both ideas and their creative expression, by nature becomes known to anyone it touches without depriving the originator of it. It can be possessed by more than one person simultaneously. Copyright law artificially creates such a restriction on movement in an attempt to make its creation more economically attractive. It is not, however, directly based on physical laws. Note that I am not making a statement about right or wrong about either of the above sorts of laws. I am simply explaining them in proper context, because one cannot make a viable statement about whether they are right or wrong without understanding them in proper context. Speeding while driving is also an artificial law in that regard, as there is no physical law that says a car can only go 30 mph. That doesn't make speeding OK or less illegal, it just means that it is not a natural law. In Germany, there is. Get up to 250 KPH and the speed limiter kicks in. It also almost kicks you out of your seat. In every online copyright debate I've gotten into, people always seem to assume that either you're with us or you're with the evil terr'ist pirates. Nothing could be further from the truth, nor further from actual sense. That's why I keep getting into these debates; to point out that it's not a simple copyright is moral and eternal vs. rampant theft and economic downfall question. M$ has already stated how they depend upon the pirates. If eveybody who could not afford Windows as a student switched to linux, then they would have nobody to sell Windows to when those students grow up. Dotan Cohen http://lyricslist.com/ http://what-is-what.com/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Dotan Cohen wrote: On 21/07/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speeding while driving is also an artificial law in that regard, as there is no physical law that says a car can only go 30 mph. That doesn't make speeding OK or less illegal, it just means that it is not a natural law. In Germany, there is. Get up to 250 KPH and the speed limiter kicks in. It also almost kicks you out of your seat. If you can't see that that's also an artificial limit and not an actual law of physics...!! -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Tue, July 17, 2007 9:42 pm, Larry Garfield wrote: On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Richard Lynch wrote: Once I have written code or words, the time I have spent on that is gone. I will never get that time back, regardless of whether or not I get paid for it after the fact. Last time I checked, most day jobs have a significant lag between time spent and pay check. Perhaps your day job should stop paying you, because after you've spent that time, you'll never get it back? Is this make up things that Larry said day? It must be, because I know you're not that stupid, Richard. If my boss doesn't pay me, it's breach of contract. There's nothing in dispute there. My point was only that when the book was written is irrelevant. It's just as irrelevant as the lag time between your work and your paycheck. I choose to spend my time developing an intellectual product because current laws provide me some reassurance of ROI, just as you choose to work for your employer because current laws provide you some assurance of a paycheck showing up. And once again that has nothing to do with the point I have been repeating ad nausem all day while people misquote me. I have not mis-quoted you. There can be no mis-quote if the actual text remains unaltered. I may have mis-interpreted your meaning, however. If you think the laws are wrong, get the laws changed. But stealling (or whatever you want to call it in semantic name games) It's not a semantic game. Copyright infringement is not theft, under the laws of the USA or the laws of physics. To call it such is wrong, inaccurate, misleading, disingenuous, ignorant, and otherwise inappropriate. I do not believe I called it theft, personally. I said it was illegal and wrong. is ILLEGAL, If you can show where I have claimed otherwise in this thread, you get $10 at the ChiPHP meeting tomorrow. and a violation of the author's reasonable expectations, Artificially created by the law, yes. And is not the ability to enforce a contract between two people not artificially created by the law as well? One could just as easily argue that all civil law suits, artificial creations by law and not having actual criminal behaviour, should also be thrown out. and, imho, that alone makes it wrong until you can get the law changed. If you can show where I have claimed otherwise in this thread, you get $10 at the ChiPHP meeting tomorrow. Really people. I find it hard to believe that the otherwise-intelligent people on this list have such a hard time with the concept that something should not be done for reasons that don't involve physical property, just as I find it hard to believe that making up things that someone supposedly said has suddenly become the in thing to do. Your post made it seem that you were in favor of those who choose to infringe on copyright. I apologize if that was our mis-interpretation. I'm certainly not a fan of the RIAA. Their attempt to educate the public by equating copyright infringment with theft is quite possibly the least offensive thing they've ever done, as far as I'm concerned. :-) -- Some people have a gift link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Wed, July 18, 2007 6:35 am, Jay Blanchard wrote: [snip] Artificially created by the law, yes. [/snip] Just curious, if this artificiality did not exist what could an author's reasonable expectation be? Starvation. -- Some people have a gift link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Wed, July 18, 2007 9:40 am, John Meyer wrote: There is a very very important difference. Stealing/theft is a criminal offence. Copyright infringement is not. For you to be prosecuted for copyright infringement the injured party must bring a civil case. This is a fundamental difference. The reason everyone thinks the terms theft and stealing cover it is because, as I've previously asserted, bodies like the MPAA and RIAA keep referring to it as such. Just because they do that doesn't make it any more accurate. Although on one level, I say we go with it. I'd love to see those executives at Sony who authorized the rootkits thrown in the slammer for 'breaking-and-entering' +1 Actually, if the DOJ had wanted to, they probably could have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal -- Some people have a gift link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Wed, July 18, 2007 9:19 pm, Jay Blanchard wrote: [snip] ...all manner of interesting debate... [/snip] What, exactly, is the difference between this particular brand of copyright infringement and taking the book from a bookstore without paying for it? Am I committing copyright infringement by standing in the store and reading the book? Standing in a store and reading a book probably only violates store policy. The store being private property, all they can do is throw you out. So if you want to visit a heck of a lot of Borders', you could probably finish the dang thing. :-) (But it will cost you more in gas than the book price, most likely) -- Some people have a gift link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Wed, July 18, 2007 10:07 pm, tedd wrote: At 9:19 PM -0500 7/18/07, Jay Blanchard wrote: Am I committing copyright infringement by standing in the store and reading the book? No, because that's allowed. The publisher and author has given their permission for the book to be sold in a customary and industry fashion, which includes allowing people to read it in store. However, the owner of the store may limit your reading as HE see's fit. After all, it's his store and his goods -- I think he has already paid for the publications and could give them away for free if he wanted -- but I may be wrong on that point. They are paid for, more or less, as the delivery/invoicing/billing aren't in sync. They might get returned as unsold which actually turns into slash the cover in half and throw it out at least in theory. In the olden days, it often turned into slash the cover and donate it and collect tax break, I do believe, but I think that practice was decried and has decreased. How much they get back for unsold/destroyed copies, and whether they are allowed to order new titles in the quantities they desire is probably a Real Fun game for the store manager to play... Not. -- Some people have a gift link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] end this thread? Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
It's like defining good and evil -- at some point in the conversation someone is going to use the words God or satan. that's rather narrow minded. t. ps. sorry, i just thought i would spam some as well... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Wednesday 18 July 2007, Jay Blanchard wrote: [snip] ...all manner of interesting debate... [/snip] What, exactly, is the difference between this particular brand of copyright infringement and taking the book from a bookstore without paying for it? Am I committing copyright infringement by standing in the store and reading the book? If you go into a bookstore and take a book out without the permission of the store owner, that is stealing/theft and the victim is the store. (That permission is implicit in paying for it, since that involves a transfer of ownership, but it's the lack of permission that makes it illegal rather than the lack of money transfer.) If you then xerox that book and sell copies of that xerox to people on the street, that's copyright infringement and the victim is the copyright holder (note I said holder, not owner). If you go into a bookstore, pick up a book, and start reading it while standing next to the shelf, that may or may not be against store policy. Some stores actually have cafes where they encourage you to do exactly that, but others would ask you to leave. The first two are both illegal, and covered by two entirely different branches of law with two entirely different sets of reasoning behind them. The third is not illegal but a matter of policy on private property. And a side note, while this thread may not have anything to do with PHP code it is vitally important that those involved in the creation and business of information and expression understand copyright law. You don't need to be a professional lawyer, but the amount of misinformation out there about copyright, on all sides of the debate, is simply mind-boggling. That hurts everyone, because the law is not always doing what is right (by some definition of right). You can't know that, though, or make an informed decision about how you wan to license your work, unless you understand what the law actually is and why it is the way it is. So as PHP professionals, copyright law is on-topic, even if not code-related. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 8:48 AM -0500 7/19/07, Larry Garfield wrote: And a side note, while this thread may not have anything to do with PHP code it is vitally important that those involved in the creation and business of information and expression understand copyright law. You don't need to be a professional lawyer, but the amount of misinformation out there about copyright, on all sides of the debate, is simply mind-boggling. That hurts everyone, because the law is not always doing what is right (by some definition of right). You can't know that, though, or make an informed decision about how you wan to license your work, unless you understand what the law actually is and why it is the way it is. So as PHP professionals, copyright law is on-topic, even if not code-related. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 I totally agree -- whenever someone does something you don't think is right, regardless of what's called, hire an attorney. Cheers, tedd -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 7:05 PM -0500 7/18/07, Larry Garfield wrote: On Wednesday 18 July 2007, tedd wrote: And just because they do, doesn't make it any less accurate either. I don't care if Hitler agreed with me, there is a fundamental wrongful act of taking something that is not yours regardless of what you, and others, may call it. First Hitler and the Nazis[1] reference. You lose! Thanks for playing. :-) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law Just part of the Political Correctness bull. http://www.reason.com/news/show/32944.html Cheers, tedd -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 7:01 PM -0500 7/18/07, Larry Garfield wrote: On Wednesday 18 July 2007, tedd wrote: And, I've spent enough time in court to know the difference. Apparently not. And how much time have you spent in court? Rhetorical question and not germane to the topic, but I have spent a considerable amount of time in court. I am always surprised as to how simple wrongful acts can be diminished with spin. We live in a world of political correctness, to which we all object, but whenever we can, we add our own spin to the layers of complexities around us. And here is the crux of the point that I've been making. Information is not property. Property cannot be duplicated ad infinitim. Neither can digital information be duplicated ad infinitum. But what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that only tangible objects can be stolen? Intellectual property certainly can be stolen. Your digital persona can be stolen. Are these not things that can be stolen? Information can, by its very nature. The concept of theft does not apply. The concept of restricting the flow of information is artificial (to answer someone else's question from earlier), whereas the laws of physics provide a natural restriction on the flow of goods. I'm not talking about information. I'm talking about thought processes committed to digital. Algorithms, code, art, words, pictures, music, and other forms of creativity that should have protection from the flow of information by people who don't want to pay for it. Also, you said: Laws of Physics provide a natural restriction on the flow of goods? That got a laugh out of me. Would you be so kind as to tell me what specific Laws of Physics pertain to the real world and not to the digital one? Would it surprise you that life it's self is digital? But, we're traveling into another topic to debate and I don't want to go there -- it's far more complex than this topic. You are the one buying into the spin by claiming that information is as permanently and inviolately restricted as atoms and molecules are. That is false. That does not make breaking the law right, but it is a necessary fact of nature to understand if you want to understand the law and why the law exists (in theory). Well, you got me there! I'm clueless as to what the hell your talking about. Of course, the media moguls have spent decades selling that spin precisely because they want to confuse the issue. If you convince people that information is property in the same way that their house or car is, then you undermine the purpose of copyright (promoting social good, not private profit), undermine any attempts to reform the law, and undermine the basic precepts of both open source software (the free flow of information creates better expressive works through sharing) and Free software (restriction of the free flow of information is immoral). That's a mouthful, but totally wrong. Why shouldn't the media moguls protect their investment, after all it's their investment? You appear to expect everyone to provide you with information for free, is that it? Is murder theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is rape theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is arson theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is jaywalking theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is speeding theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is copyright infringement theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Duh! Everyone of those example can be looked at as someone stealing something. Stealing life, stealing personal freedom, stealing use of processions, and so on. But, that's not at issue here. You have made this issue into is one of what the definition of infringement is. It is clearly the act of breaking the law by having in your procession, or for your use, something that you are not entitled. To me, that's stealing -- you call it what you want. My grandkids have learned that they should never get into a No, you did. exchange because I can carry it on forever. However, considering that this topic is tangent to php copyright infringement/theft issue, I shall refrain from posting to this subject to the list again. If you want to take the discussion off-list, you're welcome. Larry, please understand that nothing that has been said in this exchange should be taken as a personal assault on you or your abilities -- you're simply expressing your opinion and I'm expressing mine. That's all. Cheers, tedd -- --- 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
RE: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
[snip] Artificially created by the law, yes. [/snip] Just curious, if this artificiality did not exist what could an author's reasonable expectation be? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Larry Garfield wrote: Artificially created by the law, yes. All laws are artificial. I really don't know what you're trying to get at with this. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 10:26 PM +0100 7/17/07, Stut wrote: tedd wrote: Nope, I'm just saying that if you want my work, pay for it. If you get my work without paying, then you're stealing. You know, this is a pretty simple and obvious concept. I can imagine anyone arguing about it. -snip- There is no such thing as copyright theft. There is such a thing as copyright infringement. No one is saying otherwise. I don't care what you call it, taking something that is not yours is stealing. If an employer hires you to do a job, receives and uses your code, and doesn't pay you for it, then that's stealing. It doesn't make much difference if you call it breach of contract, copyright infringement, fraud, or theft -- it's still illegal. And, I've spent enough time in court to know the difference. I am always surprised as to how simple wrongful acts can be diminished with spin. We live in a world of political correctness, to which we all object, but whenever we can, we add our own spin to the layers of complexities around us. I, for one, just call theft what it is. Cheers, tedd PS: If you don't want to talk about it, then don't talk. Let me have the last word. :-) -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
tedd wrote: At 10:26 PM +0100 7/17/07, Stut wrote: tedd wrote: Nope, I'm just saying that if you want my work, pay for it. If you get my work without paying, then you're stealing. You know, this is a pretty simple and obvious concept. I can imagine anyone arguing about it. -snip- There is no such thing as copyright theft. There is such a thing as copyright infringement. No one is saying otherwise. I don't care what you call it, taking something that is not yours is stealing. If an employer hires you to do a job, receives and uses your code, and doesn't pay you for it, then that's stealing. It doesn't make much difference if you call it breach of contract, copyright infringement, fraud, or theft -- it's still illegal. And, I've spent enough time in court to know the difference. Ok, this is really simple. Stealing is theft and theft is stealing. Infringing copyright is neither. I am always surprised as to how simple wrongful acts can be diminished with spin. We live in a world of political correctness, to which we all object, but whenever we can, we add our own spin to the layers of complexities around us. I, for one, just call theft what it is. There is a very very important difference. Stealing/theft is a criminal offence. Copyright infringement is not. For you to be prosecuted for copyright infringement the injured party must bring a civil case. This is a fundamental difference. The reason everyone thinks the terms theft and stealing cover it is because, as I've previously asserted, bodies like the MPAA and RIAA keep referring to it as such. Just because they do that doesn't make it any more accurate. -Stut -- http://stut.net/ -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 7:29 PM -0500 7/17/07, Larry Garfield wrote: On Tuesday 17 July 2007, tedd wrote: How you got from what I said to what you're pretending I said I do not comprehend. Try actually reading what I wrote before you accuse me of trying to destroy authors' livelihood, m'kay? It was not my intent to accuse you of anything -- my remarks were directed at what I read. If you took offense, my apologies. Cheers, tedd PS: As to any Anti-Pirate chip I may have on my shoulder, anyone who sells software should have one. -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
There is a very very important difference. Stealing/theft is a criminal offence. Copyright infringement is not. For you to be prosecuted for copyright infringement the injured party must bring a civil case. This is a fundamental difference. The reason everyone thinks the terms theft and stealing cover it is because, as I've previously asserted, bodies like the MPAA and RIAA keep referring to it as such. Just because they do that doesn't make it any more accurate. -Stut Although on one level, I say we go with it. I'd love to see those executives at Sony who authorized the rootkits thrown in the slammer for 'breaking-and-entering' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
tedd wrote: At 10:26 PM +0100 7/17/07, Stut wrote: Ok, this is really simple. Stealing is theft and theft is stealing. Infringing copyright is neither. Then, we disagree. I am always surprised as to how simple wrongful acts can be diminished with spin. We live in a world of political correctness, to which we all object, but whenever we can, we add our own spin to the layers of complexities around us. I, for one, just call theft what it is. There is a very very important difference. Stealing/theft is a criminal offence. Copyright infringement is not. For you to be prosecuted for copyright infringement the injured party must bring a civil case. Again, diction. Infringement is defined as the activity of breaking law. I don't care if you face criminal court, or civil court, or both (remember OJ), it's still a crime. And, it's a crime based upon the act taking something that is not yours (i.e. stealing*). This is a fundamental difference. The reason everyone thinks the terms theft and stealing cover it is because, as I've previously asserted, bodies like the MPAA and RIAA keep referring to it as such. Just because they do that doesn't make it any more accurate. And just because they do, doesn't make it any less accurate either. I don't care if Hitler agreed with me, there is a fundamental wrongful act of taking something that is not yours regardless of what you, and others, may call it. As I see it, one (not all) of the reasons to call it something else is to make the act more palatable for those who practice it. But, A rose by any other name... It's also clear that we are not going to agree, and we both have better things to do, so let's let it drop and accept that we have differing opinions on this. Besides, you can't be right ALL the time. :-) Cheers, tedd * We could change the term stealing to lifetime borrowing -- that would probably work for today's revisionist. -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
I didn't read the full thread (because it is 80 emails...) But really, it isn't special that these books are found on the net, and you really can't stop them, nor can the author of the book. With a quick search, I found these books related to PHP(all free to download): Beginning Ajax with PHP: From Novice to Professional Professional Search Engine Optimization with PHP: A Developer's Guide to PHP 5 Advanced: Visual QuickPro Guide Programming PHP 2nd Professional Search Engine Optimization with PHP: A Developer's Advanced PHP for Web Professionals PHP Solutions: Dynamic Web Design Made Easy Beginning PHP, Apache, MySQL Web Development Wrox Professional Search Engine Optimization with PHP Apr 2007 Textpattern Solutions: PHP-Based Content Management Made Easy Beginning PHP and PostgreSQL E-Commerce: From Novice to Professional PHP 5 Advanced: Visual QuickPro Guide Foundations of PEAR: Rapid PHP Development PHP Developer's Cookbook (2nd) Beginning PHP and PostgreSQL E-Commerce: From Novice to Professional Pro PHP Security Pro PHP XML and Web Services Sams Teach Yourself PHP, MySQL and Apache (3rd) Foundations of PEAR: Rapid PHP Development Object-Oriented PHP: Concepts, Techniques, and Code Foundation PHP 5 for Flash PHP for the World Wide Web, Second PHP MySQL for Dummies 3r Beginning Google Maps Applications with PHP and Ajax Practical PHP and MySQL: Building Eight Dynamic Web Applications Web Database Applications with PHP MySQL Advanced PHP Programming Delphi 2007 PHP Beginning PHP4 Web Applications Development With PHP PHP MySQL Web Development Dynamic Site with PHP MySQL Building PHP Applications With Macromedia Dreamweaver MX Learning PHP and MySQL Core PHP Programming for Web Proffessionals Advanced PHP for Web Professionals PHP Solutions Dynamic Web Design Made Easy Core Web Application Development with PHP and MySQL How to Do Everything with PHP MySQL PHP Manual Web Application Development With Php4 OReilly PHP Cookbook 2nd Edition Aug2006 PHP5 and MySQL Bible (2004) need one? Tijnema -- Vote for PHP Color Coding in Gmail! - http://gpcc.tijnema.info -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 22:12, Stut wrote: There is a very very important difference. Stealing/theft is a criminal offence. Copyright infringement is not. For you to be prosecuted for copyright infringement the injured party must bring a civil case. Actually whether it's civil or criminal depends on the jurisdiction. -- Crayon -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
From: Tijnema [EMAIL PROTECTED] I didn't read the full thread (because it is 80 emails...) But really, it isn't special that these books are found on the net, and you really can't stop them, nor can the author of the book. With a quick search, I found these books related to PHP(all free to download): Beginning Ajax with PHP: From Novice to Professional ... need one? Tijnema Yes, I need one. Kindly send me the full free download link to the one above. All I see are free excerpts. _ http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-usocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507 -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Wow, this topic has been going on forever. Probably the longest I've seen. -Original Message- From: Instruct ICC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:51 PM To: php-general@lists.php.net Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online? From: Tijnema [EMAIL PROTECTED] I didn't read the full thread (because it is 80 emails...) But really, it isn't special that these books are found on the net, and you really can't stop them, nor can the author of the book. With a quick search, I found these books related to PHP(all free to download): Beginning Ajax with PHP: From Novice to Professional ... need one? Tijnema Yes, I need one. Kindly send me the full free download link to the one above. All I see are free excerpts. _ http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-usocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507 -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Wednesday 18 July 2007, tedd wrote: There is no such thing as copyright theft. There is such a thing as copyright infringement. No one is saying otherwise. Except you. I don't care what you call it, taking something that is not yours is stealing. False. If an employer hires you to do a job, receives and uses your code, and doesn't pay you for it, then that's stealing. It doesn't make much difference if you call it breach of contract, copyright infringement, fraud, or theft -- it's still illegal. True. And, I've spent enough time in court to know the difference. Apparently not. I am always surprised as to how simple wrongful acts can be diminished with spin. We live in a world of political correctness, to which we all object, but whenever we can, we add our own spin to the layers of complexities around us. And here is the crux of the point that I've been making. Information is not property. Property cannot be duplicated ad infinitim. Information can, by its very nature. The concept of theft does not apply. The concept of restricting the flow of information is artificial (to answer someone else's question from earlier), whereas the laws of physics provide a natural restriction on the flow of goods. You are the one buying into the spin by claiming that information is as permanently and inviolately restricted as atoms and molecules are. That is false. That does not make breaking the law right, but it is a necessary fact of nature to understand if you want to understand the law and why the law exists (in theory). Of course, the media moguls have spent decades selling that spin precisely because they want to confuse the issue. If you convince people that information is property in the same way that their house or car is, then you undermine the purpose of copyright (promoting social good, not private profit), undermine any attempts to reform the law, and undermine the basic precepts of both open source software (the free flow of information creates better expressive works through sharing) and Free software (restriction of the free flow of information is immoral). Is murder theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is rape theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is arson theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is jaywalking theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is speeding theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is copyright infringement theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Copyright infringement is no more theft than walking against the light is speeding. I, for one, just call theft what it is. And everything else that is illegal too, apparently, regardless of whether or not it is. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Wednesday 18 July 2007, tedd wrote: And just because they do, doesn't make it any less accurate either. I don't care if Hitler agreed with me, there is a fundamental wrongful act of taking something that is not yours regardless of what you, and others, may call it. First Hitler and the Nazis[1] reference. You lose! Thanks for playing. :-) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 19:01 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote: And here is the crux of the point that I've been making. Information is not property. Property cannot be duplicated ad infinitim. Yet! When you get down to it... 1s, 0s, and subatomic particles have a lot in common. Cheers, Rob. -- ... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Larry Garfield wrote: And here is the crux of the point that I've been making. Information is not property. Property cannot be duplicated ad infinitim. Information can, by its very nature. The concept of theft does not apply. The concept of restricting the flow of information is artificial (to answer someone else's question from earlier), whereas the laws of physics provide a natural restriction on the flow of goods. And here's where your argument loses me. It's not information that is being restricted. It's my writing of the information that's mine. I spent my time organizing a bunch of words in a particular way to communicate some information. I wrote them. I spent a lot of time doing it. It's my skill. You have no right to take the fruit of my skills without compensating me. If I want to give it to you, I can. But you have no right to just take my book. If you want to take all the information that is in the book, all the knowledge, all the facts, and put them in your own words, write them down in some other form, they are yours. Feel free. Facts are facts. But the particular expression of that information is mine. It seems me that, in theory, any property can be duplicated infinatum. It's just a question of resources and time. It takes very little time and resources to duplicate a computer file. It takes a lot of time and resources to duplicate a house. You are the one buying into the spin by claiming that information is as permanently and inviolately restricted as atoms and molecules are. That is false. That does not make breaking the law right, but it is a necessary fact of nature to understand if you want to understand the law and why the law exists (in theory). Sorry, but no one is trying to restrict information. Talk about spin. The storage of my words in a file is a concrete thing. Because it is stored in ones and zeros on a computer disk does not make it some sort of cosmic entity. It still is just a collection of words. My words. It's no different than a stack of paper with typewritten words on it that an author produced with a typewriter. Just as a matter of curiosity, do you also spend time writing long emails correcting people who use the term identity theft? Janet Of course, the media moguls have spent decades selling that spin precisely because they want to confuse the issue. If you convince people that information is property in the same way that their house or car is, then you undermine the purpose of copyright (promoting social good, not private profit), undermine any attempts to reform the law, and undermine the basic precepts of both open source software (the free flow of information creates better expressive works through sharing) and Free software (restriction of the free flow of information is immoral). Is murder theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is rape theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is arson theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is jaywalking theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is speeding theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Is copyright infringement theft? Of course not, but it's still illegal. Copyright infringement is no more theft than walking against the light is speeding. I, for one, just call theft what it is. And everything else that is illegal too, apparently, regardless of whether or not it is. -- Janet Valade -- janet.valade.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
Larry Garfield wrote: On Wednesday 18 July 2007, tedd wrote: And just because they do, doesn't make it any less accurate either. I don't care if Hitler agreed with me, there is a fundamental wrongful act of taking something that is not yours regardless of what you, and others, may call it. First Hitler and the Nazis[1] reference. You lose! Thanks for playing. :-) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law Dang I didn't know that existed, thanks for the reference now I have something for all my other discussions. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
[snip] ...all manner of interesting debate... [/snip] What, exactly, is the difference between this particular brand of copyright infringement and taking the book from a bookstore without paying for it? Am I committing copyright infringement by standing in the store and reading the book? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
First Hitler and the Nazis[1] reference. You lose! Thanks for playing. :-) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law Dang I didn't know that existed, thanks for the reference now I have something for all my other discussions. ROFLMAO _ http://liveearth.msn.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
At 7:05 PM -0500 7/18/07, Larry Garfield wrote: On Wednesday 18 July 2007, tedd wrote: And just because they do, doesn't make it any less accurate either. I don't care if Hitler agreed with me, there is a fundamental wrongful act of taking something that is not yours regardless of what you, and others, may call it. First Hitler and the Nazis[1] reference. You lose! Thanks for playing. :-) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law Wow, that was interesting. But I can't help but think that if someone wanted to use the worst person imaginable to define a limit, I think Hitler would be it. As such, Godwin's law really doesn't apply here. I wasn't calling or inferring anyone or the other side as Hitler. I was using Hilter an extreme to make my point that if even he sided with *me*, it wouldn't lessen my argument -- guilt by association does not apply here. And, that was my point. It's like defining good and evil -- at some point in the conversation someone is going to use the words God or satan. But, if you read further about Godwin's law, you can see that one can abuse the law by miscasting the event, as you just did. So, Bzzzt! You lose! Better luck next time. :-) Lot of interesting stuff out there, huh? Cheers, tedd -- --- 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
Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 22:57 -0400, tedd wrote: At 7:05 PM -0500 7/18/07, Larry Garfield wrote: On Wednesday 18 July 2007, tedd wrote: And just because they do, doesn't make it any less accurate either. I don't care if Hitler agreed with me, there is a fundamental wrongful act of taking something that is not yours regardless of what you, and others, may call it. First Hitler and the Nazis[1] reference. You lose! Thanks for playing. :-) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law Wow, that was interesting. But I can't help but think that if someone wanted to use the worst person imaginable to define a limit, I think Hitler would be it. As such, Godwin's law really doesn't apply here. I wasn't calling or inferring anyone or the other side as Hitler. I was using Hilter an extreme to make my point that if even he sided with *me*, it wouldn't lessen my argument -- guilt by association does not apply here. And, that was my point. Actually Godwin's law does indeed apply here *lol*. It's like defining good and evil -- at some point in the conversation someone is going to use the words God or satan. But, if you read further about Godwin's law, you can see that one can abuse the law by miscasting the event, as you just did. So, Bzzzt! You lose! Better luck next time. :-) Lot of interesting stuff out there, huh? It's called Quirk's exception... and it applies quite well here. Cheers, Rob. -- ... SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com Leveraging the buying power of the masses! ... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
