justanutter1
@kaballero.com | reply to Jason Levine
Re: Are they even able to do that?
Jason;
Well argued. Thanks for taking the time to work thur it reasonably. I don't disagree with anything you've said.
-m- |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to justanutter1
said by justanutter1:
Personally, Jason, when I say that I believe one thing and then demonstrate that I only believe it when it is convienent for me... I only prove I have prejudices.
Your disregard for RIAA (and their rights) while you support Microsoft in precisely the same circumstances, demonstrates that you are in fact prejudiced in favor of Microsoft. That won't come to many as a suprise but it is nice to see you demonstrate it so clearly.
I think the RIAA is making a big PR mistake because they are going to be seen as suing their customers. In addition, I think that they are using tactics to ensure settlements even if they have the wrong person. (I think the penalties are too high and out of proportion also, but that's the DCMA, not the RIAA directly.)
I do think downloading music is wrong and illegal. The little music I obtain is mostly from used CD shops with the occasional new CD. This way I can rip to high-quality, DRM-free MP3 for my own personal use. The online services look nice, but I've never been one to buy much music so my buying habits really haven't changed much through the years. (If anything, used CD shops have increased it slightly, but the RIAA wouldn't like that.  )
In Microsoft's case, we're talking about their source code. In this respect I admit I might be biased, but not because it's MS. I write software that isn't open source. If the source code to my applications were stolen and circulated world-wide I would feel quite violated.
If the source code was written by me, it belongs to me and only I should say what happens to it. If I were to decide to make an application open source, that would be my choice. However, no one should decide that my application needs to be open source and then take steps to release the source code despite my wishes.
said by justanutter1:
RE: ...CODE STOLEN...
That is speculation based upon the smoking gun of a makefile from GPL which found its way into the Microsoft sources. A smoking gun does not a murder make, and neither does 17 lines of code which SCO refuses to produce in a similar situation.
If there's evidence of this, I'd be interested in seeing it, but this would be the first I've heard of this claim. (How someone would know that something found it's way into MS's source when very few outside of MS have seen the source would be one of my first questions.)
As for SCO, they're simply blowing smoke and hoping that everyone believes their claims. I'm actually quite enjoying it every time IBM or Novell blows another hole in their argument.
said by justanutter1:
Microsoft has a history of not being forth coming. I also speculate that the code in question was stolen in the breakin on the Microsoft network in the year 2000.
I'd have trouble believing that the stolen code would be able to sneak beneath the radar for over 3 years. AFAIK, there is some pretty good evidence that Mainsoft was the source of the leak.
said by justanutter1:
Jason, you are so completely in love with Microsoft. You are such a champion of her cause, I would never even bother trying to prove anything for you. I'll just wait and Microsoft will prove it for me. It is just a matter of time.
Nah. I'm not in love with MS. (For the record, I run OpenOffice.org on all of my PCs because I think MS Office isn't worth near what they charge for it.) I just tend to be quite skeptical when someone presents a huge conspiracy theory with little or no evidence to back it up. Yes, MS is quite a despicable company at times, but that doesn't make every bad theory about them true.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
justanutter1
@kaballero.com
| reply to Jason Levine
Justin;
I suppose they could take the same tactic RIAA is currently using if they could ever figure out who did it in the first place. Unlikely. They might stop kids from sharing the files but they won't stop the files from being shared via Freenet.
Personally, Jason, when I say that I believe one thing and then demonstrate that I only believe it when it is convienent for me... I only prove I have prejudices.
Your disregard for RIAA (and their rights) while you support Microsoft in precisely the same circumstances, demonstrates that you are in fact prejudiced in favor of Microsoft. That won't come to many as a suprise but it is nice to see you demonstrate it so clearly.
RE: ...CODE STOLEN...
That is speculation based upon the smoking gun of a makefile from GPL which found its way into the Microsoft sources. A smoking gun does not a murder make, and neither does 17 lines of code which SCO refuses to produce in a similar situation. Microsoft has a history of not being forth coming. I also speculate that the code in question was stolen in the breakin on the Microsoft network in the year 2000. I know Microsoft says it was another company that lost the code, still what would have happened with the sales of Win2K if it had been published in October of 2000 that significant portions of the code had been stolen and were thought to be in Russia? What would be the best way to handle that from a security perspective, would it be to tell people what had been compromised so that they could judge for themselves what the wanted to run, or would it be to not tell anyone what was compromised? Now let's ask the same question from a financial perspective? Like I said, Microsoft does not have a history of openess or honesty and they certainly must have had financial reasons for not telling us what was stolen in the breakin of 2000 because they impacted the security of millions of systems by not telling us. Such risks are weighed carefully. Microsoft chose the smaller financial risk and elected to keep Win2K alive.
Jason, you are so completely in love with Microsoft. You are such a champion of her cause, I would never even bother trying to prove anything for you. I'll just wait and Microsoft will prove it for me. It is just a matter of time. |
|
justanutter1
@kaballero.com
| reply to Rhobite
Your question: "Why are you so angry? Take a deep breath, calm down already."
You started with name calling... yet somehow I have wronged you? Interesting but a bit twisted. So if I don't agree with you then I am a "nut buster" and if I call you for calling names... then I am upset and need to calm down...
Interesting game you play. You offer up the offense and if one responds with anger, they are in the wrong. If they respond with logic you attempt to turn it into anger... and again they are wrong.
Where did you get that license to be deliberatly insulting and then to walk away offended when you are called for doing it? I want one of those.
Figure it out. |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| reply to justanutter1
said by justanutter1:
So your crusade is a waste of your time, the worlds bandwidth, and well... it is entertaining for me...
Why are you so angry? Take a deep breath, calm down already.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to justanutter1
said by justanutter1:
There are so many people who have a copy of that code at this point that NOBODY is going to be prosecuted, guess why... Yeah, because Microsoft, yes even Microsoft is IMPOTENT to stop it.
Really? I would guess they would take the same tactic that the RIAA is currently using. Sue the uploaders and the downloaders won't have anything to download. And unlike some of the RIAA's actions, this one I would completely agree with.
said by justanutter1:
All that said, you ARE going to discover that Microsoft has stolen more of the GNU/GPL code than Linux has stolen of the SCO code... Mark my words.
Is there any proof to this claim or is it just an anti-MS rant? Yes, I know Microsoft isn't exactly a "cute and cuddly" company, and they've done more than their share of bad deeds, but call me crazy for still demanding some proof to an allegation like this.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
justanutter1
@kaballero.com
| reply to Rhobite
RE: Why do you keep picking a fight with me, "nut buster"?
'scuse me... I didn't realize name calling was ok in this forum. I may join in then? Might I call you, "Anything but Bush"... meaning you're a real man's man? Honestly, if we're going to grovel in the mud, I expect I can do it as well as you but what say we don't?
Point is you can argue the legality of growing dandylions in the yard till your face is blue, but they will still grow, won't they?
So your crusade is a waste of your time, the worlds bandwidth, and well... it is entertaining for me...
 |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
1 edit | reply to justanutter1
Why do you keep picking a fight with me, "nut buster"? I'm assuming that my tag has made you furious - good, that's my intention.
All I'm saying is it's illegal. Of course there's nothing that Microsoft can do to keep dedicated people from getting the source, but there's also nothing to stop them from suing a few unlucky people downloading the torrent.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
justanutter1
@kaballero.com
| reply to Rhobite
Yep.. It is illegal. It is also illegal to release a virus onto the Internet and hose up a million PC's. Do they do it, yep. Still illegal, but impotence being what it is, sixteen year olds still do it because the FBI is impotent to stop it.
DLing music is illegal, but does that stop the copying of music? No if Kazaa doesn't provide sufficient anonymity then FREENET does... And the sixteen year old kid continues to download his music and nobody can stop him... the IMPOTENCE of the FBI and RIAA still determine what is going to happen.
There are so many people who have a copy of that code at this point that NOBODY is going to be prosecuted, guess why... Yeah, because Microsoft, yes even Microsoft is IMPOTENT to stop it.
So, "Anyone but Bush", why not do a reality check and let the issue drop. MS can send out whatever they wish and these kids can tell MS to "pee up a rope" and MS will just drop the issue.
All that said, you ARE going to discover that Microsoft has stolen more of the GNU/GPL code than Linux has stolen of the SCO code... Mark my words. |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| reply to jwcrim
said by jwcrim  :
"Downloading copyrighted material is seen as copying"
Seen by who?
The courts, the prosecutors, and the copyright holders pretty much agree on this one. I honestly can't believe this is even a question. Of course it's illegal to download copyrighted material!
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
jwcrim
join:2001-12-09
Wilton, CT | reply to Rhobite
"Downloading copyrighted material is seen as copying"
Seen by who? |
|
Evoluder
join:2002-09-15
Woodstock, GA | reply to djrobsd
WWIV RULES! |
|
Jacek
@198.208.x.x
| reply to HeyYa
There are numerous precedents that might make it actually legal. One of the latest examples involves web site www.blueovalnews.com which posted secret Ford Motor Company documents that were damaging to the automaker. Ford was trying to fight the web site in court claiming, that the documents belonged to Ford, were trade secrets and copyrighted materials that were stolen from Ford by some disgruntled employee and should never get into the hands of the guy who published them. In the first instance and in the appeal FORD LOST and dropped the case !!!. In both cases judges gave verdict which in effect said, that it is Ford responsibility to find the guilty employee who have stolen the materials and then prosecute them. The guy who posted them was cleared from all the charges. I happen to disagree with this, since the web site was posting materials that were in fact stolen but I'm not the law
JM |
|
ionweb
@mi.cha | reply to djrobsd
I believe T.A.G was based off of the WWIV bbs, which was a sort of open source at the time. |
|
HeyYa
@mindspring.com | reply to Camelot One
Simply put: It's illegal to obtain something you never rightfully had access to. That's like saying, I'll download 10000 songs from people, and it was their fault, not mine. |
|
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM | reply to Logan 5
I just tossed a Qmodem box out a couple of months ago. Traded emails with John Freil a couple of years ago. He runs an ISP in Iowa now. |
|
rmdir
join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL | reply to Sparkware
Amen, my brothers. This talk reminds me of just how long I've been doing this stuff.
What a long strange trip it's been.:) |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| reply to RichMark
It may be legal to possess the software, or even distribute snippets of code under fair use. But I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to copy the entire source code, which is what happens when you download it. This is similar to the library, where it's technically illegal for you to photocopy an entire book. But in that case the library staff usually looks the other way.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
RichMark
join:2001-05-10
Morgan Hill, CA
| reply to Rhobite
Say Hey-
Read on just a bit more... especially the phrase
==> for purposes such as criticism ==
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
-Rich |
|
Sparkware
| reply to Melchior
Here's to the grand old days of BBSing!
Sparky
Father of QWK |
|
