|
Are they even able to do that?That isn't legal, is it? | |
|
| |
Re: Are they even able to do that?I was just wondering the same thing. I thought uploading/sharing protected work was a copyright violation, but not downloading.
I know the laws for software are a little different than they are for music, but it seems like I remember something about 24 hour educational evaluations being legal, so long as you delete the material after that time. I remember that from long ago though, can't say for sure it is even true. | |
|
| | TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA |
TechyDad
Premium Member
2004-Feb-19 1:41 pm
Re: Are they even able to do that?said by Camelot One: I was just wondering the same thing. I thought uploading/sharing protected work was a copyright violation, but not downloading.
Downloading is a copyright violation as well (at least in the USA, YMMV in other countries). It's simply harder to find out whether you've downloaded something you shouldn't (such as a copyrighted music file) versus uploaded something you shouldn't. said by Camelot One:
I know the laws for software are a little different than they are for music, but it seems like I remember something about 24 hour educational evaluations being legal, so long as you delete the material after that time. I remember that from long ago though, can't say for sure it is even true.
The "24 hour rule" is a myth created by folks attempting to justify downloading music and other items. (You see this all the time on ROM download sites. They all state that you can download it so long as you delete it after 24 hours.) There is no basis to this in law. It falls into the category of "say it often enough and folks will think it's true." | |
|
| | | |
Re: Are they even able to do that?I've been seeing that silly 24 hour warning since the days of Wildcat! BBS systems.... | |
|
| | | | Logan 5What a long strange trip its been Premium Member join:2001-05-25 San Francisco, CA |
Logan 5
Premium Member
2004-Feb-19 2:34 pm
Re: Are they even able to do that?said by Karl Bode: I've been seeing that silly 24 hour warning since the days of Wildcat! BBS systems....
Now THAT's a blast fro the past. Mustang Systems..wonder what ever became of them??? I used to have a BBS running their software in the 80's until I got too popular and ran up the family phone bill for the 2nd line...LOL Thanks for the trip down memory lane Karl....:) | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Are they even able to do that?said by Logan 5: Mustang Systems..wonder what ever became of them???
If I'm not mistaken, they wrote an ok Customer Messaging Tool for customer service via email. Could be a different Mustang. | |
|
| | | | | Melchior Premium Member join:2003-06-15 Mars |
to Logan 5
WildCat! was sold off and it was picked up by Santronics who still continue to make it.. there are a few systems running it still as it's very web/internet oriented now. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Sparkware
Anon
2004-Feb-19 7:14 pm
Re: Are they even able to do that?Here's to the grand old days of BBSing!
Sparky Father of QWK | |
|
| | | | | | | rmdir join:2003-03-13 Chicago, IL |
rmdir
Member
2004-Feb-20 12:03 am
Re: Are they even able to do that?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.:) | |
|
| | | | | |
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. | |
|
| | | | djrobsd join:2002-01-24 San Diego, CA |
to Karl Bode
Let's not forget the T.A.G. BBS system. One of the best ones in its days. I forget all the other crazy ones that were out there, but there were definately a lot of hacks of some of the more original one, and T.A.G. was one very good hack. I forget which system it was based off of, but I sure do miss running my T.A.G. BBS. | |
|
| | | | | |
ionweb
Anon
2004-Feb-20 8:05 am
Re: Are they even able to do that?I believe T.A.G was based off of the WWIV bbs, which was a sort of open source at the time. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | |
to TechyDad
said by TechyDad: Downloading is a copyright violation as well (at least in the USA, YMMV in other countries). It's simply harder to find out whether you've downloaded something you shouldn't (such as a copyrighted music file) versus uploaded something you shouldn't.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but do you have any links to proof of this in law? It is getting harder and harder to tell legal fact from opinion on the boards. | |
|
| | | | Rhobite Premium Member join:2002-02-24 Waltham, MA |
Rhobite
Premium Member
2004-Feb-19 5:36 pm
Re: Are they even able to do that?» www4.law.cornell.edu/usc ··· 106.htmlDownloading copyrighted material is seen as copying, which is illegal without permission of the copyright holder. Some people think that downloading falls under fair use if they don't share the file, or it's legal for the first 24 hours. There's nothing in the law that supports either of these ideas. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Are they even able to do that?Say Hey- Read on just a bit more... especially the phrase ==> for purposes such as criticism == » www4.law.cornell.edu/usc ··· 107.htmlNotwithstanding 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 | |
|
| | | | | | Rhobite Premium Member join:2002-02-24 Waltham, MA |
Rhobite
Premium Member
2004-Feb-19 8:25 pm
Re: Are they even able to do that?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. | |
|
| | | | | jwcrim join:2001-12-09 Wilton, CT |
to Rhobite
"Downloading copyrighted material is seen as copying"
Seen by who? | |
|
| | | | | | Rhobite Premium Member join:2002-02-24 Waltham, MA |
Rhobite
Premium Member
2004-Feb-21 2:47 pm
Re: Are they even able to do that?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! | |
|
| | | | | | | |
justanutter1
Anon
2004-Feb-21 5:40 pm
Re: Are they even able to do that?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 Member join:2002-02-24 Waltham, MA 1 edit |
Rhobite
Premium Member
2004-Feb-21 7:41 pm
Re: Are they even able to do that?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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
justanutter1
Anon
2004-Feb-21 10:23 pm
Re: Are they even able to do that?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 Member join:2002-02-24 Waltham, MA |
Rhobite
Premium Member
2004-Feb-22 2:08 pm
Re: Are they even able to do that?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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
justanutter1
Anon
2004-Feb-22 10:01 pm
Re: Are they even able to do that?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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA |
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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
justanutter1
Anon
2004-Feb-22 10:31 pm
Re: Are they even able to do that?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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA |
TechyDad
Premium Member
2004-Feb-22 11:25 pm
Re: Are they even able to do that?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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
justanutter1
Anon
2004-Feb-23 10:27 am
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- | |
|
| | |
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. | |
|
| | | |
Jacek
Anon
2004-Feb-20 11:52 am
Re: Are they even able to do that?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 | |
|
| NewLifeJust Keep Swimming, Just Keep Swimming join:2001-07-31 Calhoun, GA |
to GeminiCub4U
Yes they can do that because of the simple fact that downloading their code is not legal. Its proprietary, copyrighted code that has been illegally leaked to the internet and downloading it is illegal to.
But if I was M$ I would definitely step back and take a look at not only the security of my software but the overall security of my organization. I mean this leak, no mater how big or little the amount of code, has put all users in jeopardy including the security of our country. | |
|
| | ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• |
| |
to GeminiCub4U
Hello Microsoft (M$) are you listening?
That is the sound of another FREENET node being installed...
Looks like you have a problem. | |
|
| |
to GeminiCub4U
It's perfectly legal for them to send you a letter if that's what you are asking. Unless they are making illegal threats, they have every right to do so.
As for copyright law, they own the code. If you knowingly download it, it's illegal. The only exception would be if you have permission.
In general, people are confused about what is legal and not legal. Prior to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), it was illegal to download files without permission, and illegal to upload them too. There was never a 24 hour rule, but there is a fair use rule; it would not apply to this case, but it would allow you to use portions of copyrighted material for educational use, magazine articles, etc. but you could not reprint a substantial portion of a copyrighted work.
As for music and software, you could copy it for backup purposes and for the purpose of changing the media, (such as transfer to hard disk) for the purpose of getting it to work on your machine. In the famous Sony Betamax case, courts ruled that you could copy an entire work, such as a movie that was broadcast on TV, so that you can watch it later (personal use only.) Logically, copying a movie from a broadcast or from a tape you rented or borrowed all serves the same purpose -- you had the right to view or hear the material, but you chose to do it at a later time. The same would hold true for copying a CD you borrowed. Not all of these were upheld (or even brought up) in any court. But it was not generally considered a problem for personal use.
Logically, downloading a song from the Internet does not seem much different. But the "on demand" nature was a problem for the recording industry, and it's all moot because the DMCA makes it illegal to upload or download music without permission from the copyright holder. That was an explicit change in copyright law.
You may have heard or read in the papers that the industry was only going after people who made things available for upload. This was not because downloading is legal. It's because it's an easier first step, and it's easier to make a legal case. In that case, they know that the songs are on your computer because you made them available. So it's easy for them to prove something. If you merely download, they don't know what's on your computer, and it's technically more difficult for them to track you. They can hunt for people who make things available for upload, but they would have to check the logs of those folks to try to find out if you downloaded and they still have no proof it's on your computer. But that does not make the download legal.
Before the DMCA, if you owned a CD and you downloaded an MP3 of a tune from the CD for your convenience (instead of just copying it from your CD,) chances are that a court would not have considered that you broke any law. That might have technically changed under the DMCA (I'm far from an expert on it but I think it changed) but I still doubt that anybody would prosecute you for it. | |
|
SpazmotoKill all Bloodsuckers join:2003-08-22 |
Blah blah.Take your ball and go the hell home Microcrap. | |
|
GlenQuagmireGiggidy Giggidy Giggidy Goo Premium Member join:2004-02-16 Grand Rapids, MI |
Microsoft is Screwed NowThe fact is that once the code is leaked there is nothing they can do to stop it. Look at the RIAA no matter how hard they try they cannot stop P2P file sharing. About the only thing they can do is to write better code. | |
|
|
anyone read that article?Those comments are hillarious. People that are using Win 2k have all those funny comments embedded in their system. I can only imagine what the XP comments must be | |
|
| ••••• |
jmn1207 Premium Member join:2000-07-19 Sterling, VA |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2004-Feb-19 2:13 pm
Say What?It is NOT illegal to conduct specific searches on any p2p network to locate anything. They conveniently bundled the search with the act of downloading the copyrighted material. The warning is stated in such a manner that it appears that the very act of searching for the material is an illegal offense.
They should rephrase this:
"These alerts are designed to inform any user who conducts specific searches on these networks to locate and download the source code that such activity is illegal," | |
|
| ••• |
dsh180 join:2004-02-19 Export, PA 1 edit |
dsh180
Member
2004-Feb-19 2:35 pm
D-link FirmwareI just upgraded my DI624 DLINK router firmware to version 2.36 and now my wireless connection drops after 30 seconds. I want to go back to firmware version 2.28 but d-link has removed it from the support website. Does anyone have this file and could you please could e-mail it to me. This is for the D-LINK DI-624 revision C1 and is the only firmware that supports super G.
Thanks
Anyone else upgraded to firmware 2.36 have problems? | |
|
| GlaiceBrutal Video Vault Premium Member join:2002-10-01 North Babylon, NY |
Glaice
Premium Member
2004-Feb-19 2:41 pm
Re: D-link FirmwareWhat does this have to do with the MS article? Check out the D-Link forum for an answer | |
|
| |
to dsh180
said by dsh180: I just upgraded my DI624 DLINK router firmware to version 2.36 and now my wireless connection drops after 30 seconds. I want to go back to firmware version 2.28 but d-link has removed it from the support website. Does anyone have this file and could you please could e-mail it to me. This is for the D-LINK DI-624 revision C1 and is the only firmware that supports super G.
Thanks
Anyone else upgraded to firmware 2.36 have problems?
Hahaha, now that is just random. | |
|
SuperJudgeRaiden Wins Premium Member join:2002-11-14 Atlanta, GA |
Peek-A-Boo.I still can't wait to see the fit hit the shan, and a whole bunch of exploits get exploited. | |
|
| •••• |
SarickIt's Only Logical Premium Member join:2003-06-03 USA |
Sarick
Premium Member
2004-Feb-19 3:37 pm
Accidental release is a plot.IMO! I'm thinking the accidental release of this code is a SCO tactic Microsoft plans on using. Someone out there is going to design a software like Lindows or Linux around it. Microsoft is going to use this accidental release to go SCO on them. Smart move.. | |
|
|
My thoughts...Most people are probably downloading this source just because they can (novelty), just because MS doesn't want you to, just to say they have it (I know there's people out there who collect software for fun). They can send out all the warning letters they want, it's their crap. Why waste bandwith moving it around the net anyway? Are people gonna start issuing independent patches of their own? I sure as hell wouldn't install one even if I did run those OS. It would probably break something or be thrown out of wack by MS' own future patching, not to mention the chance of malicious code. Even if you have the ability to repair the code and send results back to MS... why would you bother helping them? There's other OS projects out there that could use your help. How about working on WineX or something? Oh, I know... people are downloading the source code so they can go over it with a fine tooth comb and decide wether to buy it or not heh. When it comes to this particular situation, I say you have been warned,if you play the game you deal with the consequences. P.S. If you're concerned with people snooping in on what you're passing around the net, check out the Free Network Project. Freenet is free software which lets you publish and obtain information on the Internet without fear of censorship. » freenet.sourceforge.net/ | |
|
| |
all your source code
Anon
2004-Feb-19 5:22 pm
Re: My thoughts...in case none of you RTFA, the code is for Win2k SP1, and isn't compilable into anything remotely resembling windows. that being said, all of IE is in there, along w/ any other core libraries that may have been updated in SP1 (which was probably a pretty big update considering how much win2k changed from 98 and NT)...including winsock and ole32. chances are you could get a reasonable working kernel out of it, but that's about it. anyone who is trying to get it from kazaa is going to have to look elsewhere...it's not there. any given day of the week before the leak, you would have gotten the same amount of results. if you think you have a legit copy, there are plenty of sites out there that have the complete 30k file listing, along w/ bit comparisons.
happy hacking. | |
|
| mario55 join:2002-02-12 Hollywood, FL 1 edit |
to FauxReal
me... i have to buy a new raidcard .. im full on 360 gigs of ISH .. most if it i still havent sorted thru most of it might be junk | |
|
CjGaughan Premium Member join:2002-12-23 Orleans, ON |
I haven't seen their 'warning' files... KaZaA |
...no use for me with their crappy source code though. lol | |
|
| ••••• |
hambone6666Sigmarick Said Arse join:2001-02-13 Stamford, CT |
funny.you know its funny how if someone else "injected" these messages or spammed IM, they would be in some serious trouble.
how do they get away with these messages? I understand their IP has been violated and is spreading, but come on...if we let M$ spam messages, whats to stop Ralsky from doing the same thing...
geez........ | |
|
|
Bahhh!Don't sweat it, most people dont even know how to spell "code" anyway:) | |
|
| NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working? MVM join:2003-02-18 San Jose, CA |
Re: Bahhh!said by Grnbeano:
Don't sweat it, most people dont even know how to spell "code" anyway:)
Look at this, just couldn't let it die with the original leaked code thread: | |
|
| | gatzdon join:2002-10-25 Lake Zurich, IL |
Re: Bahhh!The copyright protection laws require that the copyright owner take prompt action to minimize their damages. I think the RIAA should take a lesson from Microsoft's Approach. Microsoft is attempting to notify everyone that they possibly can that the software is copyright protected, it is illegal to distribute it, and advise them of Microsoft's rights. Microsoft is doing this promptly and without discrimination.
The RIAA on the otherhand, waits for it to get out of hand, secretly logging everyone's activity in the mean time, then tries to extort a couple thousand dollar settlement out of everyone they track down.
While I don't cheer for Microsoft, until they try to sue the casual downloader, I think they are taking the right approach (so far). | |
|
|
justanutter1
Anon
2004-Feb-19 6:48 pm
Violation of GNU copyleft possible?From the referenced article:
Open Source It's been widely rumored for a while that Microsoft relies on stolen open source code. The rumor has faced widespread skepticism too. Microsoft has hundreds of millions of lines of code, most of it highly specialized. Hardly any of that could benefit from stealing: it hardly seems worth the legal risk. It's true that early versions of the TCP-IP stack were (legally) taken from BSD: but that was a long time ago, when Microsoft was much smaller.
Searching the code for "linux" and "GPL" finds no references. "BSD" finds only a couple of references to BSD-convention strings. "GNU" finds a lot of references to a GNUmakefile in private\genx\shell, which in turn mentions a "mode for Emacs." This is apparently legitimate: simply using a makefile does not apply the makefile's copyright to the resulting code.
Therefore, a superficial look at the code finds no evidence that Microsoft has violated the GPL or stolen other open source code. Closer examination might turn something up. | |
|
| ••••••• |
SarickIt's Only Logical Premium Member join:2003-06-03 USA |
Sarick
Premium Member
2004-Feb-19 8:06 pm
What is this about? | |
|
| ••• |
|
Affliction
Anon
2004-Feb-19 9:18 pm
Well...I myself downloaded the source code, not because I plan to use any part of it, or because I'm out to prove some crackpot theory. No, I just want to learn from the masters by example. Any sane aspiring programmer such as myself should want to get their hands on this stuff. | |
|
| stateq2control the code Premium Member join:2003-03-27 Jackson, MS |
stateq2
Premium Member
2004-Feb-19 11:24 pm
Re: Well...said by Affliction: I myself downloaded the source code, not because I plan to use any part of it, or because I'm out to prove some crackpot theory. No, I just want to learn from the masters by example. Any sane aspiring programmer such as myself should want to get their hands on this stuff.
i'm a sane aspiring programmer, and i don't give a shit about the windows source....which is why i didn't download it. i can understand curiousity, but what the hell do you want to "learn from the masters"? is it how an operating system works? if so, you're better off learning from a much smaller os, that's freely available to anyone, and is often used for learning....like minix. » www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/minix.html | |
|
tomkb Premium Member join:2000-11-15 Tampa, FL |
tomkb
Premium Member
2004-Feb-19 10:31 pm
DMCA tramples fair useFilms, CDs, Games Get New FBI Piracy Seal Thu Feb 19, 6:10 PM ET Add Technology - Reuters to My Yahoo!
By Sue Zeidler
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - U.S. entertainment companies and the Federal Bureau of Investigation joined forces in their campaign against digital piracy on Thursday with a plan to place stark warnings on DVDs, CDs and video games about the penalties for making unauthorized copies.
The new warning label, unveiled at a news conference on Thursday, will carry the FBI (news - web sites) seal and read: "The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000."
"The theft of copyrighted material has grown substantially and has had a detrimental impact on the U.S. economy," said FBI Cyber Division Assistant Director Jana Monroe, who added that cyber-crime ranks as the FBI's No. 3 priority right now behind terrorism and counter-intelligence.
The program was announced by the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents Hollywood studios, the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites), a trade group for record companies, the video game industry's Entertainment Software Association and the Software And Information Industry Association, which represents about 600 software and information companies.
Collectively, the U.S. entertainment industry claims that it loses billions of dollars annually to digital piracy.
It will be up to individual companies to decide whether they want to imprint the warning label on a disc or digitize it into text format, FBI officials said.
Ken Jacobsen, senior vice president and director of anti-piracy for the MPAA said he expects that the treatment of the new label will be uniform throughout the movie industry
Videos have carried anti-piracy warnings since the 1970s, when the proliferation of videocassette recorders first gave studios reason to fear that consumers would make bootleg copies of their movies.
Brad Buckles, executive vice president and director of anti-piracy for the recording industry trade group, said music companies hope the FBI warnings drive the message home that copyright infringement is illegal.
"As the seal attests, these are serious crimes with serious consequences - including federal prosecution - to making unauthorized copies or uploading music without permission and consumers should be aware of them," said Buckles.
The U.S. music industry since last year has filed hundreds of civil lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers it accuses of swapping unauthorized copies of songs online. | |
|
| GlaiceBrutal Video Vault Premium Member join:2002-10-01 North Babylon, NY |
Glaice
Premium Member
2004-Feb-19 11:01 pm
Re: DMCA tramples fair useAll I can say is - BOOHOO to MS, FBI and MPAA! You cannot stop piracy, no matter what you do! | |
|
| |
to tomkb
>Collectively, the U.S. entertainment industry >claims that it loses billions of dollars >annually to digital piracy.
Truth: They've lost billions over previous years because the music they are rushing out the door every couple of weeks sucks, the movies are crap and the video games are "so yesterday". The whole entertainment industry has gone into the toilet - sequel and clone heaven always in the "search for more money". | |
|
|
JohnnyQuest2876
Anon
2004-Feb-20 3:53 am
Sending letters to people?This report just says sending letters, but I've also heard it described as Microsoft sending out snail mail letters. Anyone have any idea how they're getting people's addresses, e-mail or physical, when the RIAA can't even get a name off of the same p2p networks? | |
|
|
HeyYa
Anon
2004-Feb-20 4:35 am
Trade Secret?I was wondering.... If Microsofts code is a trade secret, does it become unsecret when it's out in the open like so? It isn't a secret if everyone knows... | |
|
|
haha21
Anon
2005-May-12 7:57 pm
yeahwell i think that microsoft is your problem see, through the microsoft visual suite when you code a file it asks if you want to protect it using safenet or someshit - there you go microsoft gets copies of your code free you having released them to safenet via the agreement when you used visual studio. haha | |
|
|
omgdunno
Anon
2006-Jan-4 1:15 pm
thats not right? surelysurely microsoft cannot monitor your searches THATS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY FFS Shame P2P don't run on linux ain't it and you can mess with the source code with that anyway The best COD CLAN EVAthought i'd link to something HHAACCKKSSTTEERR | |
|
|
|