Re: Turdbag GIF

[jkeim@unlinfo.unl.edu (james keim)]

Paul Francis Gilbert (pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU) wrote:

: Certainly it's much more difficult for serious // development to be done
: in such a hostile environment. If Brutal Deluxe (or whatever their name
: is) really think they have a problem with Turley, then let them go to
: court of it, and stop sticking your nose in what's none of your business.

Nice sentiment, Paul, but think about the feasibility of it.  You 
really expect small software developers to take software pirates (who 
live in another country ... across an ocean) to court?  What you are 
suggesting would eliminate every small developer and leave nothing but 
Microsofts which wouldn't help the Apple II as there are no such 
companies supporting the II.

: Again, a person is innocent until proven guilty. If BD can get the courts
: to agree that Turley did the pirating, then I'll accept it. Until such
: time, all I have are subjective accounts that are entirely too one-sided
: to be considered gospel truth [although admittadly, BD's webpage seems
: to be fairly rational, although how technically correct it is I don't
: know [the page where it divided it into Acts]].

Um, you probably won't find Turley or Morrison answering for their crimes
in a court room and it's not because their crimes are insignificant.  
You won't find them their because it is economically infeasible for 
the companies and software authors to bring them to court.  Nice idea,
though.  In a perfect world, they would have to answer to the justice 
system.

This brings up an interesting point.  Laws don't work because people 
get hauled into court if they don't obey them.  Laws work because 
whole communities agree to abide by the law and support the law.  It 
would be unrealistic to attempt to enforce any law if the community 
does not abide by and support the law as a whole.

I get a little frustrated with two tendencies I see developing in 
people's attitudes.  One is the tendency to believe that just because 
something is legal, it isn't wrong.  Such a belief might be a good
rule of thumb but it isn't aplicable in all cases.  The other tendency
is to believe that if the law is not actively enforced then the 
illegal action is not really wrong.  Both of these assumptions are
dangerous.

Nathan (in my humble interpretation) used the restriction of the FAQs 
in order to encourage smaller communities (the ISPs) to get involved 
simply because the larger community (CSA2) is so recalcitrant in 
acknowledging the culpability of Turley, Morrison, and Mentzer.

: I'm certainly not going to subscribe to the ideal, as you so strongly,
: suggest, that Turley is a guilty scum until proven he's not.

Well, I understand the reluctance but good evidence has been given on 
several occasions.  Try to understand why it is so difficult to deal 
with a stain like Turley.  He doesn't stop.  He keeps pulling the same
stunts, saying he's reformed, and then pulling them again.  Meanwhile,
the people who have dealt with him, shown him for what he is, and 
thought the problem had been resolved are burdened with proving to 
every new person that comes along that Turley is not the good person 
he may seem to those that have only dealt with him superficially.

Look, I could go on but the short of it is.  Don't wait for a judge to
rule when it isn't going to happen.  Think for yourself.

--James Keim