Re: Turdbag GIF

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

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

: Remember, BD feels that it is likely that he was the one sector editing
: their software, but we have no hard proof that he did. It's like the old
: problem of spam postings... you can't be sure that the person who owns the
: account actually did it, or whether someone hacked into his account and
: posted it, or forged the return address.  So, despite what Nathan would have
: you believe, I feel there's insufficent hard evidence to say without a doubt
: that it was Dr.Tom who did it. 

Paul, go back an read the evidence.  Brutal Deluxe modified the 
version given to Turley just slightly before giving it to him.  It was
this version that ended up on a pirate site.  I'll have to go back and
double check the sector editing part to make sure I have everything 
straight but the above does seem to indict Turley. <understatement 
mode on>  Perhaps someone did break into Tom's house, etc., etc., etc. 
but aren't his stories beginning to sound somewhat incredible?  
<understatement mode off>

: But some of the people on this group seem to feel that they're better
: qualified to judge such matters then the law itself. While I agree we should
: support these small developers, we shouldn't at the same time support them
: to such a degree that we allow the stampeding of a person who may actually
: be innocent of the charge.

No, not better qualified.  But to suggest that the court get involved 
in every case is simply unrealistic--especially with developers who 
can be driven under by the legal costs.  Turley's antics remind me of 
the tactics which are used by some of the militia groups in this 
country.  When they want to harass someone, they put a lean on the 
person's property and force the person into a protracted court battle.
It's a process of attrition.

: Yes. There's the two sides of the scale: economic feasability vs. personal
: integrity. Clearly, BD could go to court over the problem, and get a final
: ruling over it. Since it seems they may not have the resources for a 
: protracted court battle, we shouldn't immediately side with them.

I'm not.  I've been here long enough that I have seen enough to form 
an educated opinion of Turley's character.

: It's kind of a tug-a-war, really. On the one hand, I really do want to 
: support them, since they're one of the few active commercial Apple //
: developers left. But on the other hand, I feel a need to point out that
: the case against Dr.Tom isn't as iron-clad as Nathan, for example, would
: have you believe. That someone did hack their games is undeniable, but that
: it was Dr.Tom is dubiable.

Not really.

: That isn't to say I think that piracy/hacking is a socially acceptable
: behavoir [although to digress I read an interesting article in a computer
: magazine recently: A survey done of universities in the World (can't remember
: the specifics of which ones were interviewed, sorry), over 50% of computer
: teachers saw nothing wrong with using pirated commercial software. Obviously
: to stop piracy we need to work more on moral values then devising new
: copy protection mechanisms].

Yes.

: I'm just saying that even when a crime is not serious enough to require
: a court battle, doesn't automatically place it in the communities' hand to
: make a final judgement of guilt or innocence.

No, but the community should be willing to set some community 
standards.  I don't see that here.  Tom has demonstrated over and over
his character.  If he is the victim of circumstances then he has to be
the most unlucky person I know.

: Have you got an example of something legal but morally wrong?

Yes, there are many.  One example I just saw was where a family sued a
doctor because the delivery of their daughter was especially difficult
(the daughter was too big to be delivered vaginally but they were only
able to determine this after the delivery was too far along to do a 
C-section).  One of the daughter's arms is paralyzed (it is capable of
some use) due to trauma to the nerves in that shoulder.  Well, the 
doctor is a very good doctor--probably one of the best OB doctors in 
the town and one of the only OB doctors in this town.  Almost all 
accounts suggest that there was nothing that the doctor could (or 
should) have done differently.  However, the family sued the doctor 
and the doctor was forced to settle because the protracted court 
battle, the costs, and the constant negative media barrage was hurting
his practice.  In this case, it may be legal to sue, but I fail to see
where it is the ethical thing to do.

: The second
: one certainly has interesting repercussions. Indeed, the field of piracy
: is a prime example. Many people seem to feel that pirating software, as
: long as you don't actually distribute for money, is in fact "all right".
: As with my previous digression, the only solution to discover a way to
: educate people about the realities more. Certainly, more complicated 
: copy protection schemes aren't going to stand against determined hackers.

Okay, agreed.

: I must strongly disagree with you here. Restricting access to a FAQ to
: people interested in Apple //'s is going to reduce involvement, rather than
: incourage it (unless you're talking about the new FAQs, which I doubt).
: There has been documented cases of at least one person, probably more,
: having blocked access just because they happened to be on the same *site* as
: a 'banned' person. And people who haven't been banned certainly aren't going
: to become more interested in the FAQ just because they know some people
: don't have access to it.

Not more interested in the FAQ--more interested in opposing software 
piracy.  It seemed to be an effort to persuade these individuals (the 
banned but not guilty) to bring pressure on their ISPs to discipline 
the pirates.  I'm not saying I'm sold on the idea but I do think it is
an interesting and creative approach to encouraging community action. 
In this case it backfired in great part because Nathan miscalculated 
the reach of Turley.

: If Dr.Tom, for example, had a pirate site, and then took it down, and someone
: mentions it, how are we to verify it? Without a complicated police 
: investigation of the ISP, checking logs to check downloads actually came
: from the site, it's difficult to say "Yes, he did have a pirate site."

Well, just keep watching.  I'm sure he'll do it again.

: That's the problem... the Internet is a virtual place. The evidence must
: come from physical world things [I'm probably saying this wrongly]... that
: no one, especially in the flaming atmosphere recently, and certainly not
: even me, can be considered neutral enough, and also enough of a guru to be
: able to check out facts, both Internet wise, and on the outside world to
: be able to present facts, and know that they are accurate.

I think Brutal Deluxe has done a pretty good job of it.  Go back and 
re-read those pages--they're worth a second look.

: That's what it has to come down to alright. Personal judgement. Just be
: aware everyone that there's no such thing as an absolute truth (except for
: 42 maybe ;-) ), so just because I or you judge one way, doesn't necessarily
: make it the truth. And certainly don't think you need to flame everyone
: with a differing judgement just because you think you're right (as has been
: the case with Nathan, for example).

Absolutely.  ;-)
Actually, the absolute truth argument does not mean that everything is
just subjective--which often seems the impulse.  Yes, there are other 
ways to look at something.  But that is not to say that everyone's way
of looking at it is acceptable.  And we may not be able to get to an 
absolute truth, but in some cases we can get pretty darn close (Turley
is a stain on the Apple II community, for example).

--James Keim