Re: Turdbag GIF

[pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Paul Francis Gilbert)]

jkeim@unlinfo.unl.edu (james keim) writes:

>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.

Hmmm... yes. I see your point. Do we know that BD and Dr.Tom are in
different countries? They might be both in US. But, in any case, at the
same time, without a court to judge on a case, are we really qualified to
make a ruling about whether or not someone is a pirate? BD claims that Dr.Tom
is a pirate, Dr.Tom claims he isn't. 

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. 

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.

>: 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.

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.

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.

>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.

Agreed. Which is why some laws are ignored by the community, and it is
socially acceptable to ignore them. A good example is jaywalking. In 
Australia at least, from my understanding of the letter of the law, it is
an offence to cross the road within 100m of a traffic light (and not actually
go across the pedestrian walk at the lights). But everyone crosses the road.

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].
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.



>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.

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

>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 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.

>: 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.

That's the real trouble with evidence in an online community. It's difficult
to prove culpability. That is, any given evidence is just words on a page.
It's difficult, therefore, to say "person X who wrote Y" has in fact provided
true 100%. We cannot be sure whether personal values/morals/etc. have coloured
the evidence, how iron clad such evidence is, or whether it's a fabrication.

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."

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.

>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.

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).

>--James Keim

--
Paul Gilbert           | pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au
Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 4, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small furry
Australia	       | creatures from Alpha Centauri.