Re: Net piracy?

[rwifall@NMSU.edu (Richard Wifall)]

In article <30ecmp$7pj@bmerha64.bnr.ca> jeffr@bmerha2a.bnr.ca (Jeffrey Robertson) writes:

>   In article <30a240$t5q@blackice.winternet.com>,
>   Richard Wifall <rwifall@NMSU.edu> wrote:
>   >In article <306ev5$jko@bmerha64.bnr.ca> jeffr@bmerha2a.bnr.ca (Jeffrey Robertson) writes:
>   >>   complexity (due to memory size) -- forget it.  They only value of the
>   >>   program is for itself, not for the techniques behind it.
>   >	Thats interesting, considering you can patent computer
>   >algorithms.  I guess the government doesn't agree with you.
>   I'm talking about these _particular_ programs, not programs in general.
>   Sheesh.  Credit me with some intelligence.  Heck, _read_ the blasted post;
>   I said as much the first time.

	If you are talking about particular programs, perhaps you
should have named one?  (You never once have.  At least not in the
posts that I replied to.) I don't give anyone anymore credit then I
feel they deserve by reading their posts.

>   >>   Again, this all comes down to the nature of copyright law.  It's up to
>   >>   the holder to enforce it.  To use this silly couch analogy, leaving th
>   >>   couch on the sidewalk is _not_ abandoning it.  Not complaining when it
>   >>   stolen _is_.
>   >	So its ok for me to walk into the local grocery store and
>   >steal whatever I can manage as long is they don't notice?  That _is_
>   >what you are saying.  Pardon me for disagreeing with you  (since you
>   >seem to take offense to that) but stealing is wrong whether you caught
>   >or not. 
>
>   Is there anyone else stupid enough to think this is my position?

[This is great.. Lets take a look at a another post by Jeff]

>This law really is a case of the 11th Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Get Caught.)
>If you're not caught, no crime was committed.

	You say that I "am stupid to think this is your position" and
then you go and say that it _IS_ your position in a different post?
Holy split personalities Batman!

(I apologize for actually reading peoples posts.  I realize that you
don't, but someone has to do it.)

[Also from that other post]
>                                               If you were caught,
>then you're (likely) ordered to cease and dessist, and pay
>reparations.

	Actually you'll be getting a visit from your prosecutor,
because guess what?  Copyright violation is a criminal offense.  But
then I don't suppose you would know that since you admit not knowing
much about copyright laws. (See further below)


>   I'm sorry, I've tried to be civil in my posts on this topic, but this guy
                                                                     ^^^^^^^^
>   is clueless.  My whole argument is based on the simple _fact_ that
                                                           ^ OPINION
>   piracy is a software violation and not a theft.  Now either address that
                ^ I hate it when my software gets violated.
>   argument (as my more intelligent opponents have) or SHUT UP!

	If your arguement is based on that opinion, then why the hell are
you comparing it to _STEALING_ a couch?  I have only being replying to
other peoples statements and pointing out what I see wrong with them.
	I am also saying that I disagree with your statement that
piracy is not stealing.  I'm not about to shutup because I don't agree
with you.  I'm sorry that my arguements are apparently so effective
that you must resort to calling me names.

>   >	Its funny that you would claim that piracy killed the Apple II
>   >when you support piracy.  (But I guess not everyone who reads this
>   >newsgroup likes Apple II's)
>   Oh, please!  I support the archiving of dead software, despite the
>   inherant copyright violation.  I do NOT support the pirating of viable
>   commercial software, like, say, GNO.  I also like Apple IIs, as I've
>   said in previous posts.  Now kindly start paying attention, and QUIT
>   PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!

	You support breaking the law, pure and simple.  Whether you
are willing to admit it to yourself or not.  You can call it theft,
you can call it archiving, you can call it whatever you please, but it
still is breaking the copyright law.
	To say that you only support breaking the law on older
programs is irrelevant.  I certainly am not putting words in your
mouth either.

[A bunch of stuff nuked here that wasn't flame bait (Amazing isn't it?)]

>   >	This whole thread has really disheartened me tremendously.  I
>   >figured if there was one place that people would understand the value
>   >and purpose of copyright laws that it would be in the Apple II
>   >community where software is so scarce.  I guess there aren't many
>   >places in the world left with morals.
>   Actually, this thread proves a lot of people don't understand
>   copyright law, but shows little about the value people attach to it.

	You are correct sir. It does show that people don't
understand the copyright law.  Lets see, what did you have to say
about that?
[from a different post by Jeff, the "you" refers to Ian Schmidt]
>I'd like to say I don't think you, or any of the folks who
>have been posting with the same opinion are ignorant, except perhaps
>insofar as you are unclear on some of the points on copyright law,
>which I myself know only a little about.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Are you trying to tell me that I don't know something about
copyright laws when you yourself admit that you know very little about
them? 

>   And you'd be well advised to not accuse people of lacking morals,
>   especially when your attacks on them involve misrepresenting their
>   positions.

	I think my cross referencing your other posts makes it obvious
that I was not in any way misrepresenting your position.  I wasn't
attacking you either.  I was attacking your opinions.

>   Still spitting your words out of my mouth,

	The truth doesn't always taste that good, does it?

>   Jeffrey Robertson                    |  jeffr@bnr.ca  |      BNR, Ottawa

	Richard "Maybe Baz is right?" Wifall
--
Richard Wifall - rwifall@nmsu.edu - http://starship.nmsu.edu:6502/