Re: vogons vs Users

["Quantum_Cat" <anonymous@cotse.com>]

Hiya, Rosy,

 *>Kelli Halliburton writes ...
 *>> 
 *>> Beverly, I don't think any of the more rational people 
on either
 *>> side of this issue really thinks it's appropriate to 
release
 *>> *current* software. The great gnashing of teeth that is 
taking

Tisk, Kelli.. What is YOUR definition of *current*?  Charles 
Turley has considered any software in his grasp as fair game 
for illegal distribution.  Not that I'm accusing Tom of being 
rational.  ;)

 *>> place in this newsgroup seems to be over the less clear-
cut
 *>> issues, i.e., abandonware. The stuff nobody knows where 
the
 *>> authors went, nor where the copyright has passed to.
 *>> 
 *> ....

Yep.  It's tough.  Go to that link on A2central that has the 
petition, and sign it.  Couldn't hurt.  In the mean time, 
copyright laws DO remain in effect whether you like them or 
not.

 *>     Pretty much; although there is plenty of software and 
firmware being
 *>gnashed about which is not really abandon ware with 
unknown owners. A good
 *>example is the IIgs ROM code.

Yes, Rosy.  You should also own a GS to legally use that ROM.  
If you don't, it's YOUR conscience.  Just don't whine if 
someone jumps on your case for blatant pirating, loser.

 *>Note: By the way, the term "vogon" comes from Hitchhiker's 
Guide to the
 *>Galaxy-- i.e. someone with the outlook of a dull-minded 
bureaucrat inclined
 *>to destruction.

And conversely, Turlettes are the followers of the Flatuent 
Fool, Dorktor Charles "Tom" Turley, with the outlook that 
property rights are something to ignore and because of this 
caustic belief, have dissolved the Apple II developer 
community to a membership that could be counted on one hand.

 *>   According to vogons:

 *>1- Distributing any old commercial software without public 
verifiable
 *>   permission of the rights owner is a copyright 
violation.

OK.. So Janet Reno and the Justice Dept. are vogons too.  
Don't think that discourages my efforts, RosyWanker.  ;)

 *>2- ANY copyright violation is "illegal" and "breaks the 
law".

Uh.  Why the quotes around illegal and breaks the law, Rosy?  
That's what a violation IS!  

Loosen your belt, and buy larger sized underwear, Rosy.  It's 
cutting off the flow of blood to your brain.  ;)

 *>3- ALL copyright violations are Evil because they break 
the law.

Evil?  Depends on your definition of that as well, I guess.  
I'd simply say it's wrong to take something that's not yours.

 *>However(!); if a vogon type engages in copyright 
violations, encourages
 *>others to violate Apple's ROM copyrights, and/or sends 
users to a so-called
 *>"Pirate Site" for software or firmware, that's okay. At 
worst, a fellow
 *>vogon
 *>may post a message aimed at excusing the whole mess (after 
it has been
 *>exposed by a user) and be "disappointed".

What fairy tale are you inventing now, Rosy?  Aside from 
tossing out another Red Herring to distract folks from your 
moral bankruptcy.

 *>     Of course, what most users object to in such cases is 
not the
 *>distribution of old software or firmware with no real 
commercial value. What
 *>most users object to is the obvious hypocrisy of those who 
attack others for
 *>acts they are willing to commit when it suits their 
purposes.

And what most users object to most, is the fabrication that a 
work must have commercial value in order to have copyright 
protection.  This is RosyWankers favorite lie.  Go ahead and 
READ chapter 3 of the Copyright Act again, Rosy.  It's not 
there.

Oh, and vogons object to hypocrisy too, Rosy.  YOU claim the 
right to determine if a work is "abandoned", and post it to 
your pirate ftp sites, then when the copyright owner objects, 
you kindly remove it.  You suck sewage through a straw, 
Slime.

 *>     Clearly, the vogons speak with a forked tongue. 
Indeed, it is fair to
 *>question their devotion to laws they, according to their 
own standards, are
 *>so willing to break. It is reasonable to suspect that 
these persons are less
 *>concerned with "legality" than with closing down and 
controlling access to
 *>old software.

Legalities are indeed shakey ground, and I'll admit that it's 
easy to cross the line unintentionally at times.

But to be a blatant thief and liar like Turley and RosyWanker 
goes lightyears beyond the smokescreen that Jeff H. is waving 
about.

As far as who has the right to access old software... it 
still belongs to the copyright owner, Rosy.  While you may 
cream yourself trying to be the one who determines what gets 
distributed and when, copyright laws and us vogons will 
continue to put a damper on your "generous" and "helpful" 
efforts.  Deal with it.

 *>     As to whether or not such gnashing means a great 
deal, that probably
 *>depends upon whether one is among the 99.99% of sane Apple 
II users or is a
 *>vogon. Most users long ago decided that ...

So vogons make up only .001% of Apple users?  Sane or Turley?  
;)

Well, fabricating numbers and lying run hand in hand, Rosy.  
You're simply adding to the evidence that you are not to be 
trusted.  How can you live with that?   

 *>1- Distributing any old commercial software without public 
verifiable
 *>   permission of the rights owner is-- technically, 
objectively-- probably
 *>   a copyright violation.

So.. Why not just say _IS_ a violation.  You hem and haw, do 
your little wishy-washy dance about the subject.  Then 
distribute the stuff anyway.  Just admit to being a thief, 
and do what most thieves do.  Steal quietly and out of the 
limelight.

Don't bitch and moan and gnash your teeth so much when you so 
blatantly steal something in public, and get called on it.

 *>2- A copyright violation is just that: a violation of the 
copy right, not
 *>   the Law. It is a case of taking liberties with private 
property to which
 *>   the owner may or may not object.

What a moron.  The Copyright Act *IS* the Law, Butthead.  
You've been a Turlette far too long, Rosy...  Turn away from 
the Dark Side!  Double your IQ!

 *>   It should, for example, be obvious that, if a copyright 
violation were,
 *>   per se, illegal, then the vogon who promotes violations 
of Apple's ROM
 *>   copyrights would have been tossed into the clink years 
ago on multiple
 *>   counts of conspiracy.

Hmmm.. That's a Non Sequitur, RosyWanker.  See.. I can toss a 
little Latin into my arguments too, per se.  ;)

And it's Turlettes that promote violations of copyrights, 
HurlButt.  Try to get the sides right.  ;)

 *>3- Free distribution (with or without official public 
permission) of old 
 *>   out-of-print software benefits everyone involved. Users 
get to enjoy
 *>   the software. Rights owners, such as Origin, gain 
promotion of their
 *>   brand name and promotion of current game products such 
as the Ultima
 *>   adventures. Programmers, artists, and others mentioned 
in credits have
 *>   their skills advertised.

Perhaps, but that is THEIR decision to make, not some 
festering scum with itchy fingers.  Convince the copyright 
OWNERS, maggot.  Playing to your audience of thieves is just 
wasted breath.  They don't care what argument you come up 
with to validate their crimes.  They just want the warez.

Going to the copyright owners FIRST, and obtaining permission 
would go a lot further than your current method of "we don't 
give a f*ck about your rights, we'll do as we please because 
we are looters".

 *>     Since practically all users believe that free 
distribution of ancient
 *>software is a good idea, most users like things as they 
are. About the only
 *>down side is the ranting of vogon types and even that can 
be a source of
 *>entertainment. True, there is a chance that some new user 
might actually be
 *>tempted to swallow the pseudo moral nonsense spouted by 
the vogies. So, from
 *>time to time, someone must expose their hypocrisy and 
misinformation.

So.. Where is this "Turlette Survey" of what most users 
believe, Rosy?  Could it be that you're lying again?  Of 
course you are.

While I WOULD appreciate the free distribution of old 
software *WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER*, I'm 
certainly not one of those who consider you or any of the 
other Turlettes a valid judge of when a copyrighted work 
should be made available.

I will wait for the owners permission, buy a used copy if 
it's so important to me, or do without.

Your lies, stories and Red Herrings simply give us vogons 
more ammunition to lob at you, Jeff.  ;)


 *>     As for the perspective of this dwindling clique, the 
harassment of
 *>users, attacks upon archives, and other assorted gnashing 
very likely seems
 *>quite important. It must, since they have abused, 
discouraged, banned, and
 *>excluded so many users from their forums and gatherings 
that hardly anyone
 *>feels like messing with them.

Sheesh...  Now you claim insight into our very souls.  ;)

And you lie once again about our behaviour in forums and 
gatherings.  ;)

You're a sad pathetic little fool, RosyWanker.  What has 
brought you do this degraded state?

 *>     Even so, things seem to lightening up a bit. Debates 
are generally more
 *>civil than used to be the case; and, thanks to a few of 
the less rabid
 *>vogies, there is a least a beginning toward ending 
divisions which never
 *>should have existed in the first place. After all, no one 
has to be a vogon
 *>forever.

And conversely, one can scrape the slime of Turleyhood from 
your skin, recognize that you can't always get what you want, 
and that everything doesn't belong to you.

It's called maturity in some places, Rosy.

You want to do something for Apple II users?  Don't make them 
Johns in your little prostitution ring, or users in the 
Turley Crack House.

Join the Lost Treasures cause, and try to get permission.

Basic honesty, dude.

 *>Rubywand

Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat