Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code - CP/M

This is a discussion on Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code - CP/M ; On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 08:17:51 -0600, "Michael Mattias" wrote: >Joel Koltner wrote: >> Indeed, as some people in this thread have >> mentioned, it's possible that pirating software can actually *benefit* a >> company ("negative damages"), by making it ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 120

Thread: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

  1. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 08:17:51 -0600, "Michael Mattias"
    wrote:

    >Joel Koltner wrote:
    >> Indeed, as some people in this thread have
    >> mentioned, it's possible that pirating software can actually *benefit* a
    >> company ("negative damages"), by making it more popular!

    >
    >Give me a break.
    >
    >Using that logic, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler would be begging us to
    >steal some of their vehicles to bolster their sales.
    >
    >MCM


    But many motor makers lease cars to rental fleets for 9-12K miles max.
    Then sell though dealers as current year low mileage.

    VW Golf Diesel is flavor of the month at mo in UK. They can't sell
    them new so have to shift them second hand.

    A friend works for Ilmore, she gets a new Merc on low cost lease every
    4 months.
    --
    Peter Hill
    Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
    Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
    Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

  2. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    MCM > None of my products are "consumer" products...
    MCM > they are only used by businesses.
    MCM >
    MCM > And to be honest, these days buinesses
    MCM > themselves are some of the best
    MCM > "license enforcers" out there.

    In general perhaps, especially BIG companies.

    Though I saw smaller businesses that bought
    one license for AutoCAD and set up
    8 computers without site licensing.

  3. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:28:49 +0100, Joel Koltner
    wrote:

    > There's no way of knowing for certain, but
    > in general I suspect that number of people
    > who pirate software who would actually go and buy

    [...]

    > is probably well under 1%. (Although I'd readily
    > admit that it could be much higher for certain "core"
    > programs like operating systems (e.g., Windows)and perhaps office
    > productivity software.)


    Open Office?

    At least that's what I use...

    Martin

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    "I don't know. I'm making this up as I go!"
    (Ford as Dr. Jones Jr. in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark')
    ----------------------------------------------------------

  4. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Greegor wrote:

    > MCM > None of my products are "consumer" products...
    > MCM > they are only used by businesses.
    > MCM >
    > MCM > And to be honest, these days buinesses
    > MCM > themselves are some of the best
    > MCM > "license enforcers" out there.
    >
    > In general perhaps, especially BIG companies.
    >
    > Though I saw smaller businesses that bought
    > one license for AutoCAD and set up
    > 8 computers without site licensing.


    i have seen similar stuff many times. infact, probably _most_ so
    called "small businesses" dont really care (or even know) about proper
    licensing.

    --

    http://www.hitmen-console.org
    http://www.pokefinder.org
    http://ftp.pokefinder.org

    Homes for the homeless, jobs for the jobless, neverthe for the nevertheless.



  5. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code




    Michael Mattias wrote:
    >
    >Joel Koltner wrote
    >
    >> Michael Mattias wrote..
    >>
    >>> Second, why is it so different to steal $10,000 worth of "hard goods"
    >>> than stealing a $10,000 software license? (Answer: there is NO
    >>> difference!).

    >>
    >> Of course there is. If you steal $10,000 cash, the personal you took it
    >> from clearly suffered $10,000 in damages. If you steal a $10,000 piece of
    >> software, 99.9% of the time, the person you stole it from didn't suffer
    >> $10,000 in damages.

    >
    >Oh, but I did.
    >
    >I developed the software based on the likely number of licenses I would sell
    >at what price, balanced against my investment in creating it.


    It sounds like you are assuming that every pirate would buy a copy.
    In the real world, many pirates just collect boatloads of stuff
    that they never even run, others are students who are too poor to
    pay, others are using pirated software as a "try before you buy"
    scheme. Only that subset who would have bought if they couldn't
    copy -- and who are willing to not get tech support -- actually
    harm you.

    Your "there is NO difference!" claim is stupid. Any 3rd grader
    can see that there IS a difference.


  6. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code




    Michael Mattias wrote:

    >I know many people have trouble with the concept that intellectual property
    >is , well, *PROPERTY*; I know I did at one time.
    >
    >However, for the past fourteen years intellectual property has been the sole
    >source of food on my table.
    >
    >Trust me, when it's *your* food on *your* table, you develop an
    >appreciation for the concept.


    Try to wrap your mind around this:

    Just as those who steal your work tell themselves lies about nobody
    being harmed at all, you are telling yourself lies about being
    harmed in every case and about the harm being exactly the same as
    if a physical object was taken from you. Both of you are ignoring
    reality in a way that just happens to benefit you.




  7. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code




    Joel Koltner wrote:

    >There's no way of knowing for certain, but in general I suspect that number of
    >people who pirate software who would actually go and buy the software if it
    >were impossible to pirate is probably well under 1%. (Although I'd readily
    >admit that it could be much higher for certain "core" programs like operating
    >systems (e.g., Windows) and perhaps office productivity software.)


    ....and much lower for expensive CAD systems, software development tools, etc.
    If a program costs tens of thousands of dollars, the "WaREz d0ODz" will
    collect it and never use it -- they might not even know what it does!
    And they would *never* have bought a copy.



  8. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    *Michael Mattias* wrote on Wed, 08-11-05 15:17:
    >Using that logic, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler would be begging us
    >to steal some of their vehicles to bolster their sales.


    Yes of course. Imagine them giving away cars to those, who'd not buy
    them in the first place and at no cost to themselves with the result
    being, that virtually all service and petrol stations only stock, say,
    oil and light bulbs for their make of car and staff at these places
    unable to check the oil or anything else for any other make. (Forget
    standardization, this is a simile for software.) Would that not create
    a strong incentive for all potential buyers to prefer this make over
    all others, never mind the more comfortable seats, the lower
    consumption or other advantages.

    Now look at the "at no cost to themselves" bit in the sentence above.
    Very obviously this does not apply to cars even disregarding possible
    loss of revenue. But for software with third parties taking all the
    distribution and support upon themselves for free it applies in full.
    Noone ever said Bill Gates was stupid (dishonest and a mediocre
    programmer yes, stupid no) so why should he not take advantage of that
    fact?

    German evening schools (Volkshochschulen) that get three quarters of
    their revenue out of taxes do *not* offer courses in word processing or
    spreadsheets, they do offfer courses for "Word" or for "Excel".
    University professors do not distribute required reading for their
    students, dependant upon them for their degrees, in open non-
    proprietary formats but as Word.doc. To me that is open and
    indisputable corruption and ought to be treated as such, but it isn't.

    Now if you were Rockefeller and did not even need to give away free
    lamps but could have others givng them away for you, would you not make
    use of that chance?


  9. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code




    Joel Koltner wrote:

    >I don't *like* Microsoft product activation for Windows/Office, but I don't
    >find it particularly onerous either: I've never had a problem getting valid
    >installations activated, and thereafter they have "just worked." In the back
    >of my mind, though, I sometimes worry that I'll be out in the middle of
    >nowhere when suddenly it does decide to deactivate itself. :-(


    For religious reasons (Quaker) I have legal copies of everything
    on my PC, but for most Microsoft products I also have CD copies
    I got through The Pirate Bay. I need to know that I can reinstall,
    even if my cell phone gets no signal and there is no Internet
    connection. The pirated copies give me that assurance by bypassing
    Windows Genuine Advantage --which treats me like a crook.


  10. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:11:04 -0800, Bill@sunsouthwest.com wrote
    (in article ):

    >> Shareware is, as far as I am concerned, to Commercial Software as Sport
    >> Fishing is to Commercial Fishing.

    >
    > Well then, sometimes you are wrong.


    True. Commercial fishing is a regulated messy brute -force mechanized
    process.

    Sport fishing is dominated by finesse, innovation, and experimentation, and
    is personal.

    But sometimes it is hard to tell them apart. Photoshop is more like sport
    fishing for instance, and for some reason Linux is more like commercial
    fishing. WinXXXXX is more like the fishing with dynamite.

    -- Charlie Springer


  11. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:26:41 -0800, Joe Forster/STA wrote
    (in article
    <8518fc1d-273f-4675-b4aa-6a704fe93f56@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com>):

    > Ohhh... But, when it comes to software or digital media, the user
    > doesn't _own_ the product, only gets the right to use it (not
    > duplicate, not reverse-engineer, not create a derivative thereof etc.
    > etc.)? Sounds unfair to me.


    Why is that? Are you free to copy the patented or copywrited parts of a
    Toyota or a Rolex?

    If you make fenders at Ford for lease cars, should you own or get paid the
    retail value of all the fenders? Wouldn't you have to pay Ford for the
    stamps, presses, assembly line infrastructure, raw materials, R&D,
    distribution and cost of sales? (Hint: Somebody else already owns that
    stuff).

    In the case of writing software in a large company your scenario would have
    to include subcontracting and paying the rent on your space, the IT costs,
    the costs of the equipment you use and administrative services, advertising,
    distribution, taxes, etc. The share holders have already paid for all that.
    If you really want a piece of the action beyond your salary you should buy
    stock! Then you are an owner.

    How old are you?

    -- Charlie Springer


  12. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:51:29 -0800, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote
    (in article <6n9kkgFk8mutU8@mid.uni-berlin.de>):

    > Reporting "piracy"? Another term that doesn't apply to unauthorized
    > copying. Unless you commit it within international waters, maybe. ;-)


    Try copying movies or fine art. The prisons are full, but there is room for a
    few more. What is the difference between the original and an exact duplicate?

    Do you feel the same way about copying an original design of the LASER?

    -- Charlie Springer


  13. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 16:30:07 -0800, Joel Koltner wrote
    (in article ):

    >> Second, why is it so different to steal $10, 000 worth of "hard goods"
    >> than
    >> stealing a $10,000 software license? (Answer: there is NO difference!).

    >
    > Of course there is. If you steal $10,000 cash, the personal you took it from


    > clearly suffered $10,000 in damages. If you steal a $10,000 piece of
    > software, 99.9% of the time, the person you stole it from didn't suffer
    > $10,000 in damages. Software piracy (and other intellectual property crimes)


    > is a somewhat gray area because it's usually very difficult to demonstrate
    > what the damage really is. Indeed, as some people in this thread have
    > mentioned, it's possible that pirating software can actually *benefit* a
    > company ("negative damages"), by making it more popular! Now, punishment in
    > the U.S. is based on (1) compensating victims for actual damages and then (2)


    > some additional amount that's meant to be a deterrent to future infractions.
    > Hence, while it's clear that software piracy should be dealt with via some
    > form of punishment to fulfil purpose (2) up there, the appropriate "amount"
    > is
    > not at all clear-cut.


    Wrong. The man who invented the LASER fought for years and won. All the LASER
    companies pay him a royalty per product produced. He builds NO LASERs. Same
    for the intermitent windshield control, the subject of a current movie. The
    guy who created it owns it. It is not up to you to decide the gain or loss by
    a sale or theft through copying - which is a lost sale. You gain a benefit
    from his work without paying for it. Applying some Marx and Engles backwards
    economic ideas doesn't change the facts.

    -- Charlie Springer


  14. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 04:13:47 -0800, me@privacy.net wrote
    (in article ):

    >> I know many people have trouble with the concept that intellectual property
    >> is , well, *PROPERTY*; I know I did at one time.
    >>
    >> However, for the past fourteen years intellectual property has been the
    >> sole
    >> source of food on my table.
    >>
    >> Trust me, when it's *your* food on *your* table, you develop an
    >> appreciation for the concept.

    >
    > Try to wrap your mind around this:
    >
    > Just as those who steal your work tell themselves lies about nobody
    > being harmed at all, you are telling yourself lies about being
    > harmed in every case and about the harm being exactly the same as
    > if a physical object was taken from you. Both of you are ignoring
    > reality in a way that just happens to benefit you.


    Nice example of mushy thinking. He decides the value, not you. You are like a
    shoplifter deciding the shop owner can afford to let you take a couple of
    candy bars because they will hurt him less than taking jewelry. This is the
    attitude of a thief pure and simple. Just accept it. You think like a thief
    and you have arguments to justify it to yourself. It is hardly rare. About
    half the US population agrees with you. Take from those who can "afford it"
    and give to those with less (and rake a little off to pay yourself) is the
    law of the land.

    -- Charlie Springer


  15. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    wrote in message news76dnf03NOtgfY_U4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
    > ...and much lower for expensive CAD systems, software development tools,
    > etc.


    Yep, agreed. If Matlab ($$$) were impossible to pirate, I think the main
    result would just be a sudden increase in the number of Scilab (or perhaps
    NumPy -- both free) users... but not any significant increase in Matlab sales
    whatsoever.

    (Not that I'm suggesting any of this makes it OK to pirate software, of
    course. Just that the numbers the industry generates about how they "lost"
    so-many-millions of dollars in software sales is ridiculous... if was never
    there to begin with...)




  16. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Engineer schreef:
    > Joel Koltner wrote:
    >
    >> I don't *like* Microsoft product activation for Windows/Office, but I don't
    >> find it particularly onerous either: I've never had a problem getting valid
    >> installations activated, and thereafter they have "just worked." In the back
    >> of my mind, though, I sometimes worry that I'll be out in the middle of
    >> nowhere when suddenly it does decide to deactivate itself. :-(

    >
    > For religious reasons (Quaker) I have legal copies of everything
    > on my PC, but for most Microsoft products I also have CD copies
    > I got through The Pirate Bay. I need to know that I can reinstall,
    > even if my cell phone gets no signal and there is no Internet
    > connection. The pirated copies give me that assurance by bypassing
    > Windows Genuine Advantage --which treats me like a crook.


    The irony is that anti-piracy measures tend to hurt legitimate users
    more than illegitimate users, since illegitimate users typically use a
    hacked version with the anti-piracy protection (which can be quite
    troublesome) removed. For example I don't mind paying for a DVD, but
    most DVD's I can buy here have nag screens that tell you not to copy,
    not show the DVD in public...etc which takes minutes (you cannot skip
    them) before you get to the main menu. It can easily take 5 minutes to
    get to actually see the movie. However when download a movie all the
    annoyances usually removed and I can watch the movie within seconds.
    Some anti-piracy measures almost force one to use a pirated version.

  17. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Joel Koltner wrote:
    (snip)

    > (Not that I'm suggesting any of this makes it OK to pirate software, of
    > course. Just that the numbers the industry generates about how they "lost"
    > so-many-millions of dollars in software sales is ridiculous... if was never
    > there to begin with...)


    Along with the number of trees saved by putting user manuals
    on CD instead of paper.

    -- glen


  18. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    "Charlie Springer" wrote in message
    news:0001HW.C5385DA00001F721F02845B0@news.nw.centu rytel.net...
    >True. Commercial fishing is a regulated messy brute -force mechanized
    >process.


    Exactly my point. My last day of the season (Oct 29) I harvested over 2000
    pounds of large Walleye, cut their heads off and shipped them to the Yankee
    Doodle Dandies up south of the Great White North here...

    >Sport fishing is dominated by finesse, innovation, and experimentation, and
    >is personal.


    Again, exactly my point. But we are around the same age and the last time we
    talked you were in fact juggling a Salmon Fishing date to do me a great
    personal favour in sharing priceless hardware. So I would need to consider
    your opinion to be that of an expert rather than a mere authority and a
    butcher at best such as myself....

    >But sometimes it is hard to tell them apart.


    Well, then we turn-them upside down and we should be able to tell the
    difference

    >Photoshop is more like sport fishing for instance, and for some reason
    >Linux is more like commercial fishing. WinXXXXX is more like the fishing
    >with dynamite.


    When I was a kid doing mining and seismic drilling and such I had my
    blasting ticket in half of Canada so I am of course naturally quite
    comfortable as a Microsoft Gold Partner writing commercial software in
    Windows XP.

    Thanks for clearing-up all these questions so the kids could understand
    Charlie. I wasn't sure I could explain it any better than I had, but you did
    a bang-up job bailing-me out (my bilge-pump was getting plugged) and I am
    again in your gratitude

    Bill



  19. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    *Dombo* wrote on Thu, 08-11-06 20:00:
    >However when download a movie all the annoyances usually removed and I
    >can watch the movie within seconds.


    It's worse. My legally bought and fully payed for "copy protected"
    American DVD won't even play. The copy I made does.

  20. Re: Written-by-Bill-Gates BASIC Source Code

    Axel Berger wrote:
    (snip)

    > German evening schools (Volkshochschulen) that get three quarters of
    > their revenue out of taxes do *not* offer courses in word processing or
    > spreadsheets, they do offfer courses for "Word" or for "Excel".
    > University professors do not distribute required reading for their
    > students, dependant upon them for their degrees, in open non-
    > proprietary formats but as Word.doc. To me that is open and
    > indisputable corruption and ought to be treated as such, but it isn't.


    I believe that there are free readers (read only) for Word and Excel,
    in addition to OpenOffice and such. As long as they don't ask for
    modifications to be returned it should be fine.

    -- glen


+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 LastLast