Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model - Linux ; Roy Schestowitz espoused: > Music industry finds the solution to its pirate troubles - give everything away > > ,----[ Quote ] >| Yesterday's most high-profile launch, attended by artists including Radio 2 >| favourite James Blunt, was hosted by ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

  1. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    > Music industry finds the solution to its pirate troubles - give everything away
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    >| Yesterday's most high-profile launch, attended by artists including Radio 2
    >| favourite James Blunt, was hosted by Qtrax.
    >|
    >| "We want to bring free music into a legal environment," said chief executive
    >| Allan Klepfisz. "People don't want to be illegal, but they do want free
    >| music."
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...y.digitalmedia
    >
    > Subject line says "so-called" because copyright infringement was conveniently
    > renamed for demonisation purposes.
    >


    Quite. Piracy remains a very real and very nasty crime, whereas
    copyright violation, although clearly illegal, does not involve attacks
    on individuals, property or other tangible things. The music industry
    desperately needs people to hear music, so that they might be persuaded
    to part with cash for it in some way. Daemonising your own customer
    base has to be one of the most short-sighted moves ever.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  2. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    Mark Kent wrote:


    > Daemonising your own customer base has to be one of the most short-sighted
    > moves ever.


    Good. Now explain GPL3 then
    --
    No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
    significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.


  3. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Daemonising your own customer base has to be one of the most short-sighted
    >> moves ever.

    >
    > Good. Now explain GPL3 then


    Right after you explain why the BSD license was not sufficient.

    --
    If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all
    be driving $25 cars that got 1000 MPG.
    -- Bill Gates

  4. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    Linonut wrote:

    > * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Daemonising your own customer base has to be one of the most
    >>> short-sighted moves ever.

    >>
    >> Good. Now explain GPL3 then

    >
    > Right after you explain why the BSD license was not sufficient.
    >


    I asked Mark Kent to tell his "version". After all, he is all for destroying
    Tivo, who have done everything as demanded by the GPL2. He is all for not
    having closed source blobs in drivers, making whole groups of devices
    impossible to use on linux.

    I want *him* to explain this outright idiocy

    I have asked him dozens of times by now, and he is behaving exactly in the
    extremely dishonest way Hadron Quark does: He simply ignores it and keeps
    on telling his lies and bull****
    --
    Who the **** is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?


  5. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    > I have asked him dozens of times by now, and he is behaving exactly in the
    > extremely dishonest way Hadron Quark does: He simply ignores it and keeps
    > on telling his lies and bull****


    Well, Quark salts his bull**** with jeering and insults.

    --
    The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity
    of the present.
    -- Niccolo Machiavelli

  6. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    Linonut wrote:

    >Well, Quark salts his bull**** with jeering and insults.


    Quack is an asshole.


  7. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    Linonut writes:

    > * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >> I have asked him dozens of times by now, and he is behaving exactly in the
    >> extremely dishonest way Hadron Quark does: He simply ignores it and keeps
    >> on telling his lies and bull****

    >
    > Well, Quark salts his bull**** with jeering and insults.


    Only to those that deserve them - namely schizo two faced posters like
    yourself who twist threads and think its ok for YOU to insult people but
    not vice-versa. You are the worst type of hypocrite poster IMO. You
    really COULD do SO much for Linux advocacy. Instead you preen and slink
    and side with the loonies. You also make things up about your commitment
    to OSS tools and SW as has been proved many a time.

  8. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    chrisv writes:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >>Well, Quark salts his bull**** with jeering and insults.

    >
    > Quack is an asshole.
    >


    Perhaps, when judged by your criteria. But at least I don't use a closed
    source newsreader.

    Another fine "advocacy" post from "chrisv"

    ,----
    | X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
    `----

  9. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:38:19 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    > chrisv writes:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>>Well, Quark salts his bull**** with jeering and insults.

    >>
    >> Quack is an asshole.
    >>

    >
    > Perhaps, when judged by your criteria. But at least I don't use a closed
    > source newsreader.
    >
    > Another fine "advocacy" post from "chrisv"
    >
    > ,----
    >| X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
    > `----


    Yea, another hypocrite.

    It amazes me with the 100 or so different OSS news readers available for
    Linux, that some people in this group can;t manage to find one that works.

    Actually, it doesn't amaze me.

  10. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model


    Mark Kent wrote:
    [...]
    > Quite. Piracy remains a very real and very nasty crime, whereas
    > copyright violation, although clearly illegal, does not involve attacks
    > on individuals, property or other tangible things. The music industry


    Copyright rights are *property* rights, silly. See for example

    http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm
    (The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act)

    See also

    http://lysanderspooner.org/intellect/contents.htm
    (THE LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; OR AN ESSAY ON THE RIGHT OF AUTHORS
    AND INVENTORS TO A PERPETUAL PROPERTY IN THEIR IDEAS. VOL. I. BY
    LYSANDER SPOONER. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY BELA MARSH, 15 FRANKLIN STREET.
    1855.)

    OTOH it is totally impossible to steal copyright property once the
    owner ellects to give the general public a license unlimited in scope
    (without scope-of-use and/or timing limitations).

    So "free software model" does resolve piracy for "free" software.

    http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/docket/200.pdf



    Plaintiff has waived his Copyright Rights

    Plaintiff asks this Court not to rule on the issue of copyright
    infringement for numerous irrelevant and nonsensical reasons. First,
    Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "appear to admit they commenced"
    copyright infringement. Opposition at 3, 12. Defendants are at a loss
    why this "appears" to be the case in Plaintiff's eyes. Defendants do
    not admit to any copyright infringement. Second, Plaintiff opines,
    without support, that this Court "may lack jurisdiction" to decide
    whether Plaintiff's claim correctly sounds in copyright. Defendants
    can think of no reason why this Court would lack jurisdiction to hear
    Plaintiff's claim. And, in fact, this Court has already found, the
    failure to credit the JMRI project with the copyright on the decoder
    definition files, does not give rise to copyright infringement. Order
    Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Etc. [Dkt.# 158] at 9-11.
    Finally, Plaintiff argues that extrinsic evidence is needed to resolve
    this issue (however, Plaintiff has attached both the Artistic License
    and the GPL License to his Opposition). Defendants assert that
    Plaintiff has waived his copyright rights as a matter of law. This
    Court's previous finding that Plaintiff has waived his copyright
    rights serves to bar Plaintiff's Digital Millennium Copyright Act
    Claim. While decisions on preliminary injunctions are not binding and
    do not constitute the "law of the case," this Court's findings and
    conclusions are sound and should be reaffirmed here. Golden State
    Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.2d 830, 832 n.3 (9th Cir.
    1985), rev'd on other grounds, 475 U.S. 608, 89 L. Ed. 2d 616, 106 S.
    Ct. 1395 (1986).

    This Court has previously found that (1) the license governing the
    Decoder Definition files is unlimited in scope and (2) that a breach
    of any term of the license, while possibly creating a breach of
    contract cause of action, does not create liability for copyright
    where it otherwise would not exist. Order Granting Defendants' Motion
    to Dismiss, Etc. [Dkt.# 158] at 11. This finding is sound.

    As an initial matter, copyright law, as it is presently written, does
    not recognize a cause of action for non-economic attribution rights.
    Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Cos., 538 F.2d 14, 24 (2nd Cir. 1976)
    ("American copyright law, as presently written, does not recognize
    moral rights or provide a cause of action for their violation, since
    the law seeks to vindicate the economic, rather than the personal
    rights of authors."). Failure to credit the JMRI project with the
    copyright on the Decoder Definition files, does not give rise to
    copyright infringement. Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229, 236 (2nd Cir.
    1998). ("According to Nimmer, 'the general prevailing view in this
    country under copyright law has been that an author who seeks or
    licenses her work does not have an inherent right to be credited as
    author of the work. In line with that general rule, it has been held
    not to infringe an author's copyright for one who is licensed to
    reproduce the work to omit the author's name.' 3 Nimmer on Copyright,
    § 8D.03[A][1], at 8D-32."). Copyright law does not contain the relief
    Plaintiff seeks.

    It is important to note that Plaintiff has mischaracterized the burden
    of persuasion in this matter by characterizing Defendants' position as
    a "defense." See Opposition at 1, 13. Possession of a license by an
    accused infringer has traditionally been characterized as a matter of
    affirmative defense. See, e.g. Nimmer on Copyright § 13.01. However,
    in cases involving this "defense of license," the issue is always
    whether a license exists to protect the accused infringer. See, e.g.
    CMS Software Design Sys., Inc. v. Info Designs, Inc., 785 F.2d 1246,
    1247 (5th Cir. 1986). Since in such cases the evidence of a license is
    readily available to the alleged licensee, it makes sense to put the
    burden of coming forward with the license on the licensee. See Bourne
    v. Walt Disney Co., 68 F.3d 621, 631 (2nd Cir. 1995) (citing United
    States v. Larracuente, 952 F.2d 672, 674 (2nd Cir. 1992)). Here,
    however, there is no dispute as to the existence of the Artistic
    License. This Court has found that the Decoder Definition Files are
    subject to the Artistic License. Order Granting Defendants' Motion to
    Dismiss Etc. [Dkt.# 158] at 9-10. Plaintiff attempts to complicate
    matters by asserting that the Decoder Definition files are now covered
    by a different license, the GPL. Opposition at 12. As discussed above,
    however, the Artistic License is the only relevant license because
    that was the license in effect when the allegedly infringing activity
    occurred. In any event, the existence of a license is not contested by
    either party.

    Where the existence of the license is not questioned, the issue
    becomes the scope of the license. In cases where only the scope of the
    license is at issue, Plaintiff, as the copyright owner, bears the
    burden of proving that Defendants' allegedly infringing acts were not
    authorized under the license. Bourne 68 F.3d at 631; S.O.S. Inc. v.
    Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 1989); Netbula, LLC, v.
    Bindview Dev. Corp., 516 F.Supp.2d 1137, 1151 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

    Notwithstanding Plaintiff's confused, rambling and not particularly
    lucid discussion of unilateral contracts, bilateral contracts, implied
    licenses and "bare" licenses in his Opposition papers, the issue at
    hand is fairly simple. The issue is whether Defendants took pursuant
    to a license. A copyright owner who grants a nonexclusive license to
    use his copyrighted material waives his right to sue the licensee for
    copyright infringement and can only sue for breach of contract. Sun
    Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1121-1122 (9th
    Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229, 236 (2nd Cir.
    1998)). However, if a license is limited in scope, and the licensee
    acts outside the scope of the license, the licensor can bring an
    action for copyright infringement. Id.

    This Court has previously found that the license is unambiguously
    unlimited in scope. Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Etc.
    [Dkt.# 158] at 11. A court may interpret a copyright license as a
    matter of law when the language of the license is unambiguous. Allman
    v. Capricorn Records, 42 Fed. Appx. 82, 84 (9th Cir. 2002). A person
    exceeds the scope of a license if that person exceeds the specific
    purpose for which the permission was granted. Gilliam v. American
    Broadcasting Cos., 538 F.2d 14, 20-21 (2nd Cir. 1976) (emphasis
    added). Courts have recognized scope limitations in licenses involving
    materials subject to time and media-based constraints. See, e.g. id.;
    Jarvis v. K2 Inc., 486 F.3d 526, 539 (9th Cir. 2007) (photographic
    images could not be used after a certain time period pursuant to the
    contract language); Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 391 F.2d 150
    (2nd Cir. 1968) cert. denied, 393 U.S. 826, 21 L. Ed. 2d 96, 89 S. Ct.
    86 (1968) (motion picture rights to a musical play also entitled
    telecasting of the play); G. Ricordi & Co. v. Paramount Pictures Inc.,
    189 F.2d 469 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 849, 96 L. Ed. 641, 72
    S. Ct. 77 (1951) (rights to make a movie expired when the term of the
    copyright exclusive right in the play expired); Greenfield v. Twin
    Vision Graphics, Inc., 268 F.Supp.2d 358, 382-384 (D. N.J. 2003) (use
    of copyrighted photographs after expiration of license constituted
    infringement).

    Here, however, Plaintiff has not retained any underlying copyright to
    the Decoder Definition files and at no time or under any circumstance
    do the exclusive copyright rights revert back to Plaintiff. See
    Exhibit A to Opposition; Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 2, 249-254.
    Therefore, this Court correctly found that the license is unlimited in
    scope. Where, as here, a copyright holder does not retain any
    copyright rights to the work, Courts have held that:

    It is elementary that a lawful owner of a copyright is incapable of
    infringing a copyright interest that is owned by him. Hence, an
    exclusive licensee of any of the rights comprised in the copyright,
    though it is capable of breaching the contractual obligations imposed
    on it by the license, cannot be liable for infringing the copyright
    rights conveyed to it.

    United States Naval Institute v. Charter Communications, Inc., 936
    F.2d 692, 695 (2nd Cir. 1991). In United States Naval Institute, the
    Naval Institute alleged that the defendant had issued paperback
    editions of the Hunt for Red October before the agreed upon date. Id.
    The contract between the Naval Institute and defendant was executed on
    September 14, 1984 and one of the terms prohibited the defendant from
    publishing the paperback edition prior to October 1985. Id at 692. The
    Court held that the exclusive license began on September 14, 1984 and
    that any premature publishing by the defendant took place after that
    date and was, consequently, a breach of a covenant but not copyright
    infringement. Id. at 695. Similarly, here, Plaintiff conveyed all of
    his copyright rights into the public domain. Then, subsequent to the
    transfer of all rights, Plaintiff's Artistic License attempts to put
    restrictions on the distribution of derivative works of the Decoder
    Definition files. While these restrictions are contractual obligations
    imposed by the license, they do not limit or affect the unconditional
    conveyance of Plaintiff's copyright rights. See id.; see also
    Considine v. Penguin, U.S.A., 24 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) U.S. Dist. LEXIS
    10570 (S.D. N.Y. 1992) (holding that a phrase limiting a publisher's
    use of first serial rights is a covenant and not a condition on the
    granting of an exclusive license since the license was previously
    granted unconditionally). Since Plaintiff did not retain any
    underlying copyright, Plaintiff has waived his right to sue in
    copyright and can therefore not make out a claim for a DMCA violation.
    Plaintiff's DMCA claim should be dismissed without leave to amend.

    [...]

    Plaintiff's breach of contract action fails to state a claim

    In his breach of contract claim, the plaintiff seeks "rescission, and
    disgorgement of the value he conferred on Defendants, plus interest
    and cost." While it is conceivable that plaintiff has the right to
    nominal damages under Cal Civ Code § 3360, the plaintiff has not
    pleaded such a claim and seeks disgorgement damages not permissible
    under California law for breach of contract. Under California law, the
    proper measure of damages for breach of contract is one that will
    compensate the party not in breach "for all the detriment proximately
    caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be
    likely to result therefrom." Cal Civ Code § 3300. Accordingly, it is
    essential that a causal connection between the breach and the damages
    sought exists. 1 Witkin, Summary 10th (2005) Contracts, § 870, p. 956.
    Here, the plaintiff has failed to plead the requisite casual
    connection between the breach and his claim for disgorgement and has
    not pleaded any detriment for which compensation is due. Although the
    plaintiff has plead a general unspecified "harm," the plaintiff has
    not linked, and cannot link, that harm to the value, if any, conferred
    to the defendants. Because the plaintiff has not pleaded nominal
    damages, or damages recoverable under California law, the plaintiff's
    breach of contract claim should be dismissed.



    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    http://www.linuxtaliban.com/bilder.htm

  11. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    Hadron wrote:
    > chrisv writes:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>>Well, Quark salts his bull**** with jeering and insults.

    >>
    >> Quack is an asshole.
    >>

    >
    > Perhaps, when judged by your criteria. But at least I don't use a closed
    > source newsreader.
    >
    > Another fine "advocacy" post from "chrisv"
    >
    > ,----
    > | X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
    > `----


    You are ****ing clueless if you think you can tell much of anything
    from usenet headers.


  12. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:32:12 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> chrisv writes:
    >>
    >>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Well, Quark salts his bull**** with jeering and insults.
    >>>
    >>> Quack is an asshole.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Perhaps, when judged by your criteria. But at least I don't use a closed
    >> source newsreader.
    >>
    >> Another fine "advocacy" post from "chrisv"
    >>
    >> ,----
    >>| X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
    >> `----

    >
    > You are ****ing clueless if you think you can tell much of anything
    > from usenet headers.


    Linux nuts are about the only people who actually care about headers and
    they just LOVE to have some obtuse, cryptic, ancient Newreader showing up.

    Like tin or trn or slrn or emacs (just to show they could actually get it
    to work).

    It gives them a feeling of superiority over the point and click crowd.

    So, with that in mind, it's highly unlikely that a Linux freak would munge
    a header to show a Windows News reader.

  13. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:32:12 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> chrisv writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>Well, Quark salts his bull**** with jeering and insults.
    >>>>
    >>>> Quack is an asshole.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps, when judged by your criteria. But at least I don't use a closed
    >>> source newsreader.
    >>>
    >>> Another fine "advocacy" post from "chrisv"
    >>>
    >>> ,----
    >>>| X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
    >>> `----

    >>
    >> You are ****ing clueless if you think you can tell much of anything
    >> from usenet headers.

    >
    > Linux nuts are about the only people who actually care about headers and
    > they just LOVE to have some obtuse, cryptic, ancient Newreader showing up.
    >


    Hadron seems to be the only person here who cares about Newsreader
    headers


    > Like tin or trn or slrn or emacs (just to show they could actually get it
    > to work).
    >


    Is that why Hadron inserts an emacs User-Agent header?


    > It gives them a feeling of superiority over the point and click crowd.
    >
    > So, with that in mind, it's highly unlikely that a Linux freak would munge
    > a header to show a Windows News reader.


    Unless he had a reason to want you to think he was running Windoze.


  14. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:05:11 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:32:12 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> chrisv writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Well, Quark salts his bull**** with jeering and insults.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Quack is an asshole.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Perhaps, when judged by your criteria. But at least I don't use a closed
    >>>> source newsreader.
    >>>>
    >>>> Another fine "advocacy" post from "chrisv"
    >>>>
    >>>> ,----
    >>>>| X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
    >>>> `----
    >>>
    >>> You are ****ing clueless if you think you can tell much of anything
    >>> from usenet headers.

    >>
    >> Linux nuts are about the only people who actually care about headers and
    >> they just LOVE to have some obtuse, cryptic, ancient Newreader showing up.
    >>

    >
    > Hadron seems to be the only person here who cares about Newsreader
    > headers
    >
    >
    >> Like tin or trn or slrn or emacs (just to show they could actually get it
    >> to work).
    >>

    >
    > Is that why Hadron inserts an emacs User-Agent header?


    Windows users actually USE the program.
    Linux users brag about using the program.

    Take a look at some of the crap these Linoscrews have in their headers.


    >
    >> It gives them a feeling of superiority over the point and click crowd.
    >>
    >> So, with that in mind, it's highly unlikely that a Linux freak would munge
    >> a header to show a Windows News reader.

    >
    > Unless he had a reason to want you to think he was running Windoze.


    No self respting Lino-freak would do that.
    Generally the first accusation the Linux freak makes when he sees a
    newcomer in COLA is something along the lines of using Outlook to post to
    COLA.

    Nobody really cares, except the Linux freak because he has to feel superior
    using slrn.

  15. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    On 2008-01-29, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Daemonising your own customer base has to be one of the most short-sighted
    >> moves ever.

    >
    > Good. Now explain GPL3 then


    End users are the customer, not robber baron wannabes.


    This came out in a recent discusion on a Solaris dominated list.
    Someone was upset that she couldn't take someone elses code, make
    some minor tweaks and then act as if it was her own personal
    private property.

    Then she had the gaul to whine at the rest of us for excusing
    or tolerating piracy and whatnot.


    The GPL in all of its various form is only a problem for those
    that do not wish to share in the manner that they have been allowed
    to share: IOW self-centered jerks.

    --
    If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
    hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  16. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    On 2008-01-29, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Daemonising your own customer base has to be one of the most
    >>>> short-sighted moves ever.
    >>>
    >>> Good. Now explain GPL3 then

    >>
    >> Right after you explain why the BSD license was not sufficient.
    >>

    >
    > I asked Mark Kent to tell his "version". After all, he is all for destroying
    > Tivo, who have done everything as demanded by the GPL2. He is all for not
    > having closed source blobs in drivers, making whole groups of devices
    > impossible to use on linux.


    The GPL was invented because some "crackpot" was pissed off about
    not being able to fix a device drivers. So the idea that the GPL might
    torpedo binary-only drivers is very appropriate.

    [deletia]

    Any person that's not completely gullible should be suspicious of a
    driver that needs to hide.

    --
    If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
    hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  17. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    On 2008-01-29, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    > [...]
    >> Quite. Piracy remains a very real and very nasty crime, whereas
    >> copyright violation, although clearly illegal, does not involve attacks
    >> on individuals, property or other tangible things. The music industry

    >
    > Copyright rights are *property* rights, silly. See for example


    No they aren't.

    They are a temporary grant intended to suit the public interest.

    They are not perpetual. They are meant to expire. This is quite
    distinct from real or personal property. These "property rights"
    also are missing key things from real property law like
    adverse posession.

    [deletia]

    They aren't even "rights" in the usual intention of that word.

    That is why they are isolated in the law from everything else
    that one would normally think of as a "right". That's no accident.

    --
    If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
    hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  18. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free SoftwareModel

    "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    slrnfpvp5v.5f3.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 1/29/08 7:45 PM:

    > Any person that's not completely gullible should be suspicious of a
    > driver that needs to hide.


    Any caddy, too!

    --
    Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
    slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
    imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal


  19. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    * owl peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >> So, with that in mind, it's highly unlikely that a Linux freak would munge
    >> a header to show a Windows News reader.

    >
    > Unless he had a reason to want you to think he was running Windoze.


    Or was posting from work.

    Looks like Niccolo knows why Hadron has a hard-on for me, by the way.


    --
    Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil.
    -- Niccolo Machiavelli

  20. Re: [News] So-Called 'Piracy' Resolved with the Free Software Model

    owl writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> chrisv writes:
    >>
    >>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Well, Quark salts his bull**** with jeering and insults.
    >>>
    >>> Quack is an asshole.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Perhaps, when judged by your criteria. But at least I don't use a closed
    >> source newsreader.
    >>
    >> Another fine "advocacy" post from "chrisv"
    >>
    >> ,----
    >> | X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
    >> `----

    >
    > You are ****ing clueless if you think you can tell much of anything
    > from usenet headers.


    How stupid are you?

    It's a pisstake.

    Will you be remonstrating with Mark Kent, Roy, chrisv and Will "Filters"
    Retard for claiming just that?

    No?

    What a surprise.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast