N
Notan
nemo_outis said:
Freddie seems to think that, because he can't put his little fingers on
the software code, it's intangible and, therefore, available at no cost.
Throw around whatever legalese you'd like, it's still stealing.
Notan
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Freddie seems to think that, because he can't put his little fingers on
the software code, it's intangible and, therefore, available at no cost.
Throw around whatever legalese you'd like, it's still stealing.
Notan
N
nemo_outis
Freddie seems to think that, because he can't put his little fingers
on the software code, it's intangible and, therefore, available at no
cost.
Throw around whatever legalese you'd like, it's still stealing.
Notan
Feel free to bury your head as deeply in the sand as you wish, while
jamming your fingers in your ears, and humming loudly. While that will
prevent you hearing uncomfortable truths, it will not change their nature.
No amount of your disdain for clear thought and careful distinctions
detracts from those important things but rather, to the contrary, it
indicts you as either a sloppy thinker or one unwilling to think at all.
So, no, it isn't stealing. While I agree it is unlawful in many
jurisdictions, it is an activity of a considerably different character.
Regards,
PS To fill the lacuna (or should that be chasm?) in your knowledge you
might want to start your investigations of intellectual property with the
history of the scriveners' guild - or even further back with the abbot's
psalter.
But you needn't go to all that trouble. The nice thing about your approach
of moralistic ranting is that there needn't be any foundation of knowledge
or understanding to support it. Very convenient for the intellectually
lazy or inept.
,
N
Notan
nemo_outis said:Feel free to bury your head as deeply in the sand as you wish, while
jamming your fingers in your ears, and humming loudly. While that will
prevent you hearing uncomfortable truths, it will not change their nature.
No amount of your disdain for clear thought and careful distinctions
detracts from those important things but rather, to the contrary, it
indicts you as either a sloppy thinker or one unwilling to think at all.
So, no, it isn't stealing. While I agree it is unlawful in many
jurisdictions, it is an activity of a considerably different character.
Regards,
PS To fill the lacuna (or should that be chasm?) in your knowledge you
might want to start your investigations of intellectual property with the
history of the scriveners' guild - or even further back with the abbot's
psalter.
But you needn't go to all that trouble. The nice thing about your approach
of moralistic ranting is that there needn't be any foundation of knowledge
or understanding to support it. Very convenient for the intellectually
lazy or inept.
I've read some of your previous posts and, you're correct. There's no point
in discussing this topic, any further.
If you haven't, already, you really should consider politics as a profession.
NOtan
N
nemo_outis
....snip...
Professions that a person of your intellectual calibre should consider
include doorstop, paperweight, and boat anchor.
Regards,
I've read some of your previous posts and, you're correct. There's no
point in discussing this topic, any further.
If you haven't, already, you really should consider politics as a
profession.
NOtan
Professions that a person of your intellectual calibre should consider
include doorstop, paperweight, and boat anchor.
Regards,
W
Winged
Notan said:Software isn't tangible, huh?
Then how do you explain all the software CDs that I own?
Notan
You read those licenses? You don't own anything.
Winged
N
Notan
Winged said:You read those licenses? You don't own anything.
I'm aware that the consumer doesn't "own" the software,
he/she merely purchases the right to use it.
Notan
D
David
Pardon me. Theft of intellectual property. Happy now?Although I'm sure you're enjoying your moral posturing immensely, you might
want to pause, however briefly, to try something that is obviously
unfamiliar to you: thinking.
We are not discussing theft but rather infringement of intellectual
property laws, such as copyright and licences. Different history,
different laws, and different political, social, and economic issues.
Sorry to have interrupted you - feel free to climb back on your high horse.
Regards,
Whatever you call it, it is still theft and it is still illegal.
N
Notan
David said:<snip>
Pardon me. Theft of intellectual property. Happy now?
Whatever you call it, it is still theft and it is still illegal.
Don't let him upset you.
Daddy obviously got his money's worth, sending nemo to a school which
put a high priority on the value of multisyllabic doublespeak.
Nemo's no more honest than Freddy... He just has a larger vocabulary.
Notan
M
Mel
Guess what? Fred doesn't really care if it's illegal or not, so why notPardon me. Theft of intellectual property. Happy now?
Whatever you call it, it is still theft and it is still illegal.
stop feeding the troll?
Supported systems and license
=============================
SensiveGuard supports Windows 2K and XP, and is license free for
personal use
http://www.sensiveguard.com/
N
nemo_outis
Pardon me. Theft of intellectual property. Happy now?
Whatever you call it, it is still theft and it is still illegal.
Oh dear, I should charge for having to teach. Especially such a
recalcitrant and unpromising pupil.
No, m'boy, it is not theft. "Intellectual property," to use the term
much in vogue, is an analogy, not an accurate description. It is
tendentious to the point of begging the question to call it property even
when it is preceded by the qualifier "intellectual." However, the ploy
clearly works very well to deceive the weak-minded, like you!
Copyright, trade marks, patents, and related matters actually share very
little in common with what has been historically meant by property. And,
corrspondingly, the term "theft" is a very poor one for infringements
regarding such matters (although, once again, the attempt to deceive the
weak-minded has apparently been quite successful.)
You, like so many mouthbreathers, have been misled by someone pre-empting
and promoting a biased terminology in lieu of making an argument.
Theft is more precisely called "larceny" in most (common-law)
jurisdictions and, simplifying somewhat, it is characterized by the
taking away of moveable property depriving the owner of it. For
instance, you cannot commit "theft" (larceny) of what is historically and
economically the most important kind of property: real property (e.g.,
land). And then there is "conversion" as opposed to, or as an element
of, larceny, and on and on...
Moreover (and, once again, qualifications are required that there may be
differences between jurisdictions) there is no larceny if the property is
taken away under a claim of right - and here's the kicker! - even if that
claim is not well-founded!
Moreover (although statute law may say differently in some jurisdictions)
an infringement of copyright is generally a tortious act, not a criminal
one. (In contradistinction, the acts constituting "theft" usually result
in both a civil and a criminal wrong.)
I could go on - I have only scratched the surface - but I already fear I
may be responsible for making your head burst from too much information
entering at once into that dusty disused attic.
Regards,
PS As just one concrete illustration, patents are fundamentally a
*privilege* granted by the state primarily to secure the common weal by
encouraging the invention and subsequent production of useful things.
Their primary purpose is public benefit, not individual enrichment.
That, at least, is the prevalent legal theory. For instance, in many
countries, patents may carry obligations as well as rights, such as the
obligation to either manufacture or grant licences to others to
manufacture.
W
Walter Roberson
nemo_outis said:Theft is more precisely called "larceny" in most (common-law)
jurisdictions and, simplifying somewhat, it is characterized by the
taking away of moveable property depriving the owner of it. For
instance, you cannot commit "theft" (larceny) of what is historically and
economically the most important kind of property: real property (e.g.,
land). And then there is "conversion" as opposed to, or as an element
of, larceny, and on and on...
Nice theory, but it doesn't hold true.
- Canada's Criminal Code does not contain even a single reference
to "larceny".
- Canada's Criminal Code defines several offences as "theft" that
do not involve moveable property, including (for example),
"theft of telecommunications".
- Using someone else's credit card number without permission is widely
recognized as "theft" even though it does not involve "movable
property".
Moreover (and, once again, qualifications are required that there may be
differences between jurisdictions) there is no larceny if the property is
taken away under a claim of right - and here's the kicker! - even if that
claim is not well-founded!
The term in Canada is "colour of right", and it holds only through
due process, or when a baliff or law enforcement official has been
givn good reason to believe that the deprivation of property is
within the official's duty. For eample, if a police officer is told
by a superior officer to seize something, then the seizing officer
is not liable if it turns out that the superior officer did not
have adequate justification. But if a police officer steps up to
you and says, "Nice watch. Give it to me!" for personal gain,
then the officer is -not- operating under colour of right.
Moreover (although statute law may say differently in some jurisdictions)
an infringement of copyright is generally a tortious act, not a criminal
one. (In contradistinction, the acts constituting "theft" usually result
in both a civil and a criminal wrong.)
Both Canada and the USA have penalties for copyright violation
that include potential jail time. In the USA, the potential jail time
exceeds 2 years, making the offence a "felony". Canada does not
use the concept of "felony".
PS As just one concrete illustration, patents are fundamentally a
*privilege* granted by the state primarily to secure the common weal by
encouraging the invention and subsequent production of useful things.
Their primary purpose is public benefit, not individual enrichment.
Yes? And does that somehow imply that it is impossible to steal the
benefits of the privilege so granted?
N
nemo_outis
(e-mail address removed)-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote in
Canada's Criminal Code is a statute and as such can use any choice of
terminology it wishes rather than adhere to common-law practice.
Yes, the word theft is used very loosely in a number of situations to
which it manifestly does not apply. The word "war" also suffers from
similar distortions by propagandists and the ignorant on whom they prey -
"war on drugs" springs to mind as an obvious, but very common, misuse.
Spin and PR are popular modes of social control, and misapplying labels
is a standard technique.
You are conflating and confusing colour of right and colour of authority,
but, no matter, it doesn't invalidate in any way the point I made that
theft is not as clear-cut, legally or socially, as some here would have
it.
Moreover, despite even the distortions and extensions of the term theft
that you point out, statutes still shrink from using the word theft in
conjunction with copyright. That is a PR spin too far even for
legislators.
Yes, indeedy, there are stautes with penalties - what a revelation! Yep,
there are all kinds of penalties under all kinds of statutes, most of
them only quasi-criminal, since they represent the gigantic expansion of
administrative law over the last 50 years or so.
And there is a mighty push from some quarters, such as the RIAA, to make
the penalties explicitly criminal, despite a broad public resistance not
only to criminalization but also to many aspects of current copyright
law. Just one example of how strongly copyright differs from property
and theft in any conventional sense.
One can infringe the copyright and the holder has a number of avenues for
redress. But I see you are still determined to appropriate the highly-
coloured term "theft."
Well then, let me propose some alternate terms. Rather than
"intellectual property" let's call the category, say, "Government-Granted
Privileged Monopolies and Exclusions" which, despite its wordiness, has
at least the virtue of accuracy. Not quite as appealing as intellectual
property, is it? Lacks spin and PR value. And much harder to
characterize opposition as theft rather than, say, cartel-busting, ain't
it?
Regards,
PS After all, "intellectual property" is largely a self-serving
buzzword promoted from the 1967 Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property - UN sponsored but essentially just another industry
lobbying session for aggrandizement of their monopolistic powers.
Nice theory, but it doesn't hold true.
- Canada's Criminal Code does not contain even a single reference
to "larceny".
Canada's Criminal Code is a statute and as such can use any choice of
terminology it wishes rather than adhere to common-law practice.
- Canada's Criminal Code defines several offences as "theft" that
do not involve moveable property, including (for example),
"theft of telecommunications".
- Using someone else's credit card number without permission is widely
recognized as "theft" even though it does not involve "movable
property".
Yes, the word theft is used very loosely in a number of situations to
which it manifestly does not apply. The word "war" also suffers from
similar distortions by propagandists and the ignorant on whom they prey -
"war on drugs" springs to mind as an obvious, but very common, misuse.
Spin and PR are popular modes of social control, and misapplying labels
is a standard technique.
You are conflating and confusing colour of right and colour of authority,
but, no matter, it doesn't invalidate in any way the point I made that
theft is not as clear-cut, legally or socially, as some here would have
it.
Moreover, despite even the distortions and extensions of the term theft
that you point out, statutes still shrink from using the word theft in
conjunction with copyright. That is a PR spin too far even for
legislators.
Both Canada and the USA have penalties for copyright violation
that include potential jail time. In the USA, the potential jail time
exceeds 2 years, making the offence a "felony". Canada does not
use the concept of "felony".
Yes, indeedy, there are stautes with penalties - what a revelation! Yep,
there are all kinds of penalties under all kinds of statutes, most of
them only quasi-criminal, since they represent the gigantic expansion of
administrative law over the last 50 years or so.
And there is a mighty push from some quarters, such as the RIAA, to make
the penalties explicitly criminal, despite a broad public resistance not
only to criminalization but also to many aspects of current copyright
law. Just one example of how strongly copyright differs from property
and theft in any conventional sense.
Yes? And does that somehow imply that it is impossible to steal the
benefits of the privilege so granted?
One can infringe the copyright and the holder has a number of avenues for
redress. But I see you are still determined to appropriate the highly-
coloured term "theft."
Well then, let me propose some alternate terms. Rather than
"intellectual property" let's call the category, say, "Government-Granted
Privileged Monopolies and Exclusions" which, despite its wordiness, has
at least the virtue of accuracy. Not quite as appealing as intellectual
property, is it? Lacks spin and PR value. And much harder to
characterize opposition as theft rather than, say, cartel-busting, ain't
it?
Regards,
PS After all, "intellectual property" is largely a self-serving
buzzword promoted from the 1967 Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property - UN sponsored but essentially just another industry
lobbying session for aggrandizement of their monopolistic powers.
F
Fred
my diagnosis is PERMANENT BRAIN DAMAGE
....caused by bad babysitting!
....caused by bad babysitting!
C
Colin B.
In alt.computer.security Franklin said:I was looking for an alternative freeware firewall (I don't like
ZA, Sygate is nice but I get problems with it, Kerio 2.1.5 is too
technical for me, and Outpost is too hard to work out)
I'd try m0n0wall. It's a striped-down BSD running IPfilter, with lots of
nice configuration/monitoring tools.
K
Kerodo
I'd try m0n0wall. It's a striped-down BSD running IPfilter, with lots of
nice configuration/monitoring tools.
Surely you jest...
J
Jason
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.computer.security.]
Ya no kidding, if Kerio and Outpost are too hard for the OP m0n0wall
will kill them.
Jason
* Kerodo said:Surely you jest...
Ya no kidding, if Kerio and Outpost are too hard for the OP m0n0wall
will kill them.
Jason
F
Franklin
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.computer.security.]
* Kerodo said:Surely you jest...
Ya no kidding, if Kerio and Outpost are too hard for the OP
m0n0wall will kill them.
Jason
Thanks for the warning Jason. The last I want is a firewall which
needs constant tweaking by the user.
Kerio (I am referring to freeware version 2.1.5 rather than its
later incarnations) is loved by its devotees but the rules which
you have to write to get a decent level of protection take more
time than I'm able to spend. Plus the need to make it resistent
to a frag attack.
As for Outlook, the way it approaches its rules thru its popup
menus is a bit too odd for me. It was hard to see what Outlook
was actual going to set and then it was hard for me to review the
security settings. In fact, it was too oodd for me. OTOH last
time I looked it did have a reasonable name for protction.
OTOH Sygate is a quite sweetie to operate and permits tweaking
where you can set all sorts of stuff like type of ICMP packets to
permit/deny.
However I am experimenting with Filseclab at the moment. This is
nice but you can't really set much more than one thing in a single
rule and that can be awkward.
m0n0wall is looks a bit like a work in progress. When it needs
less of the "unix-technical-hero" approach then I will have a much
closer look.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.