billg cleans up Doom ..

It was on, or about, Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:49:31 +0800, that as I was
halfway through a large jam doughnut, ws wrote:

> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:47:14 +0100, William Poaster wrote:
>>
>>> Seems like Quack *still* needs a clue..
>>
>> _a_ clue?
>
> how about *a* 20' by 40' clueblock, should be enough...

Yup, *that's* the kind of clue I was alluding to!

--
The universe exploded out of nothingness 14 billion years ago.
14 billion years later, & some of us have 100 trillion
interconnected cells, & a self-aware consciousness.
Others post through GoogleGroups, & insist on installing Vista.

dapunka <dapunka.DeleteThis@googlemail.com> writes:

> On 1 Aug, 02:50, "[H]omer" <s....DeleteThis@uce.gov> wrote:
>> Halfwit Hardon wrote:
>> >> Windows and Mac users *buy* SW.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> From what I've seen, mostly they just *steal* it.
>
> I just thought I'd point out that Windows and Mac users do NOT buy
> software. They purchase permission to use software that is on a CD/
> DVD that they paid for in the store, yet which remains the property of
> the software creator. Or something.
>

You get more ridiculous as the days go by. I had had hopes for you
before you took your bronze medal zealot tests that is.

"Or something".

[H]omer <spam.TakeThisOut@uce.gov> espoused:
> Verily I say unto thee, that dapunka spake thusly:
>> On 1 Aug, 02:50, "[H]omer" <s....TakeThisOut@uce.gov> wrote:
>>> Halfwit Hardon wrote:
>
>>>>> Windows and Mac users *buy* SW.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> From what I've seen, mostly they just *steal* it.
>>
>> I just thought I'd point out that Windows and Mac users do NOT buy
>> software. They purchase permission to use software that is on a CD/
>> DVD that they paid for in the store, yet which remains the property of
>> the software creator. Or something.
>
> Yes, I would hope that most people are aware that one merely purchases a
> license, rather than anything tangible (packaging aside).
>
> Similarly, obtaining and using software out of license is not
> necessarily theft, it is a violation of that license. It is perfectly
> feasible to use software out of license without stealing it, indeed
> companies that fall behind with their license auditing often suffer this
> problem, but I doubt that e.g. Microsoft would not describe those as
> instances of theft. As another example, companies have been charged with
> violation of the GPL, but that is nothing to do with theft either ...
> how is it possible to *steal* Free software?
>
> Using terms like "stealing" and "buying" in relation to "software", is
> merely a convenience.
>

Quite right. The only situation I can imagine where the term "stealing"
would be proper is should someone actually remove the only copy or all
copies of source-code for a project and hide it or make it inaccessible.

When binaries are the subject of discussion, then the proper term would
be copyright violation. As this doesn't sound very sexy at all, the
film and music industries tried to take (steal?) the term "piracy",
something which describes the theft of goods on the high seas, often
very violently indeed, and re-assign it to copyright violation.

We even have the body "FACT", the federation against copyright theft,
and yet, you can't steal copyright!

--
| 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 |

On 2 Aug, 09:29, Hadron <hadronqu... DeleteThis @googlemail.com> wrote:
> dapunka <dapu... DeleteThis @googlemail.com> writes:
> > On 1 Aug, 02:50, "[H]omer" <s... DeleteThis @uce.gov> wrote:
> >> Halfwit Hardon wrote:
> >> >> Windows and Mac users *buy* SW.
>
> >> Really?
>
> >> From what I've seen, mostly they just *steal* it.
>
> > I just thought I'd point out that Windows and Mac users do NOT buy
> > software. They purchase permission to use software that is on a CD/
> > DVD that they paid for in the store, yet which remains the property of
> > the software creator. Or something.
>
> You get more ridiculous as the days go by. I had had hopes for you
> before you took your bronze medal zealot tests that is.
>
> "Or something".

What, am I wrong?

Verily I say unto thee, that Mark Kent spake thusly:
> [H]omer <spam RemoveThis @uce.gov> espoused:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that dapunka spake thusly:
>>> On 1 Aug, 02:50, "[H]omer" <s... RemoveThis @uce.gov> wrote:
>>>> Halfwit Hardon wrote:
>>>>>> Windows and Mac users *buy* SW.
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> From what I've seen, mostly they just *steal* it.
>>> I just thought I'd point out that Windows and Mac users do NOT buy
>>> software. They purchase permission to use software that is on a CD/
>>> DVD that they paid for in the store, yet which remains the property of
>>> the software creator. Or something.
>> Yes, I would hope that most people are aware that one merely purchases a
>> license, rather than anything tangible (packaging aside).
>>
>> Similarly, obtaining and using software out of license is not
>> necessarily theft, it is a violation of that license. It is perfectly
>> feasible to use software out of license without stealing it, indeed
>> companies that fall behind with their license auditing often suffer this
>> problem, but I doubt that e.g. Microsoft would not describe those as
>> instances of theft. As another example, companies have been charged with
>> violation of the GPL, but that is nothing to do with theft either ...
>> how is it possible to *steal* Free software?
>>
>> Using terms like "stealing" and "buying" in relation to "software", is
>> merely a convenience.
>>
>
> Quite right. The only situation I can imagine where the term "stealing"
> would be proper is should someone actually remove the only copy or all
> copies of source-code for a project and hide it or make it inaccessible.
>
> When binaries are the subject of discussion, then the proper term would
> be copyright violation. As this doesn't sound very sexy at all, the
> film and music industries tried to take (steal?) the term "piracy",
> something which describes the theft of goods on the high seas, often
> very violently indeed, and re-assign it to copyright violation.
>
> We even have the body "FACT", the federation against copyright theft,
> and yet, you can't steal copyright!

As much as I despise thieves, I've always found it strangely amusing
that the software industry (in the greater sense) refers to (what is
essentially) photocopying as theft. It always reminds me of the rather
primitive and superstitious belief that someone taking your photo is
sealing your soul.

Also I wish to correct my accidental double-negative above, which should
of course read "I doubt that e.g. Microsoft would describe those as
instances of theft."

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac man affected us as
| kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills
| and listening to repetitive music." - Kristian Wilson, Nintendo
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7
20:09:04 up 3 days, 5:24, 2 users, load average: 0.15, 0.20, 0.18

After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> On Aug 1, 7:27 am, Linonut <lino....RemoveThis@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> See my response to Homer, but yeah, that's basically it. A majority of
> software is obtained legally, so Homer's comment was completely wrong.
> At first I thought you meant that Homer's done some research and his
> "circle" came up with a number greater that 35%, but then I thought
> you meant he just runs with a lot of criminals.

It could be that, too <grin>.

But I think it is mostly that those who can do it, do it.

--
Tux rox!

Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:

>> At first I thought you meant that Homer's done some research and
>> his "circle" came up with a number greater that 35%

What "number"? I never cited any "number".

>> but then I thought you meant he just runs with a lot of criminals.

Yeah, that must be it. Oh wait ...

I suppose all the warez on the a.b.w.* groups, P2P networks like
Gnutella and FastTrack, and BitTorrent, are just figments of my
imagination, are they?

In all the many years I've been using computers, I've rarely met anyone
who (if they used proprietary software at all) never used any pirate
software, and I've known people from a very wide variety of backgrounds.

> It could be that, too <grin>.

It's unavoidable, given that the average person's mentality about
software (including music and video, as well as applications), is "why
buy it, when I can download it for free". And this doesn't seem to be
limited to the poor; I've known plenty of affluent people who have vast
collections of pirate software of one kind or another.

The most recent example was one of my mother's friends; a woman in her
forties who works in social care (i.e. a civil servant / government
worker), who asked me if I could download some specific music for her.
When I explained to her that it was illegal, her first reaction was to
laugh, then with a quizzical look on her face she asked "really?", then
when she saw I wasn't smiling, she asked me if I'd just explain to her
how to do it and where to get the music, and she'd do it herself. With a
sigh, I told her to Google for Limewire, then lectured her about
viruses, etc., and explained that she'd be better off just buying CDs
from Amazon. I got the impression that my advice just went in one ear
and out the other.

People ... ordinary people ... just don't give a damn about copyrights.
That is the stark and brutally honest answer - anyone who pretends
otherwise is living in la-la land.

> But I think it is mostly that those who can do it, do it.

That would be nearly everyone.

--
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac man affected us as
| kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills
| and listening to repetitive music." - Kristian Wilson, Nintendo
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7
06:56:59 up 3 days, 16:12, 2 users, load average: 0.17, 0.17, 0.18

dapunka <dapunka RemoveThis @googlemail.com> writes:

> On 2 Aug, 09:29, Hadron <hadronqu... RemoveThis @googlemail.com> wrote:
>> dapunka <dapu... RemoveThis @googlemail.com> writes:
>> > On 1 Aug, 02:50, "[H]omer" <s... RemoveThis @uce.gov> wrote:
>> >> Halfwit Hardon wrote:
>> >> >> Windows and Mac users *buy* SW.
>>
>> >> Really?
>>
>> >> From what I've seen, mostly they just *steal* it.
>>
>> > I just thought I'd point out that Windows and Mac users do NOT buy
>> > software. They purchase permission to use software that is on a CD/
>> > DVD that they paid for in the store, yet which remains the property of
>> > the software creator. Or something.
>>
>> You get more ridiculous as the days go by. I had had hopes for you
>> before you took your bronze medal zealot tests that is.
>>
>> "Or something".
>
> What, am I wrong?
>

You tell me. You launch into some ridiculous COLA tirade and then admit
you have no idea what you are talking about. It isn't the first time.

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:50:27 +0100, [H]omer wrote:

> Halfwit Hardon wrote:
>
>>> Windows and Mac users *buy* SW.
>
> Really?
>
> From what I've seen, mostly they just *steal* it.

Dunno about "mostly", but I do recall Microsoft making some noise about
rampant piracy, particularly in China. If it's bad enough for them to get
in a tizzy over it, one must think the problem is not exactly non-existent.

On Aug 3, 1:58 am, "[H]omer" <s... DeleteThis @uce.gov> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
>
> > After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> >> At first I thought you meant that Homer's done some research and
> >> his "circle" came up with a number greater that 35%
>
> What "number"? I never cited any "number".


You snipped the context. I was replying to Linonut, not you.


> >> but then I thought you meant he just runs with a lot of criminals.
>
> Yeah, that must be it. Oh wait ...


Again, you snipped the context. Linonut already replied and he knows
what I meant. He made an ambiguous statement, I was just replying to
that.

> I suppose all the warez on the a.b.w.* groups, P2P networks like
> Gnutella and FastTrack, and BitTorrent, are just figments of my
> imagination, are they?
>
> In all the many years I've been using computers, I've rarely met anyone
> who (if they used proprietary software at all) never used any pirate
> software, and I've known people from a very wide variety of backgrounds.
>
> > It could be that, too <grin>.
>
> It's unavoidable, given that the average person's mentality about
> software (including music and video, as well as applications), is "why
> buy it, when I can download it for free". And this doesn't seem to be
> limited to the poor; I've known plenty of affluent people who have vast
> collections of pirate software of one kind or another.
>
> The most recent example was one of my mother's friends; a woman in her
> forties who works in social care (i.e. a civil servant / government
> worker), who asked me if I could download some specific music for her.
> When I explained to her that it was illegal, her first reaction was to
> laugh, then with a quizzical look on her face she asked "really?", then
> when she saw I wasn't smiling, she asked me if I'd just explain to her
> how to do it and where to get the music, and she'd do it herself. With a
> sigh, I told her to Google for Limewire, then lectured her about
> viruses, etc., and explained that she'd be better off just buying CDs
> from Amazon. I got the impression that my advice just went in one ear
> and out the other.
>
> People ... ordinary people ... just don't give a damn about copyrights.
> That is the stark and brutally honest answer - anyone who pretends
> otherwise is living in la-la land.
>
> > But I think it is mostly that those who can do it, do it.
>
> That would be nearly everyone.
>

No, the statistics show that nearly everyone legally purchase
software. 2 to 1 by the way. It's not as good as it should be, but
still, an overwhelming majority purchase legal software. But now
you've gone off and moved goalposts and are talking about downloaded
music. I'll try to look up some facts about it (unlike you), but that
wasn't the original point of contention.