justanutter1
@kaballero.com | reply to Jason Levine
Re: Are they even able to do that?
Jason;
Well argued. Thanks for taking the time to work thur it reasonably. I don't disagree with anything you've said.
-m- |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to justanutter1
said by justanutter1:
Personally, Jason, when I say that I believe one thing and then demonstrate that I only believe it when it is convienent for me... I only prove I have prejudices.
Your disregard for RIAA (and their rights) while you support Microsoft in precisely the same circumstances, demonstrates that you are in fact prejudiced in favor of Microsoft. That won't come to many as a suprise but it is nice to see you demonstrate it so clearly.
I think the RIAA is making a big PR mistake because they are going to be seen as suing their customers. In addition, I think that they are using tactics to ensure settlements even if they have the wrong person. (I think the penalties are too high and out of proportion also, but that's the DCMA, not the RIAA directly.)
I do think downloading music is wrong and illegal. The little music I obtain is mostly from used CD shops with the occasional new CD. This way I can rip to high-quality, DRM-free MP3 for my own personal use. The online services look nice, but I've never been one to buy much music so my buying habits really haven't changed much through the years. (If anything, used CD shops have increased it slightly, but the RIAA wouldn't like that.  )
In Microsoft's case, we're talking about their source code. In this respect I admit I might be biased, but not because it's MS. I write software that isn't open source. If the source code to my applications were stolen and circulated world-wide I would feel quite violated.
If the source code was written by me, it belongs to me and only I should say what happens to it. If I were to decide to make an application open source, that would be my choice. However, no one should decide that my application needs to be open source and then take steps to release the source code despite my wishes.
said by justanutter1:
RE: ...CODE STOLEN...
That is speculation based upon the smoking gun of a makefile from GPL which found its way into the Microsoft sources. A smoking gun does not a murder make, and neither does 17 lines of code which SCO refuses to produce in a similar situation.
If there's evidence of this, I'd be interested in seeing it, but this would be the first I've heard of this claim. (How someone would know that something found it's way into MS's source when very few outside of MS have seen the source would be one of my first questions.)
As for SCO, they're simply blowing smoke and hoping that everyone believes their claims. I'm actually quite enjoying it every time IBM or Novell blows another hole in their argument.
said by justanutter1:
Microsoft has a history of not being forth coming. I also speculate that the code in question was stolen in the breakin on the Microsoft network in the year 2000.
I'd have trouble believing that the stolen code would be able to sneak beneath the radar for over 3 years. AFAIK, there is some pretty good evidence that Mainsoft was the source of the leak.
said by justanutter1:
Jason, you are so completely in love with Microsoft. You are such a champion of her cause, I would never even bother trying to prove anything for you. I'll just wait and Microsoft will prove it for me. It is just a matter of time.
Nah. I'm not in love with MS. (For the record, I run OpenOffice.org on all of my PCs because I think MS Office isn't worth near what they charge for it.) I just tend to be quite skeptical when someone presents a huge conspiracy theory with little or no evidence to back it up. Yes, MS is quite a despicable company at times, but that doesn't make every bad theory about them true.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
justanutter1
@kaballero.com
| reply to Jason Levine
Justin;
I suppose they could take the same tactic RIAA is currently using if they could ever figure out who did it in the first place. Unlikely. They might stop kids from sharing the files but they won't stop the files from being shared via Freenet.
Personally, Jason, when I say that I believe one thing and then demonstrate that I only believe it when it is convienent for me... I only prove I have prejudices.
Your disregard for RIAA (and their rights) while you support Microsoft in precisely the same circumstances, demonstrates that you are in fact prejudiced in favor of Microsoft. That won't come to many as a suprise but it is nice to see you demonstrate it so clearly.
RE: ...CODE STOLEN...
That is speculation based upon the smoking gun of a makefile from GPL which found its way into the Microsoft sources. A smoking gun does not a murder make, and neither does 17 lines of code which SCO refuses to produce in a similar situation. Microsoft has a history of not being forth coming. I also speculate that the code in question was stolen in the breakin on the Microsoft network in the year 2000. I know Microsoft says it was another company that lost the code, still what would have happened with the sales of Win2K if it had been published in October of 2000 that significant portions of the code had been stolen and were thought to be in Russia? What would be the best way to handle that from a security perspective, would it be to tell people what had been compromised so that they could judge for themselves what the wanted to run, or would it be to not tell anyone what was compromised? Now let's ask the same question from a financial perspective? Like I said, Microsoft does not have a history of openess or honesty and they certainly must have had financial reasons for not telling us what was stolen in the breakin of 2000 because they impacted the security of millions of systems by not telling us. Such risks are weighed carefully. Microsoft chose the smaller financial risk and elected to keep Win2K alive.
Jason, you are so completely in love with Microsoft. You are such a champion of her cause, I would never even bother trying to prove anything for you. I'll just wait and Microsoft will prove it for me. It is just a matter of time. |
|
justanutter1
@kaballero.com
| reply to Rhobite
Your question: "Why are you so angry? Take a deep breath, calm down already."
You started with name calling... yet somehow I have wronged you? Interesting but a bit twisted. So if I don't agree with you then I am a "nut buster" and if I call you for calling names... then I am upset and need to calm down...
Interesting game you play. You offer up the offense and if one responds with anger, they are in the wrong. If they respond with logic you attempt to turn it into anger... and again they are wrong.
Where did you get that license to be deliberatly insulting and then to walk away offended when you are called for doing it? I want one of those.
Figure it out. |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| reply to justanutter1
said by justanutter1:
So your crusade is a waste of your time, the worlds bandwidth, and well... it is entertaining for me...
Why are you so angry? Take a deep breath, calm down already.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to justanutter1
said by justanutter1:
There are so many people who have a copy of that code at this point that NOBODY is going to be prosecuted, guess why... Yeah, because Microsoft, yes even Microsoft is IMPOTENT to stop it.
Really? I would guess they would take the same tactic that the RIAA is currently using. Sue the uploaders and the downloaders won't have anything to download. And unlike some of the RIAA's actions, this one I would completely agree with.
said by justanutter1:
All that said, you ARE going to discover that Microsoft has stolen more of the GNU/GPL code than Linux has stolen of the SCO code... Mark my words.
Is there any proof to this claim or is it just an anti-MS rant? Yes, I know Microsoft isn't exactly a "cute and cuddly" company, and they've done more than their share of bad deeds, but call me crazy for still demanding some proof to an allegation like this.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
justanutter1
@kaballero.com
| reply to Rhobite
RE: Why do you keep picking a fight with me, "nut buster"?
'scuse me... I didn't realize name calling was ok in this forum. I may join in then? Might I call you, "Anything but Bush"... meaning you're a real man's man? Honestly, if we're going to grovel in the mud, I expect I can do it as well as you but what say we don't?
Point is you can argue the legality of growing dandylions in the yard till your face is blue, but they will still grow, won't they?
So your crusade is a waste of your time, the worlds bandwidth, and well... it is entertaining for me...
 |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
1 edit | reply to justanutter1
Why do you keep picking a fight with me, "nut buster"? I'm assuming that my tag has made you furious - good, that's my intention.
All I'm saying is it's illegal. Of course there's nothing that Microsoft can do to keep dedicated people from getting the source, but there's also nothing to stop them from suing a few unlucky people downloading the torrent.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
justanutter1
@kaballero.com
| reply to Rhobite
Yep.. It is illegal. It is also illegal to release a virus onto the Internet and hose up a million PC's. Do they do it, yep. Still illegal, but impotence being what it is, sixteen year olds still do it because the FBI is impotent to stop it.
DLing music is illegal, but does that stop the copying of music? No if Kazaa doesn't provide sufficient anonymity then FREENET does... And the sixteen year old kid continues to download his music and nobody can stop him... the IMPOTENCE of the FBI and RIAA still determine what is going to happen.
There are so many people who have a copy of that code at this point that NOBODY is going to be prosecuted, guess why... Yeah, because Microsoft, yes even Microsoft is IMPOTENT to stop it.
So, "Anyone but Bush", why not do a reality check and let the issue drop. MS can send out whatever they wish and these kids can tell MS to "pee up a rope" and MS will just drop the issue.
All that said, you ARE going to discover that Microsoft has stolen more of the GNU/GPL code than Linux has stolen of the SCO code... Mark my words. |
|
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| reply to jwcrim
said by jwcrim  :
"Downloading copyrighted material is seen as copying"
Seen by who?
The courts, the prosecutors, and the copyright holders pretty much agree on this one. I honestly can't believe this is even a question. Of course it's illegal to download copyrighted material!
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. |
|
jwcrim
join:2001-12-09
Wilton, CT | reply to Rhobite
"Downloading copyrighted material is seen as copying"
Seen by who? |
|
dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA
| reply to weebl
said by weebl:
I would have thought, as I already own a copy of their software, that I ought to be able to look at the source code. After all it's just what I own in another form.
Technically, you do not own a copy of their code; you own a license to use the code in the manner they permit. Check that license and you will see it prohibits reverse-engineering, decompiling or pretty much anything that will show you the source. As for looking at the source you downloaded, it is protected by trade secret laws and might be considered "stolen property"; you would have to destroy it if asked and Microsoft is clearly asking.
Copyright actually prohibits much of what the average person thinks they can do with most intellectual property. It is just not worth it for most people to enforce that copyright but the RIAA and Microsoft do have the incentive (and the lawyers) to do so. |
|
dasesq
join:2001-10-07
Long Beach, CA |  reply to jackknife
 |
|
Evoluder
join:2002-09-15
Woodstock, GA | reply to djrobsd
WWIV RULES! |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to tomkb
said by tomkb :
Define un-authorized copy. May I not make a copy of any media I already own? I believe that's called fair use, and the dmca is trying to trample it.
Downloading the Windows source code is making an un-authorized copy unless MS gives you the thumbs up to do so. (Running Windows only gives you limited rights to the executable version, not the source.)
If you're talking about the music sidetrack, then downloading a copyrighted music file isn't allowed even if you own a physical media copy. (Unless, of course, the copyright holder gives you the thumbs up to do so.)
If you take a physical media copy that you own and make a backup copy or rip it to an electronic copy, that's ok so long as it's for your use only. (The minute you share it with anyone else, you're out of Fair Use territory.)
said by tomkb :
Businesses aren't raided by the bsa. They are not a law enforcement agency and have to prove their case like anyone else. The bsa is simply a collections agency.
The BSA has long been active in RIAA-style raids. The basic scenario is that someone rats out a company. The company is then sternly told to provide the BSA with documentation (licenses) that they own all of the software they are running. If they can't find some, they risk being sued. (IIRC, I'm a bit fuzzy on the penalty.)
said by tomkb :
What if someone decides to take the source code and make t-shirts? The cat's out of the bag, your trying to diffuse the bomb after it's already went off.
Microsoft still owns the copyright on the code and they would be able to prosecute anyone using their code in an unauthorized manner. To give a slightly different example: What if I were to take a photo of Mickey Mouse from the web and make some T-Shirts from it. After all, it's online so it must be fair game, right?
said by tomkb :
Regarding photocopying a book in a library, I guess children are no longer able to do school book reports.
AFAIK, you can still photocopy passages of a book in a library and still fall within Fair Use. If you decide to photocopy major portions (or all) of it, though, you would likely cross out of Fair Use territory.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Rhobite
said by Rhobite :
So many misconceptions here...
Downloading the code is a violation of copyright law. Possessing or using an unauthorized copy is a violation of copyright law, just ask any business that's been raided by the BSA. Distributing it is CERTAINLY against the law. And it's copyright law, not trade secret law. That's something different.
Dave isn't "way off base," he's got it exactly right. This situation is no different than photocopying a book in a library or book store.
Define un-authorized copy. May I not make a copy of any media I already own? I believe that's called fair use, and the dmca is trying to trample it.
Businesses aren't raided by the bsa. They are not a law enforcement agency and have to prove their case like anyone else. The bsa is simply a collections agency.
What if someone decides to take the source code and make t-shirts? The cat's out of the bag, your trying to diffuse the bomb after it's already went off.
Regarding photocopying a book in a library, I guess children are no longer able to do school book reports. |
|
Hagrinas
@pacbell.n | reply to CornWhole1
There are trade secret laws, but once something gets posted, it's no longer a secret. It's still copyrighted, though. |
|
Hagrinas
@pacbell.n
| reply to GeminiCub4U
It's perfectly legal for them to send you a letter if that's what you are asking. Unless they are making illegal threats, they have every right to do so.
As for copyright law, they own the code. If you knowingly download it, it's illegal. The only exception would be if you have permission.
In general, people are confused about what is legal and not legal. Prior to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), it was illegal to download files without permission, and illegal to upload them too. There was never a 24 hour rule, but there is a fair use rule; it would not apply to this case, but it would allow you to use portions of copyrighted material for educational use, magazine articles, etc. but you could not reprint a substantial portion of a copyrighted work.
As for music and software, you could copy it for backup purposes and for the purpose of changing the media, (such as transfer to hard disk) for the purpose of getting it to work on your machine. In the famous Sony Betamax case, courts ruled that you could copy an entire work, such as a movie that was broadcast on TV, so that you can watch it later (personal use only.) Logically, copying a movie from a broadcast or from a tape you rented or borrowed all serves the same purpose -- you had the right to view or hear the material, but you chose to do it at a later time. The same would hold true for copying a CD you borrowed. Not all of these were upheld (or even brought up) in any court. But it was not generally considered a problem for personal use.
Logically, downloading a song from the Internet does not seem much different. But the "on demand" nature was a problem for the recording industry, and it's all moot because the DMCA makes it illegal to upload or download music without permission from the copyright holder. That was an explicit change in copyright law.
You may have heard or read in the papers that the industry was only going after people who made things available for upload. This was not because downloading is legal. It's because it's an easier first step, and it's easier to make a legal case. In that case, they know that the songs are on your computer because you made them available. So it's easy for them to prove something. If you merely download, they don't know what's on your computer, and it's technically more difficult for them to track you. They can hunt for people who make things available for upload, but they would have to check the logs of those folks to try to find out if you downloaded and they still have no proof it's on your computer. But that does not make the download legal.
Before the DMCA, if you owned a CD and you downloaded an MP3 of a tune from the CD for your convenience (instead of just copying it from your CD,) chances are that a court would not have considered that you broke any law. That might have technically changed under the DMCA (I'm far from an expert on it but I think it changed) but I still doubt that anybody would prosecute you for it. |
|
Jacek
@198.208.x.x
| reply to HeyYa
There are numerous precedents that might make it actually legal. One of the latest examples involves web site www.blueovalnews.com which posted secret Ford Motor Company documents that were damaging to the automaker. Ford was trying to fight the web site in court claiming, that the documents belonged to Ford, were trade secrets and copyrighted materials that were stolen from Ford by some disgruntled employee and should never get into the hands of the guy who published them. In the first instance and in the appeal FORD LOST and dropped the case !!!. In both cases judges gave verdict which in effect said, that it is Ford responsibility to find the guilty employee who have stolen the materials and then prosecute them. The guy who posted them was cleared from all the charges. I happen to disagree with this, since the web site was posting materials that were in fact stolen but I'm not the law
JM |
|
ionweb
@mi.cha | reply to djrobsd
I believe T.A.G was based off of the WWIV bbs, which was a sort of open source at the time. |
|
