Linux-Advocacy Digest #22, Volume #26 Sat, 8 Apr 00 09:13:41 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: Linux vs. Windows Benchmark (Mark Robinson)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: Bobo has "issues" (When in LA)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. (Jim
Richardson)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. (Jim
Richardson)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 05:46:02 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Followup-To:
>
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:15:26 GMT,
> fmc, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> So you disagree? The law decides what rights you and I have? That
> >> seems contradictory to what you said earlier. (Quoting from memory)
> >> "my rights are not doled out by the government."
> >
> >Not at all. I was referring to your propensity for juvenile rhetoric.
> >Copyright based on common law has been around for centuries, so the
burden
> >of proof is on you to offer a more cogent arguments than "Just because
it's
> >a law does not make it right". You're waiting to get hit by a wild pitch
> >when you should be trying to hit home run off an inside fast ball.
> >
> >
>
> Perhaps you could give me an example of copyright in the common law,
> predating say, oh 1650. (US or Britain is acceptable, since there
> wasn't a whole lot of publication going on in the new world at the time.)
>
I don't know much about about 1650 and before; is there something
significant about the time period? Prior to 1710, and possibly before 1650,
copyrights were issued by the British Crown, mostly to secure works that
served their own interests. From 1710 until the start of the Confederation
copyrights were based on the Statute of Anne, a law passed by British
Parliament. During the Confederation the Statute of Anne might have been
observed in a common law fashion, but I won't swear to it. Copyrights were
issued under the Constitution starting in 1790. The laws were changed
around 1909 to allow a form of copyright that came to be known as "common
law", because registration was not required to copyright material (but it
was necessary to sue for infringement).
The Copyright Office has more information than you could ever want. Check
it out if you're interested.
fmc
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
------------------------------
From: Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Windows Benchmark
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 05:50:19 GMT
This is all well and good except for 2 things.
1) RedHat is not optimized for anything above a 386. Yes, that's right
a 386.
2) Domino server was probably also not compiled for the specific
arch(PIII).
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 05:52:42 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 22:37:50 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:15:26 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:11:06 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | >
> | > | > | > | I don't understand why you guys have a such a hard time with
> | this.
> | > | > | > | Copyright laws, or the concept of intellectual property have
> | been
> | > | > | > | common law for centuries.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Just because it's a law does not make it right.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Not THAT again. Go back and review chapter one.
> | > | >
> | > | > So you disagree? The law decides what rights you and I have?
That
> | > | > seems contradictory to what you said earlier. (Quoting from
memory)
> | > | > "my rights are not doled out by the government."
> | > |
> | > | Not at all. I was referring to your propensity for juvenile
rhetoric.
> | > | Copyright based on common law has been around for centuries, so the
> | burden
> | > | of proof is on you to offer a more cogent arguments than "Just
because
> | it's
> | > | a law does not make it right". You're waiting to get hit by a wild
> | pitch
> | > | when you should be trying to hit home run off an inside fast ball.
> | >
> | > I've already pointed this out, several times I might add. But let me
> | > summarize. Because copyright laws limits what I can do with
> | > my property, it is an infringement on my rights.
> |
> | I know you've pointed it out, but you haven't offered anything to
> | substantiate your argument, except to say that it's an infringem,ent on
your
> | rights. This is getting to be tiresome.
>
> You claim an innate right to limit what I do with my property. What
> would you accept as evidence that that is a *bad* thing?
I'm sorry, but you'll have to do your own homework here, or get someone at
MIT to help you. All I'll say is that I claim no innate right to interfer
with your property, and that you likewise have none with regard to mine.
fmc
------------------------------
From: When in LA
Reply-To: When in LA
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bobo has "issues"
Date: 8 Apr 2000 05:52:18 GMT
On Sun, 7 Apr 3900 22:49:09, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
|>
|> On Sun, 7 Apr 3900 05:46:02, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|>
|> |Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
|> |>
|> |> On Sun, 7 Apr 3900 03:59:30, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|> |>
|> |> |[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|> |> |>
|> |> |> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
|> |> |> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> |> |> > you know what - I say bullshit. Bullshit to you Bob. I think you are
|> |> |> lying.
|> |> |>
|> |> |> That's what I like about Drestin. Subtlety. Tact. And a willingness
|> |> |> to compromise.
|> |> |>
|> |> |> _N_O_T_!
|> |> |
|> |> |Sorry dude, but look at who he's dealing with. Germer has earned quite a
|> |> |"rep" for spreading misinformation and outright lying. Frankly I don't blame
|> |> |anyone for questioning his words.
|> |>
|> |> You mean spreads misinformation or outright lying like you dude?
|> |
|> |You got that backwards. You're the proven liar. You can't even make your
|> |case without spewing lies about what was and wasn't omitted from a given
|> |post. Perhaps you should respond where I already debunked your idiocy rather
|> |than spread it further to yet another unrelated thread.
|> |
|> |[verbal masturbation snipped]
|> |
|> |And just for laughs, why don't you now pipe up and defend Germer's idiocy
|> |claiming that he has not lied about such topics as USB. We can all use a bit
|> |more entertainment from that episode.
|>
|> Why should I defend Germer? He was proven wrong and he wouldn't admit
|> it.
|
|You are kindred spirits.
|
|> It is you that has a lot in common with Germer, not me.
|
|Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
|
|> I admit my errors.
|
|A blatant lie. Where's your admission to your error in the statement:
|BO> Sutherland admitted to doing so and Glatt supported the attack.
|
|You have failed to produce evidence to back up this statement, hence it is a
|falsehood.
Typical moronic statement we have come to expect from you Marty. I
haven't proved to you the sun will come up tomorrow either, so in your
dense cloud of ignorance do you believe that to be a falsehood?
The only thing stupider than your definitions of logic words like
inference, is well. . .your logic.
|You were also wrong on at least 3 occasions when you stated that I
|had removed your inquiry on what could be changed in your sig.
|You were also
|wrong about what you claim I snipped in a given posting, and you "restored"
|something from a completely different article. Where are your admissions to
|these mistakes?
Did I deny it? If I made an error I admit it.
|.... And that's just off the top of my head.
Yep, dude, its a yahoo bunny slope off your forehead.
|I don't even want to peak into
|DejaNews to discover all of the other things you have been wrong about that
|you've failed to admit.
Hmmmm, then doesn't that fall under the category of, "You have failed
to produce evidence to back up this statement, hence it is a
falsehood."?. . . .guffffffffffffffawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!
|Meanwhile I see you have again ignored my explanation regarding the use of
|these words and insist on pretending I said something that I didn't. Where's
|your response to the article in which I explained this?
What did I insist on?
|I guess you're just looking for a new game to play with your moronic
|signature. Enjoy your continued verbal masturbation.
|
|> Deduce: 1. To reach (a conclusion) by reasoning.
|> Infer: 1.To conclude from evidence or premises.
|>
|> Marty Amodeo gives his opinion on the above definitions:
|> MA>One does not infer to decide guilt.
Did you, or did you not make this statement?
|> MA>One deduces and proves guilt.
|> MA>One can only infer from a metaphor.
Did you, or did you not make this statement?
|> First Marty confuses symbolics and figurative language with logic.
I will help you out here Marty. A metaphor is the use of symbols
and/or figurative language. And yes people do need inferential
capabilities to comprehend symbols, but metaphors are NOT the ONLY
symbolic processes that people people infer from.
|> MA>Deduction involves taking what is already there and plain to be
|> MA>seen and forming conclusions from it. Inference involves
|> MA>looking at the trend of what is there and predicting where it was
|> leading.
|>
|> Then Marty confuses inductive logic with inferences.
|Note to readers: The only thing confused above is Bobo.
Inductive logic is simply a process that infers that the future will
be like the past. However, here also this is not the only area where
one will use an inference.
|The infinite wisdom of Bob Osborn:
|
|"It sounds as if you think somehow queers are better than morons and idiots
|and we know that is not the case."
|
|Jeff Glatt says:
|"'Idiot' and 'moron' are not descriptive labels for people with learning
|disabilities despite your own inability to grasp this very simple fact."
|
|Bobo responds:
|"I agree that it is not descriptive so why do you insist on using labels long
|improperly attributed to the learning disabled?"
|
|[Editorial: Note the admission that "idiot" and "moron" are derogatory in
|nature and are not proper ways to refer to those with mental disabilities.]
You are pretty thick-headed Marty. There is nothing derogatory about
being an idiot or moron. It is only derogatory to call someone an
idiot or a moron.
|Bobo says:
|"I never suggested that it was proper to address a retarded person in this
|way."
|
|[Editorial: Re-affirming that referring to retarded persons as "idiots" and
|"morons" is unacceptable.]
Unacceptable is your word, my word is that it is not necessarily
proper. There is a wide gap between proper and unacceptable. In
between resides impolite, rude, and even an aptly worded response to
stubborn ignorance.
|Regarding his position on the matter:
|"My argument may not be of any importance to anybody, but at least it is
|consistent"
|
|[Editorial: So if we accept this, it's safe to assume that his usage of the
|words "moron" and "idiot" are also consistent, hence they are derogatory
|terms.]
The terms themselves are not derogatory. Perhaps it is impolite or
rude to label somebody as being an idiot or moron, but there is
nothing derogatory with being one.
|"It sounds as if you think somehow queers are better than morons and idiots
|and we know that is not the case."
|
|So what are you trying to say here, Bobo?
As people, queers, morons, idiots, geniuses, and straights are all
equal. Perhaps the terms are not equal, but if calling someone a
queer is horrendous enough to trigger an attack on somebody's
employment, one would think calling someone an idiot or a moron would
be also.
That is what is so sick about those who espouse being "politically
correct". Almost always the dickheads espousing this crap are the
biggest abusers of them all.
You are a similar type hypocrite. You make a flat stupid statement
like: "You have failed to produce evidence to back up this statement,
hence it is a falsehood.", then you proceed to make unsupported
statements yourself.
My position is simply, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but
words will never harm me". If Glatt and Sutherland feel harmed
because somebody used the word "queer", then, in my opinion, they have
been harmed because they have no self respect, not because Tholen
harmed them.
BobO
Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
act."
David Sutherland made the following quotes in posts residing on
Dejanews:
If I posted anything remotely like Tholen's "queer" [Editor: Note
particular word in quotes] comments with my employers name
anywhere within that message, I would be escorted to the door,
and rightly so.[Editor: Note euphemism for firing]
If Tholen doesn't apologise in full, publicly and at great length, I
*will* advise his university, as this kind of bullshit *should* and
*will* be challenged.[Editor: Note threat]
I've asked Kenneth P. Mortimer, President, University of
Hawaii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for his opinion on how
certain members of the faculty are spending their time.[Editor: Note
admission to personal notification of employer]
Tholen used "queer" [Editor: Note particular word in quotes] as an
insult and a means to attack someone. This is discriminatory. He did
so from his employers account. His employer has a policy against
discrimination. Tholen acted against the policies of his employer.
Tholens employer is now aware of this. [Editor: Note reason for
contacting employer]
Pretty despicable, I have to agree Marty.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 06:00:26 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:43:45 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:56:54 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:36:05 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:46:37 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | >
> | > | > I have an innate right to my property. I can manipulate my
property
> | > | > however I wish. And if one way I want to manipulate my property
is to
> | > | > place a sequence of ones and zeros on it that somehow resembles
the
> | > | > sequence of ones and zeros on another of my properties, then that
is
> | > | > fully within my rights. And if I then want to distribute that
> | > | > sequence of ones and zeros, that is also completely within my
rights.
> | > | > I have an innate right to what I do with my property, why are you
> | > | > trying to limit my innate rights?
> | > |
> | > | All of your innate rights are intact, but your innate rights do not
> | > | superpcede the innate rights of another. Your property is yours to
do
> | with
> | > | as you wish, but their property is not. The law is very clear in
this
> | > | regard.
> | >
> | > Yet if you have a copyright on the the string of ones and zeros, you
> | > would try to prevent me for taking the actions outlined above. None
> | > of your property is involved, instead the law give you the privilege
> | > to limit what I do with my property.
> |
> | Use Occam's razor. The obvious explanation for this is that the law has
it
> | figured out correctly; that means you must be wrong. My property is
> | involved, because my rights to same are infringed by your action. I
never
> | gave you permission to use my copyrighted bit sequence for any purpose.
>
> So tell me what property of yours is involved.
YOU said that I have a copyright on a string of ones and zeros. The
properties involved are my rights with regard to the bit string that I have
a copyright on.
>
> | Just because it's your ass, that doesn't mean you can tattoo Tom
Clancy's
> | novel on it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 06:03:24 GMT
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 04:56:53 GMT,
fmc, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>> >
>> >35 USC 271, Infringement of patent
>> >
>> >§271. Infringement of patent
>> >
>> >"Except as otherwise provided in this title [35 USC §§1 et seq.], whoever
>> >without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented
>> >invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any
>> >patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the
>> >patent. "
>> >
>> >fmc
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> I stand corrected,
>>
>> However, this would imply that those people who used the Barnes and Noble
>> "violation" of Amazon's "one click" patent, were as liable for patent
>> infringement as B&N.
>>
>
>If they can be considered users, that is. IMO, Barnes and Noble is the only
>user of the invention. They are using it to service cutomers who visit
>their site. Anyone who buys from their site is being served, much as they
>would if they took their purchase to the checkout line at the brick and
>mortar B&N (The B&M B&N). You wouldn't consider them to be users of the
>cash register, would you?
If they were the ones poking the buttons, sure, which is exactly what they
are doing in the one click example.
(of course, the Cash registers, if patented, are presumably legit copies
since noone is suing B&N for patent infringement for them.)
The section of Title 35 you quoted made no such distinction as "being served"
it said uses.
>
>fmc
>
>
>> --
>> Jim Richardson
>> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
>> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
>> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>>
>
>
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 06:10:09 GMT
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 05:46:02 GMT,
fmc, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Followup-To:
>>
>> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:15:26 GMT,
>> fmc, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> >
>> >"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> So you disagree? The law decides what rights you and I have? That
>> >> seems contradictory to what you said earlier. (Quoting from memory)
>> >> "my rights are not doled out by the government."
>> >
>> >Not at all. I was referring to your propensity for juvenile rhetoric.
>> >Copyright based on common law has been around for centuries, so the
>burden
>> >of proof is on you to offer a more cogent arguments than "Just because
>it's
>> >a law does not make it right". You're waiting to get hit by a wild pitch
>> >when you should be trying to hit home run off an inside fast ball.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Perhaps you could give me an example of copyright in the common law,
>> predating say, oh 1650. (US or Britain is acceptable, since there
>> wasn't a whole lot of publication going on in the new world at the time.)
>>
>
>I don't know much about about 1650 and before; is there something
>significant about the time period? Prior to 1710, and possibly before 1650,
>copyrights were issued by the British Crown, mostly to secure works that
>served their own interests. From 1710 until the start of the Confederation
>copyrights were based on the Statute of Anne, a law passed by British
>Parliament. During the Confederation the Statute of Anne might have been
>observed in a common law fashion, but I won't swear to it. Copyrights were
>issued under the Constitution starting in 1790. The laws were changed
>around 1909 to allow a form of copyright that came to be known as "common
>law", because registration was not required to copyright material (but it
>was necessary to sue for infringement).
>
>The Copyright Office has more information than you could ever want. Check
>it out if you're interested.
>
<references trimmed from header>
I am not that interested, but I doubted that common law provided for
copy rights for several centuries as you stated. I still doubt it. All of
the examples you mention are statute law.
Copyrights were like land grants and monopoly grants, something given by
the guys with the guns to someone else, not inherent in the body of law
from long emplaced custom.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 08 Apr 2000 06:15:54 GMT
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 05:52:42 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 22:37:50 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > |
| > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:15:26 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:11:06 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | >
| > | > | > | > | I don't understand why you guys have a such a hard time with
| > | this.
| > | > | > | > | Copyright laws, or the concept of intellectual property have
| > | been
| > | > | > | > | common law for centuries.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Just because it's a law does not make it right.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Not THAT again. Go back and review chapter one.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > So you disagree? The law decides what rights you and I have?
| That
| > | > | > seems contradictory to what you said earlier. (Quoting from
| memory)
| > | > | > "my rights are not doled out by the government."
| > | > |
| > | > | Not at all. I was referring to your propensity for juvenile
| rhetoric.
| > | > | Copyright based on common law has been around for centuries, so the
| > | burden
| > | > | of proof is on you to offer a more cogent arguments than "Just
| because
| > | it's
| > | > | a law does not make it right". You're waiting to get hit by a wild
| > | pitch
| > | > | when you should be trying to hit home run off an inside fast ball.
| > | >
| > | > I've already pointed this out, several times I might add. But let me
| > | > summarize. Because copyright laws limits what I can do with
| > | > my property, it is an infringement on my rights.
| > |
| > | I know you've pointed it out, but you haven't offered anything to
| > | substantiate your argument, except to say that it's an infringem,ent on
| your
| > | rights. This is getting to be tiresome.
| >
| > You claim an innate right to limit what I do with my property. What
| > would you accept as evidence that that is a *bad* thing?
|
| I'm sorry, but you'll have to do your own homework here, or get someone at
| MIT to help you. All I'll say is that I claim no innate right to interfer
| with your property, and that you likewise have none with regard to mine.
Yet you claim the right to limit what strings of ones and zeros I put
one my property. You're being contradictory.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 08 Apr 2000 06:19:27 GMT
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 06:00:26 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:43:45 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > |
| > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:56:54 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:36:05 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:46:37 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | >
| > | > | > I have an innate right to my property. I can manipulate my
| property
| > | > | > however I wish. And if one way I want to manipulate my property
| is to
| > | > | > place a sequence of ones and zeros on it that somehow resembles
| the
| > | > | > sequence of ones and zeros on another of my properties, then that
| is
| > | > | > fully within my rights. And if I then want to distribute that
| > | > | > sequence of ones and zeros, that is also completely within my
| rights.
| > | > | > I have an innate right to what I do with my property, why are you
| > | > | > trying to limit my innate rights?
| > | > |
| > | > | All of your innate rights are intact, but your innate rights do not
| > | > | superpcede the innate rights of another. Your property is yours to
| do
| > | with
| > | > | as you wish, but their property is not. The law is very clear in
| this
| > | > | regard.
| > | >
| > | > Yet if you have a copyright on the the string of ones and zeros, you
| > | > would try to prevent me for taking the actions outlined above. None
| > | > of your property is involved, instead the law give you the privilege
| > | > to limit what I do with my property.
| > |
| > | Use Occam's razor. The obvious explanation for this is that the law has
| it
| > | figured out correctly; that means you must be wrong. My property is
| > | involved, because my rights to same are infringed by your action. I
| never
| > | gave you permission to use my copyrighted bit sequence for any purpose.
| >
| > So tell me what property of yours is involved.
|
| YOU said that I have a copyright on a string of ones and zeros. The
| properties involved are my rights with regard to the bit string that I have
| a copyright on.
Re-read what you wrote and tell me it's a coherent argument. (With a
straight face.) Rights are not properties. All the properties
involved in the above case were my own. You property was not
involved, your rights were not violated.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
