Linux-Advocacy Digest #42, Volume #26 Sun, 9 Apr 00 07:13:08 EDT
Contents:
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. ("fmc")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 09:53:55 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 08:43:24 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > 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.
> |
> | Look up property in the dictionary. A legal dictionary if you have one,
but
> | a decent English language dictionary will do just fine. This is from
> | dictionary.com:
> |
> | prop·er·ty (prpr-t)
> | n., pl. prop·er·ties. Abbr. prop.
> |
> | Something owned; a possession.
> | A piece of real estate: my country property.
> | Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title:
> | properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
> | Possessions considered as a group.
> | The right of ownership; title.
> |
> | So, property is (among other things) the right of ownership.
Copyrights
> | and trademarks are properties too. You can learn a lot more when you
don't
> | take so much for granted, can't you?
>
> Well I quickly found two law dictionaries http://dictionary.law.com/
> and http://www.duhaime.org/dict-p.htm, both of which indicated that
> there were two types of property. Real property, which is immovable
> like land or an apartment building and chattel which seemed decidedly
> physical to me. But hey, IANAL, nor do I play one on TV. And it's
> irrelevant because I had been trying to discuss something outside the
> realm of law for the entirety of this monstrous thread.
I don't know why the legal definition of property is irrelevant to the
discussion, considering that you cited two legal dictionaries (BTW, one
lacks a defintion of intellectual property, and the other deals in Canadian
law). I gathered that you offered them in response to the layman's
dictionary. If you did so, you didn't explain why. So how do you want to
define what property is, be it real, chattel, intellectual, or imaginary?
I need some kind of definition though, so here's mine. To paraphrase the
layman's dictionary, property can be a possession, a tangible or
intangible, copyrights, the right of ownership, or a title. Real estate
and group possessions are superfluous here, so I dropped them from the list.
Notwithstanding what you said about the realm of the law, I notice you refer
to intellectual "property" as if to imply that it may be intellectual, but
it's not REALLY property. So now I need to go to a legal dictionary too:
http://dictionary.findlaw.com/
Wherefrom I put together, with no factual changes, a definition of
intellectual property as "property that derives from the work of the mind
or intellect"; specifically it can be an idea, invention, trade secret,
process, program, data, formula, patent, copyright, or trademark or
application, right, or registration relating thereto.
Just in case the question arises of what a "right" is, as it relates to what
we're talking about, I found it defined there as being "something to which
one has a just claim: as the interest in property possessed (as under
copyright law) in an intangible thing and esp. an item of intellectual
property. ". I know that's pretty cumbersome, even for lawyerspeak, but
you get the idea.
>
> I suppose I could have been more precise and suggested that none of
> your physical property is involved. But then you would have made the
> case that physical property and intellectual "property" are
> analogous. So let's discuss that instead.
>
> You can't take, or have taken from you, intellectual "property". You
> can make copies of it. But that in no way affects the original, nor
> does it affect the owners of the original.
I gather that you mean "harm" when you say "affect". A copy may not harm
the original, (if it's software and not a fragile painting), but it
certainly can harm the owner, and often does. Loss of revenue and market
value is one way it can do harm. None of that matters though. The only
thing that counts is the violation of the owner's rights with regard to his
property. He needn't be harmed for there to have been an infringement.
Someone who walks into another's unlocked house, then leaves without doing
any harm has still violated the rights of the owner.
> Some would say that people who create intellectual "property" have a
> right to profit from it. True or not, this is irrelevant. I have
> more of a right to do things that in no way affect them, then they
> have a right to whatever sort of profit they think they deserve for
> creating intellectual "property".
How mean spirited that sounds! Unfortunately you can't play
rock/paper/scissors with rights, matching mine against yours to see whose
hands carries the trump. Your scale needs adjusting too, if you think your
"right" to infringe outweighs their right to enjoy the benefits of their
creative work.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 10:24:19 GMT
"Lee Sau Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "Ffmc" == fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ffmc> How many of those files are exact copies of other people's
> Ffmc> copyrighted material? Well, you've infringed on their
> Ffmc> copyrights. Don't forget all the literature you must have
> Ffmc> reproduced. More copyright infringement. As for the rest
> Ffmc> of them, if you expect to sue anyone you'll have to register
> Ffmc> each work with the Copyright Office at 20 bucks a pop.
> Ffmc> You're gonna need some deeep pockets.
>
> I demand that you read the concerned laws first. Copyright, unlike
> patent, is automatic. You don't need to register/apply to get the
> copyright of a piece of work. Once you write something, you own its
> copyright. (Of course, when you go to the court, you have to PROVE
> that you are the author.)
The way we prove that in the U.S is to register the copyright. Sure you
have automatic copy here too, but if you had to go to court and prove
ownership, you'd be glad to have a registered copyright in your hand.
Registration is optional, so if you just want the basic copyright you don't
have to do anything.
>
>
> >> For better protection, I'll try to have this idea patented.
> >> So, you can't enjoy the "independent creation" defense.
> >> Haha...
>
> Ffmc> OK, whatever.
>
> That's different. Patent offer much stronger protection than
> copyright.
>
>
> fmc> MicroSoft holds the copyright on "0", and I believe that
> fmc> Intel and AMD are fighting over who owns the "1".
> >> I'll go to another dimension: try to get the ownership of
> >> letter "a" in English alphabet. Whoever uses this letter will
> >> have to pay me loyalty. Haha!
>
> Ffmc> Very funny. Now please go and turn off the nitrous oxide.
>
> When I own the patent of number 2, letter "N" and letter "O", you'll
> lose the right to use that gas... Hehehehehee...
Besides the nitrous, you'll have the exclusive right to use NO2, which is
good for a last laugh.
>
>
> >> That's hardly any license or contract. Without the
> >> possibility that I *negotiate* with the other side about the
> >> terms in the "license", it doesn't constitute an agreement or
> >> contract. The terms in it are simply void.
>
> Ffmc> The courts say otherwise.
> ..............^^^^^^
> Which ones? US courts? How about the cours in Europe and Asia?
How do THEY handle copyright infringers?
>
>
>
> Ffmc> Do you want your money back, or do you want to agree to the
> Ffmc> license so you can legally use the product? It's a free
> Ffmc> country (that needn't be taken literally), so you decide.
>
> I can't see why I cannot lend a legally bought software to a friend
> (during the loan period, I stop using it myself.) I used to have that
> right with copyrighted books. I can't see why I shall not install and
> use a legally bought software one more than one machines (or even
> CPUs, in terms of machine upgrade) that I own ON THE CONDITION that at
> any time, I only use that software one ON MORE THAN one machine? I
> used to be allowed to read my book at anywhere I want. Why can't I
> use my LEGALLY bought software at whichever machine I want?
I know you can tranfer a license from one machine to another. Just
uninstall from machine 1 and reinstall on machine 2. Some licenses let you
load one copy at work, and another on your home computer. Some licenses
let you install on 2 or more computers at any location. License terms vary,
and you should contact the software house for information before making a
purchase.
>
> Why are the newer technologies -- copyright software -- much worse?
Perhaps because piracy is much worse than it used to be.
>
>
>
> >> I wouldn't lose a dime, but dollars! How much is the postage?
> >> How valuable is my time and energy!? You mean those cost < a
> >> dime? I'm not cheap labour!
>
> Ffmc> Just submit an expense report, Don't forget to include the
> Ffmc> miles you drove, tolls you had to pay, and cost off-street
> Ffmc> parking.
>
> Submit to whom? Who'll reimburse those expenses to me? You?
>
>
> Ffmc> Lunch cannot exceed 10 dollars, and alcohol is not
> Ffmc> reimbursable. Please include all receipts, but DO NOT staple
> Ffmc> them together. It drives the secretary crazy.
>
> So, who'll pay for all those expenses?
That expense report was all a joke. HAHAHAHAHA
>
>
> >> Can I keep a **backup** copy of it, then, even if the license
> >> *says* that I do not have the right to do so?
>
> Ffmc> No.
>
> How come a license can take away that very right from me, given that
> copyright laws explicitly state that copying for backup is allowed
> because it is fair use?
I'm not familiar with HK copyright laws. I assumed that HK copyright said
nothing about a fair use backup. Maybe the software in question was
intended to be sold in a country where those prohibitions apply.
>
> Given that I never have a chance to negotiate with the software vendor
> on this term, is it still a valid term?
Contact them and tell them what happened. If it wasn't intended for the HK
market, they'll be happy to exchange yours for the right one.
fmc
>
>
>
> --
> Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´°(Big5)
~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
>
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-.
> | e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
>
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-'
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
