Linux-Advocacy Digest #330, Volume #33 Tue, 3 Apr 01 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:28 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 03 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr 2001
>> >> 13:25:50 -0400;
>> >> >Roger Perkins wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Also his demonstrated instability and hostility towards the US government.
>> >> >> Officers must be loyal. aaron isn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm loyal to the US Constitution. We are a nation of LAWS, not men.
>> >> >Anyone officer who demands that you swear your loyalty to HIM instead
>> >> >of the Constitution is a dangerous individual who should be put out of
>> >> >the military IMMEDIATELY.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you saying that an officer should accept orders from a modern
>> >> >day Benedict Arnold, just because said officer is his superior?
>> >> >
>> >> >Loyalty without brains => police state, moron.
>> >>
>> >> Are you saying an E5 has the power to disobey a lawful order because he
>> >> believes it conflicts with his private interpretation of the
>> >> Constitution?
>> >
>> >Nice Try, Max, but that's a false premise.
>> >
>> >If an order conflicts with the Constitution, then it's not a legal order.
>> >PERIOD.
>>
>> Who's interpretation of the Constitution, your's or the officer's?
>
>Neither.
Congress's? But that means you believe the Constitution supports the
current tax rate, doesn't it? And the social spending? Or is it "only
in war do I pay attention to Congress's interpretation of the
Constitution"?
Or are you saying there is no interpretation of the Constitution
necessary to know what is in conflict with it?
Your answer seems nonsensical and self-refuting.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:29 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 03 Apr 2001
06:51:04 -0400;
>billh wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>>
>> > I bounced *A* check, because a check that was written to me bounced.
>>
>> Dishorable act no less.
>
>Someone wrote ME a check that bounced....which fucked up my balance.
>
>> Big enough to land you in court.
>
>Charges were dropped.
>
>What does that tell you.
You see, Aaron? If you weren't such a prick, you wouldn't have to waste
all this time thumping your chest when the other pricks start hounding
you.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:33 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 03 Apr 2001
22:01:09 +1200;
>Ever played rugby? Ever been in the position of having a 140KG Somoan charging
>towards you
>(and you're only 85KG), and being hammered when trying to tackle the person? I also
>find
>it rather amazing how little Septic Tanks know about the world outside the US? Did
>you
>know we have Televisions, Tree's, cars, computers, I know, its probably has come as
>quite a
>big shock to you.
<*chuckle*> Gotcha.
>
>Matthew Gardiner
>
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Said Matthew Gardiner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 03 Apr 2001
>> >Cricket is not gay, NOW Gridiron, that is really gay, wtf is it with pads and
>shit? and
>> >a 15'er after each tackle for christs. I've seen more action from a Microsoft
>> >programmer than what happens on the field in a game of Gridiron.
>>
>> They like to think its a game of strategy.
>>
>> Do you think there's more strategy in cricket then in baseball? I've
>> watched both, but I know the rules and strategy to baseball, having
>> grown up American. They're both pretty boring. I'm interested in
>> learning a bit of some of the strategy. It seems a really wacked game
>> from the brief descriptions I've heard.
>>
>> But "gridiron" ('American football') is about *mass*, not *flexibility*,
>> that's wtf with the pads and shit. Rugby (isn't that what you guys call
>> your version of gridiron?) is for pansies, in comparison. You might as
>> well play soccer.
>>
>> --
>> T. Max Devlin
>> *** The best way to convince another is
>> to state your case moderately and
>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:34 GMT
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:53:52
[...]
>>> They like to think its a game of strategy.
>
>The strategy being to be bigger, faster, and stupider than the opponent
>team.
That's tactics, not strategy.
>>> Do you think there's more strategy in cricket then in baseball? I've
>>> watched both, but I know the rules and strategy to baseball, having
>>> grown up American. They're both pretty boring. I'm interested in
>>> learning a bit of some of the strategy. It seems a really wacked game
>>> from the brief descriptions I've heard.
>
>I don't know about strategy, but at least baseball is fun to play. How
>anyone could find cricket interesting is beyond me.
Well, they do, so I guess that just means you don't understand it.
Which is my point; either is boring as shit if you don't understand it.
I understand baseball, but I don't understand Cricket (and here I mean
"know the rules and some of the strategy".)
>>> But "gridiron" ('American football') is about *mass*, not *flexibility*,
>>> that's wtf with the pads and shit. Rugby (isn't that what you guys call
>>> your version of gridiron?) is for pansies, in comparison. You might as
>>> well play soccer.
>
>I think you'll find that American "football" is your version of rugby,
>rather than the other way round. In my youth, I tried to understand the
>concepts of American football. As you say, mass is important, whereas
>flexibility, skill and intelligence seem sadly lacking.
Unless you're the 'field commander', the quarter-back, all you need is
cunning, not intelligence. And "skill" is a dubious term, in context,
clearly meant as nothing but an ad hominem insult.
>As far as I
>understand it, there are a couple of players who need to be reasonably
>skillful (good throwers, runners or kickers), whereas everyone else just
>needs to charge mindlessly at each other and get in the way.
Hey, its a skill. Like I said, its a game of strategy. You keep
getting confused by the tactics.
>The players
>all wear so much armour instead of being smart enough and fast enough to get
>out of the way. They then need five minute breaks every two minutes of play
>to recover. Rugby, on the other hand, is a game of speed and skill as well
>as strength.
Well, in response to the guy who thought it was "all that" to have a big
Samoan charging them, I'd suggest that its worse if he's armored. And
not being armored yourself is more a sign of stupidity than manliness,
in such a situation.
It's like the barbarians whining at the "pansy Romans" with all their
silly armor. You have a little game with a funny looking ball (so you
can't kick it like soccer, I guess, as I can't see any other difference
in the games), we have a sport testing the brute strength, skill,
cunning, and intelligence of a team of warriors.
Or at least that's the way I'd put it if I were serious about such a
pissing match. As it stands, I don't watch sports, and I could care
less whether they wear pads in any particular one or not.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:35 GMT
Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Apr 2001 10:47:00 -0500;
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 22:01:09 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Ever played rugby? Ever been in the position of having a 140KG Somoan charging
>towards you
>>(and you're only 85KG), and being hammered when trying to tackle the person? I also
>find
>>it rather amazing how little Septic Tanks know about the world outside the US? Did
>you
>>know we have Televisions, Tree's, cars, computers, I know, its probably has come as
>quite a
>>big shock to you.
>>
>>Matthew Gardiner
>>
>
>Big deal. You don't have the SuperBowl. Are those tin cans you drive around in
>called
>"cars"? Here in America we call them go-carts.
ROTFLMAO!
>Yes, you do have television, but it's
>really crappy.
Oh, come on! Englanders might have decent game shows, if you like that
kind of thing, but they ain't got The Sopranos.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:36 GMT
Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Apr 2001 10:39:17 -0500;
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:51:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Matthew Gardiner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 03 Apr 2001
>>>Cricket is not gay, NOW Gridiron, that is really gay, wtf is it with pads and shit?
>and
>>>a 15'er after each tackle for christs. I've seen more action from a Microsoft
>>>programmer than what happens on the field in a game of Gridiron.
>>
>>[ - snip - ]
>>
>>But "gridiron" ('American football') is about *mass*, not *flexibility*,
>>that's wtf with the pads and shit. Rugby (isn't that what you guys call
>>your version of gridiron?) is for pansies, in comparison. You might as
>>well play soccer.
>>
>
>The reason rugby players don't wear pads is because they get in the way
>of touching each other's private parts while all piled up in a big
>rugby orgy of love.
>
Thus providing the obvious "real explanation" for gridiron players
wearing all those pads. Everyone knows Americans are homophobic.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:37 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:47:02 -0400;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Prove it. I don't have your posts; perhaps you do. The conversation
>> started and was always about IE5, AFAIK, and the posts *I* made
>> mentioning it back in 1998 agree.
>
>I don't archive newsgroup posts. And forgot to video tape the event in
>question, so I guess your SOL.
Actually, it means you are. There's now no reason for anyone to doubt
that you did, in fact, blame your video card for an IE5 bug, and replace
the board rather than remove the software. (Not that that would have
helped, as others who were in similar situations have learned; you can't
uninstall the slip-streamed DLLs that screwed up the video in Windows.)
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:38 GMT
Said Jeffrey Siegal in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Are you trying to tell me you accept this ridiculous idea? A CPU is a
>> cook, and software a recipe? Where on earth did you come up with that?
>> I mean, it makes perfect sense as a technical analogy, to explain to
>> people "how computers/software work". But as a legal abstraction to
>> base copyright protection on? That's crazy!
>
>Of course it is. In a legal sense, a computer is a tool, like a pot or
>a pan (or a photocopier).
Tools can't 'read' things. If the computer is a tool, so's the
software, and you can't copyright a tool.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:39 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 Apr 2001 11:50:20
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 09:25:39 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 04:24:44
>>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> >Err, no. Software doesn't 'run' or perform anything. It is a set of
>>>> >instructions that a CPU follows just like a cook may follow a cookbook.
>>>>
>>>> Well, see, the problem is you have a CPU, an inanimate object, *doing*
>>>> things, but then you say that software cannot. CPU's don't "follow"
>>>> instructions "just like a cook may follow a cookbook". That's a
>>>> ridiculous idea, and I know you know way more about software than to
>>>> think it holds up. Care to try again?
>>>
>>>No, that was pretty close.
>>
>>Are you trying to tell me you accept this ridiculous idea? A CPU is a
>>cook, and software a recipe? Where on earth did you come up with that?
>>I mean, it makes perfect sense as a technical analogy, to explain to
>>people "how computers/software work". But as a legal abstraction to
>>base copyright protection on? That's crazy!
>
>Well, compared to the current "code is a book, but it's not covered by
>first amendment rights, and the CPU is a reader that has no right to
>fair use", I think it's damn good!
Not a book; the intellectual property which makes a book valuable. And
the problem with the analogy is that inanimate objects cannot "do"
things which have any implication on a human being's rights.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:40 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 Apr 2001 11:55:08
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 06:40:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:07:14
>>>"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>> > Exactly how do you imagine a separate library that existed before
>>>> > the GPL'd component would become 'derived from' this GPL'd
>>>> > component if they happen to be linked together at some future date?
>>>>
>>>> It does not.
>>>
>>>Then by what claim can the FSF say that separately distributing a
>>> 'user-does-the-link' kit where the usr obtains his own copy
>>>of the GPL'd material is in any way a violation?
>>
>>Linking by definition cannot make a piece of software derivative. It is
>>in being literally "based on" the other work. Unfortunately, software
>>has a functional nature, as well as artistic integrity, so being "based
>>on" becomes problematic. The FSF believe that it includes writing a
>>program which calls code in a library. This makes the program
>>derivative of the library, because the only reason anyone has for
>>obtaining this software, in general, is because of its functionality.
>>Therefore, to allow the author of the program to potentially profit from
>>the functionality of the library is contrary to the purpose of
>>copyright.
>>
>>The software becomes derivative when it is written, not when it finally
>
>Here Max, is where you should graciously exit, stage left, because you
>have no idea what you are talking about. There are very simple ways to
>write the program so that it will work with multiple alternative libraries,
>without any libraries on degraded mode, and to write it so that it may work
>with any library that is conceivable in the future.
In any such situation, as far as I know, any of those *alternative*
libraries being GPL would not require that your program be GPL. If I am
mistaken, please explain why, without invectives designed to broadside
the FSF. That's just begging the question.
>That would make the program derivative of something that DOESN'T exist when
>the program is written, breaking causality.
"Exist" would unfortunately have to be defined in that sentence. I am
by nature suspicious of such sentences. If it simply works with a GPL
library, it is not necessarily derivative. If the only library it will
work with is GPL, it is GPL. If it was *written to work* with a GPL
library, perhaps its GPL.
If a publishing house hires two authors to create works for hire which
constitute the first two books of a trilogy because they have purchased
(in the applicable sense) from another author a book which is the third
part of a trilogy which he didn't write the first two books for, which
books are derivative of the other? Does this gedanken experiment have
any bearing on your metaphysical substances?
>I know you have said in the past that causality doesn't matter. Ask a lawyer.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:41 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:53:34 GMT;
>On 3 Apr 2001 11:55:08 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>That would make the program derivative of something that DOESN'T exist when
>>the program is written, breaking causality.
>
>Breaking causality is a little strong. But the principle Max argues
>would allow me to write a plug-in for Netscape and then to sue Netscape
>to stop distribution of their browser that is now capable of calling my
>new plug-in.
No, but it would allow Netscape to sue you, if they wanted to. The
designations of program and library and plug-in are entirely and
completely immaterial when it comes to software as copyrighted work.
>That ought to be absurd enough a result to make someone
>rethink their position. By now we both know he won't.
Begging the question. It is incorrect, it is not absurd.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:42 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:34:12 GMT;
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 01:58:02 -0700, Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>There is a relationship to copyright law, in that copies made while
>>using the program are copies which must be authorized by the copyright
>>holder, unless the end user already "owns" a copy.
>>
>>Your comments about game consoles are interesting. I wonder how
>>extensively copyright law issues have been tested in that arena.
>
>I think for game consoles the issues have been thoroughly litigated.
>I don't know how often those principles have been extended elsewhere.
There was a company which made die-mixing equipment. They wrote
software for a PC that controls their die-mixing equipment. They sold
the stuff under an EULA, a trade secret license, which stipulated that
the licensee agrees not to produce die-mixing equipment software, nor to
decompile the code.
The licensee took the code, decompiled it to figure out how it works,
then copied it verbatim to include in their own product. They even
wrote software to hide the origin of the code. They then produced and
sold their die-mixing equipment, including the 'pirated' code in every
unit, and got sued for copyright infringement and breaking their
licensing agreement.
I'm going to give some spoiler space for those who aren't familiar with
this precedent. Consider what you, were you a federal judge, might do,
given the facts and your understanding of copyright.
Not only were the infringer's held harmless (but for a charge of fraud
in buying the original software under false pretenses), but they were
allowed to use the work just the way they did (in which case, they were
not infringing.) Not only that, but the original author's rights to
protection of their work under copyright law *was revoked*! _Anyone_,
it seems, is now allowed to use their work to their heart's content.
Why?
Because the judge found that the license was "over-reaching." It
attempted to use copyright law, plain and simple, to restrain trade.
The combination of wrapping copyright in a trade secret license (*that*
trade secret license, I should say) was found to be illegal, as an
attempt to use copyright to prevent competition. The 'remedy' was to
state that copyright did not cover that work. This was not done
punitively, though, to punish the authors for breaking anti-trust law
(the case was a contract dispute, not an anti-trust trial). It was done
that way *because of the nature of copyright*. An author *does not have
a copyright claim* when that claim is used to attempt to monopolize,
monopolize, or implement contracts which are in restraint of trade. The
*only* authority an author has to claim copyright protection is,
ultimately, "to encourage the development of sciences and the useful
arts".
http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:43 GMT
Said Jeffrey Siegal in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001
>Isaac wrote:
>> >There is a relationship to copyright law, in that copies made while
>> >using the program are copies which must be authorized by the copyright
>> >holder, unless the end user already "owns" a copy.
>> >
>> >Your comments about game consoles are interesting. I wonder how
>> >extensively copyright law issues have been tested in that arena.
>>
>> I think for game consoles the issues have been thoroughly litigated.
>
>I'm aware of the reverse engineering cases, which attempt to apply
>copyright law to impede the ability to produce unauthorized games but
>that is somewhat different than applying copyright law to prohibit end
>users from from using unauthorized games. Have there been such cases?
Your question requires the concept of "unauthorized games" to be
understood. And that is the problem; according to the law, there is no
such thing. The consumer, not the producers, "authorize" games for
their game consoles. A producer has a right to *try* to keep his
platform "closed". Nobody in all the world except those that have legal
contracts requiring it has any need to pay any attention to such
desires.
To answer the question I think you were asking (merely a matter of
changing the term "authorized" to the term "licensed"), there are no
cases testing whether the producer has a right to insist that only
licensed games be played on their console. Because it is known they do
not, which is why they come up with all those tricks which have been
tested by the unlicensed game producers. Those tricks are allowed, but
if they work, the producer is possibly looking at anti-trust charges.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:45 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:39:37 GMT;
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 06:13:40 -0700, Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>I'm aware of the reverse engineering cases, which attempt to apply
>>copyright law to impede the ability to produce unauthorized games but
>>that is somewhat different than applying copyright law to prohibit end
>>users from from using unauthorized games. Have there been such cases?
>
>I suspect that very few games players ever get sued for copyright
>violations, and that only under the rarest of situations would such
>a suit result in a court decision. I'll bet there haven't been any
>such cases.
I think it is a point supporting my theories that NO "game players"
('end users') have *EVER been sued for copyright violation. Or should I
say that it is a point against the opposing theories, involving a
metaphysical substance for copyright, that you don't understand why no
such cases have ever been seen, nor will ever be seen.
>Perhaps the reverse engineering cases have dealt with the issue at
>least to dismiss contributory infringement claims. I'll go hunt
>them down to see.
You cannot sue an end-user for copyright violation. Unless they're a
producer, they can't be violating copyright.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
