Post #191,515
1/25/05 10:39:15 AM
|
Full points for creativity
None for accuracy.
If you wanted to make the analogy more accurate, suppose that I knew that I had horrible aim. Suppose further that I had a long history of similar accidents, that wasn't the first, second, or even tenth girl that I'd killed in the same way.
If I entered into the shooting contest aware that someone was likely to wind up dead, but I was too caught up in the competition to care, then no court in the nation would care much that I said I wasn't intending to kill someone. I'd be classified as a willful repeat offender for intentionally engaging in a course of action that was likely to kill someon. Hopefully the judge would not be inclined towards leniency.
And there is the difference. When you go on a binary newsgroup, it isn't a tragic accident if you violate a copyright, it is the expected result. No matter whether or not you were doing it to violate copyright, you can't legitimately claim to be unaware that copyrights were going to be violated. But in the scenario that you painted for me, it would have been a tragic accident. And if I pleaded that I had no idea that I was going to kill someone, that plea is believable.
Regards,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #191,816
1/26/05 8:54:09 PM
|
A query on the premise.
Does downloading from alt.binaries.* always involve an infringement of copyright? Why? Isn't it possible for stuff to be legitimately posted?
Wade.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
| -- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. |
|
Post #191,830
1/26/05 9:57:09 PM
|
Not bloody likely. Willing to bet 95%+ copyright violations.
|
Post #192,311
1/30/05 10:11:59 PM
|
Not everything there violates copyright
and dickwads like Pwhysall and Ben_Tilly are too arrogant to accept that simple fact.
Guess they never have heard of freeware and shareware.
lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|
Post #192,318
1/30/05 11:00:26 PM
|
Did I say everything? Learn to fucking read.
and dickwads like Pwhysall and Ben_Tilly are too arrogant to accept that simple fact.
Guess they never have heard of freeware and shareware.
Hey, got a clue for you, dickwad:
Freeware and shareware are available other places than usenet.
And I'll clarify it for you, since you don't seem to get it:
I'm willing to bet that 95%+ of what you see on alt.binaries.* is copyrighted material.
Freeware and shareware don't need alt.binaries.* to get exposure on the web. Get a fucking grip.
Unlike you, I don't have a problem admitting my attitude about whether I'm violating copyright or not. Here's a hint; I really don't give a shit.
Oh, and here's another clue for you:
With all the hosting sites available on the internet, independent artists can put up their stuff for download any time they choose. They don't fucking need alt.binaries.* to do it!
If you really want all those alt.binaries.* groups, then I'd suggest a subscription to GigaNews. Certainly nothing missing there.
|
Post #192,886
2/3/05 1:54:31 PM
|
I never said they NEED alt.binaries
they are available there, which saves me time and energy in searching.
And as I have previously stated, "violation" is not the point of contention, it's the "intent" that is the focal point.
Learn to read yourself, dickwad.
lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|
Post #192,942
2/3/05 9:50:39 PM
|
You really do need a Glass Navel, don't you?
If you download from alt.binaries.*, knowing full well that it's 95%+ assured it's copyrighted material, ............
.... then it's fucking intentional!!
And I thought Rick Moen was a royal asshole........
Welcome to the head of the class........
|
Post #192,309
1/30/05 10:07:19 PM
|
You "suppose" a lot
to word the topic in your favor. I could just as easily say "Suppose that Usenet CHARGED for their downloads, and suppose that someone introduced a way to circumvent the payment system, which I them used ocassionally" then I MIGHT be falling under the twisted analogy that you fabricate. Ben_Tilly whines:
No matter whether or not you were doing it to violate copyright, you can't legitimately claim to be unaware that copyrights were going to be violated.
And nowhere did I claim that I was unaware of copyrights nor unaware that my ocassional acts would violate such - the whole topic was and still is INTENT, which you're glossing over to suit your purposes. lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|
Post #192,327
1/30/05 11:49:06 PM
|
Silly question for you
Suppose that a burglar was being tried for intentionally breaking and entering. And his defence was that he didn't intend to break and enter, that was just the result of his trying to take the jewelry. Do you think that that defence would go very far?
The comparison to the current situation is straightforward. You claim to have no intent to break copyright, you just want to enjoy all of the benefits of doing so, like you have many times before.
Regards,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #192,889
2/3/05 2:06:06 PM
|
Are you for fucking real???
This whole thread started because I was promised a feature before I purchased a service, which I later discovered would not be provided as promised. I was given an ORAL CONTRACT - they offered, and I accepted. Then they reneged. I now have to PAY SOMEONE ELSE to provide that which I expected from the original business transaction. They broke the contract, which now I am fighting them over by refusing to pay termination fees as stated within the contract. Hey, they broke it first; therefore, I'm not bound by it anymore.
Why are you so fucking hung up on violation of copyright? I, like hundreds of others in this community, have written 1000s of software programs, whose copyright belongs to the employer at time of creation. I, like these other hundreds, have written apps later in time minorly or significantly based upon previous works; in fact, dozens if not hundreds are perfect duplicates of earlier works. They, according to your viewpoint, are violations of copyright. Are all of us going to be thrown into the slammer just to satisfy your holier-than-thou attitude?
I don't intend to violate copyright; however, if I do, I don't fucking care. And before you keep being so childishly anal about it, go jump down the throats of the thousands of people who POST these files since they are violating copyright FIRST.
lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|
Post #192,943
2/3/05 9:54:01 PM
|
More so than you, apparently.
|
Post #192,312
1/30/05 10:21:37 PM
|
tell me Ben_Tilly
have you ever been in a debate where you DIDN'Treword everything, at every opportunity, to be twisted to favor only your way of (and I use this word loosely) thinking?
Results are not the same as intent.
Hey, I got a great idea: why don't you police all of the Usenet groups and hound the people who POST files that you think violate copyright? That ought to keep you busy for a while.
lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|
Post #192,315
1/30/05 10:36:02 PM
|
I find myself in a difficult position
Lincoln bitches about not have access to alt.binary.
Some people here jump to the conclusion that
Lincoln will be using the desired access to
violate copyright.
Lincoln comes back with a variety of 1/2 assed
responses, analogies, etc, none which are convincing,
but it seems the core point has been missed.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Note the word "proven".
If there is ANY legal usage of such groups, than
the assumption must be made that they will be
used legally.
So from my point of view, the correct response
to all accusers should be:
Fuck off and die.
Hey Linc: You win.
You don't need to explain anything.
|
Post #192,316
1/30/05 10:57:16 PM
|
I'm arguning "A" and they're arguing "B"
My point was "intent" - I don't specifically intend to violate copyright and, as I'm sure you aware of, not everything posted in those groups are violations of copyright. They're arguing the "result" - downloading some files from some groups are violations of copyright
which I haven't denied in any way shape or form.
There are many files posted which aren't available anywhere else, even after Googling for them. Amazon doesn't sell everything, right? So, according to certain IWETHEYers, to avoid violating copyright I must deny myself access to some files until such time that they MAY become available by the copyright holders, even if that DOESN'Toccur within my lifetime.
lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|
Post #192,319
1/30/05 11:13:42 PM
|
Hey, this is Flame Quarantine.
No logic allowed. And anyway, you're wrong. Peter was the first to make the comment about copyright. But, if one looks at the [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=190349|post] in question one also sees: Anyway, Usenet is so 1996. BitTorrent, baby :-) He amplifies on that suggestion later in the thread. Lincoln getting upset about what others say they think he does or doesn't do with alt.binaries.*.*.*.*, and others arguing about copyright infringement or lack thereof, doesn't change the fact that he doesn't have access to the alt.binaries newsgroups. Peter suggested a way around that problem with linc's current ISP even if they don't change their policies. A helpful suggestion from a limey. Will wonders ever cease? Being piled on isn't much fun. Being able to detect irony and humor is a good skill to have, too. Let's put away the flame-throwers and 50-caliber hollow-point bullets dipped in pigs blood for a while, OK? My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #192,330
1/31/05 12:11:26 AM
|
You'll note that this is not a court
And we are under no obligation to make stupid assumptions.
As Jim said, while it is theoretically possible to haunt alt.binarys.* without violating copyrights, it is bloody unlikely. Furthermore Lincoln has pretty directly admitted that he does violate copyrights, and knows that he violates copyrights, the only point that he's trying to argue is whether his repeated violation of copyrights is intentional or not.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #192,332
1/31/05 12:33:48 AM
|
And he already knows the answer to that.
He just won't give it up.
|
Post #192,890
2/3/05 2:08:01 PM
2/3/05 2:08:31 PM
|
Neither will Ben_Tilly
Tho for the life of me I can't figure why he's being so fucking anal about.
lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
Edited by lincoln
Feb. 3, 2005, 02:08:31 PM EST
|
Post #192,944
2/3/05 9:54:54 PM
|
I'm thinking of three words.... Pot... Kettle.....Black....
|
Post #192,947
2/3/05 10:10:09 PM
|
meself, Two vessels and a color; Pot, Kettle, Day-Glo Orange
-- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey[link|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Miltary Intelligence"] No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]
|
Post #192,329
1/31/05 12:07:06 AM
|
Of course I have
As for your stupid suggestion, you mistake me for someone who cares about whether you're violating copyright. I don't. I merely dislike hypocrisy on the topic. I also dislike watching people who are apparently intelligent and over 15 substituting wish-fulfilment for logic.
Sincerely,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #192,891
2/3/05 2:12:30 PM
|
There you go again
since you refuse to see the distinction between intent and the act, and refuse to admit it, you're refusing to leave your wish-fulfillment fantasy viewpoint.
My analogy stands even if you're not intelligent enough, or have the balls, to accept it.
lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|
Post #192,899
2/3/05 2:45:32 PM
|
The distinction between the intent and the act...
...is the difference between manslaughter and murder. The one tends to incur a sentence of five or so years; the other tends to incur a life sentence.
But then, you're a fucking idiot, so you wouldn't be able to make that distinction.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #193,253
2/6/05 3:49:25 PM
|
And you're an arrogant limesucker
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=191498|I made that distinction perfectly clear here] which you so willfully ignore.
BTW - Here it is, almost one week later, and I'm still waiting for you to come up with a better analogy, since you didn't like mine.
lincoln
"Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|
Post #193,256
2/6/05 3:54:02 PM
|
Didn't we establish that you're an idiot?
Yes, I think we did.
See, your act cannot be committed without the intent. Sorry, but if you download something you know to be copyrighted without the consent of the copyright holder, then you intend to violate that copyright. It's intrinsic to the act.
Your crappy analogy has no such intrinsic intent component.
You may now fuck off.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
