RE: A89: Me distributing roms
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
RE: A89: Me distributing roms
Quite so. Double standards it is not though. Completely different standards
to be honest. I fail to see how you guys can consistantly compare apples and
... coffee mugs. Now I know everyone is out to make a profit and you have
that right, but how you do so and if you do so is not the consumers problem,
it's yours. I would have no problem downloading photoshop for free if adobe
put us on the honor system and while maybe it's prosecutable (MAYBE) I
gurantee you it'll never happen. My favorite quote is "If men were angels we
wouldn't need government" -The Federalists Papers No. 51. You have to
understand that a law, and an enforcable law are different. I know hackers
that have brought down verio (YES VERIO Ph33r dat) for weeks at a time but
if you want to punish em you gotta do the impossible and find them. If you
put your telephone # on this list and somehow make it unlawful to call you
if we got the # from this list you think that phone is gonna be quiet? Oh
hell no. But Roosevelt said it best, "They made the law, now let them
enforce it" Find me a cop who will give a damn if I downloaded photoshop off
that site. Hell, search earth for years, you'll be multch before you find
anyone who cares. Internet law is not only non existant but it's only based
on the morals of the users themselves. Most of us seem to agree that you
shouldn't steal the man's lawn mower, but I saw a lot of controversy about
copying his program, what that says is some people will let that be a law
and some wont. Enforce it. I'm through trying to fight this issue, I'll just
fall back the the Enforce it clause. If you think it's a law stay in line
and dont download it, but if common sense kicks in and you need photoshop,
well... you'll suddenly realize that those who recognize laws that dont
exists are idiots too as you've already clicked save as and continued
browsing. Fight me on this I'm wrong in advance, but that's all I have to
say about it.
Food for da thought: If the chimp leaves his toy in a lion's pen, it's not
the lion's fault for eating it.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
[mailto:owner-assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org]On Behalf Of M. Adam Davis
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 6:46 AM
To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A89: Me distributing roms
Serial wrote:
> what
> if you didn't know you had netbus on your comp and one day you found a
bunch
> of roms on your hard drive, would that then not be your property to do
with
> as you please anyway?
No, it is not your property. I suppose you would think the same way if you
were caught
with cocaine and a handgun at an airport which someone else placed in your
luggage. It
would be yours to do with as you please, right? And since it's in your
luggage, then you
are the one that gets a trial because of it.
What's that, Serial? Oh, you must have a double standard. I suppose as you
mature you
will eventually produce something of value which you will sell... Except
you won't mind
it if people don't respect the copyrights you have to certian materials
because "They have
netbus on their computer, and someone else placed it there."
You err in thinking that the laws that guide physical interaction do not
apply to internet
interaction.
> The method of recieving them is important but who
> gives ti the right to say I cannot give you a file,
The government has given them the right to all material they produce
themselves. If you
do not like it, move to another country where the gov't doen't have those
laws.
> If you try to copyright
> a binary sequence from which it's origin is partially unknown or something
> wierd who has to take responsibility when that person uses the rom.
The end user has the responsibility to find that out. You know as well as I
that you (as
in YOU, serial) can find out who produced the material in the first place.
You can tell
by it's quality that someone made it at great expense (time, energy,
materials, etc) and
that they would not have given it away.
> I think
> the bottom line is public domain means something different to each of us.
That may be true, but it has a VERY specific meaning as far as the law is
concerned. You
would do well to pull your definition in line with the definition you would
be tried under
if you were caught.
> Because the interent is a rather anonomolus creation you may download a
> picture and when you open it, you get a photoshop installer. For you to
tell
> me that a file I can access while being BLIND is not public domain is for
me
> to decide and you to complain about.
Please see the airport analogy above. What you are saying here is you have
your own rules
you follow, something along the lines of, "I can do as I please, and as long
as I'm ok
with it, everyone else just has to deal with it."
> Your morals may keep you from
> downloading it but I know what I am allowed and disallowed from doing and
> until a supreme court justice works out this issue, keep living life in
> limited mode and believe everything you hear.
A supreme court justice? Hello? Is anyone home?
This is SUCH a trivial non-issue that it doesn't even need to go that high.
The laws are
there, and they are enforced.
I sincerely hope that you soon will be burnt by someone else who has the
same values as
you.
-Adam
Follow-Ups:
References: