Re: Doesn't open-source software deserve protection from pirates?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by peterwn, Feb 27, 2010.

  1. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 27, 1:35 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:

    <snip (I have snipped all of this in interests of bandwidth economy) >

    It is not readily feasible to give a blow by blow answer.

    I would agree there is confusion on all sides. For example at a GOVIS)
    conference some years ago a lawyer (whose firm happened to do work for
    Microsoft) had his knickers in a twist on the difference between a
    licence and a contract (he was critical of open source software not
    having a EULA 'tick' box). Soon after Max Burke on this ng said that
    the GPL may not be valid in NZ because it had not been tested in a NZ
    court. This showed confused thinking about copyright law. It is a
    defendant in a copyright case who needs to rely on a licence to
    successfully defend the claim, not the plaintiff to show the licence
    is valid.

    There is dissention over the term 'intellectual property' (IP).
    Lawyers use it as a collective term for copyright, patents, registered
    designs and the common law breach of 'passing off'. Those opposed to
    the scope of IP protection or opposed to moves to extend the scope of
    IP protection will accuse the interests concerned that IP is a 'buzz
    word' which claims more rights than is the law ('rights
    amplification'). An example would be the suggestion that copyright be
    extended to cover compilations of data (eg a phone directory) in
    addition to 'original works'. Personally I support the lawyers'
    definition.

    The main IP concern is with patents. If a person puts significant
    effort into putting a product to market (eg a wonder drug) there is
    little argument that patent protection is warranted. However if
    someone merely brainstorms out ideas, without putting them to market,
    there is valid (IMO) criticism that the patent holder can hold the
    world to ransom for something that probably cost far more to patent
    than the cost of the original thought. The gripe especially is that
    the patent system favours the big players, but small businesses just
    cannot afford to defend against patent claims even if they would
    ultimately prevail. General patent fairness is not assisted by USA
    basically taking a stand supportive of the views of 'big business'
    rather than seeking an impartial method of patent administration which
    would operate to the maximum benefit of all those on Earth. More
    specifically the Open Source community is critical of where patents
    are going as it risks being totally hamstrung by broad ranging 'weak'
    patents which did not represent any real development effort on the
    part of the 'inventors'. This even includes extraction of licence
    fees using broad threats of patent infringement without even
    mentioning the patents claimed. IMO another term for this is
    'protection racket' and it is well known that Microsoft is extracting
    protection money from some open source users and organisations.

    However 'piracy' of movies, music, software etc involves breach of
    copyright rather than patent breaches. The term 'piracy' is
    criticised as being emotive and 'over the top' especially as there is
    no criminal sanctions for 'piracy' by end users. The term 'pirate' is
    probably better linited to those who intentionally sell products in
    breach of copyright which is a criminal matter liable to 5 years jail.

    This applies equally to proprietary and open source software, except
    there can be no open source 'piracy' by those who share and run open
    source software - this is explicitly permitted by the associated
    licences.

    One last point - surely questions such as this can be discussed
    without recourse to calling people insulting names.
    peterwn, Feb 27, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peterwn

    MaxLVB Guest

    On 27/02/2010 3:26 p.m., peterwn wrote:

    > On Feb 27, 1:35 pm, "impossible"<> wrote:


    > There is dissention over the term 'intellectual property' (IP).
    > Lawyers use it as a collective term for copyright, patents, registered
    > designs and the common law breach of 'passing off'. Those opposed to
    > the scope of IP protection or opposed to moves to extend the scope of
    > IP protection will accuse the interests concerned that IP is a 'buzz
    > word' which claims more rights than is the law ('rights
    > amplification'). An example would be the suggestion that copyright be
    > extended to cover compilations of data (eg a phone directory) in
    > addition to 'original works'. Personally I support the lawyers'
    > definition.


    > The main IP concern is with patents. If a person puts significant
    > effort into putting a product to market (eg a wonder drug) there is
    > little argument that patent protection is warranted. However if
    > someone merely brainstorms out ideas, without putting them to market,
    > there is valid (IMO) criticism that the patent holder can hold the
    > world to ransom for something that probably cost far more to patent
    > than the cost of the original thought.


    Idea's have value. Much as you seem to dislike that fact and that people
    can legally protect their idea's from others desire to 'benefit' from
    those ideas.

    snip the usual ranting about the USA and the 'big players evilness.'

    > However 'piracy' of movies, music, software etc involves breach of
    > copyright rather than patent breaches. The term 'piracy' is
    > criticised as being emotive and 'over the top' especially as there is
    > no criminal sanctions for 'piracy' by end users. The term 'pirate' is
    > probably better linited to those who intentionally sell products in
    > breach of copyright which is a criminal matter liable to 5 years jail.


    You mean like the manufacturers of my NAS, router, and cable modem?
    Or my DVD player, Cable box, etc?
    (see below)

    > This applies equally to proprietary and open source software, except
    > there can be no open source 'piracy' by those who share and run open
    > source software - this is explicitly permitted by the associated
    > licences.


    [re-post]
    Well I am running to versions of Linux on hardware, a NAS unit, and a
    router.
    Neither of them have the GPL any where that I can find. Yes I have looked.

    I have never had to agree to the GPL for these versions of Linux, the
    hardware doesn't require me to do that, there is no mention of the GPL
    in the documentation or manual for the NAS or router. There's nothing on
    the manufacturers websites about Linux or the GPL.

    I've just realised my cable modem supplied by my ISP probably has a
    version of Linux as well. My ISP has never asked me to agree to the GPL,
    the modem never asks me to agree to the GPL, I guess that makes the
    manufacturers, and me guilty of pirating Linux huh...

    > One last point - surely questions such as this can be discussed
    > without recourse to calling people insulting names.


    And it can be discussed without you and others of the same ilk insulting
    your readers intelligence by constantly harping on about your obvious
    dislike of Microsoft and the USA...

    --


    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
    MaxLVB, Feb 27, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 27, 5:38 pm, MaxLVB <> wrote:
    > On 27/02/2010 3:26 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    >
    >
    > Idea's have value. Much as you seem to dislike that fact and that people
    > can legally protect their idea's from others desire to 'benefit' from
    > those ideas.


    Only because of patent legislation. The issue is to what degree
    should patent legislation confer property rights where there were none
    before. In the old days a king (unless corrupt) would expect to see
    significant development work before a 'letters patent' became final.
    James Watt could not have got a patent for a steam engine merely
    because he got an idea watching a kettle boil. He as basically
    promised a patent if he came up with a workable steam engine within an
    appropriate time and because of the difficulty of bringing the idea to
    a marketable state he actually got a longer patent period than the
    norm for the time.

    >
    > snip the usual ranting about the USA and the 'big players evilness.'


    I am no Commie nor USA enemy, but I am merely alluding to the facts of
    life of the way USA operates. Major corporations in USA have enormous
    lobbying strength not only to influence domestic laws but to exert
    pressure on the US Government to apply pressure internationally via
    WTO, trade agreements, etc to nations to align local laws with USA
    wishes ie wishes of major USA corporations. And they benefit from a
    legislative regime where patents are easy to obtain and enforcement
    favours the patent holder even where the patent is dubious.

    >
    > > However 'piracy' of movies, music, software etc involves breach of
    > > copyright rather than patent breaches.  The term 'piracy' is
    > > criticised as being emotive and 'over the top' especially as there is
    > > no criminal sanctions for 'piracy' by end users.  The term 'pirate' is
    > > probably better linited to those who intentionally sell products in
    > > breach of copyright which is a criminal matter liable to 5 years jail.

    >
    > You mean like the manufacturers of my NAS, router, and cable modem?
    > Or my DVD player, Cable box, etc?
    > (see below)


    Fundamentally yes, why not, if this is proved including criminal
    intent beyond reasonable doubt. There is no difference between
    selling routers containing code in breach of copyright licence or
    pirate DVD's at a local flea market.

    >
    > > This applies equally to proprietary and open source software, except
    > > there can be no open source 'piracy' by those who share and run open
    > > source software - this is explicitly permitted by the associated
    > > licences.

    >
    > [re-post]
    > Well I am running to versions of Linux on hardware, a NAS unit, and a
    > router.
    > Neither of them have the GPL any where that I can find. Yes I have looked..
    >
    > I have never had to agree to the GPL for these versions of Linux, the
    > hardware doesn't require me to do that, there is no mention of the GPL
    > in the documentation or manual for the NAS or router. There's nothing on
    > the manufacturers websites about Linux or the GPL.
    >
    > I've just realised my cable modem supplied by my ISP probably has a
    > version of Linux as well. My ISP has never asked me to agree to the GPL,
    > the modem never asks me to agree to the GPL, I guess that makes the
    > manufacturers, and me guilty of pirating Linux huh...


    From the consumer's perspective there is no material difference
    whether the item contains GPL code or proprietary code. The GPL does
    not impose any more obligation on the consumer that a proprietary
    licence does.

    If a sold item is found to infringe IP, end users once made aware of
    the situation would become a party to the infringement. This recently
    happened in NZ to firms who purchased a 'ripped off' version of the
    Yellow Pages database. The vendor was required to yield the customer
    list so the Yellow Pages company could demand that the firms to stop
    using and yield up the pirated database CD's. If the offender goes
    bust in the meantime this is the customers' loss.

    Now if it were the GPL that was infringed by the manufacturer (or sub-
    suppliers), the end users are almost certainly not in breach of the
    GPL despite using 'tainted' code. This is quite apart from the fact
    that the copyright owner(s) would not contemplate taking legal action
    against an end user in such circumstances.

    No one needs to formally agree to a licence. A licence in the most
    fundamental terms allows a user to do something that is otherwise
    unlawful, and can be revoked by the issuer at any time. It is not a
    contract but may operate in conjunction with a contract eg a EULA. A
    feature of the GPL is that the copyright holder promises never to
    revoke the licence with respect to a particular user unless the terms
    are breached. A court will uphold this promise (estoppal) so the
    licence is effectively irrevocable with respect to ordinary and proper
    use. If anyone is accused of breaching copyright it is the defendant
    who needs to wave the licence around to show he or she is complying
    with its terms. This applies to 'common law' countries. Nations with
    different legal systems may treat copyright differently but with the
    end result of upholding the Berne Convention. Germany, for example,
    treats licencing as contract law, but with the same practical effect.
    And yes, German courts have upheld the terms of the GPL.

    >
    > > One last point - surely questions such as this can be discussed
    > > without recourse to calling people insulting names.

    >
    > And it can be discussed without you and others of the same ilk insulting
    > your readers intelligence by constantly harping on about your obvious
    > dislike of Microsoft and the USA...
    >


    See above.

    Much confusion would also be avoided by clarity of thinking and
    resisting the temptation to throw around FUD and mis-information about
    the GPL and open source community.
    peterwn, Feb 27, 2010
    #3
  4. peterwn

    MaxLVB Guest

    On 27/02/2010 8:20 p.m., peterwn wrote:

    >> On Feb 27, 5:38 pm, MaxLVB<> wrote:
    >> Idea's have value. Much as you seem to dislike that fact and that people
    >> can legally protect their idea's from others desire to 'benefit' from
    >> those ideas.


    > Only because of patent legislation.


    BS!
    Plagiarism. Ever heard of it?

    BTW there's nothing wrong with patenting ideas at all.

    > The issue is to what degree
    > should patent legislation confer property rights where there were none
    > before. In the old days a king (unless corrupt) would expect to see
    > significant development work before a 'letters patent' became final.
    > James Watt could not have got a patent for a steam engine merely
    > because he got an idea watching a kettle boil. He as basically
    > promised a patent if he came up with a workable steam engine within an
    > appropriate time and because of the difficulty of bringing the idea to
    > a marketable state he actually got a longer patent period than the
    > norm for the time.


    >> snip the usual ranting about the USA and the 'big players evilness.'


    > I am no Commie nor USA enemy, but I am merely alluding to the facts of
    > life of the way USA operates.


    Which yu appear to have major issues with and constantly pepper nearly
    every post you make in this forum turning them ito nothing more than
    rants about the USA.

    They're hardly conducive to rational discussions...

    > Major corporations in USA have enormous
    > lobbying strength not only to influence domestic laws but to exert
    > pressure on the US Government to apply pressure internationally via
    > WTO, trade agreements, etc to nations to align local laws with USA
    > wishes ie wishes of major USA corporations. And they benefit from a
    > legislative regime where patents are easy to obtain and enforcement
    > favours the patent holder even where the patent is dubious.


    So what. It's the way the the most powerful nation on the planet works.
    It's the way the rest of the world works with the USA.
    Get over it, cause you sure ain't got anything better than complaining
    about it in nz.comp.

    > However 'piracy' of movies, music, software etc involves breach of
    > copyright rather than patent breaches. The term 'piracy' is
    > criticised as being emotive and 'over the top' especially as there is
    > no criminal sanctions for 'piracy' by end users. The term 'pirate' is
    > probably better linited to those who intentionally sell products in
    > breach of copyright which is a criminal matter liable to 5 years jail.


    >> You mean like the manufacturers of my NAS, router, and cable modem?
    >> Or my DVD player, Cable box, etc?
    >> (see below)


    > Fundamentally yes, why not, if this is proved including criminal
    > intent beyond reasonable doubt. There is no difference between
    > selling routers containing code in breach of copyright licence or
    > pirate DVD's at a local flea market.


    And yet the hardware is freely AND legally available to anyone who has
    the cash to purchase said hardware. See what I mean about the GPL is
    existentially enforceable unless and until it's enforced in a NEW
    ZEALAND court of law.

    I could list ALL the retail outlets where anyone can obtain computer and
    consumer electronics that have embedded OSS/Linux hardware that does not
    comply with the GPL, and there is **** all the advocates of the GPL (and
    the claims made about it's legal standing) can do to legally enforce it
    on the manufacturers, retailers or end users. (like me)

    >>> This applies equally to proprietary and open source software, except
    >>> there can be no open source 'piracy' by those who share and run open
    >>> source software - this is explicitly permitted by the associated
    >>> licences.


    >> [re-post]
    >> Well I am running to versions of Linux on hardware, a NAS unit, and a
    >> router.
    >> Neither of them have the GPL any where that I can find. Yes I have looked.


    >> I have never had to agree to the GPL for these versions of Linux, the
    >> hardware doesn't require me to do that, there is no mention of the GPL
    >> in the documentation or manual for the NAS or router. There's nothing on
    >> the manufacturers websites about Linux or the GPL.


    >> I've just realised my cable modem supplied by my ISP probably has a
    >> version of Linux as well. My ISP has never asked me to agree to the GPL,
    >> the modem never asks me to agree to the GPL, I guess that makes the
    >> manufacturers, and me guilty of pirating Linux huh...


    > From the consumer's perspective there is no material difference
    > whether the item contains GPL code or proprietary code. The GPL does
    > not impose any more obligation on the consumer that a proprietary
    > licence does.


    Irrelevant.
    That's NOT the discussion.

    > If a sold item is found to infringe IP, end users once made aware of
    > the situation would become a party to the infringement.


    The hardware I mention did/does NOT have a copy of the GPL (either on
    paper or in the hardware itself)
    Therefore I have not been made aware of ANY GPL terms and conditions let
    alone been given the opportunity agree or disagree with it.

    > Now if it were the GPL that was infringed by the manufacturer (or sub-
    > suppliers), the end users are almost certainly not in breach of the
    > GPL despite using 'tainted' code. This is quite apart from the fact
    > that the copyright owner(s) would not contemplate taking legal action
    > against an end user in such circumstances.


    What about the manufacturers and retailers?

    > No one needs to formally agree to a licence.


    Yeah you do. Legally Valid licences anyway. Like EULA's

    > A licence in the most
    > fundamental terms allows a user to do something that is otherwise
    > unlawful, and can be revoked by the issuer at any time. It is not a
    > contract but may operate in conjunction with a contract eg a EULA. A
    > feature of the GPL is that the copyright holder promises never to
    > revoke the licence with respect to a particular user unless the terms
    > are breached. A court will uphold this promise (estoppal) so the
    > licence is effectively irrevocable with respect to ordinary and proper
    > use. If anyone is accused of breaching copyright it is the defendant
    > who needs to wave the licence around to show he or she is complying
    > with its terms. This applies to 'common law' countries. Nations with
    > different legal systems may treat copyright differently but with the
    > end result of upholding the Berne Convention. Germany, for example,
    > treats licencing as contract law, but with the same practical effect.
    > And yes, German courts have upheld the terms of the GPL.


    Last time I checked I was in New Zealand, NOT Germany.

    > One last point - surely questions such as this can be discussed
    > without recourse to calling people insulting names.


    >> And it can be discussed without you and others of the same ilk insulting
    >> your readers intelligence by constantly harping on about your obvious
    >> dislike of Microsoft and the USA...


    > See above.


    You too.

    > Much confusion would also be avoided by clarity of thinking and
    > resisting the temptation to throw around FUD and mis-information about
    > the GPL and open source community.


    Then stop posting FUD and mis-information about Microsoft and the USA.
    It works both ways Peter. You also have do what you want others to do....

    And how about giving impossible a STRAIGHT answer to the question S/he
    asked you..

    --


    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
    MaxLVB, Feb 27, 2010
    #4
  5. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 27, 6:12 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    > > <snip (I have snipped all of this in interests of bandwidth economy) >
    > > 0

    >
    > Below, I  have restored Peter the Whiner's censorship of my post.


    Rubbish, your posting is there for the world to see.

    >
    > > There's way too much confusion among open-source advocates about the
    > >> property rights that open source developers are entitled to. Lots of
    > >> ideologically motivated rants out there that seem to undermine any claim
    > >> to
    > >> protections that I'm sure the ranters themselves would prefer open-source
    > >> software to have -- that is, if they stopped to think about the issue for
    > >> just one moment.

    >
    > >> Larry D'Loser, for example,  claims that intellectual property is a myth
    > >> invented by Microsoft, Adobe. But don't open source developers have
    > >> copyright protection for their original contributions? Of course they do!
    > >> That gives them the right to issue a license specifying terms of
    > >> distribution use. No one but the author of the original work -- the
    > >> copyright holder, ie., the intellectual property owner -- can do that.
    > >> Indeed, the GPL (v3) itself defines the rights granted in the license in
    > >> terms of actions "requiring copyright permission"

    >
    > >> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html>

    >
    > >> Without those protections on intellectual property, which are embedded in
    > >> law virtually every jurisdiction in the world, how would it be possible
    > >> for
    > >> open-source developers to prevent piracy?

    >
    > >> One thought is that piracy, too, is a myth invented by Microsoft, Adobe,
    > >> etc
    > >> . Nothing wrong with downloading whatever you can find on the net, the
    > >> claim
    > >> goes. But isn't open-source software as vulnerable to pirates as closed
    > >> source? Perhaps even more vulnerable when you consider that, by
    > >> definition,
    > >> the source code for open source software is....well open for the taking.
    > >> Another developer could easily pirate the intellectual property of an
    > >> open-source developer and claim it as their own closed source invention.
    > >> Right? Wrong! Because the intellectual property rights that inhere in
    > >> copyright prevents that, and because the author of the original work
    > >> would
    > >> have an open-and-shut case to present on that matter in court, if need
    > >> be.

    >
    > >> So please, COLA trolls, get your act together.  Are you for or against
    > >> protecting open source software from piracy?

    >
    > > It is not readily feasible to give a blow by blow answer.

    >
    > You have never succeeded once in making an intelligent reply to anything I
    > have said. That's why censorship of my posts is your stock-and-trade. How
    > low can you go? You look like a complete imbecile.
    >
    >
    >
    > > I would agree there is confusion on all sides.  For example at a GOVIS)
    > > conference some years ago a lawyer (whose firm happened to do work for
    > > Microsoft) had his knickers in a twist on the difference between a
    > > licence and a contract (he was critical of open source software not
    > > having a EULA 'tick' box).  Soon after Max Burke on this ng said that
    > > the GPL may not be valid in NZ because it had not been tested in a NZ
    > > court.  This showed confused thinking about copyright law.  It is a
    > > defendant in a copyright case who needs to rely on a licence to
    > > successfully defend the claim, not the plaintiff to show the licence
    > > is valid.

    >
    > So GPL'd software then is the intellectual property of the authors. Right?


    No. The author of the creative work may assign the copyright in
    accordance with relevant copyright law. Most creators using GPL for
    concenience assign their copyrights to the Free Software Foundation
    (FSF).

    My earlier explanation (see below) covers this - as far as I am
    concerned creative works capable of copyright are intellectual
    property of the copyright owner. Lawrence may beg to differ for
    reasons below.
    >
    > > There is dissention over the term 'intellectual property' (IP).
    > > Lawyers use it as a collective term for copyright, patents, registered
    > > designs and the common law breach of 'passing off'.  Those opposed to
    > > the scope of IP protection or opposed to moves to extend the scope of
    > > IP protection will accuse the interests concerned that IP is a 'buzz
    > > word' which claims more rights than is the law ('rights
    > > amplification').  An example would be the suggestion that copyright be
    > > extended to cover compilations of data (eg a phone directory) in
    > > addition to 'original works'.  Personally I support the lawyers'
    > > definition.

    >
    > Is GPL'd saoftware intellectual property or not?


    AFAIK no legal definition covers this, but lawyers use 'intellectual
    property' as a collective term and I go along with this. There are
    other things which some regard as 'intellectual property' but for
    which there is no legal basis for protection (eg a collection of
    names, addresses and telephone numbers in the 'White Pages').

    >
    >
    >
    > > The main IP concern is with patents.  If a person puts significant
    > > effort into putting a product to market (eg a wonder drug) there is
    > > little argument that patent protection is warranted.  However if
    > > someone merely brainstorms out ideas, without putting them to market,
    > > there is valid (IMO) criticism that the patent holder can hold the
    > > world to ransom for something that probably cost far more to patent
    > > than the cost of the original thought.  The gripe especially is that
    > > the patent system favours the big players, but small businesses just
    > > cannot afford to defend against patent claims even if they would
    > > ultimately prevail.  General patent fairness is not assisted by USA
    > > basically taking a stand supportive of the views of 'big business'
    > > rather than seeking an impartial method of patent administration which
    > > would operate to the maximum benefit of all those on Earth.  More
    > > specifically the Open Source community is critical of where patents
    > > are going as it risks being totally hamstrung by broad ranging 'weak'
    > > patents which did not represent any real development effort on the
    > > part of the 'inventors'.  This even includes extraction of licence
    > > fees using broad threats of patent infringement without even
    > > mentioning the patents claimed.  IMO another term for this is
    > > 'protection racket' and it is well known that Microsoft is extracting
    > > protection money from some open source users and organisations.

    >
    > Patents are entirely beside the point of this discussion.


    I am happy with this.

    >
    > > However 'piracy' of movies, music, software etc involves breach of
    > > copyright rather than patent breaches.  The term 'piracy' is
    > > criticised as being emotive and 'over the top' especially as there is
    > > no criminal sanctions for 'piracy' by end users.  The term 'pirate' is
    > > probably better linited to those who intentionally sell products in
    > > breach of copyright which is a criminal matter liable to 5 years jail.

    >
    > Theft of intellectual property is the issue. Are you for it or against it? A
    > simple yes or no would be appropriate. You've been dodging this issue.
    > What's the problem?


    I have not dodged the issue. You point blank accused me of software
    piracy and had to let that one go when you got no support from
    others. You then point plank accused me of supporting software piracy
    without a shred of evidence then had the gall to demand that I defend
    myself. As far as I am concerned you can blow it out of your ear.

    > .
    >
    > > This applies equally to proprietary and open source software, except
    > > there can be no open source 'piracy' by those who share and run open
    > > source software - this is explicitly permitted by the associated
    > > licences.

    >
    > Piracy is theft of intellectual property.


    No. Piracy is taking ships at sea and is an extremely serious matter
    placing lives at risk. OK piracy has been applied to intellectual
    property matters but some considers that this is an unwarranted
    emotional hype up.

    Theft of intellectual occurs when
    > someone copies, uses, or distributes copyrighted works outside the terms of
    > the copyright holder's licensze agreement. That can happen whether the
    > intellectual property in question is open source or closed source.


    Except that the Copyright Act does not call it 'theft'. Moreover
    misappropriation of copyright works is not covered by the crime of
    'theft'.

    >
    > If a developer takes GPL'd software and incorporates that into a closed
    > source application without the approval of the copyright holders, that's not
    > piracy? Is that's what you're saying? Really? I mean, you are announcing
    > yourself to be that stupid?


    It is not piracy or theft in accordance with legal definitions. But
    it is a breach of the Copyright Act and if done commercially the
    offender is liable to five years jail.

    >
    > > One last point - surely questions such as this can be discussed
    > > without recourse to calling people insulting names.

    >
    > You're a scumbag. That's not a matter of name-calling


    ?????!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     -- by your actions in
    > this thread, you've demonstrated it to be a plain fact.  If you wanted to
    > have a sensible discussion you'd have responded to the arguments in my post,
    > not censored them. What the heck is the matter with Larry D'Loserites? Have
    > they no shame?


    I can't speak for Larry.

    Good! You have spat the dummy.
    peterwn, Feb 27, 2010
    #5
  6. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 27, 9:26 pm, MaxLVB <> wrote:
    > On 27/02/2010 8:20 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    >
    > >> On Feb 27, 5:38 pm, MaxLVB<>  wrote:
    > >> Idea's have value. Much as you seem to dislike that fact and that people
    > >> can legally protect their idea's from others desire to 'benefit' from
    > >> those ideas.

    > > Only because of patent legislation.

    >
    > BS!
    > Plagiarism. Ever heard of it?


    Yes - applies for copyright and academic purposes. Not applicable as
    such to patent law.

    >
    > BTW there's nothing wrong with patenting ideas at all.


    Beg to differ

    >
    > > The issue is to what degree
    > > should patent legislation confer property rights where there were none
    > > before.  In the old days a king (unless corrupt) would expect to see
    > > significant development work before a 'letters patent' became final.
    > > James Watt could not have got a patent for a steam engine merely
    > > because he got an idea watching a kettle boil. He as basically
    > > promised a patent if he came up with a workable steam engine within an
    > > appropriate time and because of the difficulty of bringing the idea to
    > > a marketable state he actually got a longer patent period than the
    > > norm for the time.
    > >> snip the usual ranting about the USA and the 'big players evilness.'

    > > I am no Commie nor USA enemy, but I am merely alluding to the facts of
    > > life of the way USA operates.

    >
    > Which yu appear to have major issues with and constantly pepper nearly
    > every post you make in this forum turning them ito nothing more than
    > rants about the USA.


    Oh come on, you are blowing this up out of proportion

    >
    > They're hardly conducive to rational discussions...


    Between you and 'Impossible' rational discussion has gone out the
    window.

    >
    > > Major corporations in USA have enormous
    > > lobbying strength not only to influence domestic laws but to exert
    > > pressure on the US Government to apply pressure internationally via
    > > WTO, trade agreements, etc to nations to align local laws with USA
    > > wishes ie wishes of major USA corporations.  And they benefit from a
    > > legislative regime where patents are easy to obtain and enforcement
    > > favours the patent holder even where the patent is dubious.

    >
    > So what. It's the way the the most powerful nation on the planet works.
    > It's the way the rest of the world works with the USA.
    > Get over it, cause you sure ain't got anything better than complaining
    > about it in nz.comp.


    Well, NZ did not roll over and have its tummy tickled on the nuclear
    ships issue. Same goes for such issues. When I go to a local party
    meeting soon, I will be asking any MP there about ACTA.

    >
    > > However 'piracy' of movies, music, software etc involves breach of
    > > copyright rather than patent breaches.  The term 'piracy' is
    > > criticised as being emotive and 'over the top' especially as there is
    > > no criminal sanctions for 'piracy' by end users.  The term 'pirate' is
    > > probably better linited to those who intentionally sell products in
    > > breach of copyright which is a criminal matter liable to 5 years jail.
    > >> You mean like the manufacturers of my NAS, router, and cable modem?
    > >> Or my DVD player, Cable box, etc?
    > >> (see below)

    > > Fundamentally yes, why not, if this is proved including criminal
    > > intent beyond reasonable doubt.  There is no difference between
    > > selling routers containing code in breach of copyright licence or
    > > pirate DVD's at a local flea market.

    >
    > And yet the hardware is freely AND legally available to anyone who has
    > the cash to purchase said hardware. See what I mean about the GPL is
    > existentially enforceable unless and until it's enforced in a NEW
    > ZEALAND court of law.


    You mean the copyright owner asserts his rights in NZ either via court
    or going straight to Customs. It is then the defendant who needs to
    start waving the GPL around.

    In practice these matters would not be dealt with in NZ. It is more
    expedient for the copyright owner to go via USA or possibly European
    courts. The open source community is geared up to take action via USA
    courts, this has the desired international impact and there has been a
    100% success rate with settlements.

    >
    > I could list ALL the retail outlets where anyone can obtain computer and
    > consumer electronics that have embedded OSS/Linux hardware that does not
    > comply with the GPL, and there is **** all the advocates of the GPL (and
    > the claims made about it's legal standing) can do to legally enforce it
    > on the manufacturers, retailers or end users. (like me)


    Yes, you most probably can. In some cases the items may comply with
    the GPL requirements. In the other cases, as I explained, it is more
    expedient to take legal action in USA. I can assure you that a bloody
    minded GPL copyright owner is quite capable of scoring a legal victory
    in NZ if need be, but not against end users in NZ or anywhere else
    (they comply with the GPL).

    >
    >
    >
    > >>> This applies equally to proprietary and open source software, except
    > >>> there can be no open source 'piracy' by those who share and run open
    > >>> source software - this is explicitly permitted by the associated
    > >>> licences.
    > >> [re-post]
    > >> Well I am running to versions of Linux on hardware, a NAS unit, and a
    > >> router.
    > >> Neither of them have the GPL any where that I can find. Yes I have looked.
    > >> I have never had to agree to the GPL for these versions of Linux, the
    > >> hardware doesn't require me to do that, there is no mention of the GPL
    > >> in the documentation or manual for the NAS or router. There's nothing on
    > >> the manufacturers websites about Linux or the GPL.
    > >> I've just realised my cable modem supplied by my ISP probably has a
    > >> version of Linux as well. My ISP has never asked me to agree to the GPL,
    > >> the modem never asks me to agree to the GPL, I guess that makes the
    > >> manufacturers, and me guilty of pirating Linux huh...

    > >  From the consumer's perspective there is no material difference
    > > whether the item contains GPL code or proprietary code.  The GPL does
    > > not impose any more obligation on the consumer that a proprietary
    > > licence does.

    >
    > Irrelevant.
    > That's NOT the discussion.


    This is the whole guts of the discussion. It is the nexus, gravitas
    and everything else of the discussion.

    You might not think so, which is why you are all screwed up in your
    discussion.

    >
    > > If a sold item is found to infringe IP, end users once made aware of
    > > the situation would become a party to the infringement.

    >
    > The hardware I mention did/does NOT have a copy of the GPL (either on
    > paper or in the hardware itself)
    > Therefore I have not been made aware of ANY GPL terms and conditions let
    > alone been given the opportunity agree or disagree with it.


    Quite irrevelant to the end user. The GPL licence terms do not place
    any material obligation on the end user.

    >
    > > Now if it were the GPL that was infringed by the manufacturer (or sub-
    > > suppliers), the end users are almost certainly not in breach of the
    > > GPL despite using 'tainted' code. This is quite apart from the fact
    > > that the copyright owner(s) would not contemplate taking legal action
    > > against an end user in such circumstances.

    >
    > What about the manufacturers and retailers?


    Manufacturers have been clobbered by the FSF, etc for copyright
    breaches with respect to GPL code. They go quittly and settle - they
    do not defend it in court - they know they are on a hiding to nowhere.

    Retailers - They could be subject to court orders to pull stock, but
    once the manufacturer is dealt with, that has the desired impact and
    is quite adequate.

    >
    > > No one needs to formally agree to a licence.

    >
    > Yeah you do. Legally Valid licences anyway. Like EULA's


    Wrong. A EULA is a contract coupled to a licence and you agree to the
    contract aspect. The GPL is not coupled to a contract but like any
    licence is legally valid and it does not require express agreement to
    its terms - use is sufficient. You do not even necessarily need to
    formally agree to a contract, using the product or service may suffice
    as the Carbolic Smoke Ball case held.

    >
    > > A licence in the most
    > > fundamental terms allows a user to do something that is otherwise
    > > unlawful, and can be revoked by the issuer at any time.  It is not a
    > > contract but may operate in conjunction with a contract eg a EULA.  A
    > > feature of the GPL is that the copyright holder promises never to
    > > revoke the licence with respect to a particular user unless the terms
    > > are breached.  A court will uphold this promise (estoppal) so the
    > > licence is effectively irrevocable with respect to ordinary and proper
    > > use.  If anyone is accused of breaching copyright it is the defendant
    > > who needs to wave the licence around to show he or she is complying
    > > with its terms.  This applies to 'common law' countries.  Nations with
    > > different legal systems may treat copyright differently but with the
    > > end result of upholding the Berne Convention.  Germany, for example,
    > > treats licencing as contract law, but with the same practical effect.
    > > And yes, German courts have upheld the terms of the GPL.

    >
    > Last time I checked I was in New Zealand, NOT Germany.


    And as I told you several years ago, and am telling you again,
    copyright of GPL code is fully enforceable in NZ if the copyright
    owner takes action under NZ law. If it were not, NZ would be in
    breach of its obligations under the Berne Convention, and NZ is one of
    the most meticulous nations in the world for compliance with
    international law.

    >
    > > One last point - surely questions such as this can be discussed
    > > without recourse to calling people insulting names.
    > >> And it can be discussed without you and others of the same ilk insulting
    > >> your readers intelligence by constantly harping on about your obvious
    > >> dislike of Microsoft and the USA...

    > > See above.

    >
    > You too.
    >
    > > Much confusion would also be avoided by clarity of thinking and
    > > resisting the temptation to throw around FUD and mis-information about
    > > the GPL and open source community.

    >
    > Then stop posting FUD and mis-information about Microsoft and the USA.


    Your opinion, mate.

    > It works both ways Peter. You also have do what you want others to do....
    >
    > And how about giving impossible a STRAIGHT answer to the question S/he
    > asked you..


    Oh! you are one of his very few mates eh? For reasons I have
    explained elsewhere in nz.comp, he can go forth and multiply for all I
    care.
    peterwn, Feb 27, 2010
    #6
  7. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 28, 8:18 am, Mutley <>
    wrote:
    > "impossible" <> wrote:


    <unashamedly snipped - refer 'Impossible's previous posting if you can
    be bothered>

    >
    > >Your dishonest practices in this newsgroup are contemptible.  If you aren't
    > >prepared to carry on a reasoned discussion, if you insist on censoring posts
    > >whenever it suits you, then you deserve to be treated with utter disdain..

    >
    > I see your pushing your MPAA, RIAA, BSA and no doubt ACTA barrow here
    > again.   They must pay you allot of money to take on this sort of
    > stance..


    And he is an incompetent lobbyist and advocate for these
    organisations.

    He must have written his last spiel after an evening on the town - IMO
    'Impossible' made an ass of himself with this.
    peterwn, Feb 27, 2010
    #7
  8. peterwn

    MaxLVB Guest

    On 27/02/2010 11:29 p.m., peterwn wrote:
    > On Feb 27, 9:26 pm, MaxLVB<> wrote:


    >> Idea's have value. Much as you seem to dislike that fact and that people
    >> can legally protect their idea's from others desire to 'benefit' from
    >> those ideas.
    >> Only because of patent legislation.


    >> BS!
    >> Plagiarism. Ever heard of it?


    > Yes - applies for copyright and academic purposes. Not applicable as
    > such to patent law.


    >> BTW there's nothing wrong with patenting ideas at all.


    > Beg to differ


    As patenting ideas is legal in most countries of the world (that have
    patent laws) your objections to that legal practice dont count for much
    do they....

    > The issue is to what degree
    > should patent legislation confer property rights where there were none
    > before. In the old days a king (unless corrupt) would expect to see
    > significant development work before a 'letters patent' became final.
    > James Watt could not have got a patent for a steam engine merely
    > because he got an idea watching a kettle boil. He as basically
    > promised a patent if he came up with a workable steam engine within an
    > appropriate time and because of the difficulty of bringing the idea to
    > a marketable state he actually got a longer patent period than the
    > norm for the time.


    >> snip the usual ranting about the USA and the 'big players evilness.'


    > I am no Commie nor USA enemy, but I am merely alluding to the facts of
    > life of the way USA operates.


    >> Which you appear to have major issues with and constantly pepper nearly
    >> every post you make in this forum turning them into nothing more than
    >> rants about the USA.


    > Oh come on, you are blowing this up out of proportion


    No I'm not. Go back and read your posts.

    snip...

    > However 'piracy' of movies, music, software etc involves breach of
    > copyright rather than patent breaches. The term 'piracy' is
    > criticised as being emotive and 'over the top' especially as there is
    > no criminal sanctions for 'piracy' by end users. The term 'pirate' is
    > probably better linited to those who intentionally sell products in
    > breach of copyright which is a criminal matter liable to 5 years jail.


    >> You mean like the manufacturers of my NAS, router, and cable modem?
    >> Or my DVD player, Cable box, etc?
    >> (see below)


    > Fundamentally yes, why not, if this is proved including criminal
    > intent beyond reasonable doubt. There is no difference between
    > selling routers containing code in breach of copyright licence or
    > pirate DVD's at a local flea market.


    >> And yet the hardware is freely AND legally available to anyone who has
    >> the cash to purchase said hardware. See what I mean about the GPL is
    >> existentially enforceable unless and until it's enforced in a NEW
    >> ZEALAND court of law.


    > You mean the copyright owner asserts his rights in NZ either via court
    > or going straight to Customs.


    Yes. Although I doubt customs would get involved directly in a copyright
    issue without a court order.

    > It is then the defendant who needs to
    > start waving the GPL around.


    Not until there is an allegation of wrong doing made in a NEW ZEALAND
    court, that requires a defendant be named by the prosecuting party.

    Who exactly (in New Zealand) has the legal authority to prosecute
    breaches of the GPL?

    > In practice these matters would not be dealt with in NZ. It is more
    > expedient for the copyright owner to go via USA or possibly European
    > courts. The open source community is geared up to take action via USA
    > courts, this has the desired international impact and there has been a
    > 100% success rate with settlements.


    Which are not legally enforceable in New Zealand unless and until a New
    Zealand court makes them so.

    That may or may not happen. Or importers may or may not take note of
    overseas court decisions, and decide not to import the offending
    hardware. S what happens when a 'private' individual imports the
    offending hardware?


    > If a sold item is found to infringe IP, end users once made aware of
    > the situation would become a party to the infringement.


    >> The hardware I mention did/does NOT have a copy of the GPL (either on
    >> paper or in the hardware itself)
    >> Therefore I have not been made aware of ANY GPL terms and conditions let
    >> alone been given the opportunity agree or disagree with it.


    > Quite irrevelant to the end user.


    You have just told me it is!

    MaxLVB, Feb 27, 2010
    #8
  9. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 28, 11:04 am, MaxLVB <> wrote:

    >
    > As patenting ideas is legal in most countries of the world (that have
    > patent laws) your objections to that legal practice dont count for much
    > do they....


    Well, you cannot patent software features in European countries.



    >
    >
    > > However 'piracy' of movies, music, software etc involves breach of
    > > copyright rather than patent breaches.  The term 'piracy' is
    > > criticised as being emotive and 'over the top' especially as there is
    > > no criminal sanctions for 'piracy' by end users.  The term 'pirate' is
    > > probably better linited to those who intentionally sell products in
    > > breach of copyright which is a criminal matter liable to 5 years jail.
    > >> You mean like the manufacturers of my NAS, router, and cable modem?
    > >> Or my DVD player, Cable box, etc?
    > >> (see below)

    > > Fundamentally yes, why not, if this is proved including criminal
    > > intent beyond reasonable doubt.  There is no difference between
    > > selling routers containing code in breach of copyright licence or
    > > pirate DVD's at a local flea market.
    > >> And yet the hardware is freely AND legally available to anyone who has
    > >> the cash to purchase said hardware. See what I mean about the GPL is
    > >> existentially enforceable unless and until it's enforced in a NEW
    > >> ZEALAND court of law.

    > > You mean the copyright owner asserts his rights in NZ either via court
    > > or going straight to Customs.

    >
    > Yes. Although I doubt customs would get involved directly in a copyright
    > issue without a court order.


    AFAIK Customs can immediately impound imported items that are in
    breach of IP rights eg 'pirated' DVD's.

    >
    > > It is then the defendant who needs to
    > > start waving the GPL around.

    >
    > Not until there is an allegation of wrong doing made in a NEW ZEALAND
    > court, that requires a defendant be named by the prosecuting party.
    >
    > Who exactly (in New Zealand) has the legal authority to prosecute
    > breaches of the GPL?


    You mean copyright breaches of code licenced under GPL - the copyright
    owner wherever on Earth he or she be. For GPL code this is generally
    the FSF. The copyright owner can take legal action via any NZ based
    law firm. An off-shore litigant generally needs to provide security
    for costs and this can be incremental as the matter proceeds.

    >
    > > In practice these matters would not be dealt with in NZ. It is more
    > > expedient for the copyright owner to go via USA or possibly European
    > > courts. The open source community is geared up to take action via USA
    > > courts, this has the desired international impact and there has been a
    > > 100% success rate with settlements.

    >
    > Which are not legally enforceable in New Zealand unless and until a New
    > Zealand court makes them so.


    AFAIK Customs can with respect to imports (eg pirated DVD's). And any
    court ordered enforcement is retrospective (within the usual
    limitations periods) as damages may be awarded.

    >
    > That may or may not happen. Or importers may or may not take note of
    > overseas court decisions, and decide not to import the offending
    > hardware. S what happens when a 'private' individual imports the
    > offending hardware?


    Customs may seize it in the same way as they could seize a pirated
    DVD. Granted this is unlikely in practice. If the hardware is on a
    Customs 'hit list' and someone tries to bring in a few dozen, there is
    a high risk of seizure.

    >
    > > If a sold item is found to infringe IP, end users once made aware of
    > > the situation would become a party to the infringement.
    > >> The hardware I mention did/does NOT have a copy of the GPL (either on
    > >> paper or in the hardware itself)
    > >> Therefore I have not been made aware of ANY GPL terms and conditions let
    > >> alone been given the opportunity agree or disagree with it.

    > > Quite irrevelant to the end user.

    >
    > You have just told me it is!


    OK that may be, but the key thing to note is that the same applies to
    devices containing proprietary software. The point I am making is that
    there is nothing special about GPL software which materially affects
    the end user's rights vis a vis proprietary software. My earlier
    comments apply with equal force in either case. The only exception
    would be that the GPL would protect an end user for a device purched
    in NZ via normal retail channels.

    >
    >
    peterwn, Feb 28, 2010
    #9
  10. On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:09:25 -0600, "impossible"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >"peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Feb 27, 6:12 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> > <snip (I have snipped all of this in interests of bandwidth economy) >
    >>> > 0
    >>>
    >>> Below, I have restored Peter the Whiner's censorship of my post.

    >>
    >> Rubbish, your posting is there for the world to see.
    >>

    >
    >Your crude attempt to doctor posts is there for the world to see. This is
    >usenet, scumbag, not your personal playground.


    Impossible, you are completely wrong about wanting people to quote
    everything that has come before. I refer you to RFC 1855 "Netiquette
    Guidelines" Section 3.1.3 "NetNews Guidelines":

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855

    where it says:

    - Read all of a discussion in progress (we call this a thread)
    before posting replies. Avoid posting "Me Too" messages,
    where content is limited to agreement with previous posts.
    Content of a follow-up post should exceed quoted content.

    Note the last sentence.
    Stephen Worthington, Mar 1, 2010
    #10
  11. peterwn

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:39:06 +1300, Stephen Worthington wrote:

    > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:09:25 -0600, "impossible" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>"peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Feb 27, 6:12 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> > <snip (I have snipped all of this in interests of bandwidth
    >>>> > economy) > 0
    >>>>
    >>>> Below, I have restored Peter the Whiner's censorship of my post.
    >>>
    >>> Rubbish, your posting is there for the world to see.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>Your crude attempt to doctor posts is there for the world to see. This
    >>is usenet, scumbag, not your personal playground.

    >
    > Impossible, you are completely wrong about wanting people to quote
    > everything that has come before. I refer you to RFC 1855 "Netiquette
    > Guidelines" Section 3.1.3 "NetNews Guidelines":
    >
    > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
    >
    > where it says:
    >
    > - Read all of a discussion in progress (we call this a thread)
    > before posting replies. Avoid posting "Me Too" messages, where
    > content is limited to agreement with previous posts. Content of a
    > follow-up post should exceed quoted content.
    >
    > Note the last sentence.


    You're wasting your breath.

    He has consistently refused to comply with the concept of quoting only sufficient to enable the reader to
    understand how the response relates to the original post - which the reader can find and read in the
    previous post in the thread.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Sweetpea, Mar 1, 2010
    #11
  12. On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:24:38 +0000 (UTC), Sweetpea
    <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:39:06 +1300, Stephen Worthington wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:09:25 -0600, "impossible" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Feb 27, 6:12 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> > <snip (I have snipped all of this in interests of bandwidth
    >>>>> > economy) > 0
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Below, I have restored Peter the Whiner's censorship of my post.
    >>>>
    >>>> Rubbish, your posting is there for the world to see.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>Your crude attempt to doctor posts is there for the world to see. This
    >>>is usenet, scumbag, not your personal playground.

    >>
    >> Impossible, you are completely wrong about wanting people to quote
    >> everything that has come before. I refer you to RFC 1855 "Netiquette
    >> Guidelines" Section 3.1.3 "NetNews Guidelines":
    >>
    >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
    >>
    >> where it says:
    >>
    >> - Read all of a discussion in progress (we call this a thread)
    >> before posting replies. Avoid posting "Me Too" messages, where
    >> content is limited to agreement with previous posts. Content of a
    >> follow-up post should exceed quoted content.
    >>
    >> Note the last sentence.

    >
    >You're wasting your breath.
    >
    >He has consistently refused to comply with the concept of quoting only sufficient to enable the reader to
    >understand how the response relates to the original post - which the reader can find and read in the
    >previous post in the thread.


    I wonder what ISP he uses. Some of them still have the requirement to
    obey the Nettiquette rules in their terms and conditions. If he is
    using one of them, then maybe he should be reported to them.
    Stephen Worthington, Mar 1, 2010
    #12
  13. peterwn

    AD. Guest

    On Mar 1, 9:39 pm, Stephen Worthington
    <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
    > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:09:25 -0600, "impossible"
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >"peterwn" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> On Feb 27, 6:12 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> > <snip (I have snipped all of this in interests of bandwidth economy) >
    > >>> > 0

    >
    > >>> Below, I  have restored Peter the Whiner's censorship of my post.

    >
    > >> Rubbish, your posting is there for the world to see.

    >
    > >Your crude attempt to doctor posts is there for the world to see. This is
    > >usenet, scumbag, not your personal playground.

    >
    > Impossible, you are completely wrong about wanting people to quote
    > everything that has come before.  I refer you to RFC 1855 "Netiquette
    > Guidelines" Section 3.1.3 "NetNews Guidelines":
    >
    >  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
    >
    > where it says:
    >
    >     - Read all of a discussion in progress (we call this a thread)
    >       before posting replies.  Avoid posting "Me Too" messages,
    >       where content is limited to agreement with previous posts.
    >       Content of a follow-up post should exceed quoted content.
    >
    > Note the last sentence.


    RFCs are written by loserite thugs and their sock puppets!

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Mar 1, 2010
    #13
  14. On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:34:37 -0800 (PST), "AD." <>
    wrote:

    >On Mar 1, 9:39 pm, Stephen Worthington
    ><34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:09:25 -0600, "impossible"
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >"peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >> >news:...
    >> >> On Feb 27, 6:12 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >>> > <snip (I have snipped all of this in interests of bandwidth economy) >
    >> >>> > 0

    >>
    >> >>> Below, I  have restored Peter the Whiner's censorship of my post.

    >>
    >> >> Rubbish, your posting is there for the world to see.

    >>
    >> >Your crude attempt to doctor posts is there for the world to see. This is
    >> >usenet, scumbag, not your personal playground.

    >>
    >> Impossible, you are completely wrong about wanting people to quote
    >> everything that has come before.  I refer you to RFC 1855 "Netiquette
    >> Guidelines" Section 3.1.3 "NetNews Guidelines":
    >>
    >>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
    >>
    >> where it says:
    >>
    >>     - Read all of a discussion in progress (we call this a thread)
    >>       before posting replies.  Avoid posting "Me Too" messages,
    >>       where content is limited to agreement with previous posts.
    >>       Content of a follow-up post should exceed quoted content.
    >>
    >> Note the last sentence.

    >
    >RFCs are written by loserite thugs and their sock puppets!


    RFCs are what define the Internet.
    Stephen Worthington, Mar 2, 2010
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lisa Horton

    Palestine does NOT deserve a state

    Lisa Horton, Apr 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    79
    Views:
    1,560
    nkdatta8839
    Apr 24, 2004
  2. mark_digital

    GREECE DID NOT DESERVE TO WIN THE FINAL

    mark_digital, Jul 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    192
    Views:
    3,294
    Henry Hooray
    Jul 20, 2004
  3. Does Canon deserve a third try?

    , Jun 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    793
    eric phillips
    Jul 3, 2005
  4. Evan Platt
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    811
    §ñühw¤£f
    Apr 3, 2009
  5. MaxLVB
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,225
    Sweetpea
    Feb 28, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page