OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion [Archive]

Slynky

November 27th, 2003, 07:18 AM

Well, PvK, you failed to talk about the fact that M$ has dropped support for W2000. So, if a vulnerability arises, you have been left out. There will be no new updates for that OS.

XP is basically the kernal of W2000 improved. If you walk into Best Buy or Media Play (popular places in the US), and take a look at the OS's supported, you'll find backward compatibility for more games for 95 and 98 than W2000. W2000 was published as a platform for buisneses. Accordingly, a lot of gaming companies didn't bother spending time to test for compatibility. That didn't mean they wouldn't run but that they didn't "promise" it would. A lot of games run on W2000 that don't list it on the box. But some don't. They just don't.

This is also true of XP, since it was (kind of) based on W2000. But, you'll probably have more success installing an older game on XP than W2000.

Now, it may be that I went through some sort of activation scheme but I don't recall it. I never had to call or register. I installed and it ran. Now, IF it did some "stuff" behind my back, I don't really care. My Adobe PS "checks in" regularly and so does a few of my other software packages. I installed an additional HD on my system and I never had to call M$ and my OS never stopped working (like a lot of people feared). I've flashed my BIOS and still no problem. Of course, EVERY bit of software on the 4 PCs on my home network have been paid for. That goes for multiple copies of NAV, M$ Frontpage, and a few others.

As an IT professional, I advise people who approach me all the time. I don't think I'd be steering anyone wrong by recommending XP. NOt to mention a few other added features the average "village idiot" might find useful that XP has that W2000 does not. Besides all that, you can't even legally purchase W2000 any longer. IF you do find a copy legitimately, you will be lucky. Just try to order a PC with it and see what you get.

PvK

November 27th, 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Well, PvK, you failed to talk about the fact that M$ has dropped support for W2000. So, if a vulnerability arises, you have been left out. There will be no new updates for that OS.
I assert that I was never under any expectation to completely discuss all aspects. I actually relish the non-support of Win98SE, because it means M$ is no longer (so often?) silently attacking my computer to hack my Version of IE, etc. Meanwhile, my XP system at work recently had the hated MS Outlook Express added to it during an "update", even though it Outhouse marked to not be installed at all in the Office XP installer and the Windows Components installer - apparently I'll need to uninstall the update in order to get rid of it.

... Besides all that, you can't even legally purchase W2000 any longer. IF you do find a copy legitimately, you will be lucky. Just try to order a PC with it and see what you get. Gee, when did that happen? My dad just bought W200Pro a week or two ago. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

No comment about the amount of M$ software you've paid for. However... Front Page ... laugh! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

[ November 27, 2003, 05:32: Message edited by: PvK ]

Will

November 27th, 2003, 07:42 AM

Ummm... my school's CS department is still offering Win2k Pro to students. They just updated the group license about a month ago. So it's still being sold.

And as for no more support for the OS, I'm pretty sure that only means major updates. They will have to release security patches and such for some time to come (and in fact I just downloaded a security patch for 2kPro Last week that was dated around Nov 15). I could care less if they don't release any major updates, and don't blame them for not doing so, since they're already approaching their third generation OS removed from 2kPro.

Atrocities

November 27th, 2003, 07:54 AM

I have to be honest, win2k has served me quite well over the years. The only issues I have had with it at ones that deal with my configuration and my AMD/MSI mother board CPU combinations.

Windows XP has also worked well for me. Be sure to turn off both the XP and Win2k instant messaging program, or you will get spammed regularly with window pop ups.

se5a

November 27th, 2003, 09:38 AM

if you are wanting compatibility (both HW and SW) get 98SE
if your carefull you can get it fairly stable.

I dont know much about 2000
but others have told me that XP is a little more stable.
I have XP pro on this and its prety good, I still havent looked at tweeking it yet, but I am impressed at the stability, even if I do get some kind of lockup it will usualy sort itself out given half a chance.

Atrocities

November 27th, 2003, 11:47 AM

Avoid the problem of stablity all together and just buy a Mac. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Alneyan

November 27th, 2003, 12:22 PM

PvK, what changes in XP user interface were you talking about? For me, XP looks almost like 98 after a few tweaks (removing the horrible basic interface, disabling Messenger and so on). Of course, with the basic interface, I can understand your problems. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

As for old games, it mostly depends on the game in my experience. While Daggerfall runs like a charm on XP (yes, I even managed to play Daggerfall for several hours without a crash on XP), I have quite a few games that refuse to launch when they don't basically crash the whole system. But I would believe the same can be said of 2000 as well.

If given the choice, I would gladly go back to 98SE as soon as possible, as this OS is much simpler and less cumbersome. (And my computer is a bit slow to run XP with ease as well) However, I don't have the Second Edition of 98 and cannot find it anywhere, so I am basically stuck with XP since 98 (first edition) is lacking connection sharing. Either that, or I couldn't make it work, your choice. And I don't recall having much issues with stability back in those days when I used 98 either.

Suicide Junkie

November 27th, 2003, 01:43 PM

Connection sharing? Why not just grab an inexpensive router (or hub if your ISP gives you multiple IPs) and be done with it?

tesco samoa

November 27th, 2003, 01:52 PM

Terran C... WinXP.

The code is updated from win2k.

Both are good OS's And both will run what you need.

But Win2k is getting up there in the years and will be unsupported soon enough. Where Xp still has a few years left in it....

Security... Their both flawed. Its MS. And its open concept.

Accessiblity. Both are good. Except that XP does not have the power user level. Its either all or nothing..

Game Compatibility. Possibly win 2k... But xp will play most games

Stability. Their the same

Anything. XP makes a nice little gaming machine. But win 2k does as well...

At least with win 2k you can install something on your computer hardware side without making the call.

Loser

November 27th, 2003, 03:10 PM

I got this question a lot back when I was doing onsite computer support for home and small business Users. Here's my typical answer.

If you have Win2k there is no real need to go to XP (termination of support had not yet occurred). If you have 98SE, and your machine has sufficient power (we recommended 750+ MHz, 256 Mb RAM minimum) then XP where you want to go. If you have ME then you need to get something, anything, else on there right away. What a dog.

I always disabled the automatic update. If you disable this, nothing will ever be installed without your specifically choosing to install it.

If the user was interested in performance I would disable all the shiny-happy crap in XP, it ended up looking like 2k.

Activation was trivial. You either connect into them over the internet, use one of their dial-up numbers, or even just made a phone call and read strings of letters or numbers to the rep, who then gave your letters or numbers back (I don't remember the specifics of their codes).

XP Home is fine, as long as you do not need to log into a domain. If I recall correctly, the only differences between Home and Pro was that Pro could log into a domain, could be accessed remotely with that keen built-in feature, and could support file-level sharing. I think that was about it.

I hope Thermo hits this thread. He always has informative things to say about Microsoft's products.

My XP Pro box does not crash. Ever. My Win98SE file server is in desperate need of yet another reload (I think this time I'm going to put that super-GUI Linux distro, Xandros, on it), my old Win98, 98SE, and 95 machines crashed all the time, and ME was purged from the house only a month, or so, after it was introduced. Heck, even the Win2k 'guest machine' is having problems, though that is more likely related to what the 'guests' have been doing to it than inherent vulnerabilities in the OS.

[edit: that should be file-level permissions, not file-level sharing, and I should add that Home and PRo use the same kernel: other than a few features, they are the same OS]

[ November 27, 2003, 13:13: Message edited by: Loser ]

Fyron

November 27th, 2003, 04:39 PM

Windows XP has also worked well for me. Be sure to turn off both the XP and Win2k instant messaging program, or you will get spammed regularly with window pop ups. 2k doesn't have a messaging program. XP is the only one to ship with Windows Messenger.

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Avoid the problem of stablity all together and just buy a Mac. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Or get 2000 or XP, which are extremely stable. I think 2000 crashed 3 times in nearly 2 years for me. XP has crashed only once in the Last 8 months or so for me, and that has due to hardware related troubles. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ November 27, 2003, 14:41: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Fyron

November 27th, 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Connection sharing? Why not just grab an inexpensive router (or hub if your ISP gives you multiple IPs) and be done with it? You don't need multiple IPs to split the connection with a hub... hubs are a switch + router. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

If the user was interested in performance I would disable all the shiny-happy crap in XP, it ended up looking like 2k. And I tell ya, it is beautiful. None of this "skinning" garbage for me! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

XP Home is fine, as long as you do not need to log into a domain. If I recall correctly, the only differences between Home and Pro was that Pro could log into a domain, could be accessed remotely with that keen built-in feature, and could support file-level sharing. I think that was about it. A number of the configuration utilities in XP Home have only the bastardized "wizard" Versions or "simple" Versions, wheras XP Pro has the actual configuration methods for everything but user accounts, which is still bastardized. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ November 27, 2003, 14:45: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

David E. Gervais

November 27th, 2003, 06:51 PM

Win XP Home is running fine for me. I installed it Last Xmas and haven't had any crashes since. My bro had Win 2000 Pro and his comp locked up and crashed very often. It generally ran like a turtle on valium and he had to re-install 2000 every other month. He now runs XP Home and has virtually no more problems.

I find that way too many people blame the OS because their systems are not running well. I think the Hardware is a bigger culprit where compatability is concerned. I did have some problems when I upgraded my computer but quickly found that way too many devices were sharing the same IRQ's I moved the various cards (sound and network) to alternate slots and they no longer share any IRQ's. Think of it people, you have one OS, but there are 1,000,000's of different hardware configurations. Nuf said.

The only thing I find apauling about Win XP is that when it came out I paid $139 cdn for it. the other day I walked into a store and saw that XP Home now sells for $249 cdn and XP Pro sells for $399 cdn. I feel sory for people who have to pay that kind of price. I also see no justification for the OS to have gone up so much in price.

Just my 2 cents. Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Suicide Junkie

November 27th, 2003, 07:00 PM

You don't need multiple IPs to split the connection with a hub... hubs are a switch + router.Switches are the big fancy boxes, hubs are the "dumb" wiresplitters.
http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue42/tag/6.html

JayBdey

November 27th, 2003, 07:11 PM

I have XP and I never had to register it. I have changed my GFX card and it never asked my to register XP either.

And if it did, I could EASILY find a way to "circumvent" the registration.

PvK

November 27th, 2003, 09:26 PM

Did XP perhaps activated itself "for" you? I'd be interested to hear if it complains if you try installing the same copy on another machine.

This is a typical strategem for gradual changing of rules and laws, though. They introduce new ones but try to make it as painless as possible, so that people will accept them, and to test the waters. Since they're being nice about it, people don't complain. Eventually they get more and more serious about it, until they eventually gain acceptance for paying monthly subscriptions per computer, per user, whatever they can get away with, for every piece of M$ software. They can take their time at it, since they have a monopoly and enough income from interest on cash reserves that they can make a profit without selling anything at this point.

I don't disdain XP activation because I think it would cause me great inconvenience. I disdain it because I don't like the proposed contract "you can install it on one machine only".

PvK

PvK

November 27th, 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Alneyan:
PvK, what changes in XP user interface were you talking about? For me, XP looks almost like 98 after a few tweaks (removing the horrible basic interface, disabling Messenger and so on). Of course, with the basic interface, I can understand your problems. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ...I try not to think about them, but I remember the frequency with which I groan. Yes, although it is a pain in itself, one can evict a lot of the crap. The Search is still crap (annoying, clunky and doesn't always work, even once you kill the animated characters). You can get it to stop creating thumb.db files too... Sorting files by date backwards - any way to fix that? There is weird stuff going on with the "My ..." folders - they are trying to force you to use them with shortcuts that I haven't figured out how to destroy, but if you rename some of them, they will appear with one name in one place, but the "My..." name in others. The "My..." items appearing as default in the Explorer windows, and as if they were their own hierarchy seperate from the actual C: D: etc. The "you have some unused icons on your desktop" wizards. The further attempts to pretend like there is no DOS, thereby breaking some DOS program compatibility. The annoying features I haven't figured out yet how to exorcise from the new "Start Christmas tree". I already mentioned the way the auto-updater is trying to force me to have the virus-target MS Outhouse Express on my computer, even though I turned it off in Windows Components. The updates every few days about the endless security bugs which could let someone take complete control of my XP computer are ... well, they have good comic value.

I expect I could reduce more of the annoyances by devoting more time to learning how to kill them, hanging out on Annoyances.org more, etc. However, I'd rather be gaming than dealing with new innovations from M$.

PvK

[ November 27, 2003, 19:43: Message edited by: PvK ]

Alneyan

November 27th, 2003, 09:43 PM

Windows XP has to be activated here and complains heavily if you don't. (It almost threatens you to destroy your computer if you persist in your efforts not to register. We all know how these Messages look like, don't we? *Thinks of the red alert when you try to install a non-standard driver*)

I wonder why you didn't have to. Was your connection Online during the installation? It could have happened while you weren't watching over XP. Otherwise I have to admit I am puzzled. Or Microsoft sent special Versions in France. *Smirks*

PvK, it did complain for me when I tried to install it on one computer while it was registered on another. I was asked to phone Microsoft if it was a technical problem due to extensive hardware changes. It worked fine when XP wasn't registered on the first computer though. Yes, I was somewhat bored to install Windows on two computers just to run tests.

Alneyan

November 27th, 2003, 09:53 PM

I see what you mean about XP, quite a lengthy list if I may say so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I managed to get rid of quite a few of these, but not of all. Not yet. (The Search function is still not really working, and I couldn't bring the DOS back to life, as it should still be there, lurking in deep waters)

I didn't run into some of the other issues you mentioned, so I gather I should knock on wood. (Especially the part with the My folders, probably because I regard them as a bane for humanity) But I have met some other "options that do want to help you, but which turn to be really harassing in the end" you haven't spoke about, so I guess we are even. (Such as my keyboard going to and fro from Azerty to Qwerty, some accessibility wizards opened by pressing five times the caps key for example, a save option for hard drives which destroys Mozilla settings files, and so on. (Strange that only Mozilla files would be affected out of 40 gigas of data, isn't it?)) I should stop the list here, as someone else will likely add a few other items to it.

Fyron

November 27th, 2003, 10:30 PM

I disdain it because I don't like the proposed contract "you can install it on one machine only". That is how software has always been though... very few software packages are sold on a license that allows you to run them on multiple computers at once.

The Search is still crap (annoying, clunky and doesn't always work, even once you kill the animated characters) It has always worked perfectly for me. I have never had it fail to find a file I was searching for before (unless that file didn't exist, of course). And, it is hardly clunky...

Sorting files by date backwards - any way to fix that? Click the sort button for date again, and it reverses the order it sorts them.

There is weird stuff going on with the "My ..." folders Get the power toys and you can disable ALL of those folders; just set them to whatever folder you want (even on other drives!) and it stops using them altogether. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The "you have some unused icons on your desktop" wizards. I don't recall ever seeing that. Can you elaborate?

The further attempts to pretend like there is no DOS, thereby breaking some DOS program compatibility. There is nothing pretend about it. There simply is no DOS kernal in XP. Go get that FreeDos or whatever it was to have a nice Version of "DOS" running when you need it. Or make a Win98 partition to run those old DOS games. Very simply fix.

The annoying features I haven't figured out yet how to exorcise from the new "Start Christmas tree". Just use the "Classic" start menu, and it is identical to the start menu in 2000 (and I think it is the same as in 98, but with the control panel stuff added, which is a good thing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

some accessibility wizards opened by pressing five times the caps key for example That is because you chose to set up the accessibility wizards when you installed the OS. Just remove them and that will stop. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

save option for hard drives which destroys Mozilla settings files, What? When did you ever get that to happen? I have never seen anything bad happen to my Mozilla files. Granted, I am using Firebird rather than the standard Mozilla, but it is the same basic thing.

[ November 27, 2003, 20:40: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Roanon

November 28th, 2003, 02:04 AM

No question - use 2000. XP only if you are an expert and know every option and how to turn them off (some of them are carefully mis-phrased and look like turned off when actually on). Or if you don't mind to be spied upon more than any trojan virus does, forced unwanted "updates" on you, and suffer random disabling of non-M$ programms.
Do not forget you cannot even turn off many spyware functions - even if they are made to appear to be off or non-working (like that "unregistered" XP JayBDay wrote about that has phoned home for sure). You have to install XP antispy to be at least a bit safe. Otherwise, M$ can reconfigure any of your settings as they like. I refuse to service any XP computer without antispy on it, and without expertly disabled update options. Apart from the overall personal security, such blatant violation of consumer rights should not be supported, IMHO.

Fyron

November 28th, 2003, 02:09 AM

Or if you don't mind to be spied upon more than any trojan virus does,http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

forced unwanted "updates" on you, Extremely easy to disable. Just turn off hte "keep me up to date automatically" feature.

and suffer random disabling of non-M$ programms. Uh huh... I have never seen that happen to anyone.

Baron Grazic

November 28th, 2003, 02:23 AM

I've have 98SE, W2K & XP on different machines, and Win98 is the most stabilist. I never turn that machine off, just standby, do almost all my work on it, and I haven't had to rebuild it since I first built the computer 5 years ago.

W2K would be my second choice. Once you patch the security holes, it just runs what it is told to run.

XP seems better for running games, for the simple fact that you can tell the game to run in different operating system mode. ie. Run this game in Win95 mode. But the first thing I also do, it remove allthe 'user friendly' crap M$ put on it. Make it look like 98, and away you go.

Not sure where the information came from about W2K not being supported or sold. Microsoft's "hard drop-dead dates" for Win2000 are:-
No non-security hotfixes after 1/1/2004
No paid Online support after 1/1/2005

Fyron

November 28th, 2003, 02:28 AM

You have been extremely lucky with Win 98 if you have been running it for 5 years without rebooting it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif If you don't install and uninstall stuff all the time, there is rarely ever a need to reinstall Windows. I only installed 2000 once and used it for nearly 2 years (with the occasional reboot) before going XP.

[ November 28, 2003, 00:30: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Alneyan

November 28th, 2003, 02:55 AM

There is a router, but it doesn't seem to be automatically working. Or rather, I cannot make it work correctly to share the connection without using some software. (No wonder given my computer literacy skills which are almost nil) *Grumbles*

Baron Grazic

November 28th, 2003, 03:02 AM

Oops, perhaps I should have said 'rarely' turn it off, instead of never. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

JayBdey

November 28th, 2003, 05:54 AM

I would like to know how it has managed to "phone home" without an internet connection. Unless all XP machines came with a satellite up link to allow wireless communication with the MS mother ship.

Fyron

November 28th, 2003, 06:38 AM

What exactly did you install? XP Home? XP Pro? XP Pro Enterprise edition? Some of them don't have the activation IIRC (the ones designed for businesses setting up large networks with lots of PCs...).

JayBdey

November 28th, 2003, 06:40 AM

I will have to ask the friend that I got it from. He works at a large company and I asked him if he could "borrow" an XP disc for me.

I know it is not XP home, it is XP pro or some variant of it.

Fyron

November 28th, 2003, 07:13 AM

Then it was probably a copy licensed under an enterprise license... which makes it illegal for you to have installed it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

JayBdey

November 28th, 2003, 07:27 AM

woopdy-doo.

I don't have a legal piece of software on this system. If I had the money I would definitely pay for it, people do deserve to get payed for their work. But I don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on software.

Photo Shop alone costs 599$ I could build a new PC (or two!) for that much.

SpaceBadger

November 28th, 2003, 07:33 AM

The defense "I needed it so I took it, even though I couldn't afford to pay for it" may have some arguable validity when talking about food to feed one's starving family, but I hardly see software as that sort of necessity. By extension, it would be silly of you to buy a new computer, or parts to build one, if you could just steal them instead.

SpaceBadger

JayBdey

November 28th, 2003, 07:38 AM

Ah but there is where your argument is flawed.

Stealing would require me to take something, thus depriving the owner of use of the original. If I steal a car the car is gone, the owner no longer has it. But If I download some software, someone who payed for it doesn't loose their ability to use it. I have only made a copy. One more copy exists, at no cost to the maker (admittedly, at no profit either)

I could steal a painting, or I could take a picture of the painting. The painting is still there, but I also have use of it with my copy of it.

It is wrong, but it is not stealing.

SpaceBadger

November 28th, 2003, 07:51 AM

Pffft. So in your view someone who wants to play SEIV and just gets a copy of the CD from a friend has not stolen anything from Aaron Hall or from Shrapnel? Get real.

Hmm, you said there wasn't any legal software on your system - does that include games? Do you think that your "need" for a game outweighs the creator's interest in getting paid for his work?

SpaceBadger

JayBdey

November 28th, 2003, 07:55 AM

No, if someone burns a copy or downloads from say, kazaa, they did not steal anything.

They did however commit a crime. But that crime was not theft.

Stealing would be if I broke into a store and stole a SEIV disk since the store no longer has the physical disk and can't use it.

I'm not defending piracy, but I'm just making sure you know that it isn't "stealing". Yes, it is wrong, but it is not theft.

Edit: Most of my games have been purchused legaly because of the CD-Key.

[ November 28, 2003, 05:58: Message edited by: JayBdey ]

Roanon

November 28th, 2003, 07:57 AM

No legal software AND running WinXP? Be careful, very careful. You can do it, but you have to know how to antispy it.

Fyron

November 28th, 2003, 07:59 AM

Yes... it is stealing by any sense of the word. Taking someone's idea for a new movie and marketing it as your own is stealing. Pirating software is stealing. It is not the exact same sort of stealing as stealing bread, but it is still theft nonetheless.

JayBdey

November 28th, 2003, 08:02 AM

Why would I need to be careful?

OK, worse case scenario. Big bad MS relay is spying on me. They report that to the software companies.

How would they use that evidence in court? Spying on citizens is not exactly legal for a company to do. Hell, even the government has to go through procedures.

Imagine the bad publicity MS would get from that.

And it's not stealing. Says the courts, it's copyright infringement. If I went to court the charges would be copyright infringement.

[ November 28, 2003, 06:03: Message edited by: JayBdey ]

SpaceBadger

November 28th, 2003, 08:04 AM

Your definitions of theft and stealing are not accurate either legally or etymologically. To quote a certain Spaniard: "I do not think that that word means what you think it means." You are free to make up your own definitions for words, but don't expect them to have any meaning to anyone but yourself.

SpaceBadger

Fyron

November 28th, 2003, 08:05 AM

JayBdey

November 28th, 2003, 08:05 AM

It's not my definition, it's the US's legal system's definition.

Fyron

November 28th, 2003, 08:08 AM

Regardless of what technical term is used for the crime commited, software piracy is still theft. Wrongfully taking another's intellectual property is stealing it. Copyright infringement is stealing whatever the item is.

JayBdey

November 28th, 2003, 08:09 AM

I guess so. In the same way murder is stealing. I mean, you are taking something from them, their life.

But we don't call it stealing so it isn't.

Fyron

November 28th, 2003, 08:12 AM

No, murder is not stealing in any sense of the word. You do not gain the person's life when you kill him/her.

JayBdey

November 28th, 2003, 08:13 AM

But your taking it from them. If murder isn't stealing then copyright infringement isn't. Anyway, this will have to continue later. I have to be going.

[ November 28, 2003, 06:14: Message edited by: JayBdey ]

Fyron

November 28th, 2003, 08:25 AM

That is a horrible line of logic... copyright infringement is taking their intellectual property from them AND getting it for yourself. That is what stealing is, taking something from someone AND getting it for yourself (even if you give it to someone else...). Murdering someone is (in a gross misuse of the word take) "taking" someone's life, but you do not get their life in the process, just end it. So, it can not even possibly be considered to be any form of stealing.

SpaceBadger

November 28th, 2003, 08:26 AM

Over the years I have been in this same (or very similar) argument many times in many venues. Always those who want to take something intangible that they did not create (software, artwork, fiction, etc) and use it (or redistribute it, or sell it) without paying for it (or beyond the scope of the creator's permission if the creator distributed it for free) want to say that what they are doing is not stealing. Always those who actually create such things take a somewhat different view. Gee, I wonder why?

Spacebadger

David E. Gervais

November 28th, 2003, 01:13 PM

hmmm, interesting debate going on here..

Does "Software Piracy" = 'stealing'?

Well, if it is then 'technically' speaking "Software Pirates" are only guilty of pety theft, and the law is quite lienient in their punishment of 'Pety Theft'. (Heck, the fine for pety theft is lower than the cost many games in some places, in fact if you can't pay the fine they will give you a place to sleep and feed you a few meals for your crime. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif )

"Software Piracy" is IMHO 'Copyright infringement' and involves the illegal use of intillectual property. 'Piracy' not only hurts the person who owns the copyright, but also hurts the game development industry. It also affects the tax dollar and therefore means that the government is also a victim which in turn means that society suffers the burden. Again, IMHO "Software Piracy" is NOT 'Stealing', It's much worse. There is no justification for "Software Piracy" period.

Nuf said, Cheers!

Suicide Junkie

November 28th, 2003, 01:39 PM

'Piracy' not only hurts the person who owns the copyright, but also hurts the game development industry. It also affects the tax dollar and therefore means that the government is also a victim which in turn means that society suffers the burden. Again, IMHO "Software Piracy" is NOT 'Stealing', It's much worse.All the same can be said for physical theft of the same dollar value. If you want to use the "greater than" relation, that's not enough.

Fyron

November 28th, 2003, 05:24 PM

Grand theft auto is still stealing... a matter of degree does not make something not be stealing.

DeadZone

November 28th, 2003, 07:43 PM

Which is better, XP or 2000?

As I use both I think I shall say this

They are both a piece of monkey crap http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Go Linux!!!

David E. Gervais

November 28th, 2003, 07:44 PM

When I said "Piarcy is NOT 'Stealing', it's much worse." I obvoiusly failed to convey my feelings.

to use an analogy,.. to Steal = wet, to Pirate = Tidal Wave. Yes, to make everybody happy I must concur that a tidal wave is indeed wet. But it's so much more than 'just wet' calling it 'wet' does not do it justice.

see what I mean? no? ok then for the sake of not wanting to step on anyones toes, Piracy = Stealing. Further, stealing is a crime and all crimes should be punishable by death. (after all there is no 'degree' of crime, no 'gray area', you either do/did or don't/didn't where stealing is concerned. It makes perfect sense to have just one punishment for all crimes.)

If only life were that simple, there would be no need for lawyers.

babble, babble, boy I can sure babble. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Gryphin

November 28th, 2003, 08:50 PM

Jaybday,
There are many reasons to be careful Pirating software.
First there is your conscience. You have to live with yourself
Second: There is the potential run in with hypocracy. If it is ok for you to Pirate software then you have to allow that it is ok if someone some day takes you work and passes it off as their own. You know, maybe a paper you did in school or a quaterly report for the office or a truly great photograph you took or.... You would have to be a good boy and not protest. You would not want to be a hypocrit now would you?
Thrid: You would like to be trusted. You know full well it is considered wrong. It is blatently unethical. The moment an ethical person knows you have Pirated software will they ever be able to trust you?

Cheating on a spouse vs Pirating - Some would say noone gets hurt in either case. So, is it ok if your girlfriend cheats on you? You wouldn't mind would you? I mean what's the big deal? No one got hurt did they?
Your call.

se5a

November 28th, 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by David E. Gervais:
When I said "Piarcy is NOT 'Stealing', it's much worse." I obvoiusly failed to convey my feelings.

to use an analogy,.. to Steal = wet, to Pirate = Tidal Wave. Yes, to make everybody happy I must concur that a tidal wave is indeed wet. But it's so much more than 'just wet' calling it 'wet' does not do it justice.

see what I mean? no? ok then for the sake of not wanting to step on anyones toes, Piracy = Stealing. Further, stealing is a crime and all crimes should be punishable by death. (after all there is no 'degree' of crime, no 'gray area', you either do/did or don't/didn't where stealing is concerned. It makes perfect sense to have just one punishment for all crimes.)

If only life were that simple, there would be no need for lawyers.

babble, babble, boy I can sure babble. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif no grey area?
himnnn
ok what about abandon ware.
stuff that is still copywrigted but you cant buy it anywhere, is no longer being published, etc. etc. but coppying it is still (by law) ilegal.

David E. Gervais

November 28th, 2003, 09:27 PM

Stolen ideas, yeah I know something about that. When I was 12 years old I had an idea for a card game. I created a mock-up prototype and wrote down the rules etc. I called it "Plumber's Pipes" and sent it to Parker Brothers asking if they would be interested in marketing a game like this. They sent me a response (but kept my prototype) saying that they could not market such a game, they said they specialized in board games, not card games. Exactly 4 months later a new Parker Brother's game hit the store shelves. It was a card game called 'Waterworks' It was Exactly the same as the card game prototype I sent them but instead of a 'repair-card' they used a silly little metal wrench to indicate repairs. Boy was I one upset 12 year old, but there was nothing I could do. Later in life when I was into computers I decided to go back to this 'Plumber's pipes' idea and make a computer Version of the game. (this time I didn't send it to anyone, I just showed to my friends.) At about the same time that I finished my computer Version of 'Plumber's Pipes, a small company called LucasArts released a game called 'Pipedreams'. This time I couldn't blame anyone for stealing my idea, since it came out at virtually the same time as mine (about 2 weeks after actually) and making the game obviously took longer than that. Oh well, live and learn.

But I'm still not sure what lession I was supposed to learn? Such is life.

Can I babble or what? LOL

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

JayBdey

November 28th, 2003, 09:50 PM

Your just making a copy of something. Stealing deprives the owner of use of the stolen goods, you can't "copy" a car. That is how they are different.

[ November 28, 2003, 19:51: Message edited by: JayBdey ]

PvK

November 28th, 2003, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> ...I don't like the proposed contract "you can install it on one machine only". That is how software has always been though... very few software packages are sold on a license that allows you to run them on multiple computers at once.
<hr /></blockquote>

Almost always such restrictions have been empty power grabs by contract lawyers which have been ignored in practice, however. Humane companies would not cause a stink, for instance, if you want to install, say, a game both on your desktop and your laptop, etc. XP goes one step further and actually tries to sabotage itself by analyzing your machine, using your Internet connection to phone home to the M$ Mother Ship, etc. That's not a practice I care to support by paying someone hundreds of dollars for XP. No way, Jose.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The Search is still crap (annoying, clunky and doesn't always work, even once you kill the animated characters) It has always worked perfectly for me. I have never had it fail to find a file I was searching for before (unless that file didn't exist, of course). And, it is hardly clunky...
<hr /></blockquote> It always amazes me when someone uses "I never noticed a problem" as a counter-argument to "it didn't work for me". Trust us Fryon, there are cases, who knows why, when it just fails to find files that are there. I've tested and had XP search and find nothing, followed by another search program running the same search, which finds files.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Sorting files by date backwards - any way to fix that? Click the sort button for date again, and it reverses the order it sorts them.
<hr /></blockquote>
Of course you can have it re-sort manually. That's not a fix, though, it's a known work-around.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> There is weird stuff going on with the "My ..." folders Get the power toys and you can disable ALL of those folders; just set them to whatever folder you want (even on other drives!) and it stops using them altogether. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
<hr /></blockquote>
Good to know.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The "you have some unused icons on your desktop" wizards. I don't recall ever seeing that. Can you elaborate?
<hr /></blockquote>
Sure. You must've turned it off, but by default, every few days or weeks, XP decides to launch a wizard in the user's face, perhaps with a hateful cartoon character and cutesy "speach bubble", saying something like, "Hey, XP has noticed you haven't used some of your desktop icons in a while. Would you like to stop what you're doing, and go through a wizard that asks you about all of them, and gives an option to delete them?" Yeah, there's a way to turn it off, but it's just an example of the many annoying goofball innovations of XP.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> ... [QUOTE] The annoying features I haven't figured out yet how to exorcise from the new "Start Christmas tree". Just use the "Classic" start menu, and it is identical to the start menu in 2000 (and I think it is the same as in 98, but with the control panel stuff added, which is a good thing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).
<hr /></blockquote>
I do that on my own XP box at work, but there is still some crud left over that is not on 2K or 98. And the extra 2K stuff isn't particularly useful, except for disabling as many as possible of the unwanted default processes that launch and waste resources and CPU.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> some accessibility wizards opened by pressing five times the caps key for example That is because you chose to set up the accessibility wizards when you installed the OS. Just remove them and that will stop. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
<hr /></blockquote>
Or that were set up by default. The one that keeps happening to me, even on systems where I've told it to stop, is the "Hey, you've been holding down Control for more than five seconds - would you like to enter Accessibility mode?" wizard which attacks and messes up what I was doing at the moment. I suppose it reoccurs because of the frequent "updates" which sometimes reset default system options, such as the existance and IE association of MS Outhouse Express.

... Or make a Win98 partition to run those old DOS games. Very simply fix.


Best idea yet. (Though it's incredible that you'd write "Very simple fix" when referring to installing a second OS as a "solution" to a problem with the other OS.) In fact, that's what I have at home: one Win98SE partition, and zero XP. Works perfectly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

PvK

JayBdey

November 29th, 2003, 01:06 AM

I've yet to find a problem with XP that I couldn't fix. I've never run into any of the problems mentioned. The search has always worked, I've never been bothered with the desktop cleanup wizard, and the "My" folders have always worked. And I have never had a major problem that caused real harm.

Why don't you guys like the new XP GUI? I think it's much better than the cold gray 9x GUI. I also like the new start menu.

Fyron

November 29th, 2003, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by JayBdey:
Your just making a copy of something. Stealing deprives the owner of use of the stolen goods, you can't "copy" a car. That is how they are different. Sigh... you can steal ideas just as you can steal goods. It is a slightly different form of stealing, but it is still stealing.

JayBdey

November 29th, 2003, 01:45 AM

If someone has two cars and I steal one of them, then the owner now only has one car. If I make a copy of a song, the original still exists and is still usable.

Yes, they are different. It's just as illegal as stealing but it is a separate and different crime.

Fyron

November 29th, 2003, 01:51 AM

Almost always such restrictions have been empty power grabs by contract lawyers which have been ignored in practice, however. Humane companies would not cause a stink, for instance, if you want to install, say, a game both on your desktop and your laptop, etc. XP goes one step further and actually tries to sabotage itself by analyzing your machine, using your Internet connection to phone home to the M$ Mother Ship, etc. That's not a practice I care to support by paying someone hundreds of dollars for XP. No way, Jose.No... almost always such restrictions have been how software is sold. It has nothing to do with being humane. Note that I said RUN, not INSTALL. There is a world of difference between having a piece of software installed on two computers and only using one at a time, and then having that software installed on two computers and using both installs at the same time (such as pirating an OS by installing it on more than one computer).

It always amazes me when someone uses "I never noticed a problem" as a counter-argument to "it didn't work for me". That was not my "counter argument". My statement was just of the nature that you have experienced an uncommon problem.

Trust us FryonYou are multiple people? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

there are cases, who knows why, when it just fails to find files that are there. I've tested and had XP search and find nothing, followed by another search program running the same search, which finds files.I have used the XP search extensively and it has never once failed to find a file that was there. I have used it on other computers without a hitch as well. You might have gotten your copy of XP from a OEM manufacturer that did something to the kernals to alter the search function.

Of course you can have it re-sort manually. That's not a fix, though, it's a known work-around.That is assuming that the order you want it sorted is the only correct order. They had to pick an order. That is not a bug in any shape or form.

Sure. You must've turned it off, but by default, every few days or weeks, XP decides to launch a wizard in the user's face, perhaps with a hateful cartoon character and cutesy "speach bubble", saying something like, "Hey, XP has noticed you haven't used some of your desktop icons in a while. Would you like to stop what you're doing, and go through a wizard that asks you about all of them, and gives an option to delete them?" Yeah, there's a way to turn it off, but it's just an example of the many annoying goofball innovations of XP.Hmm... I have never once turned that off, nor even heard of such a feature. Must only be in some Versions of XP home...

I do that on my own XP box at work, but there is still some crud left over that is not on 2K or 98. And the extra 2K stuff isn't particularly useful, except for disabling as many as possible of the unwanted default processes that launch and waste resources and CPU.It is quite easy to customize what is in the start menu (especially easy to do in XP). Again, how you want it to look is most certainly not the "right" way to do it, nor the only way. Just because you don't like the default start meny does NOT mean that there is anything wrong with it, just that you don't like it and need to customize it.

Or that were set up by default. I have always seen the option to not install various windows components when installing XP. The accessibilty features are one of them.

The one that keeps happening to me, even on systems where I've told it to stop, is the "Hey, you've been holding down Control for more than five seconds - would you like to enter Accessibility mode?" wizard which attacks and messes up what I was doing at the moment.You have been rather unlucky then, as it has always stayed disabled every time I have disabled it, and it stays disabled for everyone I know that uses XP.

I suppose it reoccurs because of the frequent "updates" which sometimes reset default system options, such as the existance and IE association of MS Outhouse Express.You can easily remove those two programs, and they do stay removed if you do so.

Though it's incredible that you'd write "Very simple fix" when referring to installing a second OS as a "solution" to a problem with the other OS.Abandoning the garbage that is the old DOS kernal is not a problem, it is a good idea! It was the cause of most 9x crashes. Of course programs written for an OS that is no longer in use are not going to be guaranteed to run well. The chains of legacy code have to be cut some time.

Fyron

November 29th, 2003, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by JayBdey:
If someone has two cars and I steal one of them, then the owner now only has one car. If I make a copy of a song, the original still exists and is still usable.

Yes, they are different. It's just as illegal as stealing but it is a separate and different crime. Your examples are irrelevant because they are trying to compare apples and oranges... repeating them 27 times is not going to change the fact that taking someone else's intellectual property without consent is stealing it. Let's get some dictionary definitions here:

1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive senses
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car> b : to take away by force or unjust means <they've stolen our liberty> c : to take surreptitiously or without permission <steal a kiss> d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of <steal the show>
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner <steal a visit>
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring <a basketball player adept at stealing the ball> <stole the election> b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard Hmm... intellectual property... "to take the property of another wrongfully"... taking someone's intellectual property wrongfully is therefore stealing it.

Katchoo

November 29th, 2003, 03:34 AM

Or that were set up by default. The one that keeps happening to me, even on systems where I've told it to stop, is the "Hey, you've been holding down Control for more than five seconds - would you like to enter Accessibility mode?" wizard which attacks and messes up what I was doing at the moment. I suppose it reoccurs because of the frequent "updates" which sometimes reset default system options, such as the existance and IE association of MS Outhouse Express This sounds like "Sticky Keys", which can be disabled completely by entering the Accessiblity Options within the Control Panel.

I had a similar problem with the Shift Key while playing Wolfenstein. I used the Shift Key for sprinting, so of course I would hold it down to keep running, and because of that the game would lock up and I would get a message from WinXP Pro asking me if I wanted to enable Caps Lock (or some such nonesense).

As for this debate on "what is" or "what isn't" stealing, the fact is is that your breaking the law by obtaining software through unlicensed avenues. Breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter how you cut it.

Downloading a ton of software off of Kazaa won't get you into trouble, since there's far too many people doing it for the law enforcement agenices to make a dent. Where you will get into trouble is by making those same files available for download by someone else. That's when you become an illegal software traffiker, and that's who the FBI, RCMP, and the other large Law Enforcement Agencies like to go after. All it takes is for you to put one illgotten file available for download to place you onto the criminal dartboard.

The person who gave you a copy of WinXP could find himself in serious trouble if the Police decided to take an interest (and if someone notified them) in his activites. Unfortunatley corruption starts at the top, so if I were the Police I'd be more apt to go after his Employer and their complete lack of control over their Employees, instead of the individual Employee. Incompetent Management breeds equally incompetent Employees. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

The Police are so overwhelmened, understaffed, and financially strapped that it's not worthwhile to go after any software Pirate unless it's someone traffiking software over $100,000, and even then it's not guaranteed.

Say all the negative things you want about the RIAA and their lawsuits, but at the very least they've gotten the act of digital copyright violation into the spotlight. What we need now though is to have a US-based Software Company take a hard, hard, hard stance against piracy and go after a small fish, and hammer them into permenant poverty and partial imprisonment. Slamming the crap out of some 18 Year old (and their negligant parents) would be a good start in getting the US Senate/Congress to increase Police budgets and enact tougher laws to stem piracy.

Just don't cry foul if the Police break your door down and arrest you for software piracy. Sooner or later the dam is going to break and the Police will be let loose. Wether it's an illegal copy of SEIV or WinXP Pro Enterprise, it's still illegal, and I'll be there laughing at you when the Judge sentances you into eternal financial destitution.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

November 29th, 2003, 03:41 AM

The police can not ever possibly arrest everyone that has an illegal copy of software, music, movies, etc., because there are just far too many such people.

The RIAA has been coming down hard on people (random people...) over the Last few years (including really old and really young people, like 12 year olds)... it has had little effect other than further degrading their name and destroying the Last bits of any good reputation they had. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

JayBdey

November 29th, 2003, 05:51 AM

About the RIAA, read this: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth
Maybe if you knew the truth you wouldn't be so quick to support the greatest enemy of music and freedom of our time.

Anyway, we are talking about the legal definition of stealing, NOT the literal definition. And I will repeat my message for as many time as it takes for you to see that your wrong.

Slynky

November 29th, 2003, 06:44 AM

Guess what?

I don't care if the RIAA is robbing bands/songwriters. I don't care if the RIAA is making (or not making) a fortune off musicians. I don't care how much profit musicians get or how much the RIAA gets.

Fact: If you download a song/album instead of buying it, you are cheating SOMEONE out of due profits/income. It really doesn't matter how much damage you are doing. You are doing damage.

This sounds like the same kind of person/people who think..."stealing a candy bar from WalMart is OK but it's wrong to steal a candy bar from a small "mom and pop" store."

The bottom line is this: If you take something that is for sale from someone without paying, you are a thief...I don't care if it is Micro$oft or the RIAA (and the artists that they compensate).

In my opinion, people who steal (whatever) and justify it by some stupid reason are just a nicer form of thief who want to make it easier to sleep at night.

Take if from a guy who returned over $200 in a mistake to a business. Sleeping is much easier without having to manufacture ridiculous justifications for theft.

tesco samoa

December 1st, 2003, 02:23 AM

to quote Robert Flipp

http://www.disciplineglobalmobile.com/diary/diary-RobertFripp.shtml

grey day in the Chalke Valley.

DGM is in active mode, and has been at least since my arrival here yesterday lunchtime from Canterbury.

We are refining the presentation & appearance of the new DGM website, to be launched in January. Part of this is to address the issue of downloading�

1. The current music-user standard for downloaded music is free.
This is unsustainable.

2. The current industry standard for downloaded music is expensive.
This is unsustainable.

3. A sustainable industry & music-user standard for downloads is cheap.

Widespread downloading needs to become legitimate. A reasonable objection to the high-price of downloading is that despite high prices, the bulk of the money does not go to the artists. No material object is changing hands, incurring high manufacture, deliver, storage & shop-rental charges: this is an information stream. It is significantly cheaper than hard-copy stuff.

We should differentiate between a handful of mega-artists who generate huge amounts of income (that they do not necessarily receive much of in the short term anyway), the bulk of working artists & players who earn a good living, and a greater proportion that just get by.

Making records in the traditional manner is relatively expensive. This doesn't have to be the case (cf. live recordings, official bootlegs, works in process, Club releases), but considered statements of the formal "studio album" kind cost upwards of $250-350,000. Works in progress are snapshots of the process & audio quality is not the determining element. Where audio quality is important, music-Users can pay a higher price.

But if artists don't get paid for their recorded work, where do they get money? The answer, in principle, is simple: from everything but their recorded work. Live performance & stuff � DVDs, t-shirts, posters, memorabilia, tour programmes � and subscription websites. In practice, this gives three concerns�

1. Earning money from live performance (more on that below);
2. Creating a distribution channel for stuff;
3. Building a subscription website.

Two of these concerns are active within DGM HQ today: the website & touring. As a related aside, this is from my reply to the author of a doctorate thesis on "Financial relationships between artist and record company in the Internet era �- A value chain analysis of three reintermediated cases"�

one thing that is hard to convey to an outsider is the fundamental, all-pervasive nature of exploitation within the music industry. it's rather like arguing against the slave trade when the slaves are well-fed, given acceptable accomodation, and only ill-treated when they voice disagreement with the basic premise: one person is owned by another.

For anyone who might object that this is an exaggeration, and trivialises the historic record, in the music industry:

the primary ownership is the works of the person;
the secondary ownership is the rights to that person's image & public persona (as on artist websites);
the tertiary ownership is in control of the person's choices & decision-making process.

That is, slavery concealed by smoke and mirrors, good meals & acceptable accommodation. And drugs. And flattery. And emotional & psychological manipulation. And lies.

The aside now aside, back to the subject of earning a living from live performance & a practical issue arising from settling the accounts of this summer's KC Eurotour Of Terror, Dread, Pain, Horror & Suffering. These are David's two letters to a travel company, in respect of two hired cellphones for the KC production team in Europe�

P.S. I record tv shows on vcr and watch them after wards so i can skip the commericals... They tried to ban that as well and are trying again with the facts of lost protential income http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Protential income is the biggest pile of horse manure i have ever heard. I am guessing Accountants really do run the world now.

In some places I am a criminal... because i press that fastforward button.

I think that mp3 does not equal cd. it is not a loss less format. You are not a thief nor a pirate. You may be breaking a copy right law. That is it. I feel it is as disruptive as jay walking and should be treated as such.

I am glad the MPAA and the RIAA are not here yet... But they will be some day.

Did you know SOCAN is trying to levy the isp's for money cause were all downloading copyrighted material as we speak. And all this time i thought it was porn. Hmmm... And yes i do purchase dvd's and i do buy cd's just of artists who are not in the RIAA out of principle. For I do not like giving money to convicted criminals. Nor should you.

P.S. Slynky that was not directed to you I just happend to write after you. I think you should add this to your signature.

Want all the free music you can handle learn to play an instrument.

There is so much free legal music out there to download. Sure most of it you will never hear on the radio. But hey it is music and music needs to be listened to.

tesco samoa

December 1st, 2003, 02:33 AM

stuff like this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Beatallica (http://www.sensoryresearch.com/~starkeff/beatallica.html)

check out these lyrics

The day breaks, your mind aches

Your girlfriend takes you to

A lame-*** poser Winger concert

[ December 01, 2003, 00:37: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

Fyron

December 1st, 2003, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by JayBdey:
About the RIAA, read this: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth
Maybe if you knew the truth you wouldn't be so quick to support the greatest enemy of music and freedom of our time.Umm... reread my post. I hardly call that supporting the RIAA...

Anyway, we are talking about the legal definition of stealing, NOT the literal definition. And I will repeat my message for as many time as it takes for you to see that your wrong. No we were not... we were discussing stealing, period. No special conditions or modifications.

Wardad

December 2nd, 2003, 01:02 AM

Baron,

I have had stability problems with DMA enabled for HD, CD, and DVD under Win98se.

DVD playback was choppy with out DMA.
1Ghz Athalon, MSI motherboard, 256MB, Geforce2 mx.

Cirvol

December 2nd, 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Wardad:
Baron,

I have had stability problems with DMA enabled for HD, CD, and DVD under Win98se.

DVD playback was choppy with out DMA.
1Ghz Athalon, MSI motherboard, 256MB, Geforce2 mx. heh, yeah, 9x winblows still just isnt good overall -- seriously use windows 2000 pro or xp

stability is and will always be an issue with DOS based OS's like windows 9x/me

Loser

December 2nd, 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Windows 9x:
Pay no attention to the DOS behind the curtain, I am the Great Windows!

[ December 02, 2003, 14:13: Message edited by: Loser ]

Instar

December 2nd, 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by DeadZone:
Which is better, XP or 2000?

As I use both I think I shall say this

They are both a piece of monkey crap http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Go Linux!!! bah, Ive used Linux, nothing special there. I'll stick with WinXP pro

PvK

December 2nd, 2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
...
Fact: If you download a song/album instead of buying it, you are cheating SOMEONE out of due profits/income. It really doesn't matter how much damage you are doing. You are doing damage.
... 1) What do media megacorps have "due" to them, besides a kick in the nuts?

2) If the person downloading had 0% chance of giving the "owning" megacorp any money if they didn't download, then they haven't done any damage.

PvK

PvK

December 2nd, 2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JayBdey:
If someone has two cars and I steal one of them, then the owner now only has one car. If I make a copy of a song, the original still exists and is still usable.

Yes, they are different. It's just as illegal as stealing but it is a separate and different crime. Your examples are irrelevant because they are trying to compare apples and oranges... repeating them 27 times is not going to change the fact that taking someone else's intellectual property without consent is stealing it. Let's get some dictionary definitions here:
<hr /></blockquote>Ok. Intellectual Property: A term invented by lawyers of megacorporations in the late 20th century, for the purpose of gaining acceptance for a concept that would let them solidify their trade cartels of products which cost practically nothing to produce and distribute. An item of "Intellectual Property" can be practically any concept (or practically any data type) which is claimed as the sole property of a party which wishes to distribute it for sale and assert exclusive rights to do so.

PvK

Fyron

December 2nd, 2003, 11:39 PM

So? You have no right to any piece of data that someone else created unless they give you a right to use it. They have right to receive compensation for their hard work if they so choose.

[ December 02, 2003, 21:41: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

PvK

December 2nd, 2003, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Almost always such restrictions have been empty power grabs by contract lawyers which have been ignored in practice, however. Humane companies would not cause a stink, for instance, if you want to install, say, a game both on your desktop and your laptop, etc. XP goes one step further and actually tries to sabotage itself by analyzing your machine, using your Internet connection to phone home to the M$ Mother Ship, etc. That's not a practice I care to support by paying someone hundreds of dollars for XP. No way, Jose.No... almost always such restrictions have been how software is sold. It has nothing to do with being humane. Note that I said RUN, not INSTALL. There is a world of difference between having a piece of software installed on two computers and only using one at a time, and then having that software installed on two computers and using both installs at the same time (such as pirating an OS by installing it on more than one computer).
<hr /></blockquote>So you're saying the XP activation scheme intentionally lets you install one copy of XP on multiple computers, as long as you only run one at a time? That certainly wasn't my understanding.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />there are cases, who knows why, when it just fails to find files that are there. I've tested and had XP search and find nothing, followed by another search program running the same search, which finds files.I have used the XP search extensively and it has never once failed to find a file that was there. I have used it on other computers without a hitch as well. You might have gotten your copy of XP from a OEM manufacturer that did something to the kernals to alter the search function.
<hr /></blockquote>I've seen this problem on three computers I've worked with, one of which I installed the OS myself with install disks directly from M$.

Again, it seems pretty silly for you to tell me how many times you haven't noticed that some files aren't found by the XP search. After all, it's only noticeable if you know a file is there, and it fails, which only happens every so often. However, the fact that it fails makes the search useless for the purpose of conducting an exhaustive search, such as for insuring that a certain virus file is not on a computer. At least this provides a good reason to find a 3rd party search program and never use the annoying-as-heck XP search interface.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Of course you can have it re-sort manually. That's not a fix, though, it's a known work-around.That is assuming that the order you want it sorted is the only correct order. They had to pick an order. That is not a bug in any shape or form.
<hr /></blockquote>I'm sure that you prefer that "sort by date" show you the oldest files first, right? I suppose you really like being force-fed BS, since you like XP so much, so it's no wonder you figure "they had to pick an order". Sure it's "by design" and not a "bug", but it is something I don't like about the interface, which is what the topic was. If they can go to the trouble to reverse the sort order, and to provide options like "hey, would you like to be annoyed by an animated puppy?", then why not have an option to sort either way by default?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Sure. You must've turned it off, but by default, every few days or weeks, XP decides to launch a wizard in the user's face, perhaps with a hateful cartoon character and cutesy "speach bubble", saying something like, "Hey, XP has noticed you haven't used some of your desktop icons in a while. Would you like to stop what you're doing, and go through a wizard that asks you about all of them, and gives an option to delete them?" Yeah, there's a way to turn it off, but it's just an example of the many annoying goofball innovations of XP.Hmm... I have never once turned that off, nor even heard of such a feature. Must only be in some Versions of XP home...<hr /></blockquote>I've never run XP Home. I have seen it on XP Pro, XP Tablet, and XP MCE. Maybe there's a way to get it to shut up for good, and you shut it off when you were first disabling all the default nonsense.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I do that on my own XP box at work, but there is still some crud left over that is not on 2K or 98. And the extra 2K stuff isn't particularly useful, except for disabling as many as possible of the unwanted default processes that launch and waste resources and CPU.It is quite easy to customize what is in the start menu (especially easy to do in XP). Again, how you want it to look is most certainly not the "right" way to do it, nor the only way. Just because you don't like the default start meny does NOT mean that there is anything wrong with it, just that you don't like it and need to customize it.<hr /></blockquote>Again, I was replying to one or more questions of the nature "PvK, what don't you like about the XP interface?" I wasn't standing on a soapbox telling everyone that it was wrong for everyone. I'd recommend XP to simple casual Users who want to blow a bunch of money or are getting it relatively free somehow. After all, it's "user friendly" to a saccharine fault.

And no, I don't "need" to learn how to exorcize all the crud. That would be an annoyance in itself. I do fine by just killing the crap that I've already seen how to kill, and avoiding XP as much as I can. After all, my 98SE boxes give me no problems and run faster than my XP box at work, so I rarely need to use XP at all.

...
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I suppose it reoccurs because of the frequent "updates" which sometimes reset default system options, such as the existance and IE association of MS Outhouse Express.You can easily remove those two programs, and they do stay removed if you do so.
<hr /></blockquote>I did do that. I always remove all signs of Outhouse from any computer I'm allowed to do so on. As I explained before, this didn't help - it came back, apparently in one of those poorly-documented automatic updates. The only "proper" way I might kill it now appears to be to uninstall the update. Though, it's always fun to find the Outhouse folder and delete it. Too bad that method tends to leave turds in the registry, etc.

PvK

PvK

December 3rd, 2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
So? You have no right to any piece of data that someone else created unless they give you a right to use it. They have right to receive compensation for their hard work if they so choose. Media cartels do very little, if any, hard creative work outside of cunning new legal contracts to stiff the actual creators.

Data isn't being stolen from creators. The file sharing issue involves creators who have sold their rights for very little to megacorps, and the megacorps are crying because their old distribution and sales model is becoming obsolete. You know, the one with which they've been making themselves obscenely rich for decades (while exploiting the actual creators).

The real question is what forms of control of data are reasonable or unreasonable, and what options a creator of data has for distribution and compensation.

PvK

David E. Gervais

December 3rd, 2003, 12:23 AM

About windows install,.. the only Version of windows that gave me any kind of trouble was Windows ME. (and the problem was mostly incompatibility, and many programs not running properly.)

Whenever I install Windows, I always do a typical install, then once everything is up and running, I go to the Add/Remove Programs in the control panel and click on the Windows Setup tab (add remove windows components icon in XP) and remove all the junk I don't want. Accessability, Outlook Express, etc, etc..

I found out that this is actually the 'Best' way to customize the windows install. if you do a 'Custom Install' at the beginning of the install process, many things needed by the system don't get installed. The same is true for hardware drivers. when windows installs, there is no such thing as Plug-and-play, it only exists 'After' windows has installed. so many of the hardware devices are just 'best-guess' placeholders. I go to the hardware manager and delete/remove the various '!' tagged devices. when I reboot, windows always finds the devices an installs the correct drivers.

So, in fact it's kind of like you need to install windows in a 3 step process. A pain in the but to say the least, but once you know the routine, most of the annoying bugs seem to magically disapear.

another 2 cents of info for the pot..

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron

December 3rd, 2003, 12:46 AM

So you're saying the XP activation scheme intentionally lets you install one copy of XP on multiple computers, as long as you only run one at a time? That certainly wasn't my understanding.Umm... no. It is a method to prevent you from stealing software by just getting one copy and running it on multiple computers...

I've seen this problem on three computers I've worked with, one of which I installed the OS myself with install disks directly from M$.

Again, it seems pretty silly for you to tell me how many times you haven't noticed that some files aren't found by the XP search. After all, it's only noticeable if you know a file is there, and it fails, which only happens every so often. However, the fact that it fails makes the search useless for the purpose of conducting an exhaustive search, such as for insuring that a certain virus file is not on a computer. At least this provides a good reason to find a 3rd party search program and never use the annoying-as-heck XP search interface.That is some rather creative reading on your part... let me repeat myself: I have never had the search feature fail to find a file that I know is there. So, I know where the file is, I run the search, it always finds it.

I'm sure that you prefer that "sort by date" show you the oldest files first, right? I suppose you really like being force-fed BS, since you like XP so much, so it's no wonder you figure "they had to pick an order". Sure it's "by design" and not a "bug", but it is something I don't like about the interface, which is what the topic was. If they can go to the trouble to reverse the sort order, and to provide options like "hey, would you like to be annoyed by an animated puppy?", then why not have an option to sort either way by default?Ok... this is just *****ing. It is not a productive complaint at all. Of course they had to pick how the OS works! That is how you design software. So you prefer the opposite sort order. Big deal. They decided to go the other way by default. That is not in any way a bug, and can not in any reasonable way be construed as a bug, UNLESS it is marketed to sort in the opposite order that it does by default. Otherwise, you have to grounds for complaint here.

I suppose you really like being force-fed BS, since you like XP so muchObviously me consistently telling people to go with 2000 over XP was lost somewhere along the way... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I've never run XP Home. I have seen it on XP Pro, XP Tablet, and XP MCE. Maybe there's a way to get it to shut up for good, and you shut it off when you were first disabling all the default nonsense.Nope. I would have remembered such a feature. Maybe it got disabled when I disabled that "show latest additions to the start menu" option, but I don't think so, as I never saw that before I had disabled that feature (after running XP for a while, of course). Rather strange.

And no, I don't "need" to learn how to exorcize all the crud. That would be an annoyance in itself. I do fine by just killing the crap that I've already seen how to kill, and avoiding XP as much as I can. After all, my 98SE boxes give me no problems and run faster than my XP box at work, so I rarely need to use XP at all.That would depend on what the computers you are comparing are, of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Media cartels do very little, if any, hard creative work outside of cunning new legal contracts to stiff the actual creators.Media cartels have nothing to do with the concept of being compensated for your work PvK... whether such alleged cartels are around or not has no bearing on whether people should receive compensation for their work if they so choose.

Data isn't being stolen from creators. The file sharing issue involves creators who have sold their rights for very little to megacorps, and the megacorps are crying because their old distribution and sales model is becoming obsolete. You know, the one with which they've been making themselves obscenely rich for decades (while exploiting the actual creators).Either way, the shared files are still being stolen. It does not matter who has the rights to it, as long as it is not released to the public domain, downloading such files is still stealing them. That, and there are plenty of creators that are not part of megacorps that are being stolen from in the file sharing issue as well.

if you do a 'Custom Install' at the beginning of the install process, many things needed by the system don't get installed.Erm... that is, if you don't choose to install them, they don't get installed... Windows always works fine for me when I do custom installs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ December 02, 2003, 22:47: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

JayBdey

December 3rd, 2003, 01:08 AM

The old business model of making, marketing, and selling products is fading fast. It was a good system back when it took time and money to produce new products. Now, production costs for music and software are shrinking, and distribution costs have almost disappeared completely. When it costs nothing (or next to nothing) to make something, and your still selling at the same bloated price be prepared when people get angry and start using your work without paying you.

History has shown that what is right and what is legal are not always one in the same. Laws are being passed by corrupt politicians influenced by the entertainment/software industry, that benefit big business and keep an outdated, inefficient system going.

Fyron

December 3rd, 2003, 01:15 AM

Umm... it still costs quite a bit of money to make the songs in the first place... and, of course, none of that justifies the theft of said music.

JayBdey

December 3rd, 2003, 01:36 AM

Given the choice of paying for a song and the artist getting a little but the label taking most of it, and not paying at all and helping to form a new system were the artist gets ALL the money, I'm going to pick that.

If we stop paying NOW, in the future artists will be getting all (or most of) the money.

Songs could be sold for $.25 cents a piece and the artist would be making more than they do now. The consumer pays less, the artist gets more.

I can't find a downside to that. The only people that loose are the labels and the RIAA, and they deserve it.

[ December 02, 2003, 23:37: Message edited by: JayBdey ]

Fyron

December 3rd, 2003, 01:38 AM

If you object to the current model, then stealing is no way to protest. Do not acquire their music at all. Don't buy it. But don't steal it either. Stealing it just makes you a petty crook and destroys any validity you might have had otherwise with your complaints.

[ December 02, 2003, 23:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

PvK

December 3rd, 2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
...That is some rather creative reading on your part... let me repeat myself: I have never had the search feature fail to find a file that I know is there. So, I know where the file is, I run the search, it always finds it.
So it's not frequent that it fails, or maybe it even never fails when doing the sorts of searches that you do. May your luck hold out.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />...Ok... this is just *****ing. It is not a productive complaint at all. Of course they had to pick how the OS works! That is how you design software. So you prefer the opposite sort order. Big deal. They decided to go the other way by default. That is not in any way a bug, and can not in any reasonable way be construed as a bug, UNLESS it is marketed to sort in the opposite order that it does by default. Otherwise, you have to grounds for complaint here.
<hr /></blockquote>I never said it was a bug. Again, the topic I was responding to was a question about what I personally didn't like. It annoys me to change the sort order and not offer any option to use the old (sensible) sort order. Why would I want to see the oldest files by default?

...
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Media cartels do very little, if any, hard creative work outside of cunning new legal contracts to stiff the actual creators.Media cartels have nothing to do with the concept of being compensated for your work PvK... whether such alleged cartels are around or not has no bearing on whether people should receive compensation for their work if they so choose.
<hr /></blockquote>They do have something "to do with the concept of being compensated for your work" when the worker and the person demanding compensation are two different parties, and when the demander is a megacorp demanding that everyone pay them as often as they can get away with, for as long as they can get away with, when it's utterly impractical and counterproductive to assert such rights in the face of the realities of broadcast media and ubiquitous technology such as computers on a worldwide network.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Data isn't being stolen from creators. The file sharing issue involves creators who have sold their rights for very little to megacorps, and the megacorps are crying because their old distribution and sales model is becoming obsolete. You know, the one with which they've been making themselves obscenely rich for decades (while exploiting the actual creators).Either way, the shared files are still being stolen. It does not matter who has the rights to it, as long as it is not released to the public domain, downloading such files is still stealing them. That, and there are plenty of creators that are not part of megacorps that are being stolen from in the file sharing issue as well.
<hr /></blockquote>I do not agree. Sharing ideas is not stealing, even if you heard the idea from someone else, as long as you don't claim the idea was thought up by you. Creative people should be rewarded for sharing their ideas, art, music (etc), in the first place, and if they can think of reasonable and practical ways to limit the way they share their work with others so as to make more money from them, fine. However, I believe that in general it should be the resonsibility of the vendor (not the government) to maintain control of their own media.

With media such as pop music, the crap is broadcast via radio throughout the planet, including into private houses, and it is played in public places. In neither case is there a contract between the sender and receiver. Pop music is practically inescapable - we're bombarded with it and have little choice about it. Reception and recording devices are not illegal to own and use (yet?). The original creator has already received their miniscule fraction of a percent. It's silly to say someone can't tape a broadcast and replay it. Illegal to fast forward past ads? BS! When does it ever become something that the public is allowed to share? Never?

PvK

JayBdey

December 3rd, 2003, 01:50 AM

The way it sorts files is fine.

I think they way this board works is screwy, it just seems unnatural to have the newest post at the top. Everyone may not like that feature but that doesn't make wrong. You have to choose one way to do things, and someone will complain that the way you chose isn't their preference.

Fyron

December 3rd, 2003, 01:52 AM

They do have something "to do with the concept of being compensated for your work" when the worker and the person demanding compensation are two different parties, and when the demander is a megacorp demanding that everyone pay them as often as they can get away with, for as long as they can get away with, when it's utterly impractical and counterproductive to assert such rights in the face of the realities of broadcast media and ubiquitous technology such as computers on a worldwide network.Either way, you still have no right to their work, unless they give you that right, either through free distribution or a legal license to possess and use it.

I do not agree. Sharing ideas is not stealing, even if you heard the idea from someone else, as long as you don't claim the idea was thought up by you. Creative people should be rewarded for sharing their ideas, art, music (etc), in the first place, and if they can think of reasonable and practical ways to limit the way they share their work with others so as to make more money from them, fine. However, I believe that in general it should be the resonsibility of the vendor (not the government) to maintain control of their own media.Sharing ideas is not stealing, no. Sharing physical copies of a very specific set of "ideas" (such as a song) that you have no right to share is stealing, however. Even downloading a song is stealing, as it is still a physical copy of the song (electrons and circuits are quite physical).

Where the heck did the government come into this? It has always been the responsibilty of the vendor to maintain control! The only role the government plays is to provide courst in which the vendor can have a legal means to strike back at those that would wrongfully steal their product (rather than doing something nasty like breaking their legs or some such http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

With media such as pop music, the crap is broadcast via radio throughout the planet, including into private houses, and it is played in public places. In neither case is there a contract between the sender and receiver.Sure there is. There is a contract between the owner of the music and the person that is playing it over the radio.

Reception and recording devices are not illegal to own and use (yet?). The original creator has already received their miniscule fraction of a percent. It's silly to say someone can't tape a broadcast and replay it.It is actually quite illegal to record anything off of the radio. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Has been for many decades in the US at least.

Illegal to fast forward past ads? BS!Again, you have absolutely no right to watch whatever program it is. It is a privelege granted to you by the broadcasting networks.

When does it ever become something that the public is allowed to share? Never?When it is released into public domain by the owner, or when enough time for the copyright to expire has passed.

Fyron

December 3rd, 2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by JayBdey:
I think they way this board works is screwy, it just seems unnatural to have the newest post at the top. Everyone may not like that feature but that doesn't make wrong. You have to choose one way to do things, and someone will complain that the way you chose isn't their preference. Exactly. The option to choose how to sort is always a good thing to have though... too bad Shrapnel gives browsers no option.

evader

December 3rd, 2003, 02:34 AM

I like Xp I use it at home and work. Speaking strictly from a network administrator point of view I like xp. Less having to work around some of the securtity issues in 2000

Also Xp solved the NT bug.

Granted it now has and XP bug now but that is olay only hit that once or twice

PvK

December 3rd, 2003, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by JayBdey:
The way it sorts files is fine.

I think they way this board works is screwy, it just seems unnatural to have the newest post at the top. Everyone may not like that feature but that doesn't make wrong. You have to choose one way to do things, and someone will complain that the way you chose isn't their preference. That's why both this BBS and XP should include an option for which way to sort. There doesn't have to be only one choice.

PvK

PvK

December 3rd, 2003, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
... Either way, you still have no right to their work, unless they give you that right, either through free distribution or a legal license to possess and use it.The question is what kinds of laws are reasonable to control the distribution. I'd say broadcasting songs everywhere in radio and sound waves is definitely "free distribution".

...
Where the heck did the government come into this? It has always been the responsibilty of the vendor to maintain control! The only role the government plays is to provide courst in which the vendor can have a legal means to strike back at those that would wrongfully steal their product (rather than doing something nasty like breaking their legs or some such http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).
The government came into it when corps started trying to get laws to support BS like the right of a corporation to own exclusive copyrights to "intellectual property" forever.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />With media such as pop music, the crap is broadcast via radio throughout the planet, including into private houses, and it is played in public places. In neither case is there a contract between the sender and receiver.Sure there is. There is a contract between the owner of the music and the person that is playing it over the radio.
<hr /></blockquote>In a just legal system, that contract can't be binding on the people who don't sign it or even know about it, but who just get bombarded by the music anyway. It's the so-called owner's responsibility to limit distribution, and they do the opposite, freely distributing it without any contract involved.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Reception and recording devices are not illegal to own and use (yet?). The original creator has already received their miniscule fraction of a percent. It's silly to say someone can't tape a broadcast and replay it.It is actually quite illegal to record anything off of the radio. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Has been for many decades in the US at least.
<hr /></blockquote>Even if true, that's preposterous.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Illegal to fast forward past ads? BS!Again, you have absolutely no right to watch whatever program it is. It is a privelege granted to you by the broadcasting networks.
<hr /></blockquote>Only in a system where public freedom has been sold to corporations. If someone broadcasts a signal into a living room, the resident has every right to receive it and do whatever they want with it. There is no contract or just law that can say otherwise.

PvK

JayBdey

December 3rd, 2003, 03:47 AM

I believe you could change the way it sorts, but it would not be simple to do.

Even if it is illegal to record things from the radio, no one cares, and when no one follows a law it becomes meaningless. Like filesharing, yes it's illegal but everyone does it anyway.

Fyron

December 3rd, 2003, 04:07 AM

No... everyone does not do it anyways. There are many people that do not do it. Bandwagon arguments are just silly. Everyone smokes, so why don't you? Everyone is jumping off that cliff, so why don't you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

tesco samoa

December 3rd, 2003, 04:23 AM

PVK in a few countries copy right holders are being paid for broadcasts of songs per broadcast. I know it is like that in Canada and UK , South Korea and most of Europe. I do not know about the rest of the world. In Canada this cost is covered by commericals and/or taxes. SOCAN is the 'group' that monitors and collects these for canadian Groups. How do I know. I receive a royalty check for 1.98 every month http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif My first one was for .04 cents...

In Canada And in the USA it is legal to record off the radio. As it is legal to record tv. This is for home use. And is called Fair something or other ... Yea... I am tired... So I cannot remember ... google it...

Where did the Illegal to fast forward past ads come from... guess it was edited out or something..

And the privelege is granted to the Media Corperations to broadcast. Not that it is a privelege granted by the broadcast networks. Read the laws on this. They are changing yes. Not for the good. But towards the errosion of Public domain and less control by the government.

Laws should reflect a society not those few who control it.

I always wondered what would happen if we actually lived in a capitalist society. I think I will never see it. But I am starting to think that I will see Marx's dream come true in the West. This scares me very much. As I do not wish to see the colaspe of the west. But in the long run I think the world will be better off. The west is becoming worse than Europe was a few hundred years ago. And I do think it will collaspe. Greed for 2% can only be sustained for so long...

PvK

December 3rd, 2003, 05:15 AM

A good side point. USA(sic) musicians can also sign up to get their pile of pennies a month for broadcasts tracked by the organization (I think it does so worldwide), but I didn't want to drag that detail into the "IP violations = theft" discussion, which is already pretty far afield.

I didn't think Fryon could possibly be right about it being illegal to record radio... or TV, or whatever. No doubt the media cartel would love to make it so, though.

There was someone writing about it being supposedly illegal in some of the states in the USA to record TV and then skip the ads by fast-forwarding over them, but I think maybe I was mistaken that it was earlier in this thread.

However, it is just another step along the line Fryon has been towing of copying anything as theft - see the article HERE (http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1113) titled "SKIPPING COMMERCIALS IS STEALING ACCORDING TO TURNER CEO"!

I tend to think we're headed more toward Orwell's 1984.

PvK

Fyron

December 3rd, 2003, 05:40 AM

No... it is illegal to record off of the radio in the US. TV recording is ok for home use only. But radio is not...

However, it is just another step along the line Fryon has been towing of copying anything as theft Umm... copying things is quite legal, as long as you keep the copies to yourself. I never said that copying musics, movies, etc. was illegal. As long as you have a legal license to own the material, you can make as many copies for personal use as you want. I said that acquiring copies made by someone else for something that you have no legal license to use is theft.

[ December 03, 2003, 03:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

JayBdey

December 3rd, 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No... everyone does not do it anyways. There are many people that do not do it. Bandwagon arguments are just silly. Everyone smokes, so why don't you? Everyone is jumping off that cliff, so why don't you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Maybe because jumping of a cliff would hurt a lot?

Um yeah, it is OK because everyone does it because there is strength in numbers. As long as there are millions of us we're safe because they can't get all of us, and wont try for very long.

Copying songs does NOT equal theft by law, it is copyright infringement.

Copyright Infringement DOES NOT EQUAL theft

It is a different crime. This is the legal definition. I don't care what YOU think it is. The legal definition is the only one that counts.

I have a Tivo and skip ads all the time, is this illegal too because the shows are not being compensated because I'm not watching their ad garbage? The way you look at it, anything could be considered stealing if you put the right spin on it.

Fyron

December 3rd, 2003, 07:46 AM

A lot of people committing morally wrong actions does not make it any less of a wrong thing to do...

Once again, you are conjuring up this whole legal angle to avoid agreeing to the fact that "copyright infringement" is stealing... You are the only person that was ever talking about technical legal issues. Of course they are different crimes. Noone ever said they were not.

The legal definition is the only one that counts. That is quite wrong.

I have a Tivo and skip ads all the time, is this illegal too because the shows are not being compensated because I'm not watching their ad garbage? The way you look at it, anything could be considered stealing if you put the right spin on it. I never said it was illegal... that was PvK. There is nothing wrong with presenting the other side of an issue in a debate. In fact, it is often a very good idea. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The way I look at it, only actions that are stealing can be considered stealing.

[ December 03, 2003, 05:52: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Roanon

December 3rd, 2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The way I look at it, only actions that are stealing can be considered stealing. Means: only actions that *you* consider stealing are stealing? Fyron, there *are* other opinions than yours, and they are at least equally right or wrong http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Well I'm not the first to think of the words "self-centered" and "stubborn" I guess http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ December 03, 2003, 06:03: Message edited by: Roanon ]

Fyron

December 3rd, 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Roanon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The way I look at it, only actions that are stealing can be considered stealing. Means: only actions that *you* consider stealing are stealing? Fyron, there *are* other opinions than yours, and they are at least equally right or wrong http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Well I'm not the first to think of the words "self-centered" and "stubborn" I guess http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>Umm... that had absolutely nothing to do with "my opinion". It was a simple statement of the fact that only an action that is stealing is stealing... I fail to see what it could possibly have to do with opinion. Of course, what is stealing could in some convuluted way have to do with opinion, but what I said had no opinion in it at all.

Of course, if people would actually look at the definition of "steal" that I posted, they would see that a lot of these actions do indeed qualify as stealing... nothing to do with any opinion, but with cold hard fact of the language. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif "steal" is a much broader term than some people think it is.

If the majority of people are commiting morally wrong acts. Perhaps it is not morally wrong anymore. So if the majority of people start killing their neighbor, does killing your neighbor stop being morally wrong? If a majority start killing off their firstborn child, does that make killing off your firstborn no longer morally wrong? (not talking about abortion here, talking about wacking the little tike some time after birth)

[ December 03, 2003, 14:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tesco samoa

December 3rd, 2003, 05:52 PM

Mongolian society from the 300's to the 1500's believed in plundering there fallen foe's Taking what they conquered as theirs.

In that society that was what was right.

If we lived in a society where we had to give up our first born to sacifice then that would be right. Those who hid their first born would be wrong. As per that societies laws and customs.

To answer your question. If the majority of people stated to kill their neighbours in your society right now. It would be wrong according to the laws and customs of your society. But if the trend continued within your country I am sure that some of the laws and customs would change to reflect this change in society. So then it would not be morally wrong according to that society. Remeber 50 years ago in your country it was morally wrong for a black person to sit in the front of a bus. It was morally wrong for an Irish person to apply to many jobs in the Toronto area.
But luckly society changed and the laws changed to reflect these changes in society. Which drives the morals of a society. It is based on the laws and customs of that society at that time.

geoschmo

December 3rd, 2003, 06:18 PM

That's true Tesco. Although I hope to never live in a soceity where such things are acceptable.

This whole issue is one of semantics. Copyright infringment or theft. It may not fit a strict legal definition of theft, but it's still taking what's not yours, and it's still wrong as far as our laws and soceity have determined to this point. Will that change in the future if people continue to ignore it? Perhaps. But that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal now.

There were many brave souls in the 60's that fought against the discriminatory laws and practices of the day. Rosa Parks decided it wasn't right that she had to sit in the back of the bus, so she did something about it. We can applaud her courage now, but she paid a price for her disobedience then. As many others did, and some worse then her.

I guess the question is do you honestly feel that you have a right to copy and share music, software and other IP type stuff? Enough so that you feel it worth taking a stand and suffering the consequences? Do you feel that by taking a stand and freely "sharing" software and music someday you will be considered as a freedom fighter and be admired for your courage? If you do, then do what you feel is right. But be prepared to face the consequences so that future generations can share freely.

Or do you maybe just want to get the stuff without paying for it?

Fyron

December 3rd, 2003, 08:07 PM

Moral relativism only goes so far...

geoschmo

December 3rd, 2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Moral relativism only goes so far... I agree with you, but the discussion seems to have come around to a question of what is legal. Legality and morality are two different things. Often they are complimentary, sometimes contradictory, but they are never the same.

Roanon

December 4th, 2003, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Moral relativism only goes so far... How far? There is no thing as an absolute moral. So there is a lot of relativsm possible...
It all depends on your personal point of view, your history, your culture, etc. Uncritically regarding the point you are currently at as the absolute and objective center of "correct" morals usually leads to intolerance, oppression and worse. History is full of examples where those who thought they had "god" or the "right" or the "moral" on their side committed the most heinous and foul crimes.

Phoenix-D

December 4th, 2003, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Umm... copying things is quite legal, as long as you keep the copies to yourself. I never said that copying musics, movies, etc. was illegal. As long as you have a legal license to own the material, you can make as many copies for personal use as you want. I said that acquiring copies made by someone else for something that you have no legal license to use is theft. [/QUOTE]

Actually, it is illegal to make a copy of many games now. See, you're allowed to make a copy for personl use, but to do that you need to break the copy protection. And gee, breaking the copy protection is illegal..thanks to the DMCA.

And no, copyright violation is not theft. Not from a legal point of view and I don't think from an ethical point of view. In some cases its not as bad (ex: downloading songs you already own, but aren't in a format you can access) in some cases it is worse (ex: downloading a file then sharing it. Theft occurs once, this can spread exponentially)

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 01:32 AM

Let's try this again...

Definition of "steal" from www.m-w.com: (http://www.m-w.com:)
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive senses
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard Look at 1a. It would imply that downloading a song you have no right to own is stealing it. "to take or appropriate without right or leave" directly applies, as you have no right to take that music, as you did not pay for it. "with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" also applies because you have no right to make use of or to keep the illegal copies of the song. How this does not add up to theft (which is just stealing in a different word) is incomprehensible to me.

[ December 03, 2003, 23:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

JayBdey

December 4th, 2003, 01:43 AM

Again, only the legal definition counts.

I don't care what m-w says.

The law says it is a different crime.

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 01:45 AM

Stop trying to force the language into rigidly defined "crimes". It is counter-productive and is the only way you can possibly be correct. "Steal" is a much more general term than as used in the technical details of the criminal code. There is a whole world out there beyond the criminal code.

[ December 03, 2003, 23:46: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

tesco samoa

December 4th, 2003, 02:07 AM

If the majority of people are commiting morally wrong acts. Perhaps it is not morally wrong anymore. Morals are based on what a society sees as what is right. Laws would change to reflect that. THen it would no longer be morally wrong to that society.

For tv adds and skipping look no further than dvd's and for recording content. Look no further than the pile of crap delaying digital tv... and the converters....

Some country in Europe has the law state that you can make a back up for 7 family memebers... Or something like that. Clarification from some one from that country please.

PS I would rather have a 'self-centered" and 'stubborn' fyron than a quiet passive fyron. Shows he passionate about what he thinks. Which in turn makes me think and I can tell it makes others think. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Always remember you have the choice to agree or disagree.

Gryphin

December 4th, 2003, 02:11 AM

I Feel
You can debate the �legality� of this till the internet stops working.
A person can get away with this indefinitely.

Isn�t the real issue here ethics ?

JayBdey

December 4th, 2003, 02:34 AM

Then lets petition to remove the crime of copyright infringement since it's the same as stealing right?

Stealing would refer to taking something and thus depriving the owner of the use of it. Copyright Infringement is the crime of making a copy of something. It doesn�t deprive the owner of use of the original, but it is taking their software/music with out you owning the license.

It's a small difference, but enough to merit a different crime.

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 02:36 AM

Again with the crime definitions... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Both the crimes of theft and copyright infringement involve stealing something. They are different forms of stealing, but they are still stealing. Refer back to my post with the definition of "steal". Stealing a loaf of bread gets you charged with petty theft. Stealing a car gets you charged with grand theft auto. Both crimes are different, yet both involve stealing. Just like stealing ideas is still stealing them.

Phoenix-D

December 4th, 2003, 02:40 AM

Fyron, I said legal and ethical, not dictionary. Stop posting that, I saw it the first time and it isn't relevent.

Loser

December 4th, 2003, 02:41 AM

http://us.st5.yimg.com/store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1766_7392161 (http://www.despair.com/persistence.html)

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Fyron, I said legal and ethical, not dictionary. Stop posting that, I saw it the first time and it isn't relevent. Ethically it is stealing. It is taking what you have no right to take, which comes directly from the dictionary definition. Performing such an action is not morally correct.

Legally it is stealing. Copyright infringement is stealing "ideas" and such that are not your own. Again, the dictionary definition makes this clear. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

tesco samoa

December 4th, 2003, 02:52 AM

Fyron you have to rember the spirit of law is written so there is 100% understandment between all parties involved. If we took the M-W 1a) to court we would have a few problems

1) I download something and realise I downloaded something and delete it. I did not break 1a) As there was no intent to keep or make use of wrongfully. There are many different ways of taking this apart in a court of law.

Say the person who created the said item wishes for people to listen to it in what ever format they want and does not care about being paid. But they also to happen to have this release done by Blue Note in 1973 and it is not availble for purchase since it is backcat. I download it and I am still breaking your 1a) and what they want in the laws now.

THis is the beauty of Law and the theory behind it. And why it should lag behind society current thoughts. As it must stand the test of time. And when it needs to be changed. It must be changed exactly in a way that benifits what came before it and what benfits its society that it helps support. Not quite in the spirit of Hart and Holmes. but along those lines...

Geo good point.

But the question would be what are they trying to stand up to and make a point for. If it is just because they wish to listen to some songs here and there or is it because they wish to debate the structure of copyright and the errosion of public content or something else. Public content benifits a society. As societies can on benifit from the free flow of culture and ideas. It helps with the evolution of society and its art.

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 03:00 AM

I will stand by my assessment that JayBdey was just trying to divert the actual conversation so he would not have to admit that he is wrong about only the law mattering and the fact that "steal" is a very narrow term according to him.

Legality did not enter the discussion until rather late, after he failed to convince me of his wrong point of view.

Of course laws have to be narrowly defined. I never said they didn't. But, laws are not what was being discussed until the diVersion, and I still take issue with the assessment that only what is legal matters.

Roanon

December 4th, 2003, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Fyron, I said legal and ethical, not dictionary. Stop posting that, I saw it the first time and it isn't relevent. How can you tell him to stop posting when he is the National Stubbornness Advisor? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Stop contradicting him, he will just ignore your opinion and everything else you post, and repeat his point of view over and over and over and over and over and over and over and again till we all are bored to death...

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 03:04 AM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif My point of view happens to be supported by the facts.

Roanon

December 4th, 2003, 03:14 AM

Sure, Fyron, you are the bellybutton of the universe, and no opinion or point of view beside yours has any right of existance.

Can anyone *please* close or lock this thread? Or install a conveniently configurable ignore function?

Hmm, all this makes me rethink my own opinion, if it concurs with Fyrons, MUST it be wrong? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ December 04, 2003, 01:16: Message edited by: Roanon ]

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 03:17 AM

Ok... whatever. I fail to see why I am being singled out for this harrassment when there are others in this very thread being more stubborn than I am. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif The definition of "steal" is not an opinion. That, and I never said nor implied that other points of view have no right of existence. Not all points of view are correct though.

[ December 04, 2003, 01:19: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Phoenix-D

December 4th, 2003, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I will stand by my assessment that JayBdey was just trying to divert the actual conversation so he would not have to admit that he is wrong about only the law mattering and the fact that "steal" is a very narrow term according to him.Fyron..he admited it was wrong in the FIRST POST he brought the "not stealing" idea up in.

EDIT: word-level typo.

[ December 04, 2003, 01:36: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

Phoenix-D

December 4th, 2003, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by JayBdey:
Ah but there is where your argument is flawed.

Stealing would require me to take something, thus depriving the owner of use of the original. If I steal a car the car is gone, the owner no longer has it. But If I download some software, someone who payed for it doesn't loose their ability to use it. I have only made a copy. One more copy exists, at no cost to the maker (admittedly, at no profit either)

I could steal a painting, or I could take a picture of the painting. The painting is still there, but I also have use of it with my copy of it.

It is wrong, but it is not stealing.

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I will stand by my assessment that JayBdey was just trying to divert the actual conversation so he would not have to admit that he is wrong about only the law mattering and the fact that "steal" is a very narrow term according to him.Fyron..he admited it was wrong in the FIRST POST he brought the "not stealing" idea up in.

EDIT: word-level typo. <hr /></blockquote>Umm... I did not say that he was unwilling to admit that stealing was wrong.

Phoenix-D

December 4th, 2003, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok... whatever. I fail to see why I am being singled out for this harrassment when there are others in this very thread being more stubborn than I am. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif The definition of "steal" is not an opinion.Neither is the legal use of the term..which is what I was arguing about. Especially since you can commit copyright infringement without doing anything that could possibly be said to be stealing; borrowing an out of print book from a library and making a photocopy of one page, for example.

PvK

December 4th, 2003, 03:40 AM

One objection to this is that "property" should not include "intellectual property", a modern abomination championed by media cartels. Whether an idea, song, or any piece of infomation, even the digital representation of a motion picture or a computer program, can ever be "property", is an open legal and societal question. The mainstream and corporate western convention may have said so recently, but technology is tending to make it impossible, impractical, and extremely counter-productive, to view as property. Once our society finds a better way to reward creators and allows free distribution of published content, we can stop jealously hoarding our music, literature, software, ideas, etc., and take full advantage of them.

I offer the usual quote from Thomas Jefferson on this topic:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possess the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in-nature, be a subject of property."PvK

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Let's try this again...

Definition of "steal" from www.m-w.com: (http://www.m-w.com:)
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> 1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive senses
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard Look at 1a. It would imply that downloading a song you have no right to own is stealing it. "to take or appropriate without right or leave" directly applies, as you have no right to take that music, as you did not pay for it. "with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" also applies because you have no right to make use of or to keep the illegal copies of the song. How this does not add up to theft (which is just stealing in a different word) is incomprehensible to me. <hr /></blockquote>

[ December 04, 2003, 01:41: Message edited by: PvK ]

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JayBdey:

Stealing would require me to take something, thus depriving the owner of use of the original. If I steal a car the car is gone, the owner no longer has it. But If I download some software, someone who payed for it doesn't loose their ability to use it. I have only made a copy. One more copy exists, at no cost to the maker (admittedly, at no profit either) [/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Thus, his narrow definition of stealing that is contradicted by the real definitions of stealing...

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok... whatever. I fail to see why I am being singled out for this harrassment when there are others in this very thread being more stubborn than I am. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif The definition of "steal" is not an opinion.Neither is the legal use of the term..which is what I was arguing about. Especially since you can commit copyright infringement without doing anything that could possibly be said to be stealing; borrowing an out of print book from a library and making a photocopy of one page, for example. <hr /></blockquote>Copyright infringement was only being used in reference to stealing music and software by downloading them... which was claimed to not being stealing them.

PvK

December 4th, 2003, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Thus, his narrow definition of stealing that is contradicted by the real definitions of stealing... The definition of "stealing" isn't so much the question as the definition of "property" is. See my previous post.

PvK

Phoenix-D

December 4th, 2003, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
[qb] One objection to this is that "property" should not include "intellectual property", a modern abomination championed by media cartels. Whether an idea, song, or any piece of infomation, even the digital representation of a motion picture or a computer program, can ever be "property", is an open legal and societal question. The mainstream and corporate western convention may have said so recently, but technology is tending to make it impossible, impractical, and extremely counter-productive, to view as property. Once our society finds a better way to reward creators and allows free distribution of published content, we can stop jealously hoarding our music, literature, software, ideas, etc., and take full advantage of them.QB]Like what, PvK? I as of current see no reliable way to ensure creators get paid for their work other than to not allow access unless they ARE paid.

EDIT: oh, and Fryon I misread that. Sorry.

[ December 04, 2003, 01:45: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
One objection to this is that "property" should not include "intellectual property", a modern abomination championed by media cartels. Whether an idea, song, or any piece of infomation, even the digital representation of a motion picture or a computer program, can ever be "property", is an open legal and societal question. The mainstream and corporate western convention may have said so recently, but technology is tending to make it impossible, impractical, and extremely counter-productive, to view as property. Once our society finds a better way to reward creators and allows free distribution of published content, we can stop jealously hoarding our music, literature, software, ideas, etc., and take full advantage of them.Which would require the copyright owners relinquishing their rights to their creations to the public domain, which makes downloading them for free no longer an issue of theft at all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It still does not change the fact that music etc. can be copyrighted, thus making acquiring it illegally be stealing it.

PvK

December 4th, 2003, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
...
Like what, PvK? I as of current see no reliable way to ensure creators get paid for their work other than to not allow access unless they ARE paid.
... We've had at least one other long thread about my suggestions for other ways, which were accepted by some, and balked at by others who started calling me a communist or a taxmonger or whatever. There are many possible approaches which will be more or less accepted by people with different views. So far in this thread, we're still bogged down trying to stiffle the cries that corporations should be allowed to publish data in copyable form yet we should still enforce any unauthorised act with that data. Maybe we should dig up the old thread on suggestions before dumping them on this thread as well.

PvK

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
The definition of "stealing" isn't so much the question as the definition of "property" is. See my previous post.

PvK We seemed to be operating under the assumption that it qualified as property, so then the issue became whether acquiring wrongfully was stealing it or not. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But since music, etc. is property under current models...

Now, whether they should be "property" or not is an entirely different debate. One that I believe you will see I am inclined to agree with you on (at least partially)...

Phoenix-D

December 4th, 2003, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
...
Like what, PvK? I as of current see no reliable way to ensure creators get paid for their work other than to not allow access unless they ARE paid.
... We've had at least one other long thread about my suggestions for other ways, which were accepted by some, and balked at by others who started calling me a communist or a taxmonger or whatever. There are many possible approaches which will be more or less accepted by people with different views. So far in this thread, we're still bogged down trying to stiffle the cries that corporations should be allowed to publish data in copyable form yet we should still enforce any unauthorised act with that data. Maybe we should dig up the old thread on suggestions before dumping them on this thread as well.

PvK <hr /></blockquote>Allowed to publish data in copyable form? There IS no form that will let you access the data and still not copy it!

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
So far in this thread, we're still bogged down trying to stiffle the cries that corporations should be allowed to publish data in copyable form yet we should still enforce any unauthorised act with that data.Yet another interesting way to read Posts... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Corporations are irrelvant to the discussion at hand. Pirating SE4 is still quite possibly stealing it, even though MM and Shrapnel hardly qualify as corporations.

PvK

December 4th, 2003, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
...Which would require the copyright owners relinquishing their rights to their creations to the public domain, which makes downloading them for free no longer an issue of theft at all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Exactly.

It still does not change the fact that music etc. can be copyrighted, thus making acquiring it illegally be stealing it. Sure it does. A new concept akin to copyright could give you the exclusive right to keep it to yourself and not publish it, or to offer it in ways that people can't copy, if you can pull that off somehow without recourse to lawsuits, and to be recognized and rewarded by society for your creation, by mechanics to be agreed upon. But it absolutely changes your right to claim "stealing", because it would no longer considered "property" by anyone. Once you published something in a trivially copiable form, others would have the right to share it around, and you'd be happy, because more people would appreciate your work, and the new mechanism would give you more fame and fortune.

PvK

[ December 04, 2003, 02:01: Message edited by: PvK ]

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 04:03 AM

All this cross-posting makes me want to repeat myself... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I will instead just let you catch up PvK. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

PvK

December 4th, 2003, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
... Corporations are irrelvant to the discussion at hand. ... I'd say they're relevant in several ways, particularly as I said, as the champions of the concept of "intellectual property". Huge corporations and their bought politicians are the main group behind the movement to try to control and restrict every act of copying data, because they are the dragons sitting on the treasure horde, and as long as they can pull it off, they can charge admission to see the treasure they sit on, even though they didn't create it.

PvK

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 04:11 AM

Thanks for mutating the discussion into a whole new direction PvK. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Phoenix-D

December 4th, 2003, 04:23 AM

On the XP search issue: I don't like the "new and improved" XP search dialog; it is at the very least clumsy.

Fortunately, it can be turned back to the earlier style. Just by using the UI you can get it to a slightly better form, or you can download Tweak UI and turn it back to the Win2000 form (which I presume is also the 98 form, testing now)

PvK

December 4th, 2003, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:
... So far in this thread, we're still bogged down trying to stiffle the cries that corporations should be allowed to publish data in copyable form yet we should still enforce any unauthorised act with that data. ... Allowed to publish data in copyable form? There IS no form that will let you access the data and still not copy it! <hr /></blockquote>There used to be plenty, because it didn't use to be possible to trivially copy practically any media. That's how the old system made a little sense. Nowadays, it's becoming increasingly easy to copy and distribute data of most kinds, and so that business model is making less and less sense.

There are still some reasonable ways to control content for sale though, some old and some new. For example, performances where the audience comes to a venue, as can be reasonably asked as a condition of attendance, to not make copies. Movie in theaters, plays, concerts, etc. New examples are systems which require a server and generate a unique experience, such as an MMORPG, or a value-added opponent matching service. If publishers are really interested in this sort of business model, they could possibly build in server components to traditionally client-side games, although that could be kind of silly. Imagine for instance that you got the GUI for SE4, but you had to connect to servers at Malfador.com to play the game for more than a few turns.

However, I think most of this kind of business model is a bit silly, particularly in light of the ease of duplication. Society should embrace and benefit from it, and not start inventing perverse ways to try to preserve the old ways when they no longer make any technological sense. There are serious ninnies out there who think the answer is to illegalize devices that can copy data without checking every byte for a copyright stamp, etc. Sounds like from the article I posted a link to, that the CEO of Turner wouldn't mind having your TV watch you to see if you're not watching during TV commericals. Did he read 1984 and think "Mindscreen... hmm... good idea!"???

My suggestion is that we need to find new ways to award creation as a society, that don't involve the absurd and wicked task of trying to control everyone's every data transaction, and that allow us to share all published data freely, and more directly reward the actual creators, and not the bloated leech media cartels.

PvK

Fyron

December 4th, 2003, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:
The definition of "stealing" isn't so much the question as the definition of "property" is. See my previous post.

PvK We seemed to be operating under the assumption that it qualified as property, so then the issue became whether acquiring wrongfully was stealing it or not. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But since music, etc. is property under current models...

Now, whether they should be "property" or not is an entirely different debate. One that I believe you will see I am inclined to agree with you on (at least partially)... <hr /></blockquote>I'll move this to the top in case you missed it in all the cross-posting PvK. It also applies to a later post you made. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

deccan

December 4th, 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
My suggestion is that we need to find new ways to award creation as a society, that don't involve the absurd and wicked task of trying to control everyone's every data transaction, and that allow us to share all published data freely, and more directly reward the actual creators, and not the bloated leech media cartels.Do you have any ideas for business models that might work on these principles? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And oh, if I do make a pile of money from this, don't expect me to give you a cent. Freedom of information and all that, you know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ December 04, 2003, 08:43: Message edited by: deccan ]

narf poit chez BOOM

December 4th, 2003, 05:40 PM

all that runs up against the problem of needing someone to sort through the slush piles. that's what publisher's do.

PvK

December 5th, 2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
... We seemed to be operating under the assumption that it qualified as property, so then the issue became whether acquiring wrongfully was stealing it or not. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But since music, etc. is property under current models...

Now, whether they should be "property" or not is an entirely different debate. One that I believe you will see I am inclined to agree with you on (at least partially)... Ah good. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif In a discussion limited to accepting Intellectual Property, recent laws, and the rest of the media cartel agenda, I'd be inclined (compelled?) to at least partly agree with what you were writing, too.

PvK

PvK

December 5th, 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PvK:
My suggestion is that we need to find new ways to award creation as a society, that don't involve the absurd and wicked task of trying to control everyone's every data transaction, and that allow us to share all published data freely, and more directly reward the actual creators, and not the bloated leech media cartels.Do you have any ideas for business models that might work on these principles? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>Yes, several of which I've described before. I think the greatest difficulty is not designing a working system, but it is getting society to accept the ideas and to adopt a new system. Ingrained concepts, selfishness, and skepticism from the old/existing culture are one obstacle. The cartels and megacorps with extremely vested interests, and their owned media and politicians are another formidable obstacle. It may require several baby steps to eventually evolve a really good system. Hopefully, the immense advantage in efficiency and the impracticality of doing otherwise, and maybe even the good elements of human nature, will pull events in that direction. File sharing is one example of this (even if one agrees that within the old/current system, it's "wrong"), and even the media corps are starting to react as well, although they're still also trying to figure out how they can control and exploit the bijeezus out of everything, as is their sad nature.

And oh, if I do make a pile of money from this, don't expect me to give you a cent. Freedom of information and all that, you know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif If you make a ton of money ensuring that creative people can do their thing and live at least a modest but secure lifestyle, I'll be happy.
Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
all that runs up against the problem of needing someone to sort through the slush piles. that's what publisher's do. Publishers in the old/current system do more than that. I expect a new system could do most or all of the reduced requirements of a new system with computers.

PvK