Linux users march on city hall (my title: Che Guevara to be raised from the dead)

CNET News.com ^ | August 15, 2002, 3:53 PM PT | Lisa M. Bowman

[Don Joe]

What a joke. You still sound like a rabid commie, sheesh!

[dheretic]

You are buying restricted rights to use it.

Only in states that have contract law set up like that. It would be quite easy for a state to declare that vendors cannot force a contract on customers thus nullfying EULAs.

[dheretic]

What a joke. You still sound like a rabid commie, sheesh!

Keep on posting, I enjoy the feel of vindication.....

[Don Joe]

"This coming from a Bush supporter, a republican president whose peacetime spending has outstripped Clinton's. Go be a compassionate conservative with someone else's rights."

This coming from a marxist-anarchist-Libertarian. Go do information-wants-to-be-free with someone else's property.

[Don Joe]

Or more appropriately, do it with your own property.

I'll never cease to be amazed at the amount of "compassion" and "generosity" and "liberty" you lefties like to impose using other people's property.

[RWG]

The article makes no comment about redistribution of wealth. It did indicate that programmers were concerned about their ability to write software. Did we read the same article?

[Don Joe]

"I enjoy the feel of vindication....."

Call it what you will, but as long as you continue to stroke it, it'll always be your "special purpose". I bet you're glad you found it, eh?

[Don Joe]

"The article makes no comment about redistribution of wealth. It did indicate that programmers were concerned about their ability to write software. Did we read the same article?"

Tres drole'!

Kinda like second story men complaining about the proliferation of anti-pick locksets and how it infringes their right to pick locks, while saying nothing about their activites once the locks are picked.

They "were concerned about their ability to write software", were they?

How touching.

It reminds me of the plight of women who are "were concerned about their ability to exercize their 'right to choose.'"

Divorce the word from its context, and it sounds so bloody innocent, doesn't it.

[Bush2000]

This license states that you are not buying a product, something that you posess, but a service. This service comes with a license that says m$ can do whatever they want with your computer and data, and you have no recourse if they botch something up, deliberate or not. This flys in the face of consumer protection and consumer rights.

First, check your "S" key: It seems to be transposed with the "$" key. Second, you can think of software as a kind of interactive cable TV. You don't "own" it in any sense. It's a service. The data and your interactions are clearly covered by the service agreement. Your rights as a consumer are simple: If you don't like it, don't buy. It's that simple. The terms are clear, if you bother to read the license. Illiteracy, ignorance, or apathy isn't an excuse not to pay attention to the terms: They are revealed.

Software should be treated as any other intellectual property, such as a book, where one can do anything they want with it except reproduce it.

Except that's the fundamental problem: Your freeloading bretheren want everything for free and, therefore, are reproducing it. That's the crux of the problem and the reason that the license exists.

However, I have never be swindled by a con man who sells $5,000 dance lessons to elderly old women but I still believe that consumers should be protected from them.

The terms are spelled out in black and white. They're legally binding. If that still isn't enough for you, you might want to try "Hooked on Phonics".

The difference between you and me is that I don't believe corporate ownership and manipulation of a product beyond the point of sale is good for the consumer.

There are far more differences than that, bub. If software were like any other physical consumer good (like a book or a chair or a loaf of braid), I'd agree. But it's not. It can be readily reproduced. It can be readily distributed in a way that physical goods can't. Therefore, it needs special protections to prevent a*holes from stealing it.

I don't see that corporate ownership of everything is any better than the government ownership of everything.

I never said it was. But I do have a problem with anyone -- particularly government -- confiscating private property.

I believe that if you buy a product, you own it, you just don't have the right to reproduce and sell it.

You do own the software media.

Our IP system has worked fine for two hundred years with a balance of ownership and fair use, heck we even have a library of congress that contains an enormous amount of information. Will we ever see software stored there? The current extortion of the laws regarding digital media only hinders innovation through legislation and only aids corporations and not the consumer.

This may come as a surprise but software is a relatively new concept. The founders foresaw the protection of intellectual property -- ideas, as it were -- under the blanket of the Constitution. Software represents a bag of ideas. Companies have to be protected. Or else people will abuse it. That you can't accept that fact is particularly galling. You don't mind daytripping with a blindfold on, saying that people shouldn't have the right to reproduce software, but all the while ignoring the fact that eliminating restrictions would create precisely that result. Stunning.

[Bush2000]

This coming from a Bush supporter, a republican president whose peacetime spending has outstripped Clinton's. Go be a compassionate conservative with someone else's rights.

I support Bush because the alternative is far worse. Shouldn't you be out protesting against corporate oppression alongside the other anarchists?

[Bush2000]

It never occurs to people like you that the fight of Capitalism versus Communism is irrelevant.

Irrelevant, that is, until all of your wealth and property is liberated in the interest of "the people".

It has always been a fight between liberalism and authoritarianism. Most people lean toward the latter, not the former. Your corporation-worship puts you squarely into the latter.

Your definition puts you in the former camp, right alongside Al Gore and Ralph Nader and Abbie Hoffman and Che Guevara. Nice cesspool you have there.

Every institution in society must be held to the same ethical standards. Corporations exist because the states allow them to. They are a way of getting around the idea of the owners *gasp* actually being accountable for the actions of their companies.

You see a handful of bigtime losers on the TV and you paint the entire spectrum with the same broad brush. Grow up. The vast majority of corporate officers are ethical. The US has the highest per capita population of lawyers in the world. It's ridiculous. What do you suppose those lawyers are doing? Simple: They're suing somebody. If corporate officers weren't shielded from lawsuits, nobody would bother to form companies. We would be levelled to an agrarian society. The only ones with any money would be the government and the lawyers. Not you. Not me.

[Bush2000]

Only in states that have contract law set up like that. It would be quite easy for a state to declare that vendors cannot force a contract on customers thus nullfying EULAs.

Our constitutional process at work. Which goes to show you: If you want to change something, do it within the framework of the law. Not by outright theft.

[Bush2000]

The article makes no comment about redistribution of wealth. It did indicate that programmers were concerned about their ability to write software. Did we read the same article?

Puh-lease. Don't play dumb. This event is a peasant rebellion. It's all about money -- money spent on commercial solutions -- which open source fanatics want redirected to open source.

[dheretic]

This coming from a marxist-anarchist-Libertarian. Go do information-wants-to-be-free with someone else's property.

Heh. That is like saying "This coming from a Christian-Wiccan-Islamic Jihadist." You do realize that you strung together 3 philosophies that have virtually nothing in common.

Funny thing you should mock my views of property rights. National security aside, I don't believe in eminent domain. Nor do I believe that assets should be siezeable until after conviction. Nor do I believe in the income tax, capital gains tax, property taxes and virtually all other taxes. Oh and I do not support any restrictions on manufacturing goods that could be used for crimes by miscreants. That means I support the unregulated production of personal firearms (read M16, not RPG-launcher), DVD recorders and similar items.

[dheretic]

Irrelevant, that is, until all of your wealth and property is liberated in the interest of "the people"

Or you are sued into bankrupcy by an industry trade group trying to use a corrupt law to supress your first amendment right to publish any writing or artistic work that does not endanger the national security of the United States or cause a clear and present danger to public safety. Copyright infringement does neither. It neither puts DoD personnel in danger nor does it present a real physical/psychological danger to the public. Publishing a paper on the flaws of a DRM system is thus perfectly constitutional.

Your definition puts you in the former camp, right alongside Al Gore and Ralph Nader and Abbie Hoffman and Che Guevara. Nice cesspool you have there.

Conservatism (n): Liberalism minus any principles and a deep seated hatred of reason as means of living as an alternative to faith.

If corporate officers weren't shielded from lawsuits, nobody would bother to form companies

I'm not talking about lawsuits. I'm talking about the ability of the government to disband a corporation that has a serious track record of criminal behavior. I'm not talking about Microsoft here, I'm talking about not for profits like the RIAA, BSA and MPAA that act as mercenaries for public corporations like Microsoft, Sony, et al. Of course you cannot easily get rid of a for-profit corporation nothing short of hiring a mercenary army to overthrow foreign governments could justify that. However the state supreme courts should have the authority to kill groups like the **AA in the blink of an eye if they feel that they are fundamentally abusing the law.

When a government becomes abusive of the rights of the people, they have a right to alter or abolish it, but what if a corporation or union becomes abusive of their rights? Should the people have to bend over and take it when faced with SLAPPs (for those who don't know, SLAPP means "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation")?

The US is too soft on high profile criminals. Bill Clinton and Ken Lay should both face the death penalty for their crimes against the people and the public liberty. Obviously the war crimes against our people and the people of countless nations justify the execution of the former, but IMO, the latter should face at least life for his crimes against the stockholders of his company and its workers.

[Don Joe]

Heh. That is like saying "This coming from a Christian-Wiccan-Islamic Jihadist." You do realize that you strung together 3 philosophies that have virtually nothing in common.

Doesn't speak very well for you if that's how you come across, tovarish.

Funny thing you should mock my views of property rights. National security aside, I don't believe in eminent domain. Nor do I believe that assets should be siezeable until after conviction. Nor do I believe in the income tax, capital gains tax, property taxes and virtually all other taxes. Oh and I do not support any restrictions on manufacturing goods that could be used for crimes by miscreants. That means I support the unregulated production of personal firearms (read M16, not RPG-launcher), DVD recorders and similar items.

You don't believe in MY property rights, tovarish. You see, my "widgits" are made of bits and letters of the alphabet. "IP" -- anathema to the marxistanarchistlibertarianoids.

[Don Joe]

"you can think of software as a kind of interactive cable TV. You don't 'own' it in any sense. It's a service."

Whaddya mean I can't keep this taxi? Look, bub, I paid you! Now get out of MY cab before I call in the Peepulz Libberterrarianoid Army!

[Don Joe]

"Only in states that have contract law set up like that. It would be quite easy for a state to declare that vendors cannot force a contract on customers thus nullfying EULAs."

"Our constitutional process at work. Which goes to show you: If you want to change something, do it within the framework of the law. Not by outright theft."

Somehow I doubt the Libberoids would enjoy life in their Perfect World, where shrink-wrap licenses where prohibited.

I know I wouldn't be happy "buying" a box of software only to discover that inside the box is a sheet of paper with a contract printed on it, which instructed me to read, sign (two witnesses and notary), and return via registered mail, and after the executed contract was received, my CD would be mailed out.

[Don Joe]

"Or you are sued into bankrupcy by an industry trade group trying to use a corrupt law to supress your first amendment right to publish any writing or artistic work that does not endanger the national security of the United States or cause a clear and present danger to public safety. Copyright infringement does neither."

This is sad.

Are you aware, child, that if your next-door neighbor steals your car, rapes your mother, or shoots your father, he has not "endanger[ed] the national security of the United States or cause a clear and present danger to public safety"?

Remember, I didn't say he became a career criminal. He merely went after your family.

Before you puke out some more ejecta, remember that the courts have driven a broad distinction between "public" and individual matters, i.e., the police have a mission to maintain public safety in general, but are not obligated to protect my safety. There have been test cases (i.e., the woman in NY who was killed after she was turned down for a CCW -- her mother sued, and lost).

I am really sad that so-called conservatives (which is what libberoids masquerade as in order to avoid being kicked off a conservative forum) would take such a *clearly* anarchist/marxist posture WRT property rights.

[dheretic]

Are you aware, child, that if your next-door neighbor steals your car, rapes your mother, or shoots your father, he has not "endanger[ed] the national security of the United States or cause a clear and present danger to public safety"?

What part of "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech." You only make yourself look like an idiot by bringing violent crime into a debate about free speech. Violent crime is not speech, nor is it art. Writing an essay on the flaws and potential ways to exploit said flaws of a DRM system is a form of speech. If it neither endangers national security nor puts the public at risk of harm then it is protected by the first amendment. In a society that actually follows its Constitution, my right to publish the flaws in your software and potential means (ie not code, but maybe an algorithm) to exploit them outweigh your IP protection.