Linux Zealot learns a valuable lesson.

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Linux Zealot learns a valuable lesson.

Author:

dmg

Topic:

Linux Zealot

Posted:

Dec 21, 2001

Comments:

Like any hacker worth his salt, Linux Zealot has a whole heap of rationalizations and justifications for his anti-social behaviour.

In this strip, Zealot learns a valuable lesson from a 'security professional' that he is sure to remember for some time to come.

More stories by

dmg

	America wages psychological war on Iranian soccer team
	Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
	Reparation and reconcilation - the time is right.
	Is it time women covered up at work ?
	The Malaise of the Middle Classes.
	Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
	European Union eclipses US in games market - what next ?
	SUV's Bigger and Better - The Ultimate American Dream
	Sports- The direct cause of Racism in America today.
	US in recession. What should we do about it ?
	Marion 'Suge' Knight to be released - Young white rap fans in danger ?
	Building your dream PC. What the experts don't tell you.
	How to increase the lifespan of your PC.
	The Democratization of Status. Rap music is to blame.
	World Trade Center - Capitalizing on terrorist atrocities.
	You are not Irish, They are not Republicans. Please stop sending them money and guns.
	A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
	Anthrax - Please, PLEASE change your name.
	The US Constitution - past its sell-by date ?
	Anthrax - Some factual corrections, but no apology.
	Some help for all you aspiring Santas.
	Fuck Cunt Shit Piss Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits
	DMG's spicy chilli-lemon chicken with toasted cashews
	The Semiotics of modern 'Popular' music - Symbolism and Discourse
	Linux Zealot - The Internet's most controversial cartoon superhero
	My Vacation Dilemma. How can I be an ethical tourist ?
	Internet Licenses: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
	Linux Zealot sticks to his guns.
	Great Britain must keep the pound.
	Torture - it's inevitable, so lets do it right !
	The supposedly civilized Europeans. (A WARNING TO ALL AMERICANS)
	Sigmund Freud, Linux and The Narcissism of Minor Difference
	America - Land of the free ? Or home of the DEPRAVED ?
	British engineering genius and the Homosexualist Socialist conspiracy
	Linux Zealot attempts to get laid.
	Which is the best way to predict the future ?
	God Bless you your Majesty, adequacy.org salutes you!
	The History of Rap.
	Theater Review: My Fair Lady
	Linux Zealot contributes to the Open Source Community
	Linux Zealot vs the RIAA.
	A Guide to the United Kingdom for Americans.

This is Linux Zealot, panel 1

This is Linux Zealot, panel 2

This is Linux Zealot, panel 3

This is Linux Zealot, panel 4

	Dear Sir, (none / 0) (#1)
	by Martino Cortez PhD on Fri Dec 21st, 2001 at 08:36:57 PM PST

	Bravo. This is an excellent example of post-modern artwork. You have a good use of color, and a fine control over your details. What is this linux you speak of? Is this the same as lunix, which Mr. Gibbons spoke of in his hacker article? -- Dr Martino Cortez, PhD CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation Copyright © 2002, Martino Cortez.

	I would expect you to know this. (none / 0) (#4)
	by dmg on Fri Dec 21st, 2001 at 09:56:20 PM PST

	Linux is an illegal hackers "operating system" characterized by the fact that most of its users steal it rather than buying a distro from a store. All you need to know is that its users are frequently sociopaths or North Korean style authoritarian communists. Steer well clear if you value your sanity. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Uh, yeah... (none / 0) (#23)
	by Vanndroid on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 12:50:35 PM PST

	It isn't stealing if the person consents. That is, you can't steal a linux distro if the people selling it say you can have it for free.

	Stallman and ESR (none / 0) (#25)
	by Vanndroid on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 01:02:01 PM PST

	They're certainly far out there, and I'd say most Linux users do not agree with them. It is unfair to say that two extremes represent the majority of the Linux community. Torvalds himself doesn't agree with them, as he has said many times. It's the same as saying Osama Bin Laden is representative of every Muslim in the world -- hardly a fair judgement.

	Hear! Hear! (2.50 / 2) (#29)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 03:16:33 PM PST

	And the US is an orwellian totalitarian state clandestinely run by a few corporations, that brainwash you with double-speak like "software piracy" and "digital rights management". Don't EVER go there or you will get arrested and thrown in jail just because you happen to be a scientist. Come on, people, until linux is ruled illegal it isn't. Labelling does not help the situation. I thought slashdot sucks but this bitterness makes slashdot look like a friendly place.

	Hackers are the only Orwellian people around here. (3.50 / 2) (#30)
	by MessiahWWKD on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 03:56:41 PM PST

	How is the United States an Orwellian state when you are changing the definition of scientist to mean hacker/cracker? Sklyarov came to the United States to attempt to sell his software that exists only to crack the encryption scheme of Adobe eBooks. Defending people like him and Kevin Mitnick put you on the same level as NAMBLA. As for piracy and digital rights management, if you object to them, then do not use closed source software or listen to non-free music. Why do you hackers always claim that open source and free music is superior to closed source and music distributed by the RIAA, when most of the open source software that exists is made to illegally distribute these "inferior" products to other hackers? Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	The satire flew right over you head. (none / 0) (#34)
	by chuckx on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 06:54:50 PM PST

	How is the United States an Orwellian state when you are changing the definition of scientist to mean hacker/cracker? The whole first paragraph of the comment you were responding to is a sarcastic reponse to the claim that Linux is illegal. He was not seriously claiming that the US is an Orwellian state. One would think that regulars to adequacy.org would be familiar with the concept of irony. Linux is not illegal. If one wants to try and claim it is, it would be nice to at least try to back up the claim with evidence. Regardless, the point of the post was that mislabeling things, whether it be the US or Linux, detracts from fruitful discussion. It's a shame that the editorial quality of the technical articles is so poor (just refer to the hundreds of posts pointing out factual errors, while ignoring the ignorant flaming that's usually included). It's sometimes not apparent whether the intent here is fruitful discussion or mindless "hacker" bashing (which is no better than any of the mindless bashing most here seemed to have run into at slashdot and kuro5hin). - chuckx -

	Piracy (none / 0) (#32)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 04:09:24 PM PST

	The term "software piracy" was invented by software pirates, not companies or the government. Perhaps when you hackers stop trying to revise history to bring it into line with your conspiracy theories, the rest of the world might start receiving your ideas with a little less derision. After all, "If you control the past, you control the present" is a (somewhat poorly remembered) Orwellian attitude, is it not?

	Another timeless masterpiece (none / 0) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 11:48:23 AM PST

	Observing this comic, we see several traits of Linux Zealot revealed from this poorly-drawn comic. Note the lack of a blanket, suggesting that Linux Zealot spends so much time with Linux that he rarely sleeps. The bed appears to be similar to that found in state prisons, suggesting that his run in with the law from last episode has indeed landed him in prison. Indeed, the burglar (who may be FBI Guy in disguise from last episode) bears a striped uniform similar to those found in federal prisons. Why the burglar is holding a gun is unexplained, but one may assume that Linux Zealot has been assigned to a minimum-security prison due to the lax computer prosecution laws in the United States. This comic is a perfect example of the poor security mindset that is typical of Linux Zealots, because they assume that Linux is immune to viruses. Contrast this to the superiority of other operating systems such as Windows XP which has had only one security hole reported so far. Sir, I must praise you for your work on exposing the typical mindset of a Linux Zealot. I look forward to future installations of the guy who just LOVES Open-Source software.

	Well worth the wait (5.00 / 1) (#2)
	by osm on Fri Dec 21st, 2001 at 08:59:23 PM PST

	Thank God for Adequacy, where such controversial social commentary can be free(as in love)ly aired.

	One Big Fraud (5.00 / 1) (#5)
	by imadork on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 06:47:45 AM PST

	Now I know that the Linux Zealot is a fraud. No true "Linux Zealot" would ever put his home directory in a place that wasn't fully firewalled off from the outside world. After all, that "Security Professional" had to get in somehow. Two possibilities exist. First, he got in through a back door. While the Zealot may like that sort of thing, he would never leave himself vulnerable to a stranger.... Or, he got in through a Window(tm). As we all know, Microsoft owns all Windows(tm), so a true Zealot would never have them in his system. Lastly, the security professional would have used the front door. Any Linux Zealot worth his salt would be using PGP keys, which no "security professional" could copy at the hardware store, even if he tried.

	do you not mean his anti-socialIST behavior? (none / 0) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 11:43:19 AM PST

	Storry, but I am a sticker for usage and spelling. Fouler's, I believe, proscribes the use of anti-socialIST when referring to one who behaves in an obnoxious way such as through fanatically advocationing a shareware operating system. Thus, if you are writing about Torvaldez and his mignons, the more accurate term would surely be "antisocialist" behaviour--or even better, though perhaps in this I am showing my old-fashionity, "antisocialistic".

	hi (none / 0) (#14)
	by cp on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 01:03:07 AM PST

	Fowler would surely be more upset that you'd misspelled his name, were he not dead.

	Is Linux Zealot a hypocrite? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
	by iat on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 12:21:15 PM PST

	In his previous adventures, I have observed that our protagonist, Mr Zealot, shows a dislike for Microsoft's commercial software. It is almost certain that one of Linux Zealot's main gripes with Microsoft is that they charge money for their software, which contrasts with his belief that all software should be free (and if it's not free, it ought to be pirated). However, this latest installment of the Internet's Favourite Cartoon (TM) clearly shows Zealot dreaming of creating his own Linux distribution and charging $79.99 for it! Surely this contradicts Linux Zealot's most strongly held beliefs? I demand an explanation! Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	In a word: (none / 0) (#10)
	by tkatchev on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 02:49:46 PM PST

	Yes. -- Peace and much love...

	selling out (none / 0) (#15)
	by philipm on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 04:10:56 AM PST

	Why is it that when Linux Zealots sell out, they try to sell Linux SW? If I was going to sell out, I would sell out big time and compromise all my principles. A fresh start if you will. --philipm

	You raise a very good point. (none / 0) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 05:01:47 AM PST

	Instead of contaminating what used to be a nice communist operating system with their moneygrabbing capitalist schemes, they should either write a new operating system from scratch, or become Microsoft partners.

	But... (none / 0) (#18)
	by tkatchev on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 05:29:44 AM PST

	But, if they had any useful skill they can sell, then they wouldn't be software gks, don't you think? Which is why they have to resort to selling stuff that they got for free in the first place[1]. The Russian language has a wonderful word -- "halyava" -- it means stuff that you recieve through absolutely no effort of your own, either physical or moral. I think it perfectly describes the life philosophy of the software gk. -- Peace and much love...

	yes, but... (none / 0) (#33)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 06:19:41 PM PST

	"absolutely no effort of your own, either physical or moral" except that software g**k is probably an outspoken exponent of free software and hence is making the requisite moral contribution

	Oh come on. This is simple. (none / 0) (#19)
	by em on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 08:08:14 AM PST

	Linux Zealot supports Free Open Software Source. He is willing to pay for it-- this is what Linux Zealot calls to vote with your wallet, and takes to be the basis of democracy. He doesn't do it all the time, however, but what did you expect from Linux Zealot, consistency? However, he has not paid a single cent for his collection of true American proprietary software (every single popular computer game and the OS needed to run them), given that he will simply never be B1ll Gate'z bitch. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	As a linux user... (none / 0) (#24)
	by Vanndroid on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 12:55:46 PM PST

	No, my gripe isn't that Microsoft charges money for its software. It's that it doesn't do what I want it to do, or doesn't behave how I want it to behave. I don't like Microsoft's software, so I don't use it. It's hardly more complicated than that.

	egotist (none / 0) (#36)
	by philipm on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 07:24:56 PM PST

	Your mother should have spanked you more. ....Well someone had to say it. --philipm

	If you say so. (none / 0) (#38)
	by Vanndroid on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 08:58:12 PM PST

	You think I am a egotist because I want control over my property? Well, whatever.

	Really? (none / 0) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 12:08:16 PM PST

	No, my gripe isn't that Microsoft charges money for its software. It's that it doesn't do what I want it to do, or doesn't behave how I want it to behave. That's a strange thing to say about computing. I thought you crackers knew how to program or at least had some facility with technical literature. Me, I wish Linux were less fugly and more useful but, you know, my days are full so Microsoft will have to do, which it does.

	Crackers? (none / 0) (#49)
	by Vanndroid on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 12:55:48 PM PST

	I'm not a cracker, nor am I a hacker. I do know how to program, but whatever. I like linux because it does what I want it to do without getting in my way. MS software tends to decide what is best for me, which is one of my biggest problems with its software. It doesn't bother me that other people use it, but it just isn't satisfactory for me.

	AMEN (none / 0) (#61)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Dec 26th, 2001 at 09:45:14 PM PST

	you said it, i only use linux because i prefer it not because it is free

	dmg: a question about the comic (3.50 / 2) (#9)
	by Miles O Toole on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 02:29:17 PM PST

	In the first two frames of the comic (not including the title frame), there is a bird in the window of Linux Zealot's bedroom. I can't quite determine what type of bird it is, nor what it is perched upon. Can you clear this up for me? *- Miles O'Toole* 12 Galaxies Guiltied to an Adequate Rocket Society

	Do you know nothing about the animal kingdom? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
	by iat on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 04:00:23 PM PST

	The bird in question is quite obviously an owl. This is evident from the facts that the bird has two ears (owls are the only birds to have ears) and that it is night time, as can be seen from the presence of the moon (owls are the only nocturnal birds). If you knew anything about the animal kingdom you would also be aware that the owl is famed for its wisdom, and the towering presence of the noble and wise old owl in the first two frames contrasts delightfully with the youthful foolishness of Linux Zealot. To answer your other question, the owl is perched upon a tree. It is unlikely that an electricity company would have gained planning permission to site a pylon so close to a house (unless Linux Zealot illegally built a house next to a pylon without purchasing the land or obtaining planning permission, which wouldn't surprise me considering the Linux community's lack of respect for the law. However, if Linux Zealot were to build his own house by his misguided do-it-yourself open source ethic, it is likely that his house would be unfinished, unstable and prone to falling over, none of which are apparent in this cartoon), so the only other possibility is that the owl is in a tree. HTH. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	The issues are not so clear (4.50 / 2) (#12)
	by Miles O Toole on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 04:16:29 PM PST

	Considering Linux Zealot's primary obsession, I think it is safe to assume that LZ sleeps during the day and "works" at night. If he awoke during the middle of his slumber, then the crescent-shaped object in the window is probably the Sun during a partial eclipse. Further, the two buds on the top of the bird's head don't look like owl "ears". Perhaps it is a penguin? *- Miles O'Toole* 12 Galaxies Guiltied to an Adequate Rocket Society

	That is ridiculous conjecture! (5.00 / 2) (#13)
	by iat on Sat Dec 22nd, 2001 at 04:33:26 PM PST

	Further, the two buds on the top of the bird's head don't look like owl "ears". Perhaps it is a penguin? It is ridiculous to speculate that the bird is a penguin, since penguins don't have ears. And, as any child in kindergarten will tell you, penguins are flightless, so how would the Penguin reach the branch of a tree? It is possible that Linux Zealot named the penguin "Tux" and nailed it into the tree as some sort of mascot (adding animal cruelty to his already long list of crimes), but it is far more likely that the bird is an owl. On a related note, I tried to search for information on Penguins on Google and Google's #1 link is to Lunix.org. As you can imagine, I was horrified to discover this. The Lunix community has subverted Google, so that innocent children may be drawn into the evil world of Lunix when researching the animal kingdom (presumably in kindergarten, when they learn that penguins are flightless), thus ensuring a new generation of Linux Zealots. This evil must be stopped! Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	Allow me to set the record straight. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
	by dmg on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 04:59:20 AM PST

	The owl is the least known and most mysterious of owls - the nocturnal and strongly arboreal long eared owl. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	That link has got to be a fake. (none / 0) (#21)
	by RobotSlave on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 11:54:51 AM PST

	I mean, come on. "Horn coot?" "Hornie hoolet?" Who do they think they're fooling? With names like that, the owl would have to represent Lunix Zealot's estranged sexuality. Or perhaps his tendency to willfully butcher the English language. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	penguins have ears (none / 0) (#44)
	by philipm on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 06:18:57 AM PST

	penguins have ears - it could be a penguin http://www.penguin.net.nz/faq/faq.html --philipm

	NOT a penguin. (none / 0) (#45)
	by dmg on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 07:29:44 AM PST

	I assure you it is NOT a penguin. For a start, how would it have gotten into a tree ? time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Maybe it's a puffin. (none / 0) (#48)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 12:15:00 PM PST

	They look like penguins but they are svelte, move quickly and can fly. Just like Microsoft. If MS were an exclusive little hackers club (motto: Uninterested people stay out! We mean it") and needed a stuffed animal for a mascot, I mean.

	there is a difference between stealing and hacking (1.00 / 2) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 11:03:29 AM PST

	the "burgler" in this childish cartoon is STEALING property, hackers do not steal anything, crackers don't even steal anything, if you write a program, and i crack it, you still have the program. if i buy a car, and you steal it, i no longer have a car.

	You hackers make me sick. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
	by dmg on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 12:10:48 PM PST

	if you write a program, and i crack it, you still have the program. Sure I do, but what I don't have is the ability to feed my kids, because you ripped off my code instead of paying for it as the law of the land DEMANDS. It is CLEARLY theft, and you can call yourself a cracker, or a hacker it really is all the same to me. The fact remains that when you copy your warez you are COMMITING THEFT, and you are A CRIMINAL. I cannot explain it to you much more clearly than that, except but to ask you, who will develop software when you and your warez-d00d buddies have bankrupted every software company in the world with your sleazy criminal acts ? Also, in English it is common practice to capitalise the word 'I' when referring to oneself. But then as a self described ignorant software-stealing hacker I expect even this simple rule is beyond you. Or perhaps this is another of societies rules that you are too '1337 to obey. Grow up, and stop commiting crimes. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	So.. (none / 0) (#26)
	by chuckx on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 01:20:52 PM PST

	...you ripped off my code instead of paying for it as the law of the land DEMANDS. If I were to download and use software that the creators are giving away for free, would that make me a criminal? I've been called a "linux zealot" and a "hacker" many times in this forum. However, I don't have any proprietary software on my computers that I haven't paid for. I use operating systems and software that I've either bought or were given to me. You hackers make me sick. What is it about me that makes you sick? - chuckx -

	Work != pay (none / 0) (#28)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 02:56:18 PM PST

	I think the right question to ask is how "am I going to feed my kids by writing code". Let's get real. Nobody _owes_ you anything. It seems that there is a lot of "programmers" out there with a few years of experience feel they are _entitled_ to be paid for the code they write. I believe that is utter nonsense. I could decide to make money on making abstract paintings, but if nobody is interested in buying them, should I go around and cry that people are stealing my bread, because I _think_ somebody sneaked into my home and took a few photos of my paintings? Now, let me point out that closed-source code has not yet enriched the society so why should society pay you for something that will probably be _utterly_ _lost_ anyway in a few years when your company goes bankrupt?

	More Lies from Hackers (5.00 / 1) (#31)
	by MessiahWWKD on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 03:58:05 PM PST

	Let's get real. Nobody _owes_ you anything. It seems that there is a lot of "programmers" out there with a few years of experience feel they are _entitled_ to be paid for the code they write. I believe that is utter nonsense. I could decide to make money on making abstract paintings, but if nobody is interested in buying them, should I go around and cry that people are stealing my bread, because I _think_ somebody sneaked into my home and took a few photos of my paintings? If I write code and you use it, then I am entitled to be paid for writing the code that you are using, even if you feel all property should be public. Nobody is forcing you to use the products that companies sell, but if you are going to use them. There is nothing noble about you "warez-d00ds." Now, let me point out that closed-source code has not yet enriched the society so why should society pay you for something that will probably be _utterly_ _lost_ anyway in a few years when your company goes bankrupt? It is funny how hackers always try to change the past. If it wasn't for software such as Microsoft the Internet would not be as content-enriched as it is today. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	hmm (none / 0) (#37)
	by PotatoError on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 08:09:38 PM PST

	"If I write code and you use it, then I am entitled to be paid for writing the code that you are using" The problem is that we're not talking about anything physical. Just 1's and 0's. All I do is copy them. I purchased my hard drive and therefore I own all the 1's and 0's on it. I can change them to whatever I want. Yes, even to mimic someone elses program. Once their program is copied on it, I can change its 1's and 0's how I want. Noone else owns this harddrive but me so why should they tell me what I can and cant do with it? If I change the 1's and 0's to turn off a 30 day trial period on some software so what? They are my 1's and 0's and whatever they make up is also now mine. Thats the theoretical arguement. My main one is: Im not paying because its SO simple to crack stuff that it just seems like wasted money. Come on, if you found a really simple way to use pay phones without paying would you really continue to put coins in everytime? I usually pay for software that I appreciate. I pay for windows and big software. But if someone has a copy of something I want then its so much easier to copy it there and then rather than go out again and buy another copy. The arguement that software companies will go out of business because of this is rubbish. Businesses ALL pay full licenses for software as they get seriously fined if anything is pirated on their computers (even without their knowledge). Quite a lot of software is overpriced anyway. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	I demand your credit card information (none / 0) (#39)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 09:18:03 PM PST

	After all, it's just ones and zeroes. Information wants to be free. Cough up.

	im not saying that (none / 0) (#53)
	by PotatoError on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 05:09:47 PM PST

	im not saying all information should be free...no no. Im all for encryption of private stuff. All im saying is if someone distributes software they shouldnt cry when it is copied and accept that its natural progression for that happening. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Nice double standard (5.00 / 1) (#54)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 05:28:49 PM PST

	Information that you don't want to give out to all and sundry isn't just ones and zeroes, but information that corporations sell, which you want, is. Perhaps you should just abandon the rationalisations and admit to yourself that you have less moral rectitude than a piranha fish crossed with a nazi. The license agreement which you see on every software purchase you make or steal is quite clear on this. You are given access to those ones and zeroes under the provision that you have compensated the company who created the information, and that you do not show the information to anyone else. To continue the credit card analogy, passing around information that does not truly belong to you is a bit like a restaurant waiter passing your credit card details on to his friends, because it's just copying, not stealing, by your definition, not mine. Accepting this information makes you as culpable as the person who gave it to you, as you would be if you willingly accepted peoples stolen credit card details.

	Yes I see your point (none / 0) (#66)
	by PotatoError on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 05:51:48 PM PST

	But isnt the real crime using that information to steal money from someones account? The fact that the law made it illegal to 'copy' the card details of other people is just a method to prevent the real crime of robbery. In software copying there is no parallel. By copying software there is no way I can use its information to cause any malice to the author, therefore the law against copying has no reason. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Full of It (5.00 / 1) (#69)
	by MessiahWWKD on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 06:39:47 PM PST

	But isnt the real crime using that information to steal money from someones account? The fact that the law made it illegal to 'copy' the card details of other people is just a method to prevent the real crime of robbery. What a hypocrite. When it's someone else's property, it's all 1's and 0's, but when it comes to your money, that's different eh? In software copying there is no parallel. By copying software there is no way I can use its information to cause any malice to the author, therefore the law against copying has no reason. Ever hear of counterfeiting? That's a parallel with copying software. Counterfeiters take nothing away from real cash, just like pirated software takes nothing away from the real software. Therefore, I am positive that you also completely condone counterfeiting, even if, like pirating software, it leads to a fucked up economy. Please, go back to Russia. You'd like it there around your Mafia buddies. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Nope (none / 0) (#71)
	by PotatoError on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 09:00:06 AM PST

	Note hypocritical at all. Money isnt 1's and 0's. You know that. There is only a finite ammount in the world. Its also a strange resource which only holds as much value as society believes it does. The paper form - cash - has as much real value as a piece of paper. But its the believed value that makes a 5 cent piece of paper worth $10. But copying $10 notes, increases the ammount them in the population and the more of something there is, the more worthless it becomes (unlike data). So copying a physically worthless note does actually lower the believed worth of that note and the believed worth of the original note. So it isnt plain copying but a form of division where the more you copy, the less worth all the notes have. Thats why its illegal. Copying 1's and 0's has no effect on the original copy's value or the copy's value and is completely different from counterfeiting. So like I said - there is no parallel to software copying. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	You live in denial. (none / 0) (#75)
	by MessiahWWKD on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 10:21:33 AM PST

	There is only a finite ammount in the world. Its also a strange resource which only holds as much value as society believes it does. Anybody with a brain knows that the value of money is intangible, like software. Money is not some divine object given to us by the Lord. The value of money is made by man. But copying $10 notes, increases the ammount them in the population and the more of something there is, the more worthless it becomes (unlike data). So copying a physically worthless note does actually lower the believed worth of that note and the believed worth of the original note. So it isnt plain copying but a form of division where the more you copy, the less worth all the notes have. Thats why its illegal. Exactly. By freely giving something away, money and software lose value. Why do you think companies that are based upon open source always end up bankrupt? So like I said - there is no parallel to software copying. You're forgetting about rape. It's what your people did to the Irish for centuries. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	what? (none / 0) (#78)
	by PotatoError on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 06:14:45 PM PST

	The value of money isnt intangible at all. Anyone knows that the whole idea of currency is based on the faith of the people. People used to trade by barter - exchanging goods with material value for other goods with material value. Common currency was introduced because bartering sucks. Some king sets the standard by saying 'Each of these copper coins shall now be worth a sheep' and it goes from there. Then people used these copper coins, with no material value, to purchase goods which did have material value. The system only stays working as long as the seller of the goods believes that they can also buy goods themselves using the copper coins. If people didnt have faith in the symbolism value of the coins then they would refuse to accept them and the whole system would collapse. The same is still true nowadays with cash, cheques and numbers on computers representing your bank balance. None of them have any material value - only a symbolic value. If people started believing that $10 notes were worthless then their worth would suddenly go from symbolic to material which would make them the same value as a piece of paper. "By freely giving something away, money and software lose value." Thats just stupid. So if 10,000 people made copies of a piece of software, then you expect its shop prices to go down? Better stop microsoft to stop selling windows or they'll just end up making it worthless. Software has no material value. Whether I copy a string of binary once or 1000 times it does nothing for the value of it - unlike if I had done it with cash..or raping which you seem worryingly fond of. The author is only going to recieve about 40% of the shop floor price anyway. I dont want to pay for boxes and shops and their staff - I only want the software. Would you accept its ok in this case, if I sent 40% of the retail price to the author and then copied the software? "Why do you think companies that are based upon open source always end up bankrupt?" Name a case. To be open source software it isnt allowed to be sold and therefore its stupid to ever dream of basing a company on this idea. The vast majority of open source software is written for nothing (and yes all their children starve of course). If people like me are only after something for nothing then why did I pay for my copy of Linux rather than download it legally for free? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Umm (none / 0) (#67)
	by PotatoError on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 05:55:51 PM PST

	"Information that you don't want to give out to all and sundry isn't just ones and zeroes, but information that corporations sell, which you want, is. Perhaps you should just abandon the rationalisations and admit to yourself that you have less moral rectitude than a piranha fish crossed with a nazi." Its all 1's and 0's. But if someone doesnt want it copied or distributed they shouldnt publicise it in the first place. Ie, if you distribute something then you shouldnt be suprised if people pass it around. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Debunking more hogwash. (none / 0) (#40)
	by MessiahWWKD on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 09:38:11 PM PST

	The problem is that we're not talking about anything physical. Just 1's and 0's. All I do is copy them... I see your point. Using your logic, plagiarism, posting your personal information including your parents' credit card numbers, posting child pornography on my server, and violating the GPL are all right because it's just 1's and 0's and nobody has the right to tell me what to do with my hard drive. My main one is: Im not paying because its SO simple to crack stuff that it just seems like wasted money. Why pay for a car when it's easy to steal somebody else's car? Come on, if you found a really simple way to use pay phones without paying would you really continue to put coins in everytime? Yes. Unlike you and the rest of the hackers out there, I am not an unethical Irish hating bastard. The arguement that software companies will go out of business because of this is rubbish. Businesses ALL pay full licenses for software as they get seriously fined if anything is pirated on their computers (even without their knowledge). Quite a lot of software is overpriced anyway. You are truly ignorant to believe that businesses actually spend their money on games and pornography that you hackers love to pirate. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Okay.. (none / 0) (#50)
	by PotatoError on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 04:46:44 PM PST

	I see your points but I still dont think data is commercially viable product anyway. What if someone patented air and charged everyone for it? and then complained when some people werent owning up for how much they used. Yes thats unviable and so is software and data (such as music). Why cant the record industry just give up and die? I already mentioned that I pay for stuff though. But I choose what I want to pay for. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	More Hogwash (5.00 / 1) (#56)
	by MessiahWWKD on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 10:29:55 PM PST

	What if someone patented air and charged everyone for it? This hypothetical statement is ridiculous. What if the same people speaking out against copyright decided that women should be public property too? I'm sure you rapists would love rape being legal. After all, any woman who doesn't submit to their rapist is merely a slut who wants to be paid for what should be free. Yes, that is ridiculous as is the idea that all information should be free and belong to the Free Software Foundation except for your personal information, hypocrite. Why cant the record industry just give up and die? It seems that, like most hackers, you merely have a grudge against the free market and feel that piracy is the only way to compete, since none of you have any talent. Do us all a favor and die. The world doesn't need another rabid Irish hating hacker with thoughts similar to that of a rapist. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	ownership (none / 0) (#63)
	by PotatoError on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 05:34:40 PM PST

	at the end of the day, what can you do against piracy? face it, nothing they can invent can prevent it or make it more difficult. Therefore it will always exist. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Finally! (none / 0) (#72)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 10:15:56 AM PST

	Why did you bother us with post after post of specious rationalizing if it's only a matter of being able to get away with it? This is why arguing with your ilk is so maddening -- you're unsophisticated idiots.

	Re: Finally! (none / 0) (#73)
	by PotatoError on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 08:31:52 PM PST

	my reasoning is solid and as ive explained it all throughly on another thread i couldnt be bothered to write it again here. You lot are the idiots for trying to compare copying with shoplifting or rape or whatever weird associations you lot make. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	double pah (none / 0) (#74)
	by nathan on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 07:51:22 AM PST

	Your "reasoning" is that, since you weren't going to buy it anyway, and the harm done by you personally copying it is minor, you're justififed in copying it. That is not reasoning. That, chum, is rationalization. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	ok then (none / 0) (#77)
	by PotatoError on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 05:27:48 PM PST

	sure. and the harm done by personally copying it isnt minor - its none existant. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	you keep telling yourself that (none / 0) (#82)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 10:47:01 AM PST

	he harm done by personally copying it isnt minor - its none existant Like Linux profits. Fortunately, there is an alternative based on an author's continued expectation that society will continue to honor the mechanism of copyright, just as it honors a multitude of similiar expectations that makes other commerce possible. This is why the author creates. This is also why the author is paid, can buy food, clothing and shelter. But apparently you are a society of one; and one who wishes to impose his incoherent vision on everyone's reluctant head under the delusion that it makes some kind of absolute, formidably correct good sense. This is why you are a pitiable, insufferable buffoon.

	you are wrong (none / 0) (#84)
	by PotatoError on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 12:19:05 PM PST

	Linux arent after profits. Linux isnt a corperation like Microsoft you moron. What system do most web servers use - Unix NOT windows NT. Im not paying $40 for a piece of software - I want to use it first to see its any good. And screw all those demos and crap that dont allow you to test most parts of the program. If I think its worthy of $40 and the authors have done good work I will then buy it. But if I decide they havent then I simply wont use that software again obviously. THis happens with so many games I copy. Most look good at first but turn up to be poor, unfinished works. I dont want to pay for these but if I cant copy to see new software I cant find the good stuff from the masses of crap out there. You seem to have been brainwashed by the "its stealing no matter what the reason is" mob. All the money poured into the properganda against 'piracy'. God, even the word to describe it is anti. Although to be honest pirating just makes me think on ships on the sea with men with beards and hooks going ARHH! Everyone I know who is into computing, pirates software but not in an exploitive way. An exploitive way would be to sell copies or edit and sell them. I mean many of these are the people who will be trying to sell it one day so im sure they will understand when people copy their own software in the future. Noone cares anyway - programmers themselves are usually paid on contract - they dont care if a few people copy it. Its the big corperations and finance people belonging to companies who are like "we must start a propaganda campain against copying to force everyone to buy our software to get more money" and every normal person is like "who cares?". Then you have companies using pirating as an excuse to put their software prices up. They dont realise that these 'pirates' havent actually stolen money from them. If pirating didnt exist - which is what they say they want, then they wouldnt get a penny more than they do now because the pirates simply wouldnt bother buying the software. At the end of the day I expect many people have pirated much of the software I have bought. Its all supported in the end not like your nightmare senario where everyone copies it and companies shut down. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	The Amiga (none / 0) (#86)
	by UncleBungle on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 05:33:17 PM PST

	The success of the Commodore Amiga was founded entirely on piracy. Without piracy, Commodore would never have shipped as many systems as they did. If you go back and read LSD's "Grapevine" now, they had a LOT of articles on piracy with all the claims of doom and gloom. Idiot companies saying "In 5 years there won't be a software industry if piracy continues." What a crock of shit. Electronic Arts, arguably one of the most proflic software houses on Earth, made BILLIONS last year. Piracy is harming the industry? Quit smoking crack. <P>The truth is, casual piracy harms nobody. All the idiots on here comparing it to rape (make that comparison in front of a woman who has been raped and see what their reaction is. You DESERVE to have your fucking head kicked in for remarks like that) and car theft, they are bogus analogies. You pricks seem incapable of distinguishing the severity. Say person X downloads a warezd version of "Ninja Slash Part 712". Person X plays this game and does one of two things. It either sucks, and they dump it, having not wasted their money and paid for shit. Or they like it. Sure, they may not buy the original of this, but the inevitable sequel they probably will. I know a lot of software pirates. EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITH A COMPUTER THAT I KNOW pirates software. These range from teenagers right the way through to pensioners. The fact is software is too expensive, and the majority of it is total shit, and as the software companies seem to only be interested in money, rather than quality product, why the fuck should we pay them our hard earned money to be fleeced. Comparing piracy to stealing a car is stupid. As has been pointed out many times, but, for some reason, hasn't sunk into your thick little heads, someone steals my car (PLEASE!) I no longer have a car. They now do. Property has been removed from my person and is now in someone elses posession. If I "steal" software, that means lifting it from the store and taking it home. THAT is stealing. I have deprived the store of a boxed version of the game, and prevented them from a cash transaction for said game. If I COPY the game, said store still has the boxed version to sell. No theft has occured. If I photocopy an advert from a magazine, by all your stupid definitions, that would be piracy. I've made a copy. "But it's still theft". The piracy that DOES cause problems is the mass pirating operations. THOSE damage the industry, the casual user at home who downloads a warezed version of Quake 3 is doing as much damage as someone trying to bring down a 747 by throwing feathers at it. If you don't pirate, well, I'm happy for you, and quite honestly believe you're full of shit. If you claim to have never pirated ANYTHING, then you're a fucking liar. If you've so much as recorded 1 second off the radio, by your definition, you are stealing and are a pirate. If you've ever photocopied ANYTHING that you didn't have explicit permission to photocopy, you are stealing and are a pirate. If you have ever taped anything off of television, you are stealing and are a pirate. Sleep well, hypocrites. --- If you can read this, I'm happy for you.

	Pirates tend to be violent it seems. (none / 0) (#88)
	by MessiahWWKD on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 12:12:13 AM PST

	The truth is, casual piracy harms nobody. All the idiots on here comparing it to rape (make that comparison in front of a woman who has been raped and see what their reaction is. You DESERVE to have your fucking head kicked in for remarks like that) and car theft, they are bogus analogies. You pricks seem incapable of distinguishing the severity. Violent, are we? How is it a bogus analogy? Just like a rapist takes nothing from a woman except time and honor, so does a pirate do to a programmer. I'm not saying they are on the same level. Of course rape is worse than piracy, but pirates use the same logic as rapists to justify their actions. If you don't pirate, well, I'm happy for you, and quite honestly believe you're full of shit. If you claim to have never pirated ANYTHING, then you're a fucking liar. If you've so much as recorded 1 second off the radio, by your definition, you are stealing and are a pirate. If you've ever photocopied ANYTHING that you didn't have explicit permission to photocopy, you are stealing and are a pirate. If you have ever taped anything off of television, you are stealing and are a pirate. Pirates always resort to lies. Recording songs off the radio is not piracy nor is photocopying anything piracy because we are legally allowed to do those things (although if you do photocopy something that isn't legal, Kinko's will politely state that one cannot do it, and unlike pirates, nobody will complain and start raping women as protest against copyright). Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Are you serious Messiah? (none / 0) (#89)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 06:19:29 PM PST

	I pray that you are joking. If you only knew how completely idiotic you sound to rational people, you would be ashamed. If you are joking, then you are wasting some people's time, not that it is worth much. I think you are way off in your idea of what a hacker is. There are hackers (many are good, honest people who are curious and very talented) and there are crackers (a;sp talented and curious, but can be malicious). My definitions are not accurate because they are changing all the time. But they are closer to correct than what you are using them for. Listen, if it weren't for people you would term hackers, then you wouldn't be using this computer right now. Microsoft itself is widely known to have stolen other programmer's work early on (MS-DOS...they paid for it, but they lied and tried to pass it off as their own).

	YAAD (none / 0) (#90)
	by MessiahWWKD on Thu Jan 3rd, 2002 at 07:18:32 PM PST

	My definitions are not accurate because they are changing all the time. I don't care how terrorists define "hacker." Microsoft itself is widely known to have stolen other programmer's work early on (MS-DOS...they paid for it, but they lied and tried to pass it off as their own). If you only knew how retarded you sound by stating that. If they paid for it, how in God's name have they stolen a programmer's work? Oh I see. In your Orwellian world, when somebody pays to obtain something, it is stealing, while when somebody pirates software, it isn't. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	Econ 101 (5.00 / 1) (#58)
	by em on Wed Dec 26th, 2001 at 03:56:48 PM PST

	What if someone patented air and charged everyone for it? Air is not an invention, nor does it require any raw materials, labor or capital to produce. Furthermore there is no scarcity of air. Every piece of software is an invention. While, unlike most products, it's raw material requirements are almost negligible, it does require considerable amounts of capital and labor. If software producers can't be remunerated for the capital and labor expended in the creation of software, software can't be created. Given that you are against the remuneration of software producers, then you are against the creation of software. You should thus refrain from using software. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	Hang on...more.. (none / 0) (#52)
	by PotatoError on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 05:09:04 PM PST

	Forgot to mention the stealing cars bit... Stealing cars is taking something physical from someone. That IS stealing not copying. If I STOLE software from someone then they would have a justified point. And I dont care about whether they are not getting paid for it "not getting money to feed their kids". You dont think about the repercusions of buying clothes do you? that usually they are produced by exploiting the children who make them in some far off country. So why should I think of the repercussions of my copying? And as I have said, I will pay for games and other software if I appreciate it. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Peas in a Pod (5.00 / 1) (#55)
	by MessiahWWKD on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 10:22:27 PM PST

	If I STOLE software from someone then they would have a justified point. And I dont care about whether they are not getting paid for it "not getting money to feed their kids". You dont think about the repercusions of buying clothes do you? that usually they are produced by exploiting the children who make them in some far off country. That is the same thing the suspect of rape said when I was doing my part as a juror. He made sure to point out that he stole nothing from the rape victim except time and honor, and since people everywhere have stolen someone's time and honor in some way, no matter how indirectly, that he has done no wrong. It is amazing how rapists and Linux users think alike. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	oh yes (1.00 / 1) (#64)
	by PotatoError on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 05:41:24 PM PST

	Its a simple matter of logic. In the case of a rapist well duhh, they inflict mental torture onto someone so of course its wrong and completely different from 'piracy'. Dont see how you can argue its the same at all. That argument above goes for lots of things if you really think about it. Look I COPY not TAKE something from the person. I do not take time from them as their work still remains in their possession. They dont even know ive copied it. I have copied it for my own use and if I hadnt copied it, I wouldnt have paid for it anyway. You can copyright books because it prevents someone from copying it and SELLING it. Im not going to sell this software I have copied because that should be illegal. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Blah Blah Blah (5.00 / 1) (#68)
	by MessiahWWKD on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 06:31:18 PM PST

	Its a simple matter of logic. In the case of a rapist well duhh, they inflict mental torture onto someone so of course its wrong and completely different from 'piracy'. And piracy doesn't cause mental torture among those who place time and effort into creating works of art that you feel should belong to the public? Why do you think they're busy trying to find ways not to be ripped off by the likes of you? Look I COPY not TAKE something from the person. I do not take time from them as their work still remains in their possession. They dont even know ive copied it. What does a rapist TAKE from a rape victim? Nothing. Using your logic, that makes it all right, especially if you drug her and rape her when she's unconscious. She will never know she's been raped, and if she does, she will never know it's you, therefore no harm has been done to her, except time and honor, but we've discussed why it's all right to take that from people. I have copied it for my own use and if I hadnt copied it, I wouldnt have paid for it anyway. Why do hackers believe that's justification for piracy? If you weren't intending to pay for the software, then you weren't intending on using it, but you changed your mind and are using it, so you should pay for it. You can copyright books because it prevents someone from copying it and SELLING it. Im not going to sell this software I have copied because that should be illegal. Are you saying you do not profit off pirated software? I guess shoplifters don't profit off stealing, since they aren't stealing money, and your thickhead seems to believe that cash is the only way to profit. As for your lies about the reason for copyright, the real reason people can copyright intellectual property is because unlike in the communism that you love, the government believes that people should be able to have rights over what they create. If we did things your way, everything would be released to the publics including diaries and other personal works. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	continued (none / 0) (#70)
	by PotatoError on Fri Dec 28th, 2001 at 08:25:28 AM PST

	oh come on! mental torture? If someone seriously suffers mental torture because someone pirated their software then they suffer a serious disorder. Sure, a rapist doesnt take anything from thier victim but they inflict mental suffering. Piracy doesnt do that no matter what you say. You really think people need councilling after someone copies their software? "If you weren't intending to pay for the software, then you weren't intending on using it, but you changed your mind and are using it, so you should pay for it." Or you could see it as: I want to use the software. But it costs more than its worth to me. So now I dont want to buy the software. Therefore the author gets nothing. Now logically, the situation is the same as if I had copied the software. Except that in the current case I dont have the software but in the copying case I would have it. Logically again, the authors situation is the same whether I choose to copy it or not. So the common sense thing is to copy it. If you argue that I should now pay for it then I would start again at: ...But it costs more than its worth to me. So now I dont want to buy the software....etc. A never ending paradox which can only be resolve by me copying the software. You will probably think this is an excuse - as you said "Why do hackers believe that's justification for piracy?". Because it is. I buy software when I think is good value or the right price. Most games I have are bought and the vast majority of software I have is bought. Only the occasional piece which I wouldnt have bought anyway have I ever copied. And I usually only copy them to try them out as a sort of 'demo'. Usually I only use them a couple of times and then never again. Of course the same is not true for copied music and copied movies but still, I wouldnt have bothered buying them anyway. Note: hackers and software copiers arent the same thing. There are hackers who dont 'pirate' anything just as there are vast numbers of non-hackers who do pirate. "Are you saying you do not profit off pirated software? I guess shoplifters don't profit off stealing, since they aren't stealing money, and your thickhead seems to believe that cash is the only way to profit." shoplifting and copying are completely different. Shoplifting is wrong because it is removing something which has value. Copying is, as it says, making a new copy of an existing copy. Look if a shop has 1000 statues and prices them at $50 each then they have a net value of $50,000. If a shoplifter steals one then they have taken $50 from the shopowner - which is wrong. But if a piece of software is $50 then if the author copied it 1000 times would they have $50,000? no because data copies are worthless. Therefore I can copy the software as much as I want and im not 'taking' any money. Thats why I can say I can copy if I wasnt intending to buy it anyway. Because the author loses nothing. hmm yes, copyright for intellectual property. So do you feel that its justified to patent the human genome? Or copyright a certain string of genes? What if I copyrighted What if I took 100 bytes in a certain order and decided to copyright them? What if I did it to 10 bytes? Then I could spend my life looking through other peoples programs and if I found 10 bytes in that order I could sue them. Yes? On the same note, if I copied someones program except for the last 10 bytes then is that infringing copyright? If I copied someones program but inverted all the 1's to 0's and vice versa then have I infringed copyright? Where is the line between a copy and a similar piece of 1's and 0's? Thats why copyrighting any building blocks - whether they are genes or bytes is impractical before we get down to any type of morality. "the government believes that people should be able to have rights over what they create." Yea but the government knows shit about computers so how can they make a good judgement? Their current thinking is that laws of possession can simply be applied to computer data which just shows their ignorance. "If we did things your way, everything would be released to the publics including diaries and other personal works" When did I ever say that? I didnt. Im not advocating the public release of all data at all. Get this: If I copy software and then encrypt it on my computer then noone would ever be able to prove whether it was encrypted software or just a load of random 1's and 0's. Reinforcement of software copyright is impossible. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Debunking more propoganda from the Irish hater. (none / 0) (#76)
	by MessiahWWKD on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 10:37:10 AM PST

	oh come on! mental torture? If someone seriously suffers mental torture because someone pirated their software then they suffer a serious disorder. That's what rapists, atheists, and other Irish hating leftists say about rape victims that are traumatized by the terrible attacks they suffer. Sure, a rapist doesnt take anything from thier victim but they inflict mental suffering. Piracy doesnt do that no matter what you say. You really think people need councilling after someone copies their software? No, it turns talented artists and developers into homeless wrecks, but I'm sure you're all right with that as long as it isn't you ending up homeless. I want to use the software. But it costs more than its worth to me. So now I dont want to buy the software. Therefore the author gets nothing. Same logic as many rapists. "I want to have sex with that woman but the effort it would take to have her consensually isn't worth it, so I'll rape her." Note: hackers and software copiers arent the same thing. There are hackers who dont 'pirate' anything just as there are vast numbers of non-hackers who do pirate. What's with you hackers and your need to change definitions to fit your Orwellian nightmare? hmm yes, copyright for intellectual property. So do you feel that its justified to patent the human genome? Or copyright a certain string of genes? You love making up hypothetical events don't you? Yea but the government knows shit about computers so how can they make a good judgement? Their current thinking is that laws of possession can simply be applied to computer data which just shows their ignorance. I wasn't aware that you war3z-d00ds knew more about computers than an entity filled with the top computer engineers. I guess they won't be 1337 enough for you until they start having tons of porno pop-up ads and links that lead to Top 100 warez sites. But if a piece of software is $50 then if the author copied it 1000 times would they have $50,000? no because data copies are worthless. Therefore I can copy the software as much as I want and im not 'taking' any money. Just like a rapist takes nothing away from a rape victim, except time and honor, but you've explained why you feel it's all right to take that away from people. When did I ever say that? I didnt. Im not advocating the public release of all data at all. Only data that you want eh? Anything that you don't want can remain the property of its creator? How consistent of you. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	very funny (none / 0) (#79)
	by PotatoError on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 06:47:29 PM PST

	Not once in history has a software company shut down because too many people copied its software. No, software companies shut down because they write shit programs or dont meet their deadlines. Oooh look at WinZip - I wonder why its free? They must all be starving! The "entity filled with the top computer engineers" you speak of will consist of a large number of hackers although probably not malicious ones. You only have to look at some of the computer laws they have introduced to see that the government doesnt listen to their advice when it comes to law issues. I bet you support the laws allowing the FBI and NSA to hack peoples computers. So nothing morally wrong with hacking then? Unless you want to admit that the government is immoral which im sure you dont. hmm "I want to use the software." (I want to have sex with that woman) >>>>so far it matches "But it costs more than its worth to me." (but the effort it would take to have her consensually isn't worth it.) >>>>just about matches. "So now I dont want to buy the software." (so I'll rape her) >>>>Nope doesnt match at all - should have been this: (So now I dont want to have sex with her) >>>>Perfectly legal so far. "Therefore the author gets nothing." (So now she wont get any) And unless her not getting any makes it easier for me to have her consensually (which would be legal) this does not parallel software copying at all. So basically you have helped me prove that the same logic behind software copying is the same logic behind why decent men dont rape women. "You love making up hypothetical events don't you?" What if I say yes? "Only data that you want eh? Anything that you don't want can remain the property of its creator?" ME: "if someone releases data then they must accept it will be distributed" YOU: "So you advocate release of all data?" ME: "No, If you dont want your data distributed then dont release it" YOU: "So you can take other peoples data but your own is private?" ME: "no, if someone releases data then they must accept it will be distributed" YOU: "So you advocate release of all data?" ME: "No, if you dont want your data distributed then dont release it" YOU: "So you can take other peoples data but your own is private?" ME: "no, if someone releases data then they must accept it will be distributed" YOU: "So you advocate release of all data?" ME: "No, If you dont want your data distributed then dont release it" YOU: "So you can take other peoples data but your own is private?" ME: "no, if someone releases data then they must accept it will be distributed" YOU: "So you advocate release of all data?" ...etc..forever i bet <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	More BS from the Irish Hater (none / 0) (#83)
	by MessiahWWKD on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 11:46:51 AM PST

	Not once in history has a software company shut down because too many people copied its software. Luckily, good citizens outnumber the greedy selfish hackers who care about nobody but themselves. "So now I dont want to buy the software." (so I'll rape her) >>>>Nope doesnt match at all - should have been this: (So now I dont want to have sex with her) >>>>Perfectly legal so far. Actually it would go like this: So now I don't want to buy the software, so I'll just get an illegal copy of it instead. After all, I take nothing from the author except time and honor.(So now I don't want to date the woman... I'll just rape her instead. After all, I take nothing from the woman except time and honor.) ME: "no, if someone releases data then they must accept it will be distributed" Where do you draw the line? How do you differentiate from private data that you will force to be public and private data that you will allow to remain private? You have constantly refused to specify. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	and some more.. (none / 0) (#85)
	by PotatoError on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 12:34:54 PM PST

	The original was "I want to have sex with that women" not "I want to date that women". You cant switch it halfway through otherwise it doesnt match. If you've accepted that I havent taken money from the author (which you clearly have done above). Then where did the time and honor come from? If I dont want to buy the software then im not giving appreciation of time and honor to the author anyway. So if I then copy it, theres no difference. Its the same argument as the money. Unless you are saying that everyone is taking time and honor from the author unless they purchase the software. "Where do you draw the line? How do you differentiate from private data that you will force to be public and private data that you will allow to remain private? You have constantly refused to specify" If its private then encrypt it so that it cant be made public by anyone but you or a selected group of people that you choose. But if you release data unencrypted then you are stating that its public data and must accept that anyone can get hold of it. For example if I sent my credit card details over the internet I would encrypt them. If software companies dont want people to copy their software they should encrypt it (unfortunately this means noone can use it but thats my point). <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	God... (none / 0) (#87)
	by MessiahWWKD on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 12:07:41 AM PST

	The original was "I want to have sex with that women" not "I want to date that women". You cant switch it halfway through otherwise it doesnt match. You mean like how you changed "I want that software" to "I want to buy that software?" You don't want to buy the software. You want to obtain the software. The purchasing, like the dating, is simply what one must do to obtain it consensually. If you can't get that through your thick head, I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of your bullshit. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	IP and Democracy. (none / 0) (#59)
	by em on Wed Dec 26th, 2001 at 04:07:22 PM PST

	Stealing cars is taking something physical from someone. That IS stealing not copying. You don't understand the concept of property. Property is a state-granted monopoly over the right to dispose of some good. As such, what counts as property is a matter of legal definition. To challenge the property right of a software producer over their software is to challenge the political institutions of the country. Assuming that you live in a Western country, then, your blatant disregard for the law counts as a repudiation of democracy. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	yea (1.00 / 1) (#65)
	by PotatoError on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 05:45:12 PM PST

	I disagree with that law and thats why I 'break' it. Note that I dont consider this breaking it. If the US government suddenly banned firearms wouldnt the entire membership of the NRA still withhold their arms illegally? would that count as a repudiation of democracy? What about something else, there must be something that you would not give up or agree with even if the law said so. Anyway just about everyone pirates software, I havent met one person who doesnt have the odd pirated copy of something or other (although we all have bought the majority of our software). So doesnt this mean that democratically people reject this law in part? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	bah. (none / 0) (#80)
	by em on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 10:59:49 PM PST

	I disagree with that law and thats why I 'break' it. Note that I dont consider this breaking it. You don't consider breaking a law breaking a law? You are logically inconsitent, and willfully. If the US government suddenly banned firearms wouldnt the entire membership of the NRA still withhold their arms illegally? would that count as a repudiation of democracy? Yes. Especially given that such a ban would require a constitutional ammendment, which can only be passed by a supermajority of both houses (I don't remember whether it's 66% or 75%). You gloss over the inconvenient fact that Congress is the legitimate representative of the USian people. What about something else, there must be something that you would not give up or agree with even if the law said so. It is one thing to disagree with controversial points of the law, and it is another thing to thumb your nose at the generally accepted parts like you do. The law grants property rights to software producers over their software in order to enable them to be remunerated for the creation of their software, just like any other manufacturer. You should just say what you believe outright: you don't believe software producers deserve to profit from their work, while car manufacturers do. Even if writing complicated pieces of software is no easier than designing cars. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	not to mention (none / 0) (#81)
	by osm on Sun Dec 30th, 2001 at 12:24:38 AM PST

	that this is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY.

	if only (none / 0) (#41)
	by nathan on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 10:04:51 PM PST

	If only this were to be a serious debate over intellectual property, you might be worth talking with. But the sad thing about you is that you implicitly accept the existence of intellectual property, before wishing it away. While amusing - it's like watching a dog that desperately wants to climb on the furniture - it's depressing too. You admit that you believe that you ought to pay, when you say "Why pay when it's so easily stolen?" It's one thing to play the system, and it's another thing to take advantage of security holes to steal. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	I am confused (none / 0) (#43)
	by philipm on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 06:16:11 AM PST

	I was just reading this treatise on why we should not have intellectual property and I got very confused. Also, this Intellectual Slavery thing you are talking about seems to support Scientologists. Why do you support Scientologists? Scientology is a religion in which only certain members at advanced stages of enlightenment have access to special information, which is secret to others. Scientology has long been controversial, with critics maintaining that it exploits members. Some critics, including former Scientologists, have put secret documents from advanced stages on the Internet. In response, church officials invoked copyright. Police have raided homes of critics, seizing computers, disks and other equipment. This is all rather curious, since the stated purpose of copyright is not to hide information but rather to stimulate production of new ideas. --philipm

	Scientology... (none / 0) (#60)
	by The Mad Scientist on Wed Dec 26th, 2001 at 09:41:24 PM PST

	...is Evil™ cult. They have several levels of teaching. The "lower levels" look appealing and logical, squeezing money out of the "students" and conditioning them to accept the "higher levels" without deciding it is a heap of cow dunk. The copyright enforcements here lead against the chances of disclosure of the materials, which could seriously hamper their effort to get new converts. They lie and cheat, physically attack their opponents, unleash lawyers on them in droves, effectively making even Microsoft look like a bunch of amateurs. See for example Operation Clambake. On a side note, check google.com and ask for "scientilogy critics", then do the same test for only "scientology". It is interesting how in the second case you have hard luck to find any critical voices in the first 12 matches (people rarely check more than first page of search results). Google, though, publishes a link to opposing views to its directory cathegories on top of the search results. However, there is still the potential of hijacking the search engine results by indirect tactics, increasingly common in the world of propaganda.

	Its not stealing (none / 0) (#51)
	by PotatoError on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 05:06:42 PM PST

	Its copying. The difference is huge. If I walk into a shop and steal an item, I have taken away some physical possesion of that person. They have less than they did have and quite rightfully I can be prosecuted for it. If I copy a program I have taken nothing away from the author, they have exactly what they had in the first place. So what have I done against them? Nothing. Sure, the author doesnt get any money from me copying it but this ISNT the same as stealing. Stealing it would be where I am directly taking money from the author. Now people think of this situation like they do with an item in a shop and shoplifting. But read the above three paragraphs again and you will understand it has no parallel to it. I have taken no possesion away from the author so how can they charge me for it? Well what about time? Well I could sit on the edge of a street playing my guitar. Would everyone be obliged to pay me because they hear my music? A good argument against me is that I dont have to pay if I dont use the software. However if I do use it then I should pay. Fair enough. But often if I have to pay for it to use it then I wont buy it. I only pay for the things I really like or need. In a shop I might see some software for $30 but I dont really need it and im only curious enough to use it for about one day only. Then no, I wouldnt bother buying it. But say I get home and I find out that one of my mates has that software then seeing as the author wouldnt get any money anyway (because I would never buy it) why cant I copy it and use it for free? I agree that people who never pay anything towards software they appreciate arent really aiding its future development. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	exactly (none / 0) (#42)
	by philipm on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 06:11:06 AM PST

	I think what's also clear is that, if you are a cracker, then you are a racist - and a hacker to boot! --philipm

	Even if you're right, you're wrong (5.00 / 2) (#27)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 01:48:15 PM PST

	So you think it would be OK if the burglar just broke in and wandered around a little? Maybe he could read through some of the resident's private correspondence, even his diary? Would it be OK if he stayed for a while to watch what goes on in the house? How about if he set up some surveillance cameras? This is the real core of the hacker "ethic". Hackers don't believe that people's privacy should be respected. They have no respect for property, and yes, they do steal. Theft of services, theft of credit card numbers, theft of copyrighted information. Basically, hackers have precious little respect for other hackers, and absolutely none for non-hackers. What else would you expect from a community made up entirely of misanthropic teenage introverts?

	be polite! (none / 0) (#35)
	by philipm on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 07:21:47 PM PST

	Its a sad sad day when you make no distinction as to what the race of linux zealot is. He is obviously a white cracker. A black teenager would never do such a thing. --philipm

	moo moo moo (none / 0) (#62)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 02:28:49 AM PST

	ok, i'm DeadCow, but never registered. A. be nice. B. Crackers are those who defeat security, and get into places they not supposed to Hackers are the good guys in a way. They don't do anything (correct spelling?) malicious, and are more likely than not Skilled PROGRAMMERS. thanks u.

	Close (none / 0) (#57)
	by Winter on Tue Dec 25th, 2001 at 08:16:03 PM PST

	You forgot the last frame. The frame where the crook tosses the "swag" on Linux Zealot's lap. Then he'd learn a lesson.

	Dumbest Person (none / 0) (#91)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 14th, 2002 at 03:36:32 PM PST

	You can easily write this because of your stupidity. I hate people like you because of your ignorance. If you understood how much better programmed Linux is as opposed to windows. I have had to re-format and re-install windows about five times on a computer that I have had for three years now. I have never had to re-install Linux or had drastic problems. It's people like you that punish kids because they want to know how the computer works not because they want to hack. Or they like Linux because it is more stable. Because it's more stable it is currently running more than half of the computer severs on the planet. And if Linux is so far behind why is the internet and technology progressing soo much though Linux is used!!! I hate people like you. Ignorance is not bliss when it's from someone like you.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.