Why did they have to release bnetd to the general public then? They could have developed it and kept it to themselves for their own use only. That way Vivendi would have never had known and there wouldn't be this big legal matter to deal with.
And it doesn't really matter if they were trying to profit from it or not. Even for purely altruistic uses you can't just go around screwing around with a company's copywrited and patented IP as if it were your own.
"As for my morals, they came from a process of thought rather than accepting that which is repeated at face value."
Well gee thanks. I didn't know that if you are able to rationalize and justify a crime with a bunch of useless rhetoric in the form of 4 massive paragraphs that this is an indication of a thought process. But now I know.
What is the need for a global network that wouldn't actually be free since it would be paid for by my tax dollars? You LIKE government mandated monopolies? You think innovation will happen faster within one? If the service levels suck who will you go to? If the price gets too high who will you switch to? Did you even bother to think this out first?
I have every right to complain about the quality of free software. The developers are the ones who put it out there, and whatever you put out into the public you expose to criticism. It is not my fault they are unwilling to stand up to the heat. I already told you I DO contribute monetarily.
Software patents are an excellent way for the software industry to protect its very existence. I care more about someone trying to make a buck than I do about someone contributing to some nebulous "greater good" that encourages a lack of understanding of commerce at large and why the trading of goods for money is both a good and necessary thing.
You throw around the words "kings", "freedom" and "rights" like we're living in some medival fiefdom where we are all impoverished peasants with miserable standards of living. Besides the fact that such flippant use of those terms marginalizes those who really did live in those conditions it also show's some people take some things way too far.
Its the year 2003. We're talking about computers that help us get our work done. Now you're perfectly entitled to use whatever you want to use, I'm not questioning that. But to say that a Windows user or a Mac user is being denied his "rights" is very silly. Microsoft and Apple can't stop you from owning a gun. They can't lodge troops in your home without your permission (heck they don't even have troops.) They can't deny you your right to vote and they can't stop you from assembling freely in public. What "rights" exactly do you speak of? The right to reverse engineer someone else's IP that they worked hard to create and should be able to earn an income from? Hmmm. Thats one right I'm never going to miss not having. Why do I think this way? Because I can see from observing both proprietary and open source software development that making good and sometimes ANY software is hard. Its damn hard. How many pieces of software do you know of that have had no bugs? Too many people think that some whiz kid sits in front of a computer for 15 minutes, frantically punches out brilliant code and then goes skateboarding the rest of the day. Well thats just not how its done. Software engineers are some of the hardest working people around. Compound that with the fact that a coder's career is often cut short from burnout or rampant agism they really have to make as much as they can before their time is up. No, I'm not asking you to cry for the "Poor Proprietary Coders" of the world. I'm just trying to explain why I harbor no sympathy for freeloaders, which I think makes up the bulk of the open source and free software using communities.
I didn't buy a computer to help out in some "movement". I bought one to help me complete a given task in a shorter amount of time thus increasing my personal productivity. I will gladly reward financially those corporations and or individuals who help me achieve more and more productivity. I also use open source software when its appropriate (like on the server side or in my Mac OS X comp since its built on UNIX) but I try to contribute when I can (I belong to the Mandrake Club). But I never bitch about "rights" because at the end of the day certain "rights" aren't worth the trouble you have to go thru to get them (trouble such as putting up with the piss poor GUI's of most open source software or the horrible user support, mailing lists and forums don't cut it for everyone and just general software unavailability on the desktop.)
How much longer do Linux users have to put up with "almost ready" applications like GIMP before they can have an equal amount of features that Windows and Mac users currently have and have had for years?
This isn't flamebait. Comments should not be modded down simply because they unmask a painful truth. Some of these "Freedom Fighters" DO need to take a look at what they are fighting for (the right to pirate software) and whether its worth the cost. (Several years of potentially AIDS infected anal rape.)
Where have you been? There have been numerous recent articles explaining that companies no longer hire ex-cons for IT security positions anymore and for 2 very important reasons.
1. After Sept 11th everyone has to be squeaky clean. 2. Since the IT market is in the dumps, any job offer gets hundreds or thousands of replys. Companies no longer have to scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to looking for talent, even in the security field. And those ex-con hackers are just that, the bottom of the pile.
I couldn't agree more. You get into M.I.T., and the best use of this wonderful opportunity is to get arrested for more than 2.5 years trading pirated software. Good luck getting a job with your CRIMINAL RECORD after you get out! Oh and good luck getting into another university with that same record as well.
Bet you don't think you're so smart now huh Ivy League boy!?!?
You pirating losers just LOVE to make that distinction don't you? Pirating is NEVER stealing to you guys. Its only "copyright violations". The only thing I want to know is HOW did your morals become so warped?
THERE IS SUCH A THING AS THEFT OF SERVICES YOU KNOW!
So our software corprations are supposed to be relieved that despite their software being pirated by current poor 13 year olds, someday in the far future those same kids MAY buy their software at some point? What should the employees of the company tell the various bill collectors who will want to be paid. "Oh I'm sorry Mr. Bill collector, but if you wait a decade or two I MAY have the money to pay you for your electricity/gas/water when current software pirates finally decide to grow up."
This is a cut and past of a response to a very similar question posted above:
The reason may be that open source/free software alternatives are usually harder to install (involving compiling the code yourself or using install scripts) or very hard to use (the UI's are designed by geeks after all). Also there is the notion of if its free, it must suck otherwise the author would have tried to charge for it. And for the most part, thats true of open source/free software in general with some notable exceptions (Linux, Apache, Mozilla)
The reason may be that open source/free software alternatives are usually harder to install (involving compiling the code yourself or using install scripts) or very hard to use (the UI's are designed by geeks after all). Also there is the notion of if its free, it must suck otherwise the author would have tried to charge for it. And for the most part, thats true of open source/free software in general with some notable exceptions (Linux, Apache, Mozilla)
There is no difference if it results in a potential loss of sales or revenue. If you did not buy your copy of the software you have, then you have caused a loss of revenue. Theft is theft, no matter what RMS says.
Its not a loaded statement as long as you don't subscribe to the faulty logic of "Information wants to be free" and the other one which dictates that its morally wrong to copyright any form of electronic information.
For the employees of the game company, for the founders, for the shareholders and for the companies who buy ad placement. What more goodness could you possibly want?
Hmmm. You just gave me an idea. Why aren't there ads in books? You know, every 30 pages or so why aren't there ads? I think I'll ask my friend who works for one of the big publishing companies.
Its the year 2002. Can we finally stop dicking around with how many different window managers and GUI's we can make and actually start using our powerful computers to do important things now? Please?
Slashdot Mirror
Why did they have to release bnetd to the general public then? They could have developed it and kept it to themselves for their own use only. That way Vivendi would have never had known and there wouldn't be this big legal matter to deal with.
And it doesn't really matter if they were trying to profit from it or not. Even for purely altruistic uses you can't just go around screwing around with a company's copywrited and patented IP as if it were your own.
"As for my morals, they came from a process of thought rather than accepting that which is repeated at face value."
Well gee thanks. I didn't know that if you are able to rationalize and justify a crime with a bunch of useless rhetoric in the form of 4 massive paragraphs that this is an indication of a thought process. But now I know.
What is the need for a global network that wouldn't actually be free since it would be paid for by my tax dollars? You LIKE government mandated monopolies? You think innovation will happen faster within one? If the service levels suck who will you go to? If the price gets too high who will you switch to? Did you even bother to think this out first?
I have every right to complain about the quality of free software. The developers are the ones who put it out there, and whatever you put out into the public you expose to criticism. It is not my fault they are unwilling to stand up to the heat. I already told you I DO contribute monetarily.
Software patents are an excellent way for the software industry to protect its very existence. I care more about someone trying to make a buck than I do about someone contributing to some nebulous "greater good" that encourages a lack of understanding of commerce at large and why the trading of goods for money is both a good and necessary thing.
You throw around the words "kings", "freedom" and "rights" like we're living in some medival fiefdom where we are all impoverished peasants with miserable standards of living. Besides the fact that such flippant use of those terms marginalizes those who really did live in those conditions it also show's some people take some things way too far.
Its the year 2003. We're talking about computers that help us get our work done. Now you're perfectly entitled to use whatever you want to use, I'm not questioning that. But to say that a Windows user or a Mac user is being denied his "rights" is very silly. Microsoft and Apple can't stop you from owning a gun. They can't lodge troops in your home without your permission (heck they don't even have troops.) They can't deny you your right to vote and they can't stop you from assembling freely in public. What "rights" exactly do you speak of? The right to reverse engineer someone else's IP that they worked hard to create and should be able to earn an income from? Hmmm. Thats one right I'm never going to miss not having. Why do I think this way? Because I can see from observing both proprietary and open source software development that making good and sometimes ANY software is hard. Its damn hard. How many pieces of software do you know of that have had no bugs? Too many people think that some whiz kid sits in front of a computer for 15 minutes, frantically punches out brilliant code and then goes skateboarding the rest of the day. Well thats just not how its done. Software engineers are some of the hardest working people around. Compound that with the fact that a coder's career is often cut short from burnout or rampant agism they really have to make as much as they can before their time is up. No, I'm not asking you to cry for the "Poor Proprietary Coders" of the world. I'm just trying to explain why I harbor no sympathy for freeloaders, which I think makes up the bulk of the open source and free software using communities.
I didn't buy a computer to help out in some "movement". I bought one to help me complete a given task in a shorter amount of time thus increasing my personal productivity. I will gladly reward financially those corporations and or individuals who help me achieve more and more productivity. I also use open source software when its appropriate (like on the server side or in my Mac OS X comp since its built on UNIX) but I try to contribute when I can (I belong to the Mandrake Club). But I never bitch about "rights" because at the end of the day certain "rights" aren't worth the trouble you have to go thru to get them (trouble such as putting up with the piss poor GUI's of most open source software or the horrible user support, mailing lists and forums don't cut it for everyone and just general software unavailability on the desktop.)
How much longer do Linux users have to put up with "almost ready" applications like GIMP before they can have an equal amount of features that Windows and Mac users currently have and have had for years?
What the FUCK are you talking about?
This isn't flamebait. Comments should not be modded down simply because they unmask a painful truth. Some of these "Freedom Fighters" DO need to take a look at what they are fighting for (the right to pirate software) and whether its worth the cost. (Several years of potentially AIDS infected anal rape.)
I think what you have to really ask yourself is what kind of a social scene is worth years of potentially AIDS infected anal rape.
Where have you been? There have been numerous recent articles explaining that companies no longer hire ex-cons for IT security positions anymore and for 2 very important reasons.
1. After Sept 11th everyone has to be squeaky clean.
2. Since the IT market is in the dumps, any job offer gets hundreds or thousands of replys. Companies no longer have to scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to looking for talent, even in the security field. And those ex-con hackers are just that, the bottom of the pile.
I couldn't agree more. You get into M.I.T., and the best use of this wonderful opportunity is to get arrested for more than 2.5 years trading pirated software. Good luck getting a job with your CRIMINAL RECORD after you get out! Oh and good luck getting into another university with that same record as well.
Bet you don't think you're so smart now huh Ivy League boy!?!?
There's nothing heroic about stealing software that others worked hard to produce and rely on to make a living.
And the authorities will be waiting. To lock your ass up.
You pirating losers just LOVE to make that distinction don't you? Pirating is NEVER stealing to you guys. Its only "copyright violations". The only thing I want to know is HOW did your morals become so warped?
THERE IS SUCH A THING AS THEFT OF SERVICES YOU KNOW!
So our software corprations are supposed to be relieved that despite their software being pirated by current poor 13 year olds, someday in the far future those same kids MAY buy their software at some point? What should the employees of the company tell the various bill collectors who will want to be paid. "Oh I'm sorry Mr. Bill collector, but if you wait a decade or two I MAY have the money to pay you for your electricity/gas/water when current software pirates finally decide to grow up."
He got 33 MONTHS.
This is a cut and past of a response to a very similar question posted above:
The reason may be that open source/free software alternatives are usually harder to install (involving compiling the code yourself or using install scripts) or very hard to use (the UI's are designed by geeks after all). Also there is the notion of if its free, it must suck otherwise the author would have tried to charge for it. And for the most part, thats true of open source/free software in general with some notable exceptions (Linux, Apache, Mozilla)
The people playing the game are irrelevant. Their job is to simply buy the game. No more, no less.
The reason may be that open source/free software alternatives are usually harder to install (involving compiling the code yourself or using install scripts) or very hard to use (the UI's are designed by geeks after all). Also there is the notion of if its free, it must suck otherwise the author would have tried to charge for it. And for the most part, thats true of open source/free software in general with some notable exceptions (Linux, Apache, Mozilla)
There is no difference if it results in a potential loss of sales or revenue. If you did not buy your copy of the software you have, then you have caused a loss of revenue. Theft is theft, no matter what RMS says.
Its not a loaded statement as long as you don't subscribe to the faulty logic of "Information wants to be free" and the other one which dictates that its morally wrong to copyright any form of electronic information.
For the employees of the game company, for the founders, for the shareholders and for the companies who buy ad placement. What more goodness could you possibly want?
Hmmm. You just gave me an idea. Why aren't there ads in books? You know, every 30 pages or so why aren't there ads? I think I'll ask my friend who works for one of the big publishing companies.
What if you enjoy using the products being advertised and you enjoy the ads by themselves as an enrichment to the current popular culture as a whole?
Its the year 2002. Can we finally stop dicking around with how many different window managers and GUI's we can make and actually start using our powerful computers to do important things now? Please?