Posted on 01/25/2007 12:26:48 AM PST by Swordmaker
Are you back to claiming that they distributed OS X itself and I defended that? You know that is false.
We're not even talking about copyright infringement or violation of the DMCA, but lack of innovation on the part of the world's largest software company.
Only a twisted liberal mind such as your own would think it more beneficial to give technology away to the Chinese than sell it. I don't want any technology going to those murderous bastards, but if there is going to be some we at least need to be compensated for it. Your claim that giving something away is equal to charging for it is absurd, when you move from your house are you going to sell it, or give it away to "the community"? Not that you can give an honest answer, or even will answer of course.
No, only a rational mind would think that if it's bad to let them have it, then it's bad whether or not there's profit. If profit can at all make it more palatable in your view, then all you're saying is that it's better to sell your nation's security than to give it away.
It's like asking which is worse, the spy who does it for money or the spy who does it for ideological reasons. It doesn't matter -- he's still a spy.
And of this of course falls back on the fact that you give the open source BSD and OpenSolaris a pass on this issue. Oh, I forgot, they're okay because their licenses are business-friendly.
Okay, here's your honest answer. I'll sell it. But then there's no equal to software here. Maybe you'll have a point when the Linux developers assign the Linux copyrights to the Chinese.
Now your turn. Have you figured out my answer to your #35? If not, then admit you don't know what you're talking about. If so, time to retract your statement.
I never claimed that, you're the one that was defending the Russian hackers and claimed they had to have distributed OSX before it could be criminal which was a lie. Links above of course.
We're not even talking about copyright infringement or violation of the DMCA, but lack of innovation on the part of the world's largest software company.
Don't act like you don't know that's how the "free software" world works, you've only been defending it for years including claiming most of OSX was "free software", and who copies it at that point is immaterial, especially since you've been defending Russian hackers that illegally cracked the priprietary parts of OSX with endless lies for almost a year now as well.
Which is obviously my position, not yours. My position is, don't let them have anything, but if they do get something, make them pay for it dearly. You on the other hand, are on record saying quote "I will never speak out against these giveaways" to the Chinese. Do you deny those are your exact words? I'll be happy to link that quote if you do.
So there actually IS a distinct difference between selling something versus giving it away, and I was rightful in distinguishing between the two, while your original claims there was no appreciable difference between selling something to the Chinese and giving them something for free as you support was in fact just more of your endless BS. Microsoft doesn't sign their copyrights over to the Chocomms either, so that's obviously just another one of your illogical red herrings as well.
You just said above that they copied.
you're the one that was defending the Russian hackers and claimed they had to have distributed OSX before it could be criminal
Without personal financial gain on their part, which was nowhere indicated in the article, that is true according to the law. I've cited the law for you repeatedly, yet you always ignore it. The only counter you ever seem to have is to cite a case where a for-profit software company sold cracking tools.
Don't act like you don't know that's how the "free software" world works, you've only been defending it for years including claiming most of OSX was "free software"
Back up that false claim. You always put words in my mouth. I said most of the server tools are open source, and that OS X operates on a BSD base. That is not most of OS X.
You didn't say "server tools". you said "most tools", I've already linked directly to your quote several times so you're fooling no one.
No you falsely recite the law, when defending Russian hackers from possibly being criminal, then go on other threads claiming something like personal backups is somehow criminal, instead, in an attempt to excuse the actual criminals. There's no logic to anything you do, all that is obvious is that you hate Microsoft, because they stand in opposition to what you truly support - free software for the world at large, even if they have to hack it to get it.
That's still "most of the tools shipped with OS X," not most of OS X. Retract your lie.
And retract #35 if you can't counter my answer.
Prove that claim or retract it. Do not go off on another tangent or attack. I want you to actually prove this claim that I lied for once. You taking a proper cite out of context doesn't count. You simply disagreeing with me doesn't count. You actually need to show how I falsely recited the law. For reference, the two laws in question were the NET Act and the DMCA.
If you can't, then retract.
Except that one is real property and the other is a software license. If I give away my house, I have no house. If I license my software freely, I still have my software.
while your original claims there was no appreciable difference between selling something to the Chinese and giving them something for free
For you, a more apt comparison with real estate would have been "When you decide to let Chinese spies use your house as a base of operations, will you charge them rent or let them stay for free?" Your logic says it's not quite as bad if you charged them rent.
I answered you. You answer me.
I've only pointed out your BS a dozen or more times, including direct links. Here's another one of your exact quotes defending the Russian hackers with BS (since others from Russia HAVE been criminally prosecuted for distributing the cracks and not the cracked software itself):
"Simply violating a license by not abiding by the terms (if those terms are deemed enforceable by the court) is a civil tort, not a crime, thus, no "criminals." It could be come a crime had they copied OS X itself and widely sold it"
which came from here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1724347/posts?page=119#119
Here's one of the times where this has already of course been pointed out to you, when you tried to infer that personal backups were somehow criminal, amazingly somehow instead of the Russian hackers you've been endlessly defending:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1770621/posts?page=94#94
It's all a twisted deceitful tale, since that's the only way you can halfway pull off your attempted defense of the foreign hackers that cracked OSX, yet here you are on this thread acting like someone else copying anything from OSX was somehow in the wrong.
Like I said on the other thread, according to you basically everyone BUT your foreign hacker heroes are somehow the criminals.
Yes, we've seen your claims that "intellectual property" isn't actually "property", which is why you think everyone (except Microsoft apparently) should be allowed to pilfer it. You even accused Microsoft of "lifting" BSD code remember, then when proven wrong tried to claim you "didn't believe there was a negative connotation for the word "lifted"". Yes, we've seen all your ridiculous BS before, although this looks like you're raring up to launch a bunch more LMAO.
That is true. Show me in the law where it isn't.
when you tried to infer that personal backups were somehow criminal, amazingly somehow instead of the Russian hackers you've been endlessly defending:
As has been pointed out to you, that was your logic, not my view. I properly cited the law to show you the effects of your view. Again, show me where I falsely cited law.
Retract your accusation if you can't show where I falsely cited the law.
Correct on the first part. It is a right that can be bought and sold like property. If you'd look at my history (and I know you do), you'll notice that I think a violation of rights is worse than theft. So incorrect on the second part.
You even accused Microsoft of "lifting" BSD code remember
Yes, I remember when you tried to twist my words out of context, when I had in fact defended Microsoft on that issue. You never retracted that instance of false witness either.
As part of your still obviously ongoing defense of the Russian hackers you claimed that they couldn't have been criminal since they didn't distribute OSX, even though I showed case history of Russians being criminally prosecuted for distributing the hacks alone. I also showed Apple's letter threatening criminal prosecution, which you called "BS". You then went to other threads inferring that personal backups were "criminal", somehow instead of your Russian hacker heroes, the only law you may have been right about was when you attempted to trot out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution" on their behalf, since you've now been defending them for just short of a year now. But all that really shows is how low you're willing to go to defend foreign hackers who cracked OSX and distributed the crack to the internet.
As I have told you, there are two laws in effect here. The NET Act would nail them for distributing OS X, and even without financial gain. The DMCA covers this, and requires financial gain for an act to be criminal. The Russian software company that you always bring up was selling the circumvention software -- financial gain. You gave no evidence the OS X hackers did it for financial gain.
when you attempted to trot out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution" on their behalf
Which is part of the terms of the NET Act, which you take out of context.
So back to the beginning: Show me where I falsely cited the law or retract the statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.