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 It is no longer maintained.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 found