Free software firewalls I have never heard of before

In article , Fred wrote: :Software is not a car, which makes it okay.

Which makes *what* okay? We need context or specific subjects or verbs for referential pronouns such as "it"!

Be explicit. Are you saying that it is your belief that it is acceptable to steal software, on the grounds that software is not a car?

If you are saying that that is your belief, then are we to understand that it is your belief that it is acceptable to steal everything other than cars? Diamonds, fine wine, baby elephants? How about SUVs -- they aren't cars? And interestingly, PT Cruisers aren't cars either: apparently they have a wheelbase 1/2" wider than the maximum allowed for a car, specifically so that they would be classified as light trucks and so not have to abide by the gas economy regulations that apply to cars.

You used the word "intangible" in a previous posting. Are you indicating that it is your belief that it is acceptable to steal anything intangible? Software, music files, DVD contents, patents, trade secrets? Electricity? Is it okay to "cut and run" on bills from mechanics, tailors, plumbers, lawyers, doctors, landscapers? As long as you pay them for any raw materials, it's okay to stiff them for the "intangible" use of their knowledge, skills, and labour?

:End of story as far as I'm concerned (I can see :I'm hitting my head against a brick wall here).

You aren't hitting your head against a brick wall: we're just asking you to explain what you mean. We aren't asking you to justify your position: we don't understand as yet what your position *is*.

Freddie seems to think that, because he can't put his little fingers on the software code, it's intangible and, therefore, available at no cost.

Throw around whatever legalese you'd like, it's still stealing.

Notan

I've read some of your previous posts and, you're correct. There's no point in discussing this topic, any further.

If you haven't, already, you really should consider politics as a profession.

NOtan

I'm aware that the consumer doesn't "own" the software, he/she merely purchases the right to use it.

Notan

"Hardware".

Yours, VB.

You read those licenses? You don't own anything.

Winged

David wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Although I'm sure you're enjoying your moral posturing immensely, you might want to pause, however briefly, to try something that is obviously unfamiliar to you: thinking.

We are not discussing theft but rather infringement of intellectual property laws, such as copyright and licences. Different history, different laws, and different political, social, and economic issues.

Sorry to have interrupted you - feel free to climb back on your high horse.

Regards,

Don't let him upset you.

Daddy obviously got his money's worth, sending nemo to a school which put a high priority on the value of multisyllabic doublespeak.

Nemo's no more honest than Freddy... He just has a larger vocabulary.

Notan

Notan wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ddress.com:

Feel free to bury your head as deeply in the sand as you wish, while jamming your fingers in your ears, and humming loudly. While that will prevent you hearing uncomfortable truths, it will not change their nature. No amount of your disdain for clear thought and careful distinctions detracts from those important things but rather, to the contrary, it indicts you as either a sloppy thinker or one unwilling to think at all.

So, no, it isn't stealing. While I agree it is unlawful in many jurisdictions, it is an activity of a considerably different character.

Regards,

PS To fill the lacuna (or should that be chasm?) in your knowledge you might want to start your investigations of intellectual property with the history of the scriveners' guild - or even further back with the abbot's psalter.

But you needn't go to all that trouble. The nice thing about your approach of moralistic ranting is that there needn't be any foundation of knowledge or understanding to support it. Very convenient for the intellectually lazy or inept.

,

Notan wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@ddress.com:

....snip...

Professions that a person of your intellectual calibre should consider include doorstop, paperweight, and boat anchor.

Regards,

David wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Oh dear, I should charge for having to teach. Especially such a recalcitrant and unpromising pupil.

No, m'boy, it is not theft. "Intellectual property," to use the term much in vogue, is an analogy, not an accurate description. It is tendentious to the point of begging the question to call it property even when it is preceded by the qualifier "intellectual." However, the ploy clearly works very well to deceive the weak-minded, like you!

Copyright, trade marks, patents, and related matters actually share very little in common with what has been historically meant by property. And, corrspondingly, the term "theft" is a very poor one for infringements regarding such matters (although, once again, the attempt to deceive the weak-minded has apparently been quite successful.)

You, like so many mouthbreathers, have been misled by someone pre-empting and promoting a biased terminology in lieu of making an argument.

Theft is more precisely called "larceny" in most (common-law) jurisdictions and, simplifying somewhat, it is characterized by the taking away of moveable property depriving the owner of it. For instance, you cannot commit "theft" (larceny) of what is historically and economically the most important kind of property: real property (e.g., land). And then there is "conversion" as opposed to, or as an element of, larceny, and on and on...

Moreover (and, once again, qualifications are required that there may be differences between jurisdictions) there is no larceny if the property is taken away under a claim of right - and here's the kicker! - even if that claim is not well-founded!

Moreover (although statute law may say differently in some jurisdictions) an infringement of copyright is generally a tortious act, not a criminal one. (In contradistinction, the acts constituting "theft" usually result in both a civil and a criminal wrong.)

I could go on - I have only scratched the surface - but I already fear I may be responsible for making your head burst from too much information entering at once into that dusty disused attic.

Regards,

PS As just one concrete illustration, patents are fundamentally a

*privilege* granted by the state primarily to secure the common weal by encouraging the invention and subsequent production of useful things. Their primary purpose is public benefit, not individual enrichment. That, at least, is the prevalent legal theory. For instance, in many countries, patents may carry obligations as well as rights, such as the obligation to either manufacture or grant licences to others to manufacture.

On 17 Sep 2005 18:17:32 -0700, "Fred" typed furiously:

It is still illegal to steal it. Sounds to me like your head is the brick wall.

Nice theory, but it doesn't hold true.

- Canada's Criminal Code does not contain even a single reference to "larceny".

- Canada's Criminal Code defines several offences as "theft" that do not involve moveable property, including (for example), "theft of telecommunications".

- Using someone else's credit card number without permission is widely recognized as "theft" even though it does not involve "movable property".

The term in Canada is "colour of right", and it holds only through due process, or when a baliff or law enforcement official has been givn good reason to believe that the deprivation of property is within the official's duty. For eample, if a police officer is told by a superior officer to seize something, then the seizing officer is not liable if it turns out that the superior officer did not have adequate justification. But if a police officer steps up to you and says, "Nice watch. Give it to me!" for personal gain, then the officer is -not- operating under colour of right.

Both Canada and the USA have penalties for copyright violation that include potential jail time. In the USA, the potential jail time exceeds 2 years, making the offence a "felony". Canada does not use the concept of "felony".

Yes? And does that somehow imply that it is impossible to steal the benefits of the privilege so granted?

snipped-for-privacy@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote in news:dglebn$prd$ snipped-for-privacy@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca:

....

Canada's Criminal Code is a statute and as such can use any choice of terminology it wishes rather than adhere to common-law practice.

Yes, the word theft is used very loosely in a number of situations to which it manifestly does not apply. The word "war" also suffers from similar distortions by propagandists and the ignorant on whom they prey - "war on drugs" springs to mind as an obvious, but very common, misuse. Spin and PR are popular modes of social control, and misapplying labels is a standard technique.

You are conflating and confusing colour of right and colour of authority, but, no matter, it doesn't invalidate in any way the point I made that theft is not as clear-cut, legally or socially, as some here would have it.

Moreover, despite even the distortions and extensions of the term theft that you point out, statutes still shrink from using the word theft in conjunction with copyright. That is a PR spin too far even for legislators.

Yes, indeedy, there are stautes with penalties - what a revelation! Yep, there are all kinds of penalties under all kinds of statutes, most of them only quasi-criminal, since they represent the gigantic expansion of administrative law over the last 50 years or so.

And there is a mighty push from some quarters, such as the RIAA, to make the penalties explicitly criminal, despite a broad public resistance not only to criminalization but also to many aspects of current copyright law. Just one example of how strongly copyright differs from property and theft in any conventional sense.

One can infringe the copyright and the holder has a number of avenues for redress. But I see you are still determined to appropriate the highly- coloured term "theft."

Well then, let me propose some alternate terms. Rather than "intellectual property" let's call the category, say, "Government-Granted Privileged Monopolies and Exclusions" which, despite its wordiness, has at least the virtue of accuracy. Not quite as appealing as intellectual property, is it? Lacks spin and PR value. And much harder to characterize opposition as theft rather than, say, cartel-busting, ain't it?

Regards,

PS After all, "intellectual property" is largely a self-serving buzzword promoted from the 1967 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property - UN sponsored but essentially just another industry lobbying session for aggrandizement of their monopolistic powers.

On 18 Sep 2005 14:55:32 GMT, "nemo_outis" typed furiously:

Pardon me. Theft of intellectual property. Happy now? Whatever you call it, it is still theft and it is still illegal.

....caused by bad babysitting!

I'd try m0n0wall. It's a striped-down BSD running IPfilter, with lots of nice configuration/monitoring tools.

Surely you jest...

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.computer.security.]

• Kerodo :

Ya no kidding, if Kerio and Outpost are too hard for the OP m0n0wall will kill them.

Jason