Hi,
Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's router station.





TIA

SeeAll

why don't you try paying for them at the new yankee website?


"SeeAll" wrote in message ...
Hi,
Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's router station.





TIA

SeeAll

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:02:04 +0000 (UTC), SeeAll wrote:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_076A_01C5817A.E5512220
Content-Type: text/plain;

Hi,
Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's =
router station.=20

You can buy them from Norm. Why would you think someone here who has
bought them, would help you steal them?

Oh, and when you post in HTML it makes your messages hard to read
amongst all the control characters and such.

Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
HTMLHEAD

See what I mean?

META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252"
META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR
STYLE/STYLE
/HEAD
BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2Hi,/FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2Could some kind person email a complete =
set of=20
plans to build Norm's router station. /FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2A=20
"seeallsc /A/=
FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2TIA/FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2SeeAll/FONT/DIV/BODY/HTML

Hi,

I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web has
been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet is to
freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post it
for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has more and more
people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try other boards of
which thankfully there are many.


SeeAll

"SeeAll" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web
has been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet is
to freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post
it for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has more and
more people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try other boards
of which thankfully there are many.


Whatever hippy ideal you are babbling about, it is called stealing. If you
can fins some theives to hang out with, fine.

Just don't give us the nostalgia and morality speech.

It is repugnant.

Can you spell COPYRIGHT?

SeeAll wrote:
Hi,
Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's router station.


Hey cheap skate, buy the plan or don't you recognise copyright laws?

Lew

SeeAll wrote:

Hi,
Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's
router station.

Sorry, but that's copyrighted material.

Can't you design your own router table?

Maybe he figures us "YANKS" still owe the Brits something . . . .
"SeeAll" wrote in message ...
Hi,
Could some kind person email a complete set of plans to build Norm's router station.





TIA

SeeAll

SeeAll says...

Hi,

I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web has
been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet is to
freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post it
for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has more and more
people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try other boards of
which thankfully there are many.


SeeAll

It is a copyright violation and disrespectful to a person we like to
support. I will concede the plans are over priced, as are most plans,
and why I don't buy them.

Hi All,

Just to let the selfish members know some kind person, or hippy, has very
kindly emailed a copy of his plans. Sharing still does exist.

Thanks

SeeAll

SeeAll wrote:
I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web has
been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet is to
freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post it
for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has more and more
people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try other boards of
which thankfully there are many.

I started using computers in the late '60s, as have many on this NG, so
please don't give me any stuff about your bona fides. Freeware is a
wonderful thing as is shareware. If a person decides to copyleft their
publications, that's one thing, if it's copywritten, however, that's a
different thing. Stealing is an entirely subject and can not be excused
by bleating about the ways of the net. If you truly don't understand
the difference, go steal a copy from a store and see if they can explain
it to you.
\disgust mode off

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.org

Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy wants
something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the Federal
Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you no
longer need. Think about the full consequences, they now copyright words and
phrases, the limit to ownership is limitless and the enforcement thereof
limitless.......... Even having a yard sale families can be prosecuted. I
agree that abuses are rampant, but it isn't the blame. Currently the movie
industry is crying the blues blaming the internet (not DVD rentals) for it's
losses, and they haven't produced a movie of any quality, 98 percent have
been horrible, but they can advertise out the ass and buyer beware! Well how
about they be beware also. Things that have short life spans movies, music
and software should not have the same ownership rights as that of a classic
piece of art. You can buy an application today tomorrow they're out of
business or have been bought out, no more support and then they release a
new version rendering the one you bought obsolete and incompatible and 3
months later you have to buy it again. If they want copyright privileges,
then they should be held responsible for providing owners with specific
product upgrades and support for the life of the product.....








"SeeAll" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web
has
been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet is to
freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post it
for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has more and
more
people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try other boards of
which thankfully there are many.


SeeAll

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:33:27 +0000 (UTC), "SeeAll"
wrote:

Hi,

I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web has
been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet is to
freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post it
for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has more and more
people use the medium commercialism moves in.


Copyright has been around far longer than both the Internet and your
self-serving notion of what its "spirit" is. Freeloading twit.


--
Chuck Taylor
http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/

HMFIC-1369 wrote:

Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy wants
something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the Federal
Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you no
longer need. ...

If you no longer need it, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from
giving it to anyone else (or even selling it). What is proscribed is
making copies for the express purpose of evading copyright protection...

SeeAll wrote:

Hi,

I've been using the internet for 15+ years

That long, huh...wow!

...and over those years the web has been taken over by selfish individuals.

Yes, it has, but in the diametrically opposed direction of which you
seem to speak...

The spirit of the internet is to freely share information. When you have finished with an item you post it for others to share. ...

That's a wholly different concept than deliberately using it to evade
copyright and steal another's work...

Duane Bozarth wrote:

If you no longer need it, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from
giving it to anyone else (or even selling it). What is proscribed is
making copies for the express purpose of evading copyright protection...

Actually, it depends of the terms of the original purchase agreement.

When I bought a set of plans to build my boat, I received a license to
build ONE (1) boat.

If I wanted to build several boats, or sell the plans, or give away the
plans when I'm done with them, that is another matter.

Lew

"SeeAll" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web
has
been taken over by selfish individuals.
SeeAll



Are you referring to selfish cheapskates like yourself who won't fork over a
couple of bucks for somebody else's hard work? Twit.

"HMFIC-1369" wrote in message newsLzye.29909
months later you have to buy it again. If they want copyright privileges,
then they should be held responsible for providing owners with specific
product upgrades and support for the life of the product.....

You have a really poor grasp of the concept of ownership. Copyright, patent
or whatever, someone else created it and that gives them certain rights to
protection. Just because you don't consider what someone has created to be a
work of art doesn't automatically dismiss their right to protecting it.

I'd like to see what you'd have to say if you created a piece of software or
made a movie and then watched as people downloaded it for free while you
lost money from poor sales.

Not saying I've never downloaded anything I shouldn't have, just that I'm
not going to advocate it or lobby for it online.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:50:27 GMT, HMFIC-1369 wrote:
Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy wants
something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the Federal
Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you no
longer need. Think about the full consequences, they now copyright words and
phrases, the limit to ownership is limitless and the enforcement thereof
limitless.......... Even having a yard sale families can be prosecuted.

Alarmist and irrelevant to the situation at hand. Guy wants a free copy
of something that is a commercial product. Just because I own a copy
doesn't mean I own the right to give away copies of it. Hardly the same
thing as a rummage sale.

Currently the movie
industry is crying the blues blaming the internet (not DVD rentals) for it's
losses, and they haven't produced a movie of any quality, 98 percent have
been horrible, but they can advertise out the ass and buyer beware!

I'm the _last_ person to defend how the MPAA and RIAA idiots do
business, but - if it's worth watching, it's worth paying for. If you
don't want to pay for it because it's 98% crap, well then, don't just
steal it because it's no good, just don't _get_ it because it's no good.
"I'm going to steal this because it's not worth what they're asking"
isn't gonna cut it - if it's not worth it, don't steal it.

Well how
about they be beware also. Things that have short life spans movies, music
and software should not have the same ownership rights as that of a classic
piece of art. You can buy an application today tomorrow they're out of
business or have been bought out, no more support and then they release a
new version rendering the one you bought obsolete and incompatible and 3
months later you have to buy it again. If they want copyright privileges,
then they should be held responsible for providing owners with specific
product upgrades and support for the life of the product.....

Why? You buy something, you buy it with the terms and conditions it's
sold under. Some software is great about this, some software is not.
Their upgrade policy should be something you consider when you decide if
you want to buy a package or not. Again, stealing a package just
because you don't like how they do upgrades, is just pretending you're
making an ethical statement when you're really just stealing from the
software developer whose product you're using without paying for. Been
there, done that, stopped writing shareware because of that sort of
people.

That's not correct! It has nothing to do with the evasion of copyright
protection. If you have licensed software, you are prohibited from giving it
away even if you no longer need it. If I gave you my copy of XP when I
installed Linux, I broke the law. Over all though it has only to do with
making a copy.. copy-right. You buy one item and make a "copy" that violates
the law.


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
HMFIC-1369 wrote:

Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy
wants
something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the
Federal
Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you no
longer need. ...

If you no longer need it, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from
giving it to anyone else (or even selling it). What is proscribed is
making copies for the express purpose of evading copyright protection...

I have an excellent grasp, you didn't read it correctly.

I don't dismiss it you made that assumption.

If they want copyright privileges,then they should be held responsible for
providing owners with specific
product upgrades and support for the life of the product...

What this says is that, the owner has certain rights as do the creator.
Honestly if anybody is still using software that's 10 years old, I'd say
that they're having a tough time. If somebody wants copyright's for 20
years, then fine support that product for 20 years! You have to distinguish
from devices to software to music and movies! How many times have you bought
a product that didn't perform as it claims or have it break. The difficulty
in exchanging and repairing is at most difficult or cost prohibitive.

I have patents and certainly protect myself. I simply feel that owners/users
should be afforded rights attributed to those who choose to copyright.
Freeware is freeware user beware, but as for buying I think consumers should
be given equal footing and protection under the copyright laws. Ever buy
something that failed that actually cost you more to return, then it did to
buy? Happens everyday but there are no laws to protect you..............
Your on your own, they're protected and enforced by the Federal Government


"Upscale" wrote in message
...
"HMFIC-1369" wrote in message newsLzye.29909
months later you have to buy it again. If they want copyright
privileges,
then they should be held responsible for providing owners with specific
product upgrades and support for the life of the product.....

You have a really poor grasp of the concept of ownership. Copyright,
patent
or whatever, someone else created it and that gives them certain rights to
protection. Just because you don't consider what someone has created to be
a
work of art doesn't automatically dismiss their right to protecting it.

I'd like to see what you'd have to say if you created a piece of software
or
made a movie and then watched as people downloaded it for free while you
lost money from poor sales.

Not saying I've never downloaded anything I shouldn't have, just that I'm
not going to advocate it or lobby for it online.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:24:37 GMT, HMFIC-1369 wrote:

If they want copyright privileges,then they should be held responsible for
providing owners with specific
product upgrades and support for the life of the product...

What's that got to do with using something you don't want to pay for?

What this says is that, the owner has certain rights as do the creator.
Honestly if anybody is still using software that's 10 years old, I'd say
that they're having a tough time. If somebody wants copyright's for 20
years, then fine support that product for 20 years! You have to distinguish
from devices to software to music and movies! How many times have you bought
a product that didn't perform as it claims or have it break. The difficulty
in exchanging and repairing is at most difficult or cost prohibitive.

And this justifies theft how, exactly?

I have patents and certainly protect myself. I simply feel that owners/users
should be afforded rights attributed to those who choose to copyright.
Freeware is freeware user beware, but as for buying I think consumers should
be given equal footing and protection under the copyright laws. Ever buy
something that failed that actually cost you more to return, then it did to
buy? Happens everyday but there are no laws to protect you..............

And what does that have to do with some bozo wandering in asking us to
steal plans for him?

Your on your own, they're protected and enforced by the Federal Government

In other words, "some guy sold me crappy software so I'm going to steal
software from now on"? If it's crappy, don't use it. If you just say
it's crappy, and then use it anyway, you're just using an excuse to
steal it. Will I support software I wrote 25 years ago? Sure, but
you're gonna pay me by the hour, and if you expect something I wrote in
1980, or 1990, or even 2000 to still be under some sort of warranty,
well, you're delusional.

Dave Hinz

See who's talking about stealing anything............If you simply argue for
arguments sake...........then have at it!

I basically said that "Equal Protection" should be extended under the
Copyright law. Consumers Rights, should be as important as the copyright. I
can see you never paid 10K+ for a computer or software application.... that
didn't perform as sold. Don't get me wrong, just as there are good honest
company's and good honest people. Both deserve protection under the law! But
currently the laws weight protects many dishonest company's over an honest
persons. My point was the abuse of situations that company's claims are
unsupported and the difficulty or making things to costly to resolve happen
more and more frequently and in most cases it's buyer beware........

and don't tell me you never bought something, where the product line or
company was purchased, the Purchase Agreement thusly null and void, and they
still sell the same product now under a different name or even the same,
simply voiding the original contracts for the only purpose of evading
support for the sake of profit. I purchased a software firewall 5 months
ago, it was sold, I now need to pay (the current company) for support or get
it fixed, even to upgrade. Nothing about that in the License Agreement I
agreed too!

I said nothing about stealing but you really got stuck on that! You must
feel very guilty about something huh?










"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:50:27 GMT, HMFIC-1369 wrote:
Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy
wants
something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the
Federal
Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you no
longer need. Think about the full consequences, they now copyright words
and
phrases, the limit to ownership is limitless and the enforcement thereof
limitless.......... Even having a yard sale families can be prosecuted.

Alarmist and irrelevant to the situation at hand. Guy wants a free copy
of something that is a commercial product. Just because I own a copy
doesn't mean I own the right to give away copies of it. Hardly the same
thing as a rummage sale.

Currently the movie
industry is crying the blues blaming the internet (not DVD rentals) for
it's
losses, and they haven't produced a movie of any quality, 98 percent
have
been horrible, but they can advertise out the ass and buyer beware!

I'm the _last_ person to defend how the MPAA and RIAA idiots do
business, but - if it's worth watching, it's worth paying for. If you
don't want to pay for it because it's 98% crap, well then, don't just
steal it because it's no good, just don't _get_ it because it's no good.
"I'm going to steal this because it's not worth what they're asking"
isn't gonna cut it - if it's not worth it, don't steal it.

Well how
about they be beware also. Things that have short life spans movies,
music
and software should not have the same ownership rights as that of a
classic
piece of art. You can buy an application today tomorrow they're out of
business or have been bought out, no more support and then they release
a
new version rendering the one you bought obsolete and incompatible and 3
months later you have to buy it again. If they want copyright
privileges,
then they should be held responsible for providing owners with specific
product upgrades and support for the life of the product.....

Why? You buy something, you buy it with the terms and conditions it's
sold under. Some software is great about this, some software is not.
Their upgrade policy should be something you consider when you decide if
you want to buy a package or not. Again, stealing a package just
because you don't like how they do upgrades, is just pretending you're
making an ethical statement when you're really just stealing from the
software developer whose product you're using without paying for. Been
there, done that, stopped writing shareware because of that sort of
people.

Jesus Where Are you Coming From? This has NOTHING to do with NOT PAYING FOR
SOMETHING!

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW....................

Are you challenged, why are you so fixated on theft... I WASN'T TAKING OR
JUSTIFYING IT... ONLY STATING THAT CONSUMERS DESERVE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER
THE EXTENT OF THE COPYRIGHT! You want you cake and eat it too, tough!

did you get left back in 5th grade or something? I don't think I'd pay you
very much for anything you've ever done.... Looks like it'd never work right
anyway! You can't even read....................


Ta Ta!




"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:24:37 GMT, HMFIC-1369 wrote:

If they want copyright privileges,then they should be held responsible
for
providing owners with specific
product upgrades and support for the life of the product...

What's that got to do with using something you don't want to pay for?

What this says is that, the owner has certain rights as do the creator.
Honestly if anybody is still using software that's 10 years old, I'd say
that they're having a tough time. If somebody wants copyright's for 20
years, then fine support that product for 20 years! You have to
distinguish
from devices to software to music and movies! How many times have you
bought
a product that didn't perform as it claims or have it break. The
difficulty
in exchanging and repairing is at most difficult or cost prohibitive.

And this justifies theft how, exactly?

I have patents and certainly protect myself. I simply feel that
owners/users
should be afforded rights attributed to those who choose to copyright.
Freeware is freeware user beware, but as for buying I think consumers
should
be given equal footing and protection under the copyright laws. Ever buy
something that failed that actually cost you more to return, then it did
to
buy? Happens everyday but there are no laws to protect you..............

And what does that have to do with some bozo wandering in asking us to
steal plans for him?

Your on your own, they're protected and enforced by the Federal
Government

In other words, "some guy sold me crappy software so I'm going to steal
software from now on"? If it's crappy, don't use it. If you just say
it's crappy, and then use it anyway, you're just using an excuse to
steal it. Will I support software I wrote 25 years ago? Sure, but
you're gonna pay me by the hour, and if you expect something I wrote in
1980, or 1990, or even 2000 to still be under some sort of warranty,
well, you're delusional.

Dave Hinz

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:46:48 GMT, HMFIC-1369 wrote:
See who's talking about stealing anything............If you simply argue for
arguments sake...........then have at it!

Have you ever noticed that when you top-post it makes it really hard to
quote the context of what you're talking about?

I basically said that "Equal Protection" should be extended under the
Copyright law. Consumers Rights, should be as important as the copyright. I
can see you never paid 10K+ for a computer or software application.... that
didn't perform as sold.

You have no idea of my technical experience and responsibilities. And
10K would be cheap for most of the software packages I deal with - that
wouldn't even pay yearly maintenance on most of them.

Just because you pay 6 figures for a software package, doesn't mean they
have to, or should, support you forever. And yet, you still don't have
the right to give their work away to someone else, because you bought
the right to use it, not to copy and distribute it.

Don't get me wrong, just as there are good honest
company's and good honest people. Both deserve protection under the law! But
currently the laws weight protects many dishonest company's over an honest
persons.

So stop buying Microsoft, and 90% of your problems will go away.
Even though I feel strongly that they have set back the world of
computing by a decade or more, making people just accept security and
stability problems as "normal and expected", I _still_ won't steal from
them or help anyone else to do it.

My point was the abuse of situations that company's claims are
unsupported and the difficulty or making things to costly to resolve happen
more and more frequently and in most cases it's buyer beware........

What does that have to do with some guy wandering in here asking for one
of us to steal from Norm for him?

and don't tell me you never bought something, where the product line or
company was purchased, the Purchase Agreement thusly null and void, and they
still sell the same product now under a different name or even the same,
simply voiding the original contracts for the only purpose of evading
support for the sake of profit.

That was a really long....sentence? And I'm not sure what it's supposed
to mean.

I purchased a software firewall 5 months
ago, it was sold, I now need to pay (the current company) for support or get
it fixed, even to upgrade. Nothing about that in the License Agreement I
agreed too!

So don't give them any more money, and get a good firewall from someone
reputable. Or stop fooling yourself and get a hardware firewall.

I said nothing about stealing but you really got stuck on that! You must
feel very guilty about something huh?

No, I'm ****ed off that I've found copies of programs that _I_ have
written being distributed by people who had no right to do so.
There's no difference, ethically, between stealing software from a
programmer, plans from Norm, or music from a musician. If you want to
use it, pay for it. If you don't like the terms and conditions of the
sale, don't buy it, and don't use it.

Where I work, I actually had a 20 something kid (who had kids of his own,
believe it or not), tell me that, because businesses screw their customers
everyday, that it is not only okay, but morally justified to steal from all
business everyday. He bragged on the fact that he had found a site online
that gave him passwords and ID's for AOL, and hadn't paid for internet
service for that past couple of years. I told him that, if his parents
weren't ashamed of him, then they were pretty despicable, too.

To be proud that you are stealing...........sorry, I was raised better than
that.


"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
...

"SeeAll" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I've been using the internet for 15+ years and over those years the web
has been taken over by selfish individuals. The spirit of the internet
is to freely share information. When you have finished with an item you
post it for others to share. I suppose it is to be expected that has
more and more people use the medium commercialism moves in. I will try
other boards of which thankfully there are many.


Whatever hippy ideal you are babbling about, it is called stealing. If
you can fins some theives to hang out with, fine.

Just don't give us the nostalgia and morality speech.

It is repugnant.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:56:11 GMT, HMFIC-1369 wrote:
Jesus Where Are you Coming From? This has NOTHING to do with NOT PAYING FOR
SOMETHING!

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW....................

Are you challenged, why are you so fixated on theft... I WASN'T TAKING OR
JUSTIFYING IT... ONLY STATING THAT CONSUMERS DESERVE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER
THE EXTENT OF THE COPYRIGHT! You want you cake and eat it too, tough!

No, they don't. I'm not going to support something I wrote 10 years ago
for free, and yet, you still don't have the rights to distribute it.
Got it? If you _do_ distribute it, you're stealing from me.

I also see you didn't get the hint about top-posting and how it ****s up
the flow of a conversation.

did you get left back in 5th grade or something? I don't think I'd pay you
very much for anything you've ever done.... Looks like it'd never work right
anyway! You can't even read....................

It's not that I don't understand your points, it's that I _disagree
with_ them, you see. Critical difference, that.

Ta Ta!

Promise?

only anal retentive bottom feeders bottom post!

You talk ****, bcause if time was money you wouldn't be wasting it posting
your **** on rec.woodworking!

Find another kid to play in your sandbox!





"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:46:48 GMT, HMFIC-1369 wrote:
See who's talking about stealing anything............If you simply argue
for
arguments sake...........then have at it!

Have you ever noticed that when you top-post it makes it really hard to
quote the context of what you're talking about?

I basically said that "Equal Protection" should be extended under the
Copyright law. Consumers Rights, should be as important as the
copyright. I
can see you never paid 10K+ for a computer or software application....
that
didn't perform as sold.

You have no idea of my technical experience and responsibilities. And
10K would be cheap for most of the software packages I deal with - that
wouldn't even pay yearly maintenance on most of them.

Just because you pay 6 figures for a software package, doesn't mean they
have to, or should, support you forever. And yet, you still don't have
the right to give their work away to someone else, because you bought
the right to use it, not to copy and distribute it.

Don't get me wrong, just as there are good honest
company's and good honest people. Both deserve protection under the law!
But
currently the laws weight protects many dishonest company's over an
honest
persons.

So stop buying Microsoft, and 90% of your problems will go away.
Even though I feel strongly that they have set back the world of
computing by a decade or more, making people just accept security and
stability problems as "normal and expected", I _still_ won't steal from
them or help anyone else to do it.

My point was the abuse of situations that company's claims are
unsupported and the difficulty or making things to costly to resolve
happen
more and more frequently and in most cases it's buyer beware........

What does that have to do with some guy wandering in here asking for one
of us to steal from Norm for him?

and don't tell me you never bought something, where the product line or
company was purchased, the Purchase Agreement thusly null and void, and
they
still sell the same product now under a different name or even the same,
simply voiding the original contracts for the only purpose of evading
support for the sake of profit.

That was a really long....sentence? And I'm not sure what it's supposed
to mean.

I purchased a software firewall 5 months
ago, it was sold, I now need to pay (the current company) for support or
get
it fixed, even to upgrade. Nothing about that in the License Agreement I
agreed too!

So don't give them any more money, and get a good firewall from someone
reputable. Or stop fooling yourself and get a hardware firewall.

I said nothing about stealing but you really got stuck on that! You must
feel very guilty about something huh?

No, I'm ****ed off that I've found copies of programs that _I_ have
written being distributed by people who had no right to do so.
There's no difference, ethically, between stealing software from a
programmer, plans from Norm, or music from a musician. If you want to
use it, pay for it. If you don't like the terms and conditions of the
sale, don't buy it, and don't use it.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:06:38 GMT, HMFIC-1369 wrote:
only anal retentive bottom feeders bottom post!

There's a dash in anal-retentive, by the way.

You talk ****, bcause if time was money you wouldn't be wasting it posting
your **** on rec.woodworking!

Actually, I'm waiting for a build to finish at the moment. Not that
you're my boss or anything.

Find another kid to play in your sandbox!

Well, it's not like you're particularly an interesting turd to play
with...

HMFIC-1369 wrote:

That's not correct! It has nothing to do with the evasion of copyright
protection. If you have licensed software, you are prohibited from giving it
away even if you no longer need it. If I gave you my copy of XP when I
installed Linux, I broke the law. Over all though it has only to do with
making a copy.. copy-right. You buy one item and make a "copy" that violates
the law.

We are not talking of software licensing agreements here...they're not
copyrights.

We're talking about a simple copyright on a document.

It is perfectly ok to take and give away your book after you read it--it
is also perfectly ok to resell it to someone else after your done. It
is not ok to make a copy and give that to someone else or resell the
copy.

Same thing here---

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
HMFIC-1369 wrote:

Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy
wants
something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the
Federal
Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you no
longer need. ...

If you no longer need it, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from
giving it to anyone else (or even selling it). What is proscribed is
making copies for the express purpose of evading copyright protection...

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

If you no longer need it, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from
giving it to anyone else (or even selling it). What is proscribed is
making copies for the express purpose of evading copyright protection...

Actually, it depends of the terms of the original purchase agreement.

When I bought a set of plans to build my boat, I received a license to
build ONE (1) boat.

If I wanted to build several boats, or sell the plans, or give away the
plans when I'm done with them, that is another matter.

That is a contractual stipulation added in addition too (and probably in
place of) a simple copyright. AFAIK, there are no such stipulations
made on the Abrams plans other than they are copyright material.

It does indeed, depend on the existence of any additional strictures--I
never said it couldn't...

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:36:34 GMT, HMFIC-1369 wrote:



First intelligent thing I've seen you say.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

SNIP

No, I'm ****ed off that I've found copies of programs that _I_ have
written being distributed by people who had no right to do so.
There's no difference, ethically, between stealing software from a
programmer, plans from Norm, or music from a musician. If you want to
use it, pay for it. If you don't like the terms and conditions of the
sale, don't buy it, and don't use it.

Hmm - I agree that theft is theft however there is more than one software
company that could be accused of stealing from it's customers . . . If I pay
for something I expect it to work as advertised or it needs to be fixed ( I
am not talking about 5-10 years from now I am talking about it having NEVER
worked correctly) - ever try to return a software package after it was
opened because it did not work as advertised - the store will not take it
back and when you read the warranty it says basically that "the program is
warranted to be copied correctly to the disc and the media will be replaced
if defective..." I am not ranting against the tech industry ( I work in
tech) since when it is asking too much to have a piece of software work as
expected (and as it has been promoted to work)?

A friend of mine works for a large famous software that shall remain
nameless but he told me how he sat in a meeting with the VP of their
division as the VP said .."f_ _ k the customers, if they don't like it f_ _
k them. . . "My friend is in the process of leaving the company . . .

BillyB

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:49:33 GMT, BillyBob wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

SNIP

No, I'm ****ed off that I've found copies of programs that _I_ have
written being distributed by people who had no right to do so.
There's no difference, ethically, between stealing software from a
programmer, plans from Norm, or music from a musician. If you want to
use it, pay for it. If you don't like the terms and conditions of the
sale, don't buy it, and don't use it.

Hmm - I agree that theft is theft however there is more than one software
company that could be accused of stealing from it's customers . . .

Which doesn't excuse people from stealing from anyone else.

If I pay
for something I expect it to work as advertised or it needs to be fixed ( I
am not talking about 5-10 years from now I am talking about it having NEVER
worked correctly)

I guess that's a good reason to go with open-source software, or to at
least research what you're considering buying before you buy it then,
isn't it?

- ever try to return a software package after it was
opened because it did not work as advertised - the store will not take it
back and when you read the warranty it says basically that "the program is
warranted to be copied correctly to the disc and the media will be replaced
if defective..."

Well, what alternative does the retailer have? Otherwise, you'd have
people going in, opening up the packaging, making a copy, and returning
it for full credit. Can you see the obvious avenue for abuse if that
was allowed? Just like the auto parts store not taking returns on
electronic components (which can easily be fried by improper handling or
installation), there is no reason a retailer should be expected to help
someone get something they haven't paid for.

I am not ranting against the tech industry ( I work in
tech) since when it is asking too much to have a piece of software work as
expected (and as it has been promoted to work)?

What does that have to do with some guy wanting us to steal Norm's work
for him? There's bad software out there. Do your research and avoid
it.

A friend of mine works for a large famous software that shall remain
nameless but he told me how he sat in a meeting with the VP of their
division as the VP said .."f_ _ k the customers, if they don't like it f_ _
k them. . . "My friend is in the process of leaving the company . . .

I don't blame him. And yet, none of that should reflect on anything
other than the company in question. Just because there are bad
producers out there doesn't justify stealing from anyone - even those
bad producers.

Ownership is Ownership regardless of Product, Pretty much everything is
copyrighted software and everything else. I'd say that if you purchase a
schematic or plans they to will include an agreement thet further protects
them. Certainly allow me to build one, but not 10....either to sell or give
away! As for books themselves let say you purchased the book, and you mother
is blind it would most certainly be illegal for you to transpose it to
braille or audio even though no such media exsists for that book. Or even
say for it's own protection that this book is one of a kind and no longer in
print,




"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
HMFIC-1369 wrote:

That's not correct! It has nothing to do with the evasion of copyright
protection. If you have licensed software, you are prohibited from
giving it
away even if you no longer need it. If I gave you my copy of XP when I
installed Linux, I broke the law. Over all though it has only to do with
making a copy.. copy-right. You buy one item and make a "copy" that
violates
the law.

We are not talking of software licensing agreements here...they're not
copyrights.

We're talking about a simple copyright on a document.

It is perfectly ok to take and give away your book after you read it--it
is also perfectly ok to resell it to someone else after your done. It
is not ok to make a copy and give that to someone else or resell the
copy.

Same thing here---

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
HMFIC-1369 wrote:

Not many of you give things much thought. You can see that this guy
wants
something for nothing, which he does. On the other hand, should the
Federal
Government have the Right to stop anyone from sharing something you
no
longer need. ...

If you no longer need it, there's absolutely nothing preventing you
from
giving it to anyone else (or even selling it). What is proscribed
is
making copies for the express purpose of evading copyright
protection...

In article XUAye.30527$Fn4.17322@trnddc06, "HMFIC-1369" wrote:
That's not correct! It has nothing to do with the evasion of copyright
protection. If you have licensed software, you are prohibited from giving it
away even if you no longer need it. If I gave you my copy of XP when I
installed Linux, I broke the law.

Not true. You may be in violation of MickeySoft's license agreement, but not
copyright law.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

how do you keep a troll busy!

How you keep a troll busy!