[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Bogdan Gusev

4/22/2005 9:57:00 PM

EAEEIE OOAAOO?AIE IIOII IOCAIEUI?AOO ?OA?AICOA?EEO ? Borland C++ (?IA
dos EIOIOUE) ??

--
God is real until declarated as integer.
ftp://eye.astral.ntu-k...
7 Answers

Vlad Babchuk

4/22/2005 11:49:00 PM

0

Screamer <screamer@astral.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua> writes:

> EAEEIE OOAAOO?AIE IIOII IOCAIEUI?AOO ?OA?AICOA?EEO ? Borland C++ (?IA
> dos EIOIOUE) ??
eO?IIOUON turbovision, EIE OOEAIE.

--
WBR Vladimir Babchuk aka Chaos.
mailto:lordchaos@astral.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua
Paused: - 00Z160SA

Bogdan Gusev

4/23/2005 1:40:00 PM

0

Vlad Babchuk wrote:
> Screamer <screamer@astral.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua> writes:
>
>
>>EAEEIE OOAAOO?AIE IIOII IOCAIEUI?AOO ?OA?AICOA?EEO ? Borland C++ (?IA
>>dos EIOIOUE) ??
>
> eO?IIOUON turbovision, EIE OOEAIE.
>

a AOOO ?OIEAEE ?AOAA?EOAIEN EOOIOA IA ?IUEAEA E O?
aOIE IAO OI EAE AA IIOII IA?EOAOO??


--
God is real until declarated as integer.
ftp://eye.astral.ntu-k...

Vlad Babchuk

4/23/2005 3:17:00 PM

0

Left_eYe <screamer@astral.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua> writes:

>>>EAEEIE OOAAOO?AIE IIOII IOCAIEUI?AOO ?OA?AICOA?EEO ? Borland C++ (?IA
>>>dos EIOIOUE) ??
>> eO?IIOUON turbovision, EIE OOEAIE.
> a AOOO ?OIEAEE ?AOAA?EOAIEN EOOIOA IA ?IUEAEA E O?
> aOIE IAO OI EAE AA IIOII IA?EOAOO??
EOEOO! OU UOI, O?AAIEE ?I?EOAE, AA?
EEIO: conio.h

--
WBR Vladimir Babchuk aka Chaos.
mailto:lordchaos@astral.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua
Paused: - 00Z159SA

zaimoni

6/13/2008 2:47:00 AM

0

On Jun 12, 9:53 am, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> Quoting <zaim...@zaimoni.com>:
>
> >On Jun 11, 12:28 pm, Pfhoenix <pfhoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>source. It's all irrelevant. People will do what they want with their
> >>property, and they have every right to do so.
> >Assuming those property rights are alloidial property rights.
>
> Which is manifestly absurd for intellectual "property"; such rights can
> _only_ be government-granted and -enforced rights.

Agreed. In practice, alloidial property rights are manifestly absurd
even for physical property.

While I disagree with both you and Pfhoenix in this flamewar, our
differences are merely a matter of philosophy and ethics. I am
convinced that your stance is informed and consistent, I just doubt
that it is optimal in a Social Darwinist sense.

Pfhoenix's stance would be typical for someone indoctrinated either by
the U.S. public school system, U.S. normal media, or the major
political parties in the U.S. [Not proof of origin, but that's where
I usually see it; it's not at all common in internet-posting EU, and
pretty much non-existent elsewhere.] Unfortunately, if that's where
you learn what U.S. intellectual property law is, you *still* have it
mostly wrong -- and worse, you have reasonable authority for thinking
otherwise. About 90% of what is learned by these means has to be
unlearned when actually studying U.S. intellectual property law.

cyrus.pilcrow

6/14/2008 11:17:00 AM

0

If a game author wants protection for the mechanics of their game, the
least murky way for them to achieve that is to obtain a patent: A
method for playing a game, such that, etc, where the various claims of
the patent constitute the methods by which the game is played.

zaimoni

6/14/2008 4:52:00 PM

0

On Jun 14, 9:52 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <eddf518c-9e54-4f8a-b1ff-b25ca717cfbc@
> 79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, zaim...@zaimoni.com says...

> > While I disagree with both you and Pfhoenix in this flamewar, our
> > differences are merely a matter of philosophy and ethics. I am
> > convinced that your stance is informed and consistent, I just doubt
> > that it is optimal in a Social Darwinist sense.
>
> Since David has claimed in this thread that intellectual property is not
> property, he appears to be a victim of indoctrination - from whatever
> source - at least as severe as Pfhoenix.

Both the FSF, and U.S.-libertarian extreme politics (where I got my
initial misspelling), generally are internally consistent and can
agree on "the operational facts on the ground" with the conventional
paradigm, even if non-lawyers usually grossly miscalculate the actual
limits. There wasn't enough interchange to estimate which template
was a better approximation, as I don't care to guess by the email
address.

E.g., it is quite possible for a computer font to not be infringing
under U.S. law, but infringing under EU law. I don't recall the exact
details right now (and am not a lawyer), but I think it's
extrapolatable from U.S. law treating it as software [and thus the
good that is the virtual machine encoding is important], while the
general EU approach treats the font as it is rendered [so it merely
has to *replicate* the appearance of a copyright-protected font to
infringe].

I needed to know this to evaluate whether I needed a font editor to
guarantee complete legality with non-standard fonts for my virtual
domain [and more recently, UNICODE-based games]. My reading is that I
do need a font editor to be EU-legal. The free font repositories are
rather easily exposed as distributing EU-infringing fonts, and it's
not worth my time opening up each and every single download to verify
originality.

> [IMO the concept of alloidal
> property rights is naive, but does at least embody the general respect
> for property rights that is found in civilised countries.]

My emotional bias is that a working government-enforced property
rights system should closely emulate allodial property rights, at
least as long as property tax is reasonably current.

zaimoni

6/15/2008 9:28:00 PM

0

On Jun 15, 9:59 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <29916418-97da-4ecf-b4ee-
> 52d272ab2...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, zaim...@zaimoni.com says...
>
> > E.g., it is quite possible for a computer font to not be infringing
> > under U.S. law, but infringing under EU law. I don't recall the exact
> > details right now (and am not a lawyer), but I think it's
> > extrapolatable from U.S. law treating it as software [and thus the
> > good that is the virtual machine encoding is important], while the
> > general EU approach treats the font as it is rendered [so it merely
> > has to *replicate* the appearance of a copyright-protected font to
> > infringe].
>
> I'm inclined to doubt that US law would allow you to clone a font in
> such a fashion, but who knows... I woldn't do it anyway.

For website design implementation, Times New Roman (broadcast by
Microsoft, but not legal to modify from) is a reasonable solution for
common UNICODE characters, so I haven't actually needed to create a
font yet.

The problem, from my end, is that fonts are so *generic* that I need
as many layers of isolation from extant fonts as possible when I
finally do need one. [Just try visually seeing the difference between
Times New Roman and Times Roman at a reasonable size, for instance.]
As long as a good-faith effort to "look different" was made, a full
audit trail documenting that the font was created either <i>de novo</
i> or from a provably free font should be enough to U.S.-immunize.
[The EU standard is not positively verifiable without a full-blown
legal department.] (Nothing's going to save the legality of the font
if it was created using something like a PS2-TrueType converter;
distorting afterwards won't make a difference.)

Either a UNICODE-based roguelike needing exotic code points, or
finally deciding to add an extra layer of [sarcasm]copy protection[/
sarcasm] to my self-published PDF novel, would be enough to require a
font editor. (Adobe Acrobat forces you to do a font substitution if
it doesn't have the font used to create the PDF.) Unlike the DCMA, I
don't care about "piracy" as that's free marketing, but I do want
unauthorized copies to require excessive effort to alter.